215 Final Flashcards
define social psychology
scientific study of how thoughts, feelings, behaviours are influenced by the perceived/actual thoughts, feelings, behaviours of others (emphasis on our perception of reality as biased and the power of the situation)
Kurt Lewin’s field of forces
behaviour = f (disposition, environment)
Fundamental attribution error
tendency for people to overestimate the influence of personal dispositions on their behaviour (undervaluing the situation)
channel factors
subtle situational factors that have big impacts on our behaviour (but that we often cannot recognize as having an impact)
Gestalt psychology’s influence on social psychology
Reality is construed actively using perceptions and thoughts, not passively recorded (our perception of reality is interpreted and biased)
construals
personal interpretation of a behaviour in a particular situation (ex: The girl orders the most expensive thing on the menu, the guy’s construal will be that she’s trying to take advantage of him because she knows that he will pay)
not a pre-existing idea, happens during the event
schemas
pre-existing idea, roadmap to behaviour in a given situation (ex: on a date, the guy should pay)
person schemas - knowledge/beliefs about a person vs. event schemas - scripts for how to behave in a situation
natural selection & need to belong (evolutionary perspective)
evolutionary pressures favour group living = people need relationships and social connections to thrive
social neuroscience
biological grounding for behaviour (neural underpinnings of social behaviour)
independent/individualistic culture
focus on uniqueness, individuality - individuals are socially distinct who choose to connect to one another with social ties
interdependent/collectivistic culture
the self is inextricably tied to others, focus on the good of the group and harmonious relations within the group
social psychology’s influence on critical thinking
helps us understand everyday life and navigate new situations while critiquing research encountered in news/popular psychology
folk vs. social psychology
social psychology systematically tests ideas and theories by collecting direct observations of the world
hindsight bias
believing that you could have predicted an outcome after learning the outcome
confirmation bias
seeking out, paying attention to, and believing information that confirms a hypothesis while discarding information that disproves it
*death penalty study
*seeing if someone was an introvert/extrovert = leading questions
scientific method
theory - lit review - hypothesis - test with a research method - analysis of data - report results
theory vs. hypothesis
theory: set of related principles that explains and generates predictions about some phenomenon
hypothesis: testable predictions about what will happen under specific circumstances if the theory is correct
data vs. variable
data: set of observations to test a hypothesis
variable: anything that can have different values
measured vs. manipulated variable
measured: values are recorded
manipulated: values are controlled (researcher assigns Ps to different levels)
operational definition
defining an abstract variable in a specific way so it can be measured/manipulated
self-report data collection
Ps report their behaviour on a scale/interview
Pros: easy, cheap, you can get many observations
Cons: unreliable (social desirability bias), relies on retrograde memory, difficult to verbalize certain feelings
observational data collection
Researchers observe behaviour directly
Pros: more accurate than self-report, likely high external validity
Cons: expensive, time-consuming, less Ps willing
social desirability bias
answering questions in a way that will be favourably viewed by others
descriptive research
scoping out the phenomenon, can help to generate hypotheses
correlational research
measuring 2+ variables and observing the relationship between them - relationship could be caused by a third variable or possibility of inverse causality
experimental research
one variable is manipulated and the other is measured (establishing causality because of random assignment and control group)
random sample
every individual in the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample (reduces third variable problems)
mediator vs. moderator
mediator: IV causes the mediator, mediator causes the DV (not a direct relationship between IV and DV)
moderator: effect of the IV depends on the moderator (relationship depends on this variable)
measurement validity
are we measuring what we mean to measure
internal validity and its threats
are the results due to confounds? control using random assignment, study scripts, double-blinds, don’t reveal hypotheses to Ps
differential attrition (Ps drop out more of one condition than the other)
external validity and its threats
can the results be generalized to the population? difficult to get both internal and external validity because internal requires controlling the environment, while external needs to be applicable to the real world
reliability
can the results be replicated? *if the measurement isn’t valid, the study can still be reliable (i.e. you aren’t measuring what you think you are but are still getting the same results)
Institutional Review Board
decides whether the potential findings are worth the possible distress caused to participants *informed consent, debriefing
self-schemas
generalizations about ourselves based on past experiences
inaccuracy of self-knowledge
our self-knowledge tends to be flawed because we don’t have access to our unconscious processes
internal traits (thoughts, feelings) are better defined by us, external traits (behaviours) better defined by others
self-perception theory + its associated study
we infer our attitudes by looking at our behaviour (when attitudes are unclear)
Chaiken & Baldwin study about being an environmentalist - weak prior attitudes strongly affected by external cues
looking-glass self & reflected appraisals
we use feedback from others to form our self-perceptions - how we imagine others see us
social comparison theory + its associated study
1: we want to evaluate our opinions and abilities
2: when there are no objective standards, we compare ourselves with others
3: we compare ourselves with people who are similar to us
encountering “dirty” (self-esteem increase) vs. “clean” person (self-esteem decrease)
upward vs. downward comparison
upward = comparing with people who are better than us (self-improvement)
downward = comparing with people who are worse than us (self-esteem maintenance)
trait vs. state self-esteem
trait: enduring
state: dynamic and changeable depending on the situation
contingencies of self-worth model
we stake our self-worth in certain domains - success in these domains increase self-esteem and failing decreases self-esteem
sociometer theory
self-esteem derives from how accepted by others we feel we are (success in a domain that is ‘valued’ by others increases self-esteem)
naive realism + self-esteem
belief that we perceive the world as it is (so others also see it as it is)
belief that others share our negative self-view
narcissism
unrealistic belief that one is better than others
better-than-average effect
for abstract traits: belief that we are better than the average (because we can construe the trait in different ways - self-serving construals) = boosting self-esteem
self-affirmation theory
when self-esteem is threatened, we affirm other valued aspects of ourselves
self-enhancement motivation
motivation to view oneself positively
self-concept clarity
clearly defined, consistent sense of self
strategies for self-verification
developing confirming envirvonments: seeking out relationships with people who confirm our view of ourselves
signalling how we expect to be treated with clothing, possessions
selective attention to and better recall of feedback that confirms our self-view
self-verification
motivation to keep our self-view consistent - keeps the world and our interactions predictable
self-regulation and strategies
attempt to control behaviour - prioritizing long-term over short-term
implementation-intention: “if-then” plan
shifting from hot processes to cold processes (illusion that the immediate reward isn’t as tempting)
self-discrepancy theory
actual self: beliefs about what you are like
ideal self: what you would like to be
ought self: what we think we should be
when actual self approaches/moves away from ideal self
PROMOTION FOCUS
positive outcomes = happiness
absence of positive outcomes = dejection emotions (disappointment, shame)
when actual self approaches/moves away from ought self
PREVENTION FOCUS
absence of negative outcomes = calmness
negative outcomes = agitation emotions (anxiety, guilt)
self-presentation & face
presenting the person we want others to think we are (impression management)
face: public image
self-monitoring
monitoring our behaviour to fit the current situation
high = “fake”
low = internally guided
self-handicapping
engaging in self-sabotaging behaviours to avoid ‘true’ failure (creating an excuse for your failure)
self-esteem in individualistic cultures
higher self-esteem and more concern with it (identity is threatened = threat to self-esteem), self is consistent over time and space, uses downward comparisons
self-esteem in interdependent cultures
self is malleable depending on the situation, defined in terms of relationships and roles, uses upward comparisons, threat to collective identity = threat to self-esteem
overconfidence bias
tendency to have greater confidence in judgments and decisions than our accuracy merits
Dunning-Kruger effect
double curse of incompetence - people lack to ability to recognize that they are incompetent in a given domain & most likely to overestimate their abilities
how are faces evaluated
trustworthiness and dominance
thin slices of behaviour
our snap judgments tend to be pretty accurate (first impressions), but some traits are more accessible than others so are more easily judged
self-fulfilling prophecies
our expectations and beliefs lead to their fulfillment (creating the social reality we expect)
*late bloomer study
*speaking on the phone with a woman believed to be attractive = ‘she’s warmer and more sociable’
pluralistic ignorance
when people act in ways that conflict with their private beliefs because they incorrectly think these beliefs conflict with those of the group
secondhand information is misleading because…
information is transmitted in ways that further one’s ideological agenda
in the service of entertainment: bad-news bias, selective reporting, leading questions
primacy effect
when information is ambiguous the information presented first influences later interpretations (is given higher importance)
recency effect
later information is better remembered, so is given more weight in later judgments
positive and negative framing
same information is presented with either a positive or negative focus (66% survived vs. 34% died) - negative info is given more weight
spin framing
altering the content of a message to change the focus (torture vs. enhanced interrogation)
construal-level theory
distant effects are thought of in abstract terms, while close events are thought of concretely
bottom-up processing
stimulus - perception (when we have no pre-existing knowledge)
top-down processing
stimulus - pre-existing knowledge - perception (stimuli are actively construed)
priming
exposure to certain stimuli that activate a particular schema (can occur subliminally)
influences of schemas on attention, memory, construal, behaviour
schemas help us figure out what’s worth our attention
schema-consistent information is better remembered (so is surprising information)
impressions are formed based on activated schemas
behavioural priming has subtle effects - more effect when the schema is related to your individual
two cognitive systems
System 1: automatic and effortless (helpful to avoid concentrating on everything we do)
System 2: deliberate, uses mental energy (can override S1 if it senses a problem in initial judgment)
availability heuristic, risk assessment, and joint projects
ease of recall = the more likely it seems (crime in NYC seems more probably than in St-Louis)
risk assessment: over-represented negative information is thought to be more likely than it is
joint projects: it’s easy to come up with instances of our contributions, so we think we have contributed more than we have
representativeness heuristic
tendency to judge the likelihood of whether something belongs to a category based on whether it resembles the prototype
useful when the prototype is accurate
not helpful when it leads us to ignore other information
base rate neglect
tendency to ignore information about the frequency of events/members of a given category in a population
Linda the bank teller vs. bank teller & feminist
illusory correlations
belief that two variables are correlated when they’re not because of the availability and representativeness heuristics - instances in which the variables went together are better remembered & things that are similar go together
causal attribution
linking an event to a cause
internal/external explanatory style
am i responsible or are other people/my environment responsible for this event?
stable/unstable explanatory style
is the cause of the event permanent or specific to the situation?
global/specific explanatory style
does the cause of the event affect other areas of my life or just this situation?
pessimistic explanatory style
internal, stable, global causes of events = negative life outcomes (lower grades and poor health)
learned helplessness
passive resignation to an aversive situation that one has come to learn is out of their control
controllability attributions & gender differences
predictor of depression
sense of control = perseverance (seeking help)
girls socialized to believe negative outcomes are due to a lack of ability (uncontrollable) while boys believe they are due to a lack of effort (controllable)
covariation principle & three types of information
behaviour is attributed to causes that occur at the same time
consensus: do many people partake in this behaviour (low = dispositional, high = situational)
distinctiveness: is this behaviour specific to a situation (low = dispositional, high = situational)
consistency: is the behaviour regular over time (required to make a judgment, high = dispositional)
when would one make a dispositional attribution according to the covariation model?
when consensus is low (the behaviour is unique to this person), distinctiveness is low (the behaviour isn’t specific to a situation), and consistency is high (the behaviour has occurred many times)
when would one make a situational attribution according to the covariation model?
when consensus is high, distinctiveness is high, and consistency is high
discounting principle
when a behaviour is not likely to be due to a specific cause because there are other possible causes (when everyone would act similarly in the same context)
augmentation principle
when a behaviour is likely to be due to a particular cause because other possible causes would produce different outcomes (other people would act differently in the same context)
self-serving attributional bias
we make situational attributions for our failures and dispositional attributions for our successes
why is the FAE prevalent?
just-world hypothesis: people get what they deserve out of life (motivational influence for committing the FAE)
perceptual salience: what you see is all there is & our attention is easily captured by people
difficult to use S2 (we need cognitive resources) to adjust initial judgment
cultural differences of the FAE
widespread, but interdependent cultures are better at taking the situation into account
actor-observer difference
as an actor, the situation is more interesting (situational) & actors know their intentions and if a behaviour is typical for them, dispositions are implied
for an observer, the individual is more interesting (dispositional)
three components of emotion
Experiential component: subjective experience
Behavioural component: facial expression, fight-or-flight
Physiological component: blood pressure, sweating, trembling, blushing, etc.
emotions vs. moods
emotions are short and specific to stimuli, moods are long-lasting
the functionalist perspective on emotions
interpreting our surroundings and prompt action
social signaling
functional value of fear and shame
fear: increase vigilance to threat-related cues
shame: appeasement strategy to avoid social conflict, remorse for social transgression
James-Lange Theory
stimulus - physiological response - emotional reaction
Canon-Bard Theory
stimulus = physiological response and emotional reaction at the same time
Schachter-Singer Two-Factor Theory
stimulus - physiological response - cognitive label is applied - emotion (Using context clues to interpret the physiological response)
evolutionary perspective on emotions & evidence
emotions are biological responses that evolved because of selection pressures
Cross-cultural research: people across the world can identify 6 basic emotions (Ekman)
in animals: humans share an evolutionary history with other mammals, so our emotional expression is similar (true: cross-species similarity in emotional displays)
among the blind: congenitally blind people display emotions the same way that sighted people do
focal emotions
emotions that more common within the culture
affect valuation theory
the emotions that promote cultural ideals are valued and more prominent in everyday lives of individuals
display rules of emotions
how, when, to whom we should display certain emotions within a culture
affective forecasting & evidence
predicting future emotions and how long they will last (we’re bad at doing this accurately)
luckies (thought they would be more unhappy) and leftovers (not as unhappy after a breakup)
immune neglect
we underestimate our resilience and psychological immune system which enable us to get over negative life events
focalism
focus on the central aspect of an event and fail to consider other factors
peak-end rule and duration neglect
most intense positive/negative moments and the final moments most important for our recollections of an event (the length of a good experience doesn’t matter for our recollection)
factors that contribute to happiness
social relationships, money to a certain extent, gratitude, give to others, experiences over possessions, awe-inspiring experiences, variety of experiences
define attitudes and their 3 components
evaluation of an object along a positive-negative dimension
Affect: how we feel about something
Behaviour: what we do about something
Cognition: what we think about something
how are attitudes measured
Likert scale, response latency, centrality of an attitude to a belief system, implicit measures
why don’t attitudes predict behaviour?
they conflict with other determinants of behaviour (social norms, conflicting attitudes)
what is the role of introspection in the dissocation between attitude and behaviour?
cognition cannot always describe an effect, so introspection about an emotional attitude can lead us to come up with the wrong reasons for that attitude and mislead us on what that attitude is
cognitive dissonance theory
inconsistencies between thoughts, attitudes, and behaviours lead to an aversive state of psychological distress, which individuals try to eliminate (by changing the attitude to match the behaviour or changing the behaviour to match the attitude)
post-decision dissonance
making a difficult decision leads to cognitive dissonance (because both options are desirable)
spreading of alternatives
emphasizing positives of your choice and minimizing the negatives of your choice, and minimizing the positive and emphasizing negatives of discarded options
*shift in desirability after choosing between two products
effort justification
putting a lot of effort into something that ends up being disappointing = dissonance = justification of your choice to pursue something disappointing
*psychology of sex & initiation
*hazing frat groups
induced compliance
compelling people to behave in a way that is inconsistent with their attitudes will lead to a shift in the attitude
*forbidden toy experiment - annoyance (not enough justification = shift in attitude) vs. anger (sufficient justification)
*$1 vs. $20 justification for lying
conditions for cognitive dissonance
free choice (choosing to behave inconsistently), insufficient justification ($1 vs. $20), has negative consequences (lying but the person doesn’t believe what you say = doesn’t matter) that are foreseeable (unknown allergy)
culture differences in cognitive dissonance
cognitive dissonance is elicited by different situations (independent culture = threat to self-view, interdependent culture = threat to public self)
self-perception theory + cognitive dissonance
we don’t experience the distress that comes with conflicting cognitions, we didn’t change our attitudes, we just inferred them from the behaviour
No strong prior attitude = no inconsistency = no dissonance = self-perception theory
Strong prior attitude = inconsistency = dissonance = cognitive dissonance theory
overjustification effect
when an extrinsic reward reduces the pre-existing intrinsic motivation (behaviour will cease when the extrinsic motivator is removed)
elaboration likelihood model (ELM)
there are two routes to persuasion (which route depends on motivation and ability to think about the information)
central route to persuasion + conditions
thinking and elaborating carefully on the contents of a persuasive message (logic and strength of the arguments and evidence)
Conditions: message must be personally relevant, target must not be distracted
Encourages long-lasting attitude change
peripheral route to persuasion + conditions
relying on peripheral cues and surface-level processing
Peripheral cues: superficial, easy-to-process features that don’t pertain to the message
attractiveness, heuristics (# of arguments), celebrity endorsement, friends and experts can be trusted
Conditions: if lacking ability to think deeply, message isn’t personally relevant
source characteristics influence on persuasion
credibility (is the source knowledgeable/trustworthy)
certainty (expressing confidence in your message)
attractiveness (likely peripheral, but can be central when attractiveness is related to the message = argument)
sleeper effect
forgetting the source of a message, but remembering the content (esp. when the credibility is revealed after the message)
message characteristics
message quality (comprehensible, straightforward, logical, explicit takeaway, appeal to core values, refutes the opposition)
message length (can decrease central persuasion if added arguments are weak, but generally increases peripheral)
vividness (interesting and memorable)
fear (vivid and include instructions on how to avoid negative outcomes)
culture (message should fit the norms and values of a particular culture)
identifiable victim effect
message is more vivid if it focuses on the plight of a single individual – concrete vs. abstract (statistics aren’t persuasive)
*except if the victim can be blamed for their plight
audience characteristics
need for cognition (drive to think deeply – higher = central route = good arguments required, lower = peripheral cues and route)
mood (message mood should match audience mood, guilt), age (younger = malleable)
self-monitoring (higher = likely persuaded by messages convey a desirable image)
knowledge (greater knowledge = resistant to change)
agenda control
media shapes our view of what is important and true (crime, traffic, economy = important because they’re often covered in media)
attentional biases and selective evaluation effects on persuasion
paying attention to the arguments that support a pre-existing attitude = resistance to persuasion
discarding opposing arguments as weak and believing evidence that supports a pre-existing attitude
*death penalty confirmation bias research
ideological commitments effects on persuasion
committing publicly to a stance = defending that stance because we want to appear consistent
thought polarization hypothesis
public commitments engage extensive thought about an idea, which produces more extreme attitudes
attitude inoculation
exposure to small attacks on one’s beliefs allows them to prepare counterarguments and resist larger attacks
social influence
the way people affect one another
conformity
changing one’s beliefs based on real or imagined pressure from others
compliance
responding favorably to an explicit request
obedience
less powerful person submits to a demand from a powerful person
automatic mimcry & social function
tendency to mindlessly imitate others
(ideomotor action: thinking about an action makes us more likely to perform it)
Promotion of social interactions: mimicking others makes them like us more
normative social influence
conforming to avoid disapproval or ostracism
Need to belong: evolutionary benefits of group living
Leads to public compliance, but not internalization
*Asch’s line judgment study
informational social influence
taking other people’s comments/actions as sources of information of what is correct or proper
Likely when the situation is ambiguous or when we’re less knowledgeable or competent about the topic
Leads to internalization (adopting the group’s perspective) = enduring change
*Autokinetic illusion study
factors that affect conformity
group size (positive relationship up to a point – true for normative and informational)
group unanimity (more conformity, unless dissenter is given an ally)
anonymity (eliminates normative influence)
experts have more informational influence, high-status people have more normative influence
culture (interdependent = higher conformity, tight = no deviance vs. loose = accepted deviance)
gender (women only slightly more than men, knowledge matters more)
when can a minority influence a majority opinion?
effects comes from informational social influence
norm of reciprocity
people are more likely to comply if you do them a favour first because they feel obligated to reciprocate
door-in-the-face technique & reciprocal concessions
based on reciprocal concessions (the asker concedes their large demand, so the responder concedes too and accepts the smaller) - making a large request that is to be rejected, then making a smaller request that is more likely to be accepted
foot-in-the-door technique
small request = accepted, larger request = more likely to be accepted (based on a shift in self-perception)
mood maintenance effect on compliance
people want to maintain their positive mood, so they agree (only if the request won’t eliminate their positive mood – hindering rather than helping)
negative state relief hypothesis
people comply to relieve their negative mood and feel better about themselves
Guilt and compliance: strong relationship
descriptive vs. prescriptive norms
what most people are doing vs. what people should be doing
when are norm-based approaches most effective to reduce destructive behaviour?
when people overestimate the popularity of the behaviour, telling people the (surprising, lower) descriptive norm will decrease the self-destructive behaviour
when are norm-based approaches most effective to increase constructive behaviour?
when people underestimate the popularity of the constructive behaviour, telling people the (higher) descriptive norm will increase the constructive behaviour
obedience more likely (Milgram experiment) when…
release from responsibility (experimenter takes the blame), step-by-step involvement, immediacy of the victim (no visual or audio feedback)
obedience less likely (Milgram experiment) when…
same room & touch proximity (victim more immediate), immediacy of the experimenter (giving orders over the telephone or experimenter is contradicted by another experimenter = less authority)
percentage of Ps that went to 450V in the Milgram experiment
remote-feedback: 66%
voice-feedback: 62.5%
the effect of step-by-step involvement in the Milgram experiment
we need to feel that our actions are consistent & to stop would be to realize that our actions have been wrong this whole time
ineffective disobedience in the Milgram experiment
people tried to disobey, but they’re not very good at it (trying to speak up or check on the person but failing to stop their actions)
reactance theory
when people believe their free will is threatened (so experience an unpleasant state of arousal), they try to reassert it
how does group living contribute to survival?
care for vulnerable offspring and elders, protection from threats, sharing and acquiring food, defense against predators
social facilitation definition over time
the enhancing effect of co-actors on performance (original) becomes the effect, positive or negative, of the presence of others on performance (new)
Triplett (original) – Allport (sometimes co-actors impair) – Zajonc
theory of mere presence
Mere presence (not co-actors) facilitates easy tasks, but hinders difficult tasks
Audience helps when the task is well-practiced (dominant response is correct)
Audience hinders when the task is novel and difficult (dominant response is incorrect)
mere presence vs. evaluation apprehension
the fear of looking bad in front of others sometimes drives arousal - evaluation apprehension intensifies the mere presence effect
social loafing
tendency to exert less effort when performing as part of a group than when performing alone
groupthink
highly cohesive groups produce poor decisions because striving for unanimity overrides drive to search for alternatives and come to an accurate conclusion
symptoms of groupthink
illusion of invulnerability (‘we’re a special group, so nothing can go wrong’)
belief in inherent morality of the group (members assume the rightness of their cause)
self-censorship (withholding information/opinions)
self-appointed mindguards (members that protect the leader from ideas that threaten complacency)
factors that increase the likelihood of groupthink
high cohesiveness, homogeneity of social backgrounds, directive leadership, lack of procedures for information search and appraisal, insularity of the group, high stress from external threats to find a solution
how to prevent groupthink
leaders refrain from sharing initial opinions and periodically leave the group, bring in outsiders, have people play devil’s advocate
group polarization
people’s positions become more extreme after discussing with like-minded others
persuasive arguments explanation for group polarization
you receive more supporting evidence (& arguments) for your position
social comparison explanation for group polarization
trying to differentiate ourselves from the similar others by producing more extreme opinions
*produces a less strong effect when isolated from persuasive arguments
leader characteristics
expertise, knowledge, technical and social skills, sharing resources with others
power
the freedom to act (controlling one’s own outcomes)
authority
power from institutional roles
dominance
type of behaviour that aims to achieve power
approach/inhibition theory of power
our behavioural approach system drives us to seek desired outcomes, while our behavioural inhibition system moves us away from threats
People in power are less constrained (more approach less inhibition) and have less empathy (E experiment)
Power reveals internal attitudes and personality
Deindividuation
loss of individual identity
deindividuation antecedents
sensory overload, energizing effect of others, diffusion of responsibility, anonymity (masks at Halloween, brutality in warfare)
deindividuation internal states
decreased self-observation and self-evaluation, decreased concern with social evaluation
deindividuation behavioural effects
impulsivity, irrationality, emotionality, antisocial behaviour
self-awareness theory
when people focus their attention on themselves, engage in more self-evaluation, and become more concerned about whether their behaviour conforms to their values
spotlight effect
thinking that others are paying more attention to us than they actually are
communal relationship
feeling of responsibility for your partner and expectation that the relationship will be long-term, principle of need giving and receiving, shared identity
exchange relationship
trade-based, short-term, concerns of equity and reciprocity
proximity effect and functional distance
we’re more likely to meet, get to know, form a relationship with people that are physically near us
degree to which architectural design encourages or inhibits social interaction
mere proximity effect + perceptual fluency & classical conditioning explanations
repeated exposure to a new stimulus makes us like it more because…
continuous exposure makes it easier to process that stimulus = more fluent = more pleasurable
we learn to associate a new stimulus with a lack of negative outcomes = safety
liking gap
we tend to underestimate how much people like us
because we focus on the mistakes in our interactions and have higher standards for ourselves, and we think our feelings are obvious
signal amplification bias
we perceive our signals to be showing more romantic interest to potential partners than they are
(we think others take into consideration the inhibition that our fear of rejection has on our behaviour)
another explanation for the liking gap
self-disclosure
revealing intimate details about ourselves fosters liking, connection, and trust in both participants
listener can demonstrate responsiveness: making the speaker feel heard and cared for
Most effective when reciprocal and appropriate for the situation
similarity & complementarity effect on relationships
we tend to like those who we perceive to be similar to us (demographical, attitudes, values, interests, personality)
complementarity has a smaller effect because it only makes sense for certain traits (esp. status exchange)
halo effect
attractiveness associated with other positive qualities (intelligence)
facial averageness theory of attractiveness
composite faces made up of other faces are more attractive
Evolutionarily: unusual faces = sign of illness
facial symmetry theory of attractiveness
symmetrical faces are more attractive
Evolutionary theory: reproductive fitness (asymmetry and unusual faces are signs of prenatal issues)
Perceptual fluency: symmetrical faces are easier to process, therefore more pleasant
gender differences in mate selection
women value wealth and status while men value physical attractiveness
minimal parental investment: females must invest a lot so should be more selective when choosing a mate (based on their ability to provide for the offspring)
ideal mate doesn’t predict actual mate because…
we form impressions of people as wholes, not sums of parts - affective forecasting and construal-level theory
Harlow’s research on love and attachment
point of departure for love is the bond between an infant and its mother/caregiver
Refutes behaviourist perspective of love: human behaviour isn’t just conditioning
*wire vs. soft padding
Bowlby’s attachment theory
evolutionary perspective that the bond is the result of an infant’s need for protection
Attachment system motivates maintenance of proximity to a caregiver by using proximity seeking behaviours when a real/imagined threat is perceived, resulting in felt security
Ainsworth’s 3 patterns of attachment
Secure: when requests for proximity are attended to, infant is distressed by departure and soothed by return
Anxious/ambivalent: caregiver is inconsistent (hyperactivity of attachment system), infant distressed by her departure, not soothed by her return
Avoidant: caregiver is rejecting and discourages closeness, infant appears indifferent to her return
internal working models
Model of self (am I loveable) and model of other (can others be relied on)
Secure attachment type
comfortable – good internal working models
Others can be relied upon for support, distress is manageable, good at providing support, more stable relationships
anxious attachment type
wants to get closer than others are comfortable with – bad model of self
Need to feel close and accepted, but doubt that others will keep loving them; excessive reassurance seeking, hypervigilant for threats and interpret ambiguous cues as threatening
avoidant attachment type
uncomfortable being vulnerable – bad model of the other
Uncomfortable being intimate, seek independence, perhaps a reaction to fears of rejection
self-expansion model
people have a fundamental need to increase their self-efficacy (resources, identities that facilitate goals) and close relationships provide this (including the other person as a part of oneself) - may decrease as the relationship goes on (explains cheating)
investment model of commitment
relationship stability is determined by commitment
Satisfaction level: positive vs. negative affect experienced in a relationship
Quality of alternatives: can my needs be met somewhere outside the relationship? Desirability of alternatives
Investment size: amount and importance of resources allocated to the relationship that would be lost if the relationship ended
relationship-maintenance behaviours
willingness to accommodate rather than retaliate when a partner behaves badly, willingness to make sacrifices, deprecation of attractive alternatives
relationship-maintenance cognitions
positive illusions (idealizing, faults into virtues “not moody, deep”, seeing one’s own relationship as better than others)
predictors of relationship dissatisfaction
criticism – personal attack
contempt – looking down on
defensiveness – cross-complaining, denying responsibility
stonewalling – withdrawing from important conversations
attributions in happy vs. unhappy couples
happy: attributing positive events to causes that are general, intended, and selfless and negative events to causes that are specific and unintended
unhappy: attributing positive events to causes that are specific, unintended, selfish and negative events to causes that are global and stable
stereotype
belief (cognition) that certain attributes are characteristic of a certain group
prejudice
an affective (emotional) judgment of a group and its members
discrimination
differential treatment (behaviour) of an individual based on their membership to a group
how can stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination occur independently?
attitudes don’t always predict behaviour
discrimination doesn’t always come from prejudice (hiring based on word-of-mouth)
favouritism of ingroup instead of dislike of outgroup = discrimination without prejudice
evolutionary perspective on outgroup prejudice
preferring familiar over unfamiliar for safety reasons (using appearance cues to signal ‘otherness’)
what is the Robber’s Cave Experiment?
boys separated into two groups and allowed to develop ingroup favouritism independently (INGROUP FORMATION)
Introduced with competition = solidarity and hostile behaviour toward outgroup members (INTERGROUP CONFLICT)
introduced superordinate goals to dissipate hostility (INTEGRATION)
superordinate goals
mutually desired goals that require cooperation to achieve - can be used to reduce intergroup conflict
what is a jigsaw classroom?
students assigned to groups and learn about topics to teach them to other members of the group - group members must rely on each other to complete the lesson
realistic group conflict theory
competition for resources leads to negative intergroup attitudes (real concrete resources like jobs)
these attitudes can be generational, so even when the conflict is gone, the attitudes remain
minimal groups paradigm
no previous attitudes, no contact, arbitrary allocation to groups - still show ingroup favouritism (maximizing difference of resources b/w ingroup and outgroup rather than absolute maximum of ingroup)
social identity theory
we want to enhance our self-esteem, part of which comes from group membership (so we want to boost our group’s status)
basking in reflected glory
we take pride in our group’s accomplishments even if we had nothing to do with the outcome & we associate with our successful groups (we won vs. they lost)
how do threats to self-esteem promote prejudice and discrimination?
scapegoating: singling out a group that can be blamed for times of hardship (compensating for a blow to self-esteem by derogating another group) - self-esteem increases as a result
explicit prejudice measurement
old-fashioned: prejudicial statements measured on a scale
modern: scales measures perceptions that POC/women are making extraneous demands because “inequality no longer exists” (rejection of obviously prejudiced ideas, but maintain a perhaps unacknowledged suspicion toward outgroups)
when is modern prejudice likely to manifest behaviorally?
when there is a justification/disguise for discrimination
*not helping a black person in need of medical assistance is justified when over people are around: someone else with expertise could help
implicit association test
measures the strength of association between concepts determined by your experiences (categorizing negative/positive connotations with white/black faces to see which are loosely/tightly linked)
priming as a measure of implicit prejudice
measuring reaction time to identify real/made-up words after being primed with white/black faces (“dangerous” is judged to be a real word faster when P is primed with a black face)
affect misattribution procedure
measuring people’s evaluations of stimuli (do the feelings associated with Muslims transfer to a subsequent neutral image like a belt buckle)
what is implicit bias
automatic associations between positivity/negativity and groups that have developed because of culture (family, media
outgroup homogeneity effect
tendency to assume greater similarity between outgroup members than within an ingroup (discounting variation in outgroups)
we have less contact with outgroups, so less developed schemas & we process outgroup members in ways that emphasize their resemblance to their group instead of what makes them different
own-race identification bias
we’re better at recognizing/differentiating members of our own race (and age) than other races (ages)
because we focus on the features that exemplify the other race (instead of individuation features)
function of stereotypes and their common use
help us conserve cognitive resources, so we’re likely to use them when we’re lacking cognitive resources (tired, intoxicated, overloaded with info)
paired distinctiveness and illusory correlations in relation to stereotypes
distinctive events are more likely to be noticed (both minority groups and negative events are distinctive) so we pair distinctive events that co-occur
why do stereotypes persist?
confirmation bias
subtyping: concluding that disconfirming evidence is an excepting (if girls are bad at math, but Olivia is good at math, then Olivia isn’t like other girls)
attribution to intrinsic causes when behaviour confirms a stereotype vs. extrinsic causes when behaviour disconfirms a stereotype
self-fulfilling prophecies
stereotype threat
fear of behaving in a manner that confirms a stereotype
this fear uses cognitive resources and increases arousal from evaluation apprehension, increases distraction
shift to prevention focus = more likely to give up, less likely to take risks
attributional ambiguity
not knowing the underlying causes of experiences (Did I miss out on the promotion because I’m a woman?)
how do attributional ambiguity, stereotype threat, and concealment
attempts exert a physical and psychological toll on members of stigmatized groups?
poor health, professional outcomes, interactions with law enforcement, hate crimes
when does intergroup contact lead to decreased prejudice?
when there are superordinate goals, groups are of equal status, social nrms favour contact, contact involves one-on-one interaction
how does intergroup contact decrease prejudice?
reduces anxiety about interactions with an outgroup, personalizes outgroup members (reducing homogeneity), increases empathy (makes us take outside perspectives), generates positive feelings toward outgroup
hostile aggression
goal is to injure motivated by anger/hostility
instrumental aggression
motivated by something other than anger, injury is a means to an end
evolutionary perspective on aggression
purposeful aggression improves odds of survival and reproduction (competing for mates = higher rates of physical aggression for men)
frustration-aggression hypothesis
frustration increases the likelihood of aggression
frustration and displaced aggression
frustration = blocking of goal-directed behaviour
displaced aggression = aggression directed at something other than the source of frustration
how does the frustration-aggression hypothesis explain the link between income inequality and aggression?
relative deprivation: perception that one is less well-off than people with whom one compares oneself (displaced aggression)
what factors increase the likelihood of frustration leading to aggression?
closer to goal = more frustration = aggression
arbitrary reason for goal being blocked = more frustration = aggression (does the reason make sense to you?)
link between physical pain and aggression
pain signals the presence of threat and triggers a fighting response (defensive state) = aggression (can be displaced)
social pain
aversive emotional reaction to social loss, ostracism, rejection, relational devaluation (feeling undervalued by a friend)
social pain theory
sensory-discriminative component: what, where, how intense is the pain?
affective component: how unpleasant is it?
the affective component captures attention and motivates action (social pain motivates because it is just as serious as physical pain the brain)
which parts of the brain are involved in both physical pain and social pain?
primary somatosensory cortex (sensory-discriminative) and dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula (affective)
why does social rejection trigger aggression?
social pain activates a system that produces a defensive state designed to deal with generalized threats (automatic)
why is hot weather associated with aggression?
misattribution of arousal: unpleasantly aroused by the heat but we attribute it to another source
excitation transfer theory: leftover arousal from an initial event intensifies the emotional reaction to a second event (more hostile construals)
cognitive neoassociation theory
when one concept is activated, the activation spreads to other concepts as well
weapons effect
gun is linked to aggression-related concepts and retaliation scripts (cognitive neoassociation)
Ps more likely to respond aggressively in the mere presence of a gun
media & video game violence + aggression
related through the weapons effect (chronic activation = accessible) and learning aggression scripts
some evidence, but third variable problems
moderating factors: personality differences, nature of the content, recency and amount of exposure
person factors in aggression
tendencies toward hostile, negative construals and attributions (trait hostility)
certain people are more sensitive to certain threats (narcissism - threats to self-worth more likely to elicit aggression)
rejection sensitivity & aggression
attuned to cues of rejection + strong reactions (automatic links b/w rejection and aggression)
how do genes interact with environment to promote aggression?
MAOA gene interacts with childhood envrionment to produce aggressive & criminal behaviour
OPRM1 gene affects how effectively endogenous opioids bind to their receptors (painkillers) - a variant affects how sensitive people are to physical pain (perhaps social pain as well)
dehumanization
stripping other people of human characteristics = easier to use violence (likely to dehumanize outgroups when our social needs are met)
factors that inhibit reappraisal following provocation
insufficient mental resources (S2 cannot be activated)
strong threats and emotional states
social learning theory
we learn aggressive behaviour by observing others
vicarious reinforcement/punishment
increase/decrease in behaviour due to the observer witnessing the model being reinforced/punished for that behaviour
gender socialization perspective on aggression
men are socialized to value/exhibit dominance and aggression while women are socialized to be empathic and compassionate
relational aggression
harm is caused through damage to social relationships or status instead of physical injury (more likely shown by women - result of socialization)
culture of honour
concerns about reputation + willingness to defend one’s honour = more likely to respond with aggression when insulted
altruism vs. egoism
A: motivation to increase another person’s welfare
E: motivation to increase one’s own welfare
social exchange theory & helping
cost-benefit analysis of helping vs. not helping
benefits of helping
tangible rewards
social approval (& self esteem because of sociometer hypothesis) - esp. from people whose approval we desire (attractive)
costs of helping
time, energy, risk of injury
less likely to help when we have to face disgust or aversion (blood)
fear of embarrassment
negative state relief hypothesis as a cost of not helping
alleviating distress by helping
feeling guilty because we ought to help (self-discrepancy) - reduced by helping
social responsability norm
we should help those who need help, even if they cannot reciprocate
we won’t abide if we feel the norm doesn’t apply (if the victim’s difficulties are their own fault - drunk vs. cane)
empathy-atruism model
people are driven to help by empathy (low = social exchange theory prevails, high = will help even if costs outweigh benefits)
*Elaine experiment
empathic concern vs. personal distress
E.C.: sympathy and concern for the other
especially likely if the other person is similar to us
low concept clarity/anxious attachers = more personal distress = want to escape the situation = less likely to help
kin selection
propensity to help genetic relatives (increases inclusive fitness)
reciprocal altruism
exchanging favours for mutual benefit has provided an adaptive advantage (if you don’t reciprocate, you’re likely to be ostracized)
prisoner’s dilemma
cooperation benefits both, defection benefits you disproportionally
role of reputation in cooperation
in the prisoner’s dilemma, decision to cooperate can hinge on the other person’s reputation for cooperation (determined by gossip)
how do labels and construals affect the decision to cooperate?
label that encourages competition (Wall Street) = maximizing profits = no cooperation
label that encourages cooperation (community game) affects perspective adopted (construal)
tit-for-tat strategy
cooperating on the first round of the prisoner’s dilemma, then reciprocating whatever the other P does (cooperation rewarded with cooperation, defection with defection)
bystander effect
people are less likely to help when other people are around
3 stages of response to an emergency
- Noticing: social norms of not looking around mean it takes longer for a bystander to notice an emergency when there are more people around
- Interpreting: looking to others to interpret an ambiguous situation (pluralistic ignorance + social norms of keeping calm)
- Intervene: diffusion of responsibility (someone more knowledgeable could know better than me)
helping in rural vs. urban cities
diffusion of responsibility (more people in urban)
similarity = empathy (rural is tighter knit)
less likely to notice an emergency in urban (less salient)
pluralistic ignorance
biomedical model vs. biopsychosocial model
disease occurs in the body (mind is separate) vs. biological, psychological, social can affect illness
why can humans develop stress-related illnesses?
PFC allows us to dwell and anticipate on sources of stress, prolonging it (rumination)
we chronically activate a stress system designed to deal with acute emergencies
general adaptation syndrome (Selye)
nonspecific set of physiological responses to a broad array of stressors & if they go on too long, you get sick
which brain regions are involved in the neural alarm system?
amygdala, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula
what is the role of the hypothalamus in a stress response?
received input from the neural alarm system and coordinates the fight-or-flight response (sympathetic nervous system)
sympathetic nervous system pathway of a stress response
hypothalamus - sympathetic nervous system (adrenal glands - epinephrine - increased blood pressure, heart rate, sweating) - parasympathetic nervous system when the emergency has passed (brakes)
Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis
hypothalamus - pituitary - adrenal glands - cortisol - mobilizing sugar for fuel, narrows attention to threat, formation of flashbulbs memories - cortisol should act on the hypothalamus to inhibit prolonged activation
effects of chronic activation of stress response
cardiovascular system: buildup of plaque on arterial walls = risk of heart attack
immune system: glucocorticoid resistance of immune cells = heightened inflammation = depression, cancer, diabetes
two key factors of stressors + Trier Social Stress Test
uncontrollability and social evaluative threat - TSST = lack of of social feedback & surprise math test + judges
Stress appraisal theory
appraisal (depend on perceived stress) shapes our emotional experience of an event and our physiological response to it
Primary appraisal of stress
person’s perception of the challenges in a situation
Secondary appraisal of stress
perception of our ability to handle the challenges of a situation
when is perceived stress likely to be high?
when primary appraisal exceeds secondary appraisal (high harm/threat + low coping)
positive illusions that promote coping with stress
illusion of control: feeling that we have more control over outcomes than we objectively do)
optimism
effects of illusion of control and optimism when dealing with stress
changing appraisal from threat to challenge
problem-focused coping: attempts to modify/eliminate stressor
fosters persistence, motivation, performance
faster recovery, favourable cancer outcomes, longevity in nursing homes, improves social functioning
objective social isolation vs. subjective loneliness
subjective loneliness is more strongly related to negative health (hypervigilance to social threat, sleep fragmentation, HPA axis activation, depression, gene mutations and immune system)
social support’s role in health
can one turn to others for information, help, advice, comfort?
related to lower blood pressure, lower levels of stress hormones, stronger immune system, longevity, decreased risk of depression
role of oxytocin in social support’s connection to health
tends to reduce anxiety and inhibit cortisol during a stressful event when individual has strong social support (blunts stress response)
role of the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in social support’s connection to health
vmPFC responds to safety signals (the absence of threats) and has an inhibitory effect on the amygdala (inhibits SNS and promotes PNS, inhibits cortisol release)
viewing pictures of attachment figures stimulates the vmPFC
