Midterm 2 - Lectures Flashcards
What is the triangular theory of love?
That there are 3 aspects of a relationship. How much each of these aspects are present tells you about the nature of that relationship.
Intimacy, Passion, & Commitment
Explain the ven diagram that expands on the triangular theory of love
Diagram helps us understand the different forms of relationships
*Fatuous love is strange choice for diagram, do not worry about it’s meaning
List a few benefits of being in a close romantic relationship?
- expereince touch and affection
- partner can help you get stuff done when life is busy (share to-do list) which can reduce stress
- partner can provide support to make it through difficult times (professor heart attack)
Explain the details and findings of the study that studied the smell of a romantic partner on stress
Participants were female in romantic relationships.
- Participants partook in the Trier Social Stress Test
- Before and after the test, pariticpants smelled a t shirt:
C1: t-shirt of partner
C2: t-shirt of random person
C3: brand new t-shirt (no smell)
- Stress was measured at various times before and after
RESULTS:
**When participants smelled the t-shirt from their own partner, they experienced less anticipatory stress before the test, and their stress levels recovered quickly after the test. **
What is the Trier Social Stress Test?
test that is meant to induce stress by “requiring participants to make an interview-style presentation, followed by a surprise mental arithmetic test, in front of an interview panel who do not provide feedback or encouragement.”
Explain the details and results of the study that tested smell of romantic partner on sleep
Participants were male and females in relationhips
- Gathered t-shirts from each partner that smelled like them
- Couple was to spent 4 consecutive nights alone and to use a t-shirt as a pillow cover
- Two of those nights used the t-shirt of the partner, and the other two nights used a t-shirt that was brand new/a random persons
- Sleep efficiency measured by an actigraphy wristwatch
RESULTS:
Not much changed for male participants, but female participants, slept better when they slept with the t-shirt that smelled like their partner.
What are 3 things that influence romantic attraction?
- Contrast Effect
- The colour red
- Misattribution of Arousal
*all of these depend on context. (CONTEXT MATTERS!)
What is teh contrast effect?
The extent to which you are attracted to a person depends on the features of that person, but **also on the features of those around them. **
When there are good looking people around someone, that person is judged to be less good looking themselves (less attractive by comparison)
What is a consequence of the contrast effect?
Can influence how people perceive their own partners!
Ex. After looking at photographs of highly attractive women, men rate their own female romantic partners less favorably.
How does the colour red influence attraction?
Males find females wearing red to be more attractive compared to that exact same female wearing other colours.
The same effect happens when people are not even wearing red, but people in a red visual context/background are also perceived to be more attractive.
Does the effect of the colour red on romantic attraction replicate in other cultures?
YES
Demonstrated in Burkina Faso in Africa where photographs of women in the village were shown to men in a blue and red frame
RESULTS: men judged women in the red frame to be more attractive and more interested in dating that person.
Does red make men appear more attractive?
Maybe
Most evidence contradicts eachother.
However, some evidence that men in red are precived to have higher social status.
Does red affect positive judgements more generally (in non-romantic settings)
NO
The effects of red only really apply to romantic attraction!
Why does red have such an effect on attractiveness?
Not fully sure why.
Some evidence suggests that women in red are perceived to be more sexual receptive to romance.
Are people aware of the effect red has on their own judgements?
NO
It is subconcious
Explain the process of Misattribution of Arousal
Participate in an event that is arousing → more physiological arousal → encounter attractive person → rather than thinking your aroused from the prior event, the arousal is misattributed to the presence of the attractive person → increased romantic attraction for that person.
Example: professor teaching girlfriend how to drive.
Explain the famous study demonstrated the misattribution of arousal
Took place at the Capilano suspension bridge:
C1: man walked across suspension bridge (aroused)
C2: man walked across a small bridge (not very aroused)
After walking on bridge, they were either approached by a male or female researcher. Experimenter asked them to do this short study:
- Study presented men with a drawing and asked to describe what they thought was happening in the drawing (TAT test involves ambiguous drawings)
Researchers took the descriptions of the drawings and coded them for sexual content.
Finally, experimenter thanked them for doing the study and gave them their number if they wanted to know the outcome of the study.
RESULTS:
- Level of sexual content was much higher when approached by female experimenters after crossing high bridge
- Men were more likely to call the female experimenter after going over the bridge
What did the results from the misattribution of arousal study show from TAT image aspect?
Level of sexual content was much higher when approached by female experimenters after crossing the arousing bridge.
What did the results from the misattribution of arousal study show from phone number aspect of study?
Men were more likely to call the female experimenter (vs male experimenter) after going over the tall bridge
What is the Attractiveness Halo Effect?
People with more attractive faces leave more positive impressions
What two aspects make a attractive face attractive?
1. Symmetrical
2. Mathmatically “average” features - by blending faces together, you create a mathematically average face that is more prototypical.
What did Fancias Galton propose? Was his hypothesis right or wrong?
Hypothesized that certain groups of people have common facial characteristics (criminals vs farmers)
The combined average faces (blending) of these groups did not differenciate between groups of people, but he did find that composite (blended) images were viewed as more attractive!!
*example of how we prefer faces that are average/prototypical
Why are symmetrical faces and prototypical faces perceived to be attractive? (two reasons)
- Prototypicality is easy on the brain
- Symmetry and prorotypicality imply good health!
Why is prototypicality easy on the brain? How does it influence attractiveness?
When we see a face that is common to us, we quickly figure out what it is and have a positive response
When a face is uncommon, we don’t recognize it as common, so we have a less positive response
Class demonstration –> chair flashing on screen: protoypical chair easy for us to figure out, so we know what it is and have a more positive response.
How does symmetry and prototypicality imply good health? How does this influence attractiveness?
Illness sometimes manifests into temporary facial irregularities
We view those facial irregulatives as a clue that someone is sick, which maks us think that person is unhealthy, and hence unattractive to protect our health.
This process happens very fast and will lead to overgeneralization errors.
What is the “trickable” overgeneralization error when we find people with facial irregularities as unattractive.
It is common for people to have facial irregularities despite them being healthy, causing these errors!
We see facial irregularities, and fastly find them unattractive because we think they are unhealthy.
*this is a new type of shortcut seperate from the 3 heuristics learned before
What study demonstrates the anomalous face overgeneralization?
Showed participants images of two guys (one with clear skin, one with a large birthmark):
Condition with birthmark = participants told the the person has a harmless birthmark (healthy)
Condition with clear skin: participants told the person has a disease internally (unhealthy)
FINDINGS:
For most participants, the automatic activation of disease occured when they saw images of the man with the birthmark, even though they know he is healthy and the other is not.
Encapsulates the tendency for people with irregular facial features to automatically think of diseased thoughts.
Define Anomalous Face Overgeneralization
Our tendency to see a face with facial irregularities and us think that person is unhealthy
How do people percive someone with a baby face?
If we perceive a human being with those baby-ish feature → we think of a baby → the implication of that person with that face are impressions that jive with the characteristics of babies (nice, incompetent)
As a result, a person with baby-features, we are likely to judge them to be **nice and incompetent **
Happens very fast, likely to overgeneralize this impression
What is baby-face overgeneralization?
judge people with baby-faces as nicer and less competent
What is a real life implication of baby-face overgeneralization?
Judicial decisions:
Baby-faced defendants are:
- LESS likely to be judged guilty of crimes involving criminal intent
- MORE likely to be judged guilty of criminal negligence.
How does similar faces influence our judgements?
When encountering someone with similar facial features our brain make a judgment that they’re related…
So we judge those people as though they are like kin → leads us to inform impressions and respond to them in ways that jive with kinship (more trustworthy than average).
*We do not view those with similar faces as attractive because we associate them with kin (we help and support and trust kin, but we do not hve sex with them)
Strangers with similar faces….
- are judged to be more trustworthy
- elict more helpful and cooperative behaviour (be nicer to them)
Opposite-sex strangers with similar faces are judged to be ———– sexually attracted to eachother.
LESS
This ties into the close kin relationship between people who look like us.
“I like someone more if they are similar to me, but not attracted to them.”
Are people more likely to vote for politicians who look more similar to themselves or not?
When they are more similar to themselves!
We trust people that have similar faces as us (kin)
What is the simple definition of an attitude?
Object + Evalutation
Simply an evaluative response to some sort of object
Object = person, food, place, group of people, etc.
Ex. If I have a positive attitude towards Taylor Swift, if she comes up in conversation that activates a positive response in my brain.
People often have a positive attitude to the groups they ———–, which activates a positive response.
belong to! (in-groups)
What is the key difference between implicit and explicit attitudes?
Implicit attitudes = attitude happen quickly, does not involve concious awareness and does NOT involve personal endorsement of that response
Explicit attitudes = same process as implicit attitudes but has an additional aspect that involves personal appraisel of the truth of that association
(Do I personally endorse that evalutation/attitude)
Explicit attitudes implies what two things?
- Awareness
- Endorsement
Aka: conciously thinking if you agree with your initial/implicit attitude towards something
What is an example of an implicit positive attitude being both endorsed and NOT endorsed by someone
Being endorsed/agreed = person encounters jazz music which evokes a positive implicit attitude… then the person expressed endorsement of this evaluation (agrees with it) which is the explicit attitude
Not being endorsed/agreed = person asked about their concept of self which evokes a positive implicit attitude about themselves… then if asked about how they feel about themselves, they do not endorse this evaluation because they want to appear humble to themselves and others.
What is the name-letter effect?
People tend to like letters that involve their own initials (ex. M, S, and J)
*This effect shows up in both north american and east asian cultures (demonstrates that both have equal levels of implicit egotism)
There are cultural differences between North American and East Asian populations when responding to questions assessing self-esteem, but NOT so much on the measures of ————–.
“implicit egotism!”
This is because there are cultural differences in the norm of humility in these places
Explicit attitudes of groups are expressed differently but they both share the same level of implicit attitudes in regards to self-esteem.
*the name-letter effect demonstrates that there is a similar level of egocenrism in both cultures
There are often negative attitudes towards those who are ——–.
NOT members of our group (out-groups)
Many people who are explicitly non-prejudice can still show……
evidence of an implicit bias against some groups!
and those implicit biases can lead to discriminatory decisions and actions!
Neither explicit or implicit attitudes can be assumed to be a person’s “true belief”. What are two reasons for this?
- Explicit attitude may express what a person wants others to think they believe OR what they want themselves to believe.
- Implicit attitudes may represent a person’s knowledge about other’s beliefs (can be a result of a societal beleif)
Implicit attitude may represent a person’s knowledge about other’s beliefs. What is meant by this?
Implicit attitudes often represent societal norms more generally and may be a result of a societal belief arising
Our society has negative sterotypes about groups, because of our awareness of these sterotypes, culturally common sterotypes often pop into mind.
As there is clearly a difference between the implicit and the explicit, which attitude is more correct?
We cannot answer this question!
Because explicit attitudes are influenced by what we want oursleves and others tot think about us
And implicit attitudes may not really be accurate of someone’s true belief
What are two instances where implicit attitudes have a relatively bigger impact than explicit attitudes?
- Implicit attitudes may have a relatively bigger impact on unintended behavior
(If I have a negative association with a group (that I reject!) and I am talking to a member of that group, I will make efforts to make sure I am not acting negativelty to them, but there are things I cannot control, such as body language…the member of that group may pick up on that body language) - Implicit attitudes may have a relatively bigger impact under circumstances in which people are less able or motivated to control their actions
(If someone is drunk, they are less likely to control their implicit attitudes… think about public appologies where they claim to not be “racist” when really they just could not control their implicit feelings as a result of the alcohol)
Explicit and implicit attitudes can have different effects depending on…
The type of behaviour and circumstances
*implicit behaviour has a bigger impact on unintended behaviour and in circumstances where people are less motivated to control their actions.
What is the mere exposure effect?
The more often a person is exposed to some stimulus, the more positive their attitude towards it
(Repeated exposure to something → Attitude toward that thing)
Early studies found this effect using words, turkish words, images, and PEOPLE!
When we encounter a person more often, what is our attitude towards that person?
We tend to develop a more positive attitude towards that person!
This is because repeated exposure to something improves processing fluency
What were the findings of the study that looked at people’s preferences towards a facial photo of a person or a reverse of that image?
People prefer reveresed images of themselves (what they see in the mirror)
But prefer the noraml images of other people (what they see when they look at that person irl)
This happenes because when faces are prototypical it is easier on our brain, which makes us prefer the face we most often/typically see in ourselves (reveresed image) and the face we most typically see of others (normal image)
Why does the fundamental attribution error occur?
It involves the distinction between fast and slow thinking!
We initially have an assumption of something happening based on internal causes (fundamental attribution error)
To change this assumption to be something based on external causes, that takes a lot of concious effort and is a slow process… so if umotivated to put in cognitive effort, we skip right over it and keep our initial assumption of the internal cause for the behaviour!
Think about a person falling on ice example (he is clumsy –> it’s slippery)
Why are warmth and copetence deemed to be important in impression formation?
Social perception reflects evolutionary pressures…
People must determine immediately if that person is good or evil which warmth determines, and competence tells us whether or not that person can act on those intentions
Warmth on left. Competence on right
Explain the trolley problem and the moral judgements of both Person A and Person B
Include the proper terms for each Person.
Person A = Adam should push the large man to save the 5 workers
(“Consequentialist” / “ulitatian”)
Person B = Adam should not push the large man to save the 5 workers, killing people is wrong, even if it has good consequences (“Deontological”… “highly principled/uncompromising”)
Person A and B have both arrived at these decisions from different lines of moral reasoning.
In the trolley problem, is the “Consequentialist” or the “Deontological” viewed as more trustworthy?
“Deontological” (Person B) is viewed to be more trustworthy and more moral
*People do not just rate Person B to be more trustworthy, but people behave in ways that show the trust they have in Person B.
Explain the “Trust Game”. How does the game relate to Person A and Person B moral judgements?
When participants imagined being Player 1, where they are in a position to get more money returned to them from Player 2….
Player 1 participants tended to give more money to Person B and expected Person B to return more money to them!
Participants would rather choose to play the trust game with Player 2!
What potential explinations exist for why people trust Person B (“Deontological”) more and would rather play the trust game with them?
Provide explination for someone who agrees with B and for someone with A
- People themselves might think like Person B (they are trusting someone who thinks the same way as them about not harming others
- People who agree with Person A but still want to play the trust game with B because when evaluating someone’s moral character, we do in by imaging befriending this person (want someone to trust no matter what)… this “you can count on me” signal forms a positive impression of that person.
Thought process for both people who agree A and people who agree with B
What is Moral Foundations Theory?
Involes 5 core values:
1. Care - being kind to others & not harming them (ex. trolley problem)
2. Fairness - treat people equitably & unfairness is bad (ex. monkey video)
3. Loyalty - good to be loyal to one’s group & disloyalty is bad
4. Authority- obeying to authority is good & disobeying is bad
5. Purity - one should respect and conform to local norms and traditions
Which values from moral foundations theory are “individualizing values” and “binding values”
Care and Fairness = “individualizing values” (cluster together → people who care, also demonstrate fairness)
Loyalty, Authority, and Purity = demonstrate group cohesion = “binding values”
(also clusters together… if someone has one of them, they likely have the others)
Explain how the seasons influened malleability in binding and individual moral values
Looking at data from 10 years:
People more often endorse binding values around more spring and fall times, rather than the summer and winter times.
(highly consistent bimodal seasonal cycle in American’s endorsement of bidning moral values)
There was no consistent seasonal cycle for endorsing individual values.
Explain the different responses for each level of shock on the shock machine. (think about the diagram)
Typically teacher would ask the experimenter if they should keep going at around “very strong shock” (but experimenter told them the experimenter requires you to continue)
What are well known variations of Milgram’s experiment? And what were the findings?
1. Dubious institutional context:
- Study at a run-down office instead of Yale (did not have as much authoritarian energy to it anymore)
- Authority figure has less authotity (no Yale credentials)
- Findings: 48%
2. Learner in same room
- Hearing and seeing person in pain makes the hurt more prominent
- Findings: 40%
3. Experimenter in another room
- Experimenter gets phone call and has to go somewhere, but is available by phone
- Feels like less authority through phone
- Findings: 21%
4. Two peers disobey
- Two additional teachers (compliances) where both of them said they did not want to do it anymore once the learner was in pain, the real participant was told to continue without them
- Teacher has social support for disobedience and resolves uncertainty of how much learner is in pain
- Findings: 10%
What two fundamental moral principles is the teacher in Milgram’s study being dragged towards?
1. Care (knows learner in pain)
2. Authority (experimenter is ordering them to continue)
*both are two morally right things, but they are different, causing moral conflict!
What is the elaboration likelihood model?
Model that explains the different cognitive processes that can cause us to tak two different routes in persuation:
Central route: involves slow and effortful thinking proccess
(ex. professional looking ad investment ad with graphs and facts)
Peripheral route: involves fast thinking based on superficial heuristics
(ex. Taylor swift drinking diet coke)
Disposition and Conext determine out ability and motivation that sets us up to either take the central or peripheral route!
Think of the study where a standardized exam is being implimented in a university.
What were the results of the weak vs strong argument condition with the low vs high self relevance condition?
Stronger arguments created more persuasion but stronger arguments were most influential when there was high self-relevance. (lots of motivation to think because it is very relavent, use of central model)
AKA: when students thought the new exam would be effecting them, the quality of the arguments had the most impact on persuasion
Think of the study where a standardized exam is being implimented in a university.
What were the results of the expert vs non-expert condition with the low vs high self relevance condition?
Generally, the expert is more persuasive than the non-expert. However, experts had more of an impact when there was LOW-self relevance. (not much motivation to think because it does not affect them, so using peripheral model)
AKA: Students who were not effected by this exam did not care about the arguments themselves, but the person who pitched them.
Are loss-framed or gain-framed messages more effective?
It depends on which mindset someone is in:
If someone is in an approach-oriented mindset, they are more pursuaded by gain-framed messages (focus on attaining desirable outcomes)
If someone is in an avoidance-oriented mindset, they are more pursuaded by loss-framed messages (focus on avoiding undesirable outcomes)
Differenciate between approach-oriented and avoidance-oriented mindsets?
Approach-orientated mindset = actions motivated by/towards opportunities and rewards
Avoidance-orientated mindset = actions motivated by avoiding threats and punishments
What 3 factors influence whether someone has an approach-oriented or avoidance-oriented mindset?
- Individual dispositions
(ex. liberals tend to be more approach-oritented, republicans more avoidance-oriented) - Cultural background
(ex. collectivist cultures more avoidance-oriented) - Immediate context
(ex. if someone just had a big success, they likley have a more approach oriented mindset)
What were the results of the study where participants read an article on flossing with either a gain-framed or loss-framed message?
C1: gain-framed (pros of flossing)
C2: loss-framed (downsides of not flossing)
The content in the articles was the same, but info was presented in a different way.
Before study, participants did a questionare to determine if they had an avoidance or approach mindset.
KEY MEASURE: Number of times participants flossed the following week after reading the article
FINDING:
- People with an approach mindset = more persuaded to floss when presented with a grain framed message
People with an avoidance mindset = more persuaded to floss if presented with a loss-framed message
What are the general steps of cognitive dissonance theory?
When there is a set of cognitions that do not jive with eachother… dissonance arises and it is uncomfortable.
We are motivated to reduce the feelings of dissonance by using cognitive effort for some sort of change in one or more of the cognitions.
Ex. Prof initial response to starwars was positive, but because his brother likes it and he does not like his brother right now, those two things cause dissonance… prof convinces himself he does not like star wars
Explain the map of cognitive dissonance in terms of the implications on self-persuasion.
*counteradditudinal behaviour = does something that does not align with their existing attitudes
Cognitive effort to reduce inconsistency between one’s attitudes and the behaviour they just engaged in
There are three ways people may change something to make attitude and behaviour aligned:
1. Reinterpret behaviour (spin behaviour in some way to make it more consistent)
2. Add additional cognitions (things that justify behaviour)
3. Change attitude
What is post-decision dissonance?
The dissonance between liking something and the knowledge that you rejected that thing
This dissonance is reduced by there being a more positive attitude to the item chosen, and a more negative attitude towards the item rejected
What example using rating of items demonstrates post-decision dissonance?
Participants asked to rate how much they liked different consumer products
After rating, experimenters tell them they have a choice of two items to take with them:
C1 = choose between two things, one rated high, one rated low (something I like vs something I don’t)
C2 = choose between two things they rated similarly and both highly (like both, but have to reject the other)
Then partiticpants were asked to rate everything again:
C2 had a more positive response to chosen item and a more negative response to rejected item
Consistent to the principles of post-decision dissonance (rejecting something you like creates dissonance, dissonance is reduced through attitude change)
above 0 = more positive attitude, below 0 = more negative attitude
What study demonstrates the insufficient justification effect?
(When there is insufficient justification for dissonance, a person results to attitude change)
All partiticpants did a boring experiment. Participants told to tell the next participant that the experiment is exciting (asked to lie).
C1: $20 to lie
C2: $1 to lie
After told the participant to lie, participants asked at a later date their attitude towards the experiment.
C1 = no attitude change (getting paid a lot justifies lying: “normally would not think I was a liar, but for enough money I will lie” (not much dissonance)
C2 = attitude change occued (did not have sufficient justification for lying, so need to change my attitude)
Explain how the placebo effect of the cognitive dissonance theory?
Introducing choice to placebo medications leads to a more positive attitude about its effectivity and therefore might be more effective!
Ex. Tested medications to reduce people’s pain when putting hand in cold water:
C1: gave people some lotion
C2: gave people a different lotion
C3: gave people a CHOICE to choose between the two lotions.
When people got to choose which placebo pain lotion, it made their pain tolerance better and experienced less pain!
(PLACEBO EFFECT BOOSTED WITH CHOICE)
