Test 3 lecture notes Flashcards
Types of social influence
conformity: going along and changing your behavior in order to match others
compliance: changing your behavior based on direct request
obedience: a type of compliance, going along with a request from an authority figure
Normative
Going along with the group to be liked and accepted and not rejected.
Descriptive normative influence
When you conform to what is typically done
injunctive normative influence
when you are going along with behaviors that are typically approved of
there are instances when they are the same, but there are others where they are different
rejection
fear of what happens when you stand out
what is the difference between descriptive and injunctive normative influence
???
shatter (1951)
put people into groups with a confederate, and the confederates job was to disagree with the group. they observed what happened when this confederate refused to go along with the group. Found that there were three stages of behavior. 1. argue with the outlier 2. ignore the outlier 3. if given the opportunity they would punish the outlier
What are the factors that influence normative influence
- size: the larger the group, the stronger the normative influence
(moscovivi’s theory: majority sways by size, minority sways by style) - Group unanimity: if the group is all saying the exact same thing then you are more likely to see normative influences occur, In one of the paradigms that Asch tested he gave the actual participants a teammate that also went against the group, this if someone else also disagrees with the group it will be easier
- immediacy: stronger when group pressure happens right before behavior
- social strength: if you are in a group withy people who matter with you, normative influence will be stronger
bond and smith (1996)
the Asch studies that were done in more collectivist cultures have more conformity than the studies done in individualistic cultures
informational influence
occurs because you want to be right and you assume the group is right. works off of the accuracy motivation
Normative vs informational influence
those going along with the group for normative influence will revert to their initial opinion when asked alone, those going along with the informational influence will go on and say what the group says because they truly think the group is correct
social validation
using our social connections to come to a ‘correct’ conclusion
Sherif (1935) auto kinetic effect
if you beam a dot of light onto a solid space you are going to perceive some movement in the light. There is no actual movement, it is perceived movement. He had people report what they saw individually, and then he brought them back into the lab with three other participants and had them report what they saw as well. Based on those two tactics we would not know if it is normative or observational. he then brought them back in alone to see if there motivation was observational or normative (I am not so sure this is correct)
what happens in cases with decision making during ambiguity
if there is not a clear and definitive correct answer we tend to be more risk averse and go along with the group more
crisis
during times of crisis we tend to be more risk averse and go along with the group more, this could also be because of higher rates of ambiguity during crisis
crisis and experts
when we are in a crisis we tend to look towards experts more, we assume a level of knowledge can help us avoid these negative consequences
social contagion
once one thing starts in a social group it is easy for that thing to spread across a culture like memes
mass psychogenic illness
when a biological illness seems to occur but has no biological reason nd seems to occur because of social contagion
what are three examples of mass psychogenic illness
Tanganyikan laughing epidemic: three girls in a school started laughing and could not stop. quickly it spread to other students, eventually they had to shut down the school, family members and neighbors started showing the same problem
dancing plague of 1518: from July to September there were groups of people who could no stop dancing, led to heart attacks and stroke
warren county high school: a teacher reported smelling gasoline and started getting lightheaded. This led to 99 people going to the er, and couldn’t ink any source, only those who showed symptoms smelled gas, the school then reopened and 71 people went to the er, found that symptoms were passed only by sight
make sure to know milligram well! go over the video
thanks Elias you’re the best, I believe in you!
How does the drive for consistency affect persuasion
people like to be consistent, people will go along with what you ask for with this in mind
foot in the door
when you start with a very small and reasonable request that most people are going to say yes to, but then follow it up with a slightly larger request then another and another until you get to the request you actually want. Ie, the traveling salesman who knocks on the door and just asks for a glass of water, then asks them to just try the product, then asks them to try their pitch on them, finally after being so consistent with saying yes to small asks, the salesman asks their real question and they feel stronger to answer yes because of the need for consistency.
Freedman and Fraser (1966) asked people to wear a sticker that says be a safe driver and asked the other half of the group nothing. then followed up and asked the whole group if they could put up a big ugly sign that says be a safe driver. Those who wore the sticker agreed 73% to put up the sign, those who did not get offered a sticker only 3% agreed to put up the sign
Low ball
when you get a low introductory element that has other hidden costs involved. because you have already agreed to the low ball offer, you are unlikely to change your opinion once you have been made aware of the other hidden costs
bait and switch
where you get people in the store for a really attractive offer, then switch it out to a less attractive offer. ie Black Friday sakes, they offer a ps5 for 200$ but only have like two in the store, then when you go it is sold out but you buy something else because you have already made this mental commitment to spending money and going to the store
labeling
if you give someone a label they tend to be more consistent with that label. ie voter vs voting speech. Ie cars salesman who tells the consumer you look like someone who cares about the environment
what are the four consistency techniques for getting people to do what you want. why do they work
foot in the door, low ball, bait and switch, labeling. they work under the idea of obligation
door in the face and what are the two requirements
you ask someone for something ridiculous that you expect a no for, when they say no you ask them something reasonable. you came down from a big request so they should reciprocate and come up.
- conceivable: if the initial request is absurd than they don’t feel like you did anything by coming down
- same person: it must be the same person doing both requests
reciprocation
because it seems like they are doing something for you, you feel compelled to do something for them, door tin the face, that’s not all, favors, scarcity
that’s not all
if you call in the next 20 minutes we will double the offer for free. the seller is making their deal worse for you so you should reciprocate and agree. Berger cupcake that’s not all, bargain, control - 56, 25, 20
favors: if you a favor for someone, they are more likely to do it for you
scarcity: works off the idea that something being limited makes it better - what is rare is good - buildingg pressure makes you more willing to buy that limited number, and if it seems like there is a possibility you could miss out on something you are more likely to agree
amount of time
if you feel like there is a fast approaching deadline you are more likely to say yes
attention
if you catch their attention they are more willing to go along with something you ask for
pique
disrupt then reframe
you in some way try to disrupt their cognitive processing, then you reframe your request in a way that makes it easier for them to say yes. the goal of this technique is to get people to consume the cognitive resources so they can’t reframe and won’t go through that process leading them to say yes
David and Knowles (1999) sold postcards for either three dollars or three hundred pennies. By reframing the price as pennies it disrupted people’s cognitive processing. Thirty percent of participants bought a postcard in the three dollar condition, sixty five percent bought a postcard in the three hundred pennies
incidental similarity
people will in some way try to draw attention to how you are similar to them in some way, if they think they are similar to you they are more likely to go along with your request
ingratiation and self promotion
they are going to compliment you as well as show their virtues, in doing so they build a foundation for liking. one important component is that t seems genuine
persuasion
three things to look at when it comes to successful persuasion
who is doing the persuasion, what are they persuading about, what (is this how) are they trying to persuade you to do
who
source credibility - you are more likely to be persuaded by someone who seems credible on the topic at hand
sleeper effect
information from a non credible source can be persuasive but it often times takes longer to see that effect
credibility + expertise
no! get more on this what is the difference between the two?
trustworthiness
you need to be able to trust the source in order to find them credible
source likeablitiy
if you like a source you will find them more persuasive, similarity also comes into play here, so does attractiveness
majority vs minority
majority by size minority by swagger
personal importance
if we can highlight how this idea is connected to us we are more likely to be persuaded bye it
humor
if we find things funny we are more likely to be persuaded by it - think Super Bowl commercials
fear
can be effective, but it is important to note it has a bell curve, if you make people too afraid you will paralyze them, you want to make them feel a little bit afraid so they feel some stakes and are motivated to act, and also tell them how to avoid it
one sided messages
if you argue one side of an issue it is effective for uniformed listeners, people who are informed tend not to be persuaded by this
primacy vs recency
primacy is more effective when all of you options are given at once, recency is more effective when your options are given across time
emotional state
people in a more positive emotional state are more open to persuasion
intelligence
you want a middle zone, people who are really smart don;t think they need to hear your opinion, people with a lower level have a similar mindset - they all might be low in a need for cognition
self -esteem
similar pattern to intelligence, middle level
higher need for cognition
will be more persuaded by a stronger argument
lower need for cognition
will be more persuaded by a weaker argument
self presentation
if your audience cares about how they come off to other people then arguments about status will be more effective
individualist culture
arguments focused on independence or self achievement are going to be the most influential
collectivist culture
arguments focused on the group will be most effective
ego depletion
when your self control is lowest people tend to be more open to persuasion
whom
emotional state, intelligence, self-esteem, higher vs lower need for cognition, self presentation, individualist vs collectivist culture, ego depletion
active vs passive arguments
active is a direct argument for something, passive is more about exposure. active is necessary for opinions that are strongly held
repetition
can be useful as long as it is positive of neutral, if people don’t like art at first they will get more anode at repeated exposure
ads wear out, repitition with variation like Flo
straightforwardness
we are more persuaded by arguments we overhear than arguments directed to us, we think they are more honest when we overhear
subliminal advertisement
for the most part it is not effective at all,
elaboration likelihood model
this model is a theory of persuasion, there are two paths and depending on who you are talking to and what you are trying to persuade them either path will be more effective
central: based on the message that you are saying, where you think strong arguments will create lasting change
peripheral: using everything but the message to create change, ie cereal mascots - ends up creating immediate change but less lasting change
what are three ways to resist
attitude inoculation, forwarding, stop being lazy
attitude inoculation
introduce people to a weak counter argument which makes the feel stronger about there own argument as ling as the counter argument is not too persuasive
forewarning
often times they go through reactance
cognitive misers
stop being lazy
minimum size of a group
2
groups are
a dynamical system they are made up of mini connective variables that change over time and can be complex even if they are just two people
cohesion
relevant for how close a group feels, important for longevity and effectiveness. groups of people who form coming from a similar perspective feel closeness before time has passed together, groups who don’t share that similar background or perspective take longer
groups and interdependency
most groups are interdependent, you rely on different people in the group for different components, definitional to a group is some level of dependency
group roles
a set of expected behaviors depending on who you are in the group
instrumental roles
roles that will help a group achieve a task
expressive roles
focuses more on providing support and moral
learn zombardo standoffs prison experiment
you got this shit boyyyyyyy! keep up that good work and watch the video - also go over the additional notes she mentioned about it
group effects (10)
deindividuation, transitive memory, common knowledge effect, group polarization, social facilitation theory, evaluation apprehension, commons dilemma, social loafing, group think, majority vs minority
deindividuation - what are two things that impact it and what do you see during moments of deindividuation
when your individual identity gets whipped away and it is replaced with the group identity which is more important to you in that moment. arousal increases deindividuation. anonymity increases deindividuation. you often see decreased responsibility people may engage in really horrible behaviors - they are able to remove the burden of responsibility to a leader or the group as a whole. people convince themselves they can behave poorly because they can put the resonsibility elsewhere
transactive memory
the group will outsource memory depending on their specially, no individual is responsible to hole all of the groups memory, rather the group is expected to build the information together like a trivia team
common knowledge effect
when you are in a group you are more likely to discuss information that eveyone shares more than any private information - this rules the approval motivation because it abounds ostacism and rejection, distance might increase ocstrasim
group polarization
you might become more polarized on a topic when you are in a group rather than when when you are alone. the group can influence you and cause you to drift, and that drifting may stop when you return to being alone. relevant when it comes to juries
social facilitation theory (zajonc 1956)
the presence of others will increase your dominant response tendency. (related to Hermes Dotson law) . this is why you typically see people perform better with practiced skills and worse with unpracticed skills.
evaluation apprehension
we are worried about being judged by people, when we are worried about that we revert to what we feel comfortable with - which is the dominant response, and
commons dilemma
not quite sure
self vs others, when a group shares resources we are still primed tot take care of ourselves, if we see others taking care of themselves we will ay we should do the same, this causes selfishness and backstabbing.
present vs future: we think about what we have now but don’t regard the future
social loafing (ringlemann 1913), (latane 1979)
He wanted to see how many humans equaled one ox, found that when you put humans tighter they pull less hard than each alone. both humans and oxen displayed social loafing. we think the group we are in will hide our lack of effort
lateen: asked people to cheer or clap and measured the sound pressure per person. measured them alone, in groups of two, four, or six. found that individually there was the highest amount of sound pressure, then a big drop, and then a gradual decrease, effort is decreased proportionally to the number of people in your group
happens in all cultures, but Is seen less in collectivist cultures for the identity of a person is more in the group so they care more about the group
task matters as well. it is less likely to occur if the task is complicated, appealing, or challenging for one persons lack of effort an make the entire group fail and if the difference between the groups success and failure is your effort than you are likely to put it in. also hedonism
group matters too, if we care about the other group members than we will work harder for we fear rejection more from those we care about as opposed to those who we do not care about.
groupthink
group members are more likely to think alike than independently, why?
could be for the sake of cohesion and positive connections sometimes we choose gelling over logic because that provides security
groups are more likely to occur with similar members so that can increase groupthink for we are already similar
also, rejection is greater if we are similar, so we make us more similar to not be rejected
ideological isolation
high self esteem, not personal but group self esteem
when does groupthink occur
if there is high pressure to conform, group unanimity - if everyone I the group is saying the same thing, belief in decision: if they have a strong belief in their own choice, if everyone thinks so strongly they are correct and there are not many outliers it is likely group think occurred
majority vs minority
majority by size, minority by swagga. minority can also be persuasive if persistent, if a minority member was prior a majority member they may have more sway for they are more similar to you and share a past in that same group. if the minority is willing to compromise, if there is a multi person minority - this works with the approval and rejection motivation for if you abandon the group for a single person than it is likely you may not have a group at all, it is easier to leave your majority group and trade them for another group than potentially no group at all. also, if the minority is not completely incompatible with the minority, also if the group has more accuracy motivation and a higher need for cognition
benefits of groups
provide social supports, can lead to better outcomes for they have varied background and experiences and can tackle more nuanced problems better than an individual for they have a deeper arsenal of people to tap on for more complex problems, provide feelings of safety - physically, emotinionally, intellectually - when all group members feel valued and can safely express their opinions make them felled empowered heard and stronger groups
attraction
an interest in continuing a relationship with another person, specifically without a goal in mind - includes romantic and platonic relationships
acceptance and rejection
when both parties are interested in continuing the interaction, when one aror more parties are not interested in continuing the interaction
reasons for attraction
similarity
we like people who are similar to us
commitment
if you have similar perspectives on how you view life, you likely have similar perspectives on commitment, both what you want to commit to and for how long
flings
opposites attract
matching hypothesis
people end up in relationships of equal levels of attractiveness
self-e valuation maintenance hypothesis
we want similar people, bit not so similar that they threaten our self esteem
Montoya
what was most predictive for relationship satisfaction and longevity was perceived similarity rather than actual similarity
reinforcement-affect model
we like people who make us feel good, favors: if you do a favor for someone you reinforce that more tangible benefit and supercharge the reinforcement-affect model. if praise seems genuine it can support the reinforcement-affect model, but if it comes off as disingenuous than t can go in the opposite direction.
emotions: misattribution of arousal as well as other tactics for getting in a positive emotional state if you are trying to increase someones attraction to you, using the strategies to get someone in a positive emotion can serve that goal
social exchange theory
we do a cost benefit analysis when assessing people and our relationships and we tend to be more attracted to people who have more benefits than costs, often times this is not conscious
reciprocity
if you know someone likes you, you are more likely to like them back. this pairs well with the approval motivation for they have already accepted you so there is no risk of approval or rejection because it is less risky for rejection we are more likely to foster that relationship. mimicry: if someone ir reciprocation our behaviors we tend to like them more for mimicry suggests a level of similarity. liking works well for friendships but can put a burden on a romantic relationship if an other likes you
morality
we like people whom we judge to be moral for we equate morality with trustworthiness, this is particularly applicable in new relationships
proximity
one of the strongest influencers on a relationship: we like people who are near us. festinger did a big apartment study on this,
moreland and beach (1992) had women just get their picture taken, go to one class, go to a class five times, go to a class ten times, or go to a class fifteen times, they then asked people to rate their liking of the woman, the groups who just saw the others pictures or one class the liking was normal, while the girl in the class 15 times was very likable, repeated exposures were higher, also the person did not talk to anyone in class and was just seen
social allergy effect:
a partners annoying habits row more annoying over time (could be platonic)
self-disclosure
we like people who share information with us, this is an important point in building trust and connection, it can work in the opposite direction though if we overshare too early
red
associated with liking love and attraction, it effects men more, many female animals in heat show red
physical attraction
symmetry
the more symmetrical a persons face and body the more attractive they are rated. true for both genders but matters more for rating men. symmetry can be a signifier of health
face differences
we want women to have big eyes and a small nose, we want men to have a large jaw and medium sized nose
there are differences among people but this is the average, you fins some variability acrosss cultures but a general rating in a similar way
halo effect
when a person has one positive trait we assume they have many positive traits - this can lead to bias for attractive people. attractive infants have better health outcomes because people spend more time with them
group attractiveness
people can be judged differently if they are being judged by themselves than by a group
changes
as you see more interpersonality in a relationship you see an increase in attraction
socially skills (4)
we like people who are better at perceiving and understanding others was well as influencing others. social perception, interpersonal influence, social adaptability, expressiveness
social perception
can be increased, we start out non perceptive and it grows over time
interpersonal influence
we want someone who can influence others but not completely manipulative someone in the middle not too good
social adaptability
we consider someone socially skilled if they are adaptable if someone has a variety of social groups and can still be viewed as psotivie across them
expressiveness
we like people who are expressive but again we want. middle ground
evolution determinations (5)
when looking for a romantic partner people take offspring into consideration things regarding offspr.
men care more about health and beauty, women care more about reasources and intellect
women take fertility more into account
men often times prefer younger women, women often times prefer older men
women with more economic power care less about resources and more about beauty
women are the preferred friend for both men and women and they are more likely to be rated as a more attractive friend
sexual orientation theories
frued: homosexuality occurs when the father is weak or a poor role model and when the mother is overprotective and overly attached
skinner behaviorist: homosexuality is a learned preference which occurs when same sex stimuli is paired with same sex arousal even if this is an accident
raising theory gay parents make gay children
all three of these theories are wrong and have not been supported by research but where held for decades throughout the ninety hundreds and so they were very influential
prenatal hormones
does have a scientific influence: the hormones present during specific points in gestation can predispose individuals to be non heterosexual
older bothers: the more older brothers a man has the more likely they are to identify as homosexual, for those older brothers have taken up the moms testosterone
not research has been on gay men no there is more on bi and pan women but there are gaps because of this historic overfocus
nature
Baily and pillard: surveyed gay men dn found the identical twin was gay 52% of the time fraternal was 22%, if they had adopted brothers 11%. the first two does suggest some genetic component
sexual orientation (what do we look for) (4)
behavior: do they shoe behavior that us romantic to the same sex
attraction: do they rate people of the same sex as more attractive
identity: do they consider themselves a specific sexual orientatioin
oftentimes these three go in the same direction, sometimes you can see instances of two
ostracism
being isolated from groups we care about is why we often fear rejection. one factor is hoe much groups we are apart of matter to us
clarity of the discard
how obvious is it that you are experiencing rejection, someone yelling get away I don’t like you will matter more to you than someone just ignoring you
health risks of rejection
after rejection you see an increase in the risk of injury, illness, depression, and stds
mental effects of rejection
after rejection, cognitive processing reduces and worse memory both for encoding dnd retrieval
behavioral effects of rejection
we often times are more impulsive, reckless, aggressive and less cooperative after rejection.
changes: also after rejection people often change behavior so not to suffer another rejection and increase social connection to others
loneliness
wanting but lacking social contact
transitional times
when something big is changing in you life you are more likely to see loneliness
emotional loneliness
feeling lonely effects how you interpret your own emotions and how you interpret the emotions of others
gender difference in loneliness
men with a strong group connection feel less lonely, whole women care less about groups and more about strong social connections
health and loneliness
lonely people see the same amount but that sleep is of a lower quality, also they take longer to heal from injury, for we know our emotions have a big impact on our immune system and we also don’t always take care of ourselves in this negative state so it a fact the exterior and interior
why do we reject
Aggression: more likely to reject aggressive people – need to protect myself
Withdrawing: we want to reject someone before they reject us
Common trait in depression
Deviance: more likely to reject people who go against social norms / rules
Protecting ourselves – these bad acts will rub off on me and I’ll be rejected
Bad apple effect: one bad apple spoils the bunch
Attributions: when rejecting someone, we tend to do it after making an internal, stable attribution about them but the excuse we give is often an external, unstable trait
EX: there’s too much going on in my life right now
Causes guilt: when we reject, we feel bad about ourselves
need to belong
we desire to affiliate, commit and remain together thus we are social creatures, we want to have others care about aus and we want to care about others. we edge this need through regular social contact
regular social contact
old belief is that you can only have social contact if you are in the same room bt that is not true today. 94% off incoming freshmen use social media or virtual social contact, half of 14-17 year olds send 100+ texts a day
stable ongoing relationships
maintaining a relationship, not just getting into one
mutual concern facilitates successful stable relationships
the end of relationships
the biggest threat to connection, causes intense negative emotional, cognitive, and health effects
the two types of love
passionate: longing desire and excitement towards another (lust). constantly wanting to be around them when not and constantly thinking about them, important for the beginning stages of a relationship for it helps build the relationships
compasionant: commitment to another, more calm and serene stage, not so overwhelming important for the mid to end stages, comes later in a relationship after a year or so, doesn’t happen right after passion goes away
changes over time, we don’t stay in the passionate stage forever, it seems to last about a year and shifts where we also happen to see lower sexual frequency
stenbergs triangle of love
the most common theory based on romantic relationships
- passionate: romantic and sexual attraction which is characterized by high body arousal
- intimacy: emotional intimacy - wanting to feel close and wanting the best for them built through empathy and communication
- commitment: concsoius decisions to remain in the relationship. this varies regarding the type of relationship. friendship starts with high intimacy and low passion commitment, romantic starts with high passion and low intimacy commitment
communal relationship
based on love and admiration, most dating relationships important for personal relationships, intimate
exchange relationship
based on reciprocity and fairness. important for the basic functioning of society
how to determine the type of relationship
if you buy them lunch how do they respond? if they Venmo right after it is an exchange relationship. if they forget about it or go about it as it’ll eventually get back to you it is communal for you do it because you want them to eat
John bowlby and his three styles of attachments
he observed how kids responded when separated from their parents during WWII. beloved the style they demonstrated during childhood would affect their relationships later in life. he classifies these three forms of attachments
- anxious/ambivalent: want a complete merge and create one life with them, the problem arises when one of the people doesn’t want the same closeness
- secure happy to be with other person, entire identity is not wrapped up in that relationship, had a pretty strong romantic and platonic relationship, maintains other strong bonds while also strengthening this one
- avoidant, don’t want a lot of closeness, afraid to relate and open up, rend to have more short term relationships,
can move between these three styles
dimensional model
can have different dimensions to attachment styles - see grid
anxiety: refers to attitude in relation to yourself
avoidance: refers to you attitudes about others
anxious/ambivalent: high anxiety and low avoidance. constantly wanting to be with them and constantly needing reassurance
fearful avoidance: high anxiety and high in avoidance. you think your unlovable so you don’t seek love
dismissive avoidant: low in anxiety and high in avoidance - think you are perfect but others are unreliable and not with committing to so you don’t see any value to relationships
secure: low in anxiety and low in avoidance - best
relationship satisfaction equal or decrease
will either remain equal or will decrease – generally won’t see an increase in relationship satisfaction and if you do it is because of therapy
weddings and divorce
spending more money on a ring/ceremony positively correlated to divorce
amount of people at a ceremony negatively correlated to divorce
investment model
explains why people stay in or leave relationships. social exchange theory - specific cost benefit analysis
- satisfaction - how satisfied do you feel
- alternative outcomes - what does my life lookalike without this. it is very common for an abuser to say that nobody wants you to diminish this factor
- sunk cost - how many resources have you put into the relationship. many, physical, temporal, kids, if high more likely to stay. very common for an abuser to manipulate this too
equity theory
the happiest relationships are when the amount you put into the relationship is equal to how much you receive from the relationship
relationship-enhancing style of attribution
we make internal attributions for good actions and external attributions for bas actions. this enhances relationships. he gave me flowers because he is a good person, he forgot my birthday because there is so much going on at work
distress-maintaining style of attribution
when we make external attributions for good actions and internal attributions for bad actions. he brought me flowers because he is cheating, he forgot my birthday because he is a terrible person
memory differences
we are more likely to remember good things when in relationship enhancing mode and we are more likely to remember bad things when we are in distress maintaining mode
relationship dissolution (close down) Rusbult (1987)
there are four thins you can slop into when relationships are closing down
- actively harming the relationship: if you want the relationship to end so you inhale in behaviors to speed up that ending, ie telling you partner you want to break up
- passively harming the relationship: you want the relationship to end but you don’t want to be the person to cause that so you engage in passive bad behaviors like not waiting to eat with your partner
- actively helping the relationship: the threat of dissolution is there but you don;t want relationship to end so you work to better the relationship, like going through therapy
- passively remaining loyal to the relationship: you are not happy in the relationship but you don;t want it to end - people who have been m married for z while but feel its too late to get divorced so they just maintain and keep it as it is
divorce
Culture: individualist cultures marry “for as long as we both shall love” whereas collectivist cultures marry “for as long as we both shall live”
Collectivist: relationship is identity
Age: generally if you get married before 20, more likely to get divorced
Length of relationship: if dated for a while before marriage, less likely to get divorced
Economically: if both members are financially stable, less likely to get divorced
If you don’t have that stress it’s easier
Environment: if live in the city more likely to get divorced whereas rural is less likely
Quality of alternative outcomes – in the city there’s a lot more options
Religiosity: more religious, less likely to get divorce (type doesn’t matter)
sexuality
Social constructionist theory
our sexuality perception is constructed through culture
Evolutionary theory
if you have a gay sibling, you’re likely to have more kids
Research shows that gay couples tend to care for children of straight couples
Increase benefit because you have more support for taking care of your kids
Sex drive
men tend to have a higher sex drive than women because there’s less of an investment on their part (of body resources)
Coolidge effect
President Coolidge and his wife toured a chicken farm and she noticed there was only one rooster. Tour guide said he has a lot of sex – she said I wish you could tell Mr Coolidge that while he asked if it’s all the same partner
Sex drive increase when you have a new partner
Has been shown for people even in menopause (out of child-bearing age)
erotic plasticity
degree to which your sexuality ca change. women tend to be more plastic, fluid with regard to sexuality
Kinsey scale
earliest and most well known scale
Ranges from 0 - 6
0 = most heterosexual , 6 = most homosexual
Won’t see it being used in modern times – better ways to understanding sexuality
Extradyadic sex and gender differences
sex outside of romantic couple
1 out of 3-4 men engage in this, one out of every nine women
polygamy is more common than polyandry but when resources are scarce women are more likely to have multipole husbands and more likely for them not be related to gain resources
familial relationships
it is how we first get self esteem, we learn to trust through parents and siblings, if we learn to trust family it will be easier to trust in others. good bonds with family - good bonds with others
siblings - first social relationships we have with a peer mentality, having older siblings helps develop theory of mind earlier, speak earlier, and have larger vocabularies, first interaction with hostility and love is through siblings
friendships and how to make friendships last longer
participate as equals: any hierarchy friendships wwon;t be as stable
enjoy each other: if you don;t more likely to end, social exchange theory is related here to friendships as well
trust each other
help each other
be humble
casual cruelty: taking a fear and use it against them - shows we listen and care
intimate relationships 3 main concepts that help intimate relationships thrive
- emotional attachment: feelings of affection, love, sharing own emotions and understanding and reading their emotions
- fulfilling psychological needs: if each persons needs are met
3.. interdependence: moments of reliance on your partner (davka not codependence
dominance weakens an intimate relationship
women
,more attentive, more intimate, offer more social support, receive more social support, more direct, more commited after a relationship threat
men
friends are more likely coworkers, hierarchy matters more
clark and hayfield (1989)
would you go out with me tonight: female 56% men 50% would you come to my apartment tonight women 6% men 67%, would you go to bed with me tonight female 0% male 75%
physical attractiveness did not matter
