SocialPsych
From CogNeuroNotes
8/26 – Introduction to Social Psychology ch.1
Social Psychology: An attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, and implied presence of others
Fundamental Attribution Error: The tendency to overestimate the extent to which people’s behavior is due to internal, dispositional factors, and to underestimate the role of situational factors
Hindsight Bias: The tendency for people to exaggerate how much they could have predicted an outcome after knowing that it occurred
8/28 – Methods, Ethics ch 2
1. Empiricism: Hypothesis -> Data-> Facts-> Theory -> Hypothesis…
2. Observational method
- Systematic observation (field studies)
- Participant observation (pose as car salesman, join cult)
- Archival Analysis (review records)
- Pros: exploratory, help develop hypotheses; good way to describe data
- Cons: some behaviors difficult to observe; confined to 1 group; intrusiveness of
observation; completeness of information
3. Correlational method (*g. surveys)
- Negative vs. positive correlation & Coefficient Meaning (1 to -1)
- Pros: large sample size; easy to conduct; representativeness (random sampling); study “real-world” problems
- Cons: Accuracy of response, may be difficult to get a random sample;
- CORRELATION is NOT CAUSATION
4. Experimental method
- Independent (cause) and dependent (effect) variables; Random assignment
- HIGH Internal validity; LOW External validity
5. Field Experiments
- Tradeoffs between internal and external validity
6. Mundane realism (reflects real life) vs psychological realism (reflects psych processes)
7. Basic vs Applied Research
8. Biases: selection; experimenter; demand characteristics
9. Ethics (see also Milgram film)
- Informed consent & withdrawal
- Deception
- Debriefing & contact info
- Confidentiality
- Do no harm
Internal Validity: is the validity of (causal) inferences in scientific studies, usually based on experiments as experimental validity
External Validity: generalizability to the real world
Random Selection: A way of ensuring that a sample of people is representative of a populations by giving everyone in the population an equal chance of being selected for the sample
Random Assignment to Condition: A process ensuring that all participants have an equal chance of taking part in any condition of an experiment through random assignment, researchers can be relatively certain that differences in the participants personalities or backgrounds are distributed evenly across conditions
9/2 Film: Obedience to Authority ch 8 (pp260-268), article: Elms “Obedience in retrospect”
1. Factors Contributing to Level of Obedience (wanted to please authority figure, confusing situation, loss of personal responsibility)
2. Ethical Implications
9/4 – Attitudes (cognitive dissonance) & Attitude Changes ch 6
1. Attitude : ABCs (affective, behavioral, cognitive)
- Why don’t attitudes predict behavior?(difficult to measure true attitudes, situational influences, general vs specific, strength of attitude)
2. Balance Theory (triangle!)
3. Attitude Change Theories
- Least effort principle
- Self-Presentation Theory
i. Self-monitoring (lo vs. hi)
- Cognitive Dissonance
i. REDUCE DISSONANCE (change behavior, change cognition, add cognition)
ii. Insufficient Justification ($1 vs $20)(mild vs severe punishment)
a. Counter-attitudinal Advocacy
iii. Justification of effort (hazing)
iv. Postdecision Dissonance (blender vs toaster)
a. irrevocability
v. Dissonance influences liking and disliking (favor)
- Self-Perception Theory – attitude is based on perception of behavior
i. Self-perception theory (cognitive) vs cognitive dissonance (motivational)
a. SP can explain overjustification (reward for liked beh -> less liking)
b. Proof that arousal is important component of attitude change (alcohol study)
- Self-Affirmation Theory (it’s ok it’s not smart to smoke, bc I’m very smart at math)
Cognitive Dissonance: A drive or feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that is discrepant from one’s customary, typically positive self-conception
Self-Affirmation Theory: The idea that people will reduce the impact of a dissonance-arousing threat to their self-concept by focusing on and affirming their competence on some dimension unrelated to the threat Justification of Effort: tendency for people to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain
Counterattitudinal Advocacy: Stating an opinion or attitude that runs counter to one’s private belief or attitude
Insufficient Punishment (or insufficient justification): The dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, usually resulting in individuals’ devaluing the forbidden activity or object
9/9 – Attitude Change continued ch 7
1. Models/Approaches
- Expectancy Value Theory
i. Value of outcome
ii Expectance that behavior will produce that outcome
iii. Value * Expectancy = choice (study vs go to party; good grades, friends)
- Elaboration Likelihood Model (central vs. peripheral route)
i. Personal Relevance (high relevance/motivation: central)
ii. Need for Cognition (high need for cog: central)
iii. Distraction (high distraction: peripheral)
iv. Central -> longer lasting attitude change
2. Influence of Emotion on Attitude Change
- Happy (use peripheral route) vs. Sad (use central route)
- Fear (works best when there is a mild amount and you tell people what to do to reduce the fear)
- Health Belief Model
i. Perceive health threat
ii. belief health behavior will reduce threat
iii. personal self-efficacy (know how to change)
3. Theory of Planned Behavior
- Intentions related to attitudes, subjective norms, behavioral control
4. Attitude Inoculation
- effective for cognitively based attitudes
5. Psychological Reactance
Attitudes: Evaluations of people, objects, and ideas
3 Components of Attitudes:
- affective, consisting of your emotional reactions toward the attitude object;
- cognitive, consisting of your thoughts and beliefs about the attitude object
- behavioral, consisting of your actions or observable behavior toward the attitude object
Need for Cognition: A personality variable reflecting the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities
Attitude Inoculation: Making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position
Reactance Theory: The idea that when people feel their freedom to perform a certain behavior is threatened, an unpleasant state of reactance is aroused, which they can reduce by performing the threatened behavior
9/11 – Social Cognition ch 3, article: Burger & Burns “The Illusion of Uniqueness”
1. Schemas
- Factors that influence schema activation
i. situational context
ii. salient features
iii. priming
iv. individual differences
2. Biases in Information Processing
- prior expectations
- belief perseverance
- confirmatory hypothesis testing
- base rate fallacy
- positivity bias
- overconfidence phenomenon
- negativity effect
- illusory correlation
- influence of the self
3. Cognitive Heuristics (mental shortcuts)
* representativeness (categorizing)
* availability (appendicitis vs lightning)
* anchoring (PA population)
4. Illusion of Unique Invulnerability (Burger and Burns article)
* cognitive – representative heuristic
* motivational – cognitive dissonance
Social Cognition: How people think about themselves and the social world; more specifically, how people select, interpret, remember, and use social information to make judgments and decisions
Perseverance Effect: The finding that people’s beliefs about themselves and the social world persist even after the evidence supporting these beliefs is discredited
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: The case whereby people have an expectation about what another person is like, which influences how they act toward that person, which causes that person to behave consistently with people’s original expectations , making the expectations come true
Base Rate Information: Information about the frequency of members of different categories in the population
9/16 – Attribution Theory ch 4 (91-92, 101-123)
1. Social Perception
- Nonverbal behavior (affect blend; display rules; emblem; sex difference)
- Implicit Personality Theory (beliefs about which traits go together)
- Attribution Theory
2. Attribution theory
- Dispositional (Internal) vs. Environmental Causes (External)
- Implications for self-esteem
3. Correspondent Inference Theory
- Actions with unique effects and those low in assumed desirability
4. Covariation model
- 3 information sources: (consensus, consistency, distinctiveness)
- Example: Mary refuses to go on a date with George when he propositions her at her grandmother’s funeral.
5. Bias
- Fundamental Attribution Error
- Actor-Observer Effect
- Self-Serving Biases
i. Tale credit for success and blame others for failure
ii. Egocentric bias
iii. See ourselves as better than average
iv. Use dimensions upon which we appear favorable to judge others
v. False consensus effect
vi. False uniqueness effect
vii. Self handicapping
Consensus Information: Information about the extent to which other people behave the same way toward the same stimulus as the actor does
Distinctiveness Information: Information about the extent to which one particular actor behaves in the same way to different stimuli
Consistency Information: Information about the extent to which the behavior between one actor and one stimulus is the same across time and circumstances
Correspondence Bias: The tendency to infer that people’s behavior corresponds to (matches) their disposition (personality)
Actor/Observer Difference: The tendency to see other people’s behavior as dispositionally caused but focusing more on the role of situational factors when explaining one’s own behavior
Self-Serving Attributions: Explanations for one’s successes that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one’s failures that blame external, situational factors
Belief in a Just World: A form of defensive attribution wherein people assume that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people
9/18 – Social Cognition and Autism reading: Frith, “Autism: Explaining the Enigma”
1. Autism characterized by 3 main deficits
- Language processing (delayed language)
- Atypical behaviors (repetitive motions)
- Social cognition (eye contact, responding to emotional cues)
2. Preserved abilities in autism
- Spatial tasks
- Savant skills in art, music, math (highly uncommon)
3. Autism Spectrum Disorder – range of impairments
4. Theories of autism
- Weak central coherence, underconnectivity
- Social motivation
5. Theory of Mind: the ability to attribute mental states—beliefs, intents, desires, pretending, knowledge, et*—to oneself and others and to understand that others have beliefs, desires and intentions that are different from one's own.
6. Individuals with autism show different brain activation patterns than neurotypical participants
- especially in social cognition areas
- less connectivity between areas
7. Interventions in autism
- Language skills, social behaviors
9/25 – The Self ch 5 (pp 125-143; 152-155)
1. Self guides
- Actual self, Ideal self, Ought self, Undesired self
2. Effects of self guides
- Actual – ideal = depression
- Actual – ought = anxiety
- Actual – undesired = strongest predictor of life satisfaction
3. Historical Changes in the Self
- Self has become more complex, Increased importance of self, Increased pressures on self
- Past vs Present
4. Types of self
- Private self – how you understand yourself
- Public self – how you are perceived by others
- Collective self- membership in social groups
5. Collectivist vs Individualistic cultures
6. How do we come to know ourselves?
- Introspection (self-awareness)
i. during introspection we focus on the difference between actual self vs. ideal and ought selves
ii. self-awareness theory – compare self to internal standard, if negative discrepancy, you: feel bad, avoid self-awareness, reduce discrepancy
iii. Self awareness may be a state or a trait
a. Private self-consciousness: introspective people
b. Public self-consciousness: attend to others’ perceptions
iv. What are the effects of self-awareness?
a. Increased inhibitions, honest behavior
b. increased correspondence between attitude and behavior
c. can perpetuate depression (because you focus on the difference between actual and ideal selves)
d. tend to change attitude or behavior when you find they are incongruent (value congruence)
- Self-perception theory
i. infer attitude from behavior when we are uncertain about your attitude
a. overjustification effect: devalue something when we are overcompensated
- Self-schemas – category/knowledge structure about self/beliefs about self
i. Phenomenal self – part of the self (self-schema) that is in awareness at any given moment
ii. Self-Reference effect – info processed more relevant to self, more easily remembered
- Social interactions
i. Gain info from “reflected appraisals” = how others view you
ii. Not how others actually view you but how you think others view you
9/30 – Social Roles article: Haney “A study of prisoners…”;
Film: Quiet Rage: The Stanford Prison Experiment
1. Purpose of Stanford Prison Expt: test dispositional hypothesis vs situational hypothesis
10/20 – Review Exam & Discuss Article article: Rosenhan “On being sane in insane places”
10/7 – Social Comparison Theory ch 5 (148-151); article: Taylor & Lobel “social comparison”;
article: Hakmiller “threat as a determinant”
1. Social Comparison Theory
- Drive exists to evaluate our opinions and abilities
- We compare ourselves to others when we are uncertain about our opinions or abilities
- Prefer to compare to objective standard – if no standard exists, we compare ourselves to others
2. similarity hypothesis: prefer to compare with similar others
3. Hakmiller (1966) “Threat as a Determinant of Downward Comparison”
- Threat to self -> concern with neg threat > concern with accurate self-assessment
- High threat creates relief from seeing worse off others
- Conclusion: threat leads to DV which increases self esteem
4. unidirectional drive upward:
- not only seek to evaluate abilities but strive to improve them
5. Different kinds of S.* activity
- Obtain info about others
- Affiliate with others
- Explicit evaluation of self compared to others
6. People with cancer
- Evaluate self as superior to others -> DC -> for evaluation -> emotional needs (feel better about self)
- Prefer to affiliate with better off others -> UC -> for affiliation -> problem solving, hope, inspiration
7. 3 goals of social comparison
- self-evaluation (similar others)
- self-improvement (upward)
- self-enhancement (downward)
- Which motive prevails?
i. No threat to self esteem -> self evaluation
ii. Threat to self-esteem -> self enhancement
8. Downward comparison theory
- Evoked by threat
- Cognitive response – prefer info consistent with self-concept
- Affective response – prefer positive info
9. Two self motivations
- Drive for consistency ( world makes sense)
- Drive for favorability (positive view of self)
10. Self Evaluation Maintenance Theory (Tesser)
- Self-reflection – benefits from achievements or positive qualities of others with whom one is linked
- Comparison – enhance self-esteem by performing better than others
11. 3 Factors that determine whether comparison threatens Self Esteem
- performance – relative to other
- closeness – linkage between you and other
- relevance – important to self-concept
- examples:
i. close to others who succeed on irrel -> bask in glory
ii. close to others who succeed on rel -> threat to SE
12. Reduce threat by
- Improve performance
- Distance self from other
- Decide task is not important to self
i. Example: password game (Tesser & Smith 1980)
a. if irrelevant – help friends > stranger
b. If relevant – help stranger > friends
13. Self-Presentation
- Concern with the impression we create in others
- Impression management techniques
i. Ingratiation (backfire if they figure it out)
ii. Self – promotion
iii. Self-handicapping
10/9 – Gender Roles and Gender Development ch 5 (pp 130-132);
article: Gould “X: A fabulous child’s”; article: Burn “why women aren’t” 1. What differences actually exist?
- Physical – chromosomes, hormones, genitalia
- Cognitive – verbal, spatial, math
- Social – empathy, helping behavior, styles of aggression (physical vs relational)
2. Sex Comparison Research Difficulties
- Experimenter Effects
i. Sex of author in leadership, nonverbal behavior
- Participant Effects – demand characteristics
- Communication of Results
i. Differences are more interesting than null results
- Laboratory vs Field
i. *g., anger: lab – no sex diff field – male>female
- Variables Confounded with Sex
i. Status, Gender Role
- Politics
3. Gender Roles
- Norm: rule/expectation about how to behave
- Role: set of norms that defines how people behave in a given social position
- Gender Roles: set of expectations or norms that go with being male or female
4. Androgyny
- View 1: high M and high F
- View 2: gender aschematic (does not divide the world into M and F categories)
5. Acquisition of Gender Roles
- Gender Identity (3years) : one’s sense of self as male or female
i. Establish male and female categories, categories/labels based on superficial characteristics
- Gender stability (4 years) & Constancy (5+ years)
i. Use male/female labels correctly ii. Understand gender doesn’t change as a results of change in appearance, behaviors desires
- Gender-Role Stereotypes: beliefs about person based on whether they are male or female
i. Category based expectancy: based on stereotype -> no information
ii. Target based expectancy: based on attributes of target -> information
6. Development of Gender Stereotypes
- First evident at 18 months – pref for gender stereotyped toys
- Preschoolers’ gender stereotypes include personality traits, activities, occupation, colors
7. Nature of Gender Stereotypes
- Initially very rigid (ages 5-6) – ignore target-based info in favor of gender category
- Gradually becomes more flexible (ages 7-8) – attend to both category- and target-based info
8. Danger of Gender-Role Stereotypes: becomes self-fulfilling prophecy (stereotype threat) 9. Gender-role socialization
- Parents
i. Emphasize achievement for boys, close relationships for girls
ii. Language (more emotion words with girls), differences in play, discipline, toys, environments
- Teachers
i. Highlight gender dichotomy, performance expectations, differential treatment
- Peers
i. Feedback: Enforce gender roles - punish sex-atypical behaviors, reward sex-typical ones, esp in boys
ii. Modeling: sex segregation: boys and girls interact in separate groups until early adolescence
- Books, television, video games
10. Baby X (Gould reading)
- Non-sexist child rearing
10/14 – Conformity ch 8
1. Conformity: change in behavior due to real or imagined pressure from other people
2. SHERIF (1973)
- Had to judge distance that light moved -> people conformed to what other people said
i. But correct answer was ambiguous -> may just be informational influence
3. ASCH (1956)
- Had to judge line length -> not ambiguous -> 76% of people conformed to confederates at least once
i. Much less conformity if one confederate defects (even if they give a diff wrong answer)
4. Why?
- Informational Influence – desire to be right
i. When reality is ambiguous, when there is a crisis, when others are experts
ii. Usually leads to private acceptance
- Normative Influence – desire to be liked
i. Usually leads to “public compliance” without “private acceptance”
ii. Group size up to 3-4, group is important, group in close proximity, groups is unanimous, your response is public, cultural differences
5. Minority Influence
- Asch studies – 2 of 6 give incorrect answer -> 1/3 give incorrect answer at least once
- Greatest impact: consistent, coherent, unwavering, forceful
- Influential because: become center of attention, more time to generate arguments
- Need 2 or more! (1 is almost impossible -> juries)
6. Minority influence vs Majority influence
- Majority influence – normative influence
- Minority influence – informational influence
7. Application to courtroom
- Debate over 6-person versus 12-person juries
- Minority influence more viable in 12-person jury
8. Compliance: change in behavior as a result of another person’s direct request
- usually publicly comply while privately disagreeing but eventually private acceptance
- mindless conformity/compliance – don’t process info, process habitually
i. often for small request
ii. expt: asked to use copy machine–(a) no reason - 60% (b) bc in hurry -94%, bc need to make copies -93%
9. 6 Reasons for Compliance
- reward – cookies, approval
- coercion - punishment
- expertise - doctor
- information – hinting (give friend 2 tickets, hope they take you)
- referent – but not expertise, celebrity in commercial for product they know nothing about
- legitimate authority – parent, boss
- potential exam question: name 3 with examples
10. Compliance techniques
- Foot-in-the-door (self-perception theory)
i. better than door-in-face bc it changes attitudes)
- Door-in-the-face (reciprocity norm, compromise)
- Low balling (made initial commitment -> self-perception theory, illusion of irreversibility)
11. Resisting social pressure -> psychological reactance (reverse psychology)
- Psychological reactance: psychological state induced when someone threatens freedom, respond to threat by rebelling against pressure which preserves the freedom
- Overcome it by convincing person that they are doing something of their own volition
10/16 – Group Behavior ch 9 (pp 271-288; 292-293)
1. What is a group?
- 2 or more people who influence one another
- influence may be
- direct (interaction “social group”
- indirect (mere presence) “non-social group”
2. Indirect Influence
- Conformity – pressure you sense
- Social facilitation/inhibition
- Social loafing
- Deindividuation
3. Direct Influence
- Compliance
- Obedience
- Group polarization
- Groupthink
4. Social Facilitation (Inhibition)
- The effect other people have on performance by their mere presence
- Social Facilitation – people perform better in the presence of others
- Social Inhibition – people perform worse in the presence of others
- Facilitation vs Inhibition
i. Presence of others = arousal -> increases the dominant response
a. on easy task, dominant response is success - arousal -> increased success (facilitation)
b. on hard task, dominant response is failure – arousal -> increased failure (inhibition)
- Why is the presence of others arousing?
i. Makes us alert, vigilant
ii. Evaluation apprehension
iii. Distracting (conflict between attention to others and task)
- Study: Allen et al.
i. Serial subtraction task (a stressor)
a. friend present -> does not help (bc evaluation apprehension cancels out social support)
b. pet present -> does help (social support without any evaluation apprehension)
5. Social Loafing
- Tendency to exert less effort as members of a group than when alone
- Ex: pulling rope, group projects in class (group grade), clapping, singing
- Why?
i. Diffusion of responsibility: not held accountable
a. disappears when make individual contributions identifiable
b. caveat: social loafing less likely to occur if goal is highly valued
c. depends on nature of task (due to relaxation): simple-> more loafing, complex -> less
6. Deindividuation
- Personal identity is replaced with group identity – concerned with goals and actions of group
- Loss of self-awareness – less aware of own values, more concerned with group values
- Result – lower constraints on behavior
- Example: Zimbardo study of two cars (people stole parts of abandoned car
i. Zimbardo prison expt, group antisocial behavior (gangs)
- Key factor is anonymity
7. Group Decision-Making
- Who makes better decisions – individuals or groups?
i. Group is better: divisible task (multiple components)
ii. Group is worse: additive task (each performs same job) – brainstorming, often see social loafing 8. Group Polarization
- “risky shift” – “conservative shift”
- group decisions are more extreme than individuals
- Why?
i. Information influence
a. majority of arguments will support initial position
b. verbal statement increases commitment to argument
ii. normative influence
a. concerned with how we appear to others
b. desire to appear confident and one-up the other
10/21 – Groupthink ch 9 (pp 288-291); Film: Abilene Paradox
1. Groupthink
- Tendency to suppress dissent in the interest of group harmony
- Seeking agreement becomes more important than realistic appraisal of all courses of action
2. Antecedent conditions
- Highly cohesive group
- Homogenous group members
- Directive leader
- Lack procedures to consider alternatives
- Insulation from outside forces
- Pressure to come to decision in short time
3. Symptoms
- Illusion of invulnerability
- Do not permit deviations from group
- Illusion of unanimity
- Belief that the “group” is good
4. Results: Defective Decisions
5. Prevention
- Leader encourages dissent
- Leader remains impartial
- Group divides into subgroups
- Invite outside members
- Assign “devil’s advocate”
- Secret ballot
- After preliminary decision, 2nd meeting to express doubts
6. Abilene Paradox
- A group of people who agree to an action that none of the individual members support
- Why does it occur?
- What does the “inability to manage agreement” mean?
- What can you do to prevent it?
7. Value of Brainstorming
- Not good in groups bc you are inhibited when in front of other people
- More effective to come up with ideas separately, then pool them
- Otherwise you end up talking about one idea the whole time and inhibit other ideas
10/23 – Conflict ch 9 (pp 296-302); ch 14 (pp 466-476)
1. Conflict
- Perceived incompatibility of actions or goals
2. Intrapersonal conflict: tension within an individual due to incompatible goals
3. Interpersonal conflict: tension between two or more individuals or groups who have incompatible goals
4. Focus here is on interpersonal conflict
5. Mirror-image perceptions contribute to conflict
- Tendency to perceive own actions as desirable and enemy’s actions as despicable
- *g., arms race with Soviet Union
- Relations to actor/observer effect?
6. Mixed-motive conflict
- Conflict in which both parties can gain by cooperating but can maximize personal gains by competing
i. Cooperate – maximizes joint gains
ii. Compete – potential for most personal gain, also most personal loss
- Prisoner’s Dilemma
a. Prisoner B Stays Silent Prisoner B Betrays
b. (cooperate) (compete)
Prisoner A Stays Silent Each serves 6 months Prisoner A: 10 years
(cooperate) Prisoner B: goes free
Prisoner A Betrays Prisoner A: goes free Each serves 5 years
(compete) Prisoner B: 10 years
i. Best outcome is for both to cooperate (stay silent)
ii. Don’t trust partner, so assume he/she will compete
iii. Your best outcome is to compete
iv. In lab, most begin by competing – lack trust
v. Those who cooperate are often exploited
vi. If you cooperate with competitor, begin to compete
vii. Problem is that neither trust one another, both compete, becomes self-fulfilling prophecy
viii. Best strategy
a. tit-for-tat strategy
- begin with cooperation
- match partner’s choices
- shows willingness to cooperate without being exploited
7. Negotiation
- Form of communication in which people attempt to resolve conflict with offers and counter-offers
- Dilemma – people assume this is a zero-sum game where one person’s gain is another person’s loss (*g. athletic contests, playing cards)
8. Alternatives to positional bargaining
- Separate the people from the problem
- Focus on interests, not positions
- Generate a variety of options
- Try to make success of result based on objective standard
9. Integrative solutions
- Expanding the pie: enlarge resources (take 2 vacations)
- Nonspecific compensation (pay extra money, even if not related to problem)
- Logrolling (mom picks flowers, you pick location)
i. concede issues of low priority to self and high priority to other
- Cost-cutting (husband commutes longer but gets new car)
i. you get what you want but cut the other person’s costs
- Bridging (beach for swimming vs mountain for fishing -> lake for both!)
i. generate a new solution that bridges interests
ii. not just compromise of positions, but rather takes issues into account
- Definitely potential question on this: most likely will present a problem and you will have to come up with solution using bridging and maybe also other methods
10. Social Dilemma/Commons Dilemma
- Mixed-motive conflict
- What is good for the individual is bad for the group
- Occurs with any shared or limited resource (the “commons”)
- Examples
i. Class example! Everyone gets a cookie if 80% agree to taking a store-bought cookie
ii. Littering, taking short showers, public transportation
- Rationalize behavior with actor/observer effect
11. Solutions to Commons dilemma
- Make the cost concrete, vivid (*g. weather stripping example – show effect it makes concretely)
- Monitor consumption
- Make behavior public
- Cognitive dissonance theory
i. Hypocrisy technique
- Make people aware of norms – create a norm
i. *g. remove all litter – better yet, leave 1 piece
ii. Injunctive norms: perception of what people should do
iii. Descriptive norms: perception of what people actually do
- Modeling
g. Coercion/ regulations
- Increase communication
i. Change the payoffs (increase incentives)
j. Increase competition for socially appropriate behavior
10/28 – Psychology and Law ch 16
1. Eyewitness Testimony
2. Basic research on perception and memory
- Perception: sensory inputs transformed and organized into meaningful experiences
- Memory: inputs stored in the brain
i. Not accurate like a videotape
ii. Perception is not just sensation, but involves cognitive processes (interpretation)
- Why is eyewitness testimony important to study?
i. Courts rely heavily upon it
ii. Psychologists find it to be unreliable
a. *g. Loftus 1974: circumstantial evidence (18%), cir* + witness (72%), circ + witness discredited (68%)
iii. Can’t discern accurate from inaccurate witness
iv. No relation between confidence and accuracy
3. Accuracy of Eyewitness Testimony
- Munsterberg 1908 – class demo
i. 26%-80% of statements inaccurate, more mistakes during second half (after gun went off)
ii. 1970s noted increase in mistaken identifications
iii. Buckhout (1975) -12 sec mugging shown on TV
a. 6 person lineup, 2100 phone calls 14.1% correct, 60% false alarm
4. 3 Stages of Memory
- Acquisition (encoding)
- Storage (retention )
- Retrieval (recovery)
5. Acquisition
- Event characteristics
i. Frequency of exposure
ii. Prior exposure
iii. Length of exposure
iv. Salience of the event v. Complexity of the event
a. greater complexity -> greater inaccuracies
b. greater complexity -> greater recognition
vi. Stressfulness of the event/involves violence
- Witness characteristics
i. Expectations (personal biases, stereotypes)
a. people see white man with razor next to black man, but remember black man with razor
ii. Desire to be part of history (people claim to be witness but not true)
iii. Economical perception ( cognitive limitations on how much you can encode at once)
iv. Weapon focus
a. people saw weapon -> recalled weapon but not id of perp
b. people saw pen -> recalled id of perp, but not pen
v. Stress (product of environment and person)
a. *g. participants shown film with and without snake nearby, better memory without snake
vi. Arousal
a. arousal increases dominant response
- helps simple task
- hurts complex task
6. Storage
- Forgetting
- Reconstructive Memory
i. Interference of new info with stored info
ii. *g., Loftus studies – wording (how fast was car going when “ran stop sign” vs “turned right”?)
iii. *g., Loftus & Green 1980 – witness exposed to another witness who falsely report mustache
iv. If consistent info introduced, memory enhanced
v. If inconsistent info introduced, memory impaired
vi. New info has strongest effect after a long time
7. Retrieval
- Manner in which questions are asked
i. Free reports (most accurate, least complete)
ii. Objective questions (“what is their height?”)
iii. Subjective questions (most compete, least accurate) (“how tall are they?”)
- Status of interrogator
i. Not desirable to voice uncertainty
ii. Info reported early on will persist
a. public commitment
b. self-perception theory
- Central vs Peripheral information
i. Inverse relationship: better memory for central -> worse memory for peripheral (and vice versa)
a. *g., kids who got shot remember nurse but not toys, sticker kids remember toys not nurse
- Unconscious transference (confuse contexts)
i. *g., Buckhout staged mock assault – 40% correct, 33% of incorrect ID’ed innocent bystander
ii. Similar to source monitoring in book
- Line-ups
i. All photos should correspond with description
ii. Witness told suspect may or may not be in line-up, include line-up without suspect
iii. Present suspects sequentially (not at the same time)
iv. Person conducting line-up doesn’t know which person is suspect
8. Optimal conditions for memory
- Warning of a memory test
- Moderate stress
- Familiarity with target
- Good lighting conditions
- Long exposure
- Consistent info provided during retention
g. Short retention interval
- Free-recall, followed by objective questions
9. Jury Research
- Jury biases
i. More lenient to physically attractive, higher SES, similar (race, gender, attitudes)
ii. Defensive attribution – when misfortune strikes similar others, we feel threatened – so increase blame
iii. Juror bias more important when facts of case are ambiguous
- Jury instructions
i. Difficult to comprehend
ii. Early better than late – but usually late
iii. Instruction to ignore info is ignored
- Voir dire
i. More likely to have an effect in ambiguous cases
ii. “death-qualified” juries are more conviction prone
- Decision-making in juries
i. 1st ballot predicts 90% of verdicts
ii. when majority doesn’t prevail , shift to acquittal
iii. group polarization
iv. normative influence
v. informational influence
vi. biases less of an effect after deliberation
- jury size
i. 6 vs 12
a. 6 are less representative than 12
b. 6 are more conviction prone than 12
- 1 of 6 is less viable than 2 of 12 (recall unanimous for conviction)
List of topics from book not covered in class
The self
- Reasons-generated attitude change
Conformity
- Contagion & psychogenic illness
- Social influence and women's/men's body image (pp. 246-250)
- Injunctive and descriptive social norms
Group processes
- Leadership (pp. 293-296)
Psychology & law
- Own-race bias
- Jury processes (pp. 530-536)
- Do severe penalties deter crimes?
- Procedural justice
Leftover topics from before the last test:
Illusions from the Attribution lecture (last slide)
1. Illusions
- Unrealistic optimism :
i. Overestimate the likelihood of good things happening to you and underestimate the likelihood that bad things will happen to you
- Illusion of control:
i. Tend to believe we have more control than we really do
- Just world hypothesis:
i. Think that bad things happen to bad people and good things happen to good people
ii. Leads to “blaming the victim”
2. Is blame good?
3. Characterological vs. behavioral
11/4 Prejudice Film: A Class Divided ch 13
11/6 Prejudice (Stereotype threat) ch 13 (pp. 452-455), Aronson “Jigsaw groups”,
Steele “Thin ice: Stereotype threat”
1. Components of Attitude
- Affective – prejudice
- Cognitive – stereotype
- Behavioral – discrimination
2. Has prejudice diminished? Is it socially acceptable to be prejudice against any groups today?
3. Social Sources of Prejudice
- Ingroup bias
i. “blue eyed” “brown eyed” experiment
ii. Minimal group
- Realistic conflict theory
i. Limited resources -> conflict -> prejudice
ii. Scapegoating
- Social inequities
i. Prejudice used to justify inequality
- Conformity
i. Normative influence
ii. Informational influence
- Social learning theory
i. Rewards/punishments
ii. Modeling
- Institutional supports
4. Cognitive Sources of Prejudice
- Categorization
i. “outgroup homogeneity effect”
ii. Even if you don’t believe the stereotype, just the awareness of it may cause you to use it
a. Automatic processing (activates stereotype)
b. Controlled processing (choose to use it)
- Illusory correlation
- Self-fulfilling prophecy
- Fundamental attribution error
i. “ultimate attribution error”
- Just world hypothesis
i. Results in blaming the victim
- Stereotype threat
i. Fear of confirming stereotype interferes with performance
5. Reducing Prejudice
- Main approach has been intergroup contact
- However, contact alone is not enough…
6. 1954 Brown vs. Board of Education
- Social psychologists testified:
i. Reduce prejudice
ii. Increase self-esteem of minorities
iii. Improve academic performance of minorities
- Results
i. Children are not integrated, hang out in own groups
ii. No increase in self-esteem
iii. Some decr in prejudice of white toward black; no change in prejudice of black to white
iv. No evidence of improved academic performance
- What went wrong?
i. Need equal status contact between groups in pursuit of a common goal
ii. Enhanced if sanctioned by institutional supports
7. Reducing prejudice
- Sanction by authority (necessary but not sufficient)
- Equal status contact (teachers)
- Mutual interdependedness
- Pursuit of common goals (schools -> competition)
- Multiple contacts
- Social norms promote equality
8. Stereotype Threat – Claude Steele
- The threat of being viewed through a negative stereotype or the fear of doing something that might confirm a negative stereotype
- Disidentification – distance self from an area of life that is threatening – you will not be as distressed and feel less threatened but you’ll be less motivated to succeed
- Stereotype threat affects everyone – every group has neg stereotypes in diff domains
- NOT a result of internalizing or endorsing the negative stereotypes, low self-esteem, et*
i. Can create ST by telling white males who are good at math that Asian students usually do better
ii. Their performance will be worse even though there is no reason for self doubt
- ST happens when:
i. You care about the domain
ii. You believe real ability is being tested
a. Stronger students affected more than weaker students
b. Performance is hurt bc we try too hard, not bc we don’t try hard enough
- How do you avoid it?
- Must feel test is fair to their group and that they will not be judged stereotypically
- Jigsaw Experiment (Aronson et al)
i. Goal: create interdependent learning environment
ii. Results
a. Increased liking for group members, increased self esteem
b. Negative stereotypes diminished, no effect on majority, minorities improved
iii. Why did it work?
a. Increased active participation, increased empathy, Fund Attr Err diminished, outgroup became ingroup, equal status contact
11/11 Aggression ch 12
1. Types of aggression
- Instrumental aggression – means to an end
- Angry/hostile aggression – goal is to hurt the person (physical or verbal)
- Passive aggression – keep someone from achieving their goal
- Relational aggression – threatening someone with a relationship (won’t be their friend)
2. Theories of aggression
- Aggression Instinct
i. Hydraulic theory
ii. No support for catharsis (get it out of system through acts such as yelling at a football game)
a. Watching aggression increases hostility
b. Expressing aggression increases aggression
c. Feeling better does not mean you are less hostile (often derogative victim – CD theory)
iii. Theory can be circular
- Biological Influences
i. Center in the brain (amygdala) ii. Heredity
a. XYY chromosome in prison populations
iii. Male sex
a. Different kinds of aggression
b. Sex differences reduced when provoked
c. Men also more likely to be victims
iv. Testosterone
a. Prison studies:
- Higher in prisoners who commit violent crimes than non-violent
- Related to violation of prison rules
2. Limits of correlational research
- Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
i. Aggression depends on:
a. Ability to retaliate/fear of retaliation
b. Frustration is understandable
c. Provocation is intentional
d. Aggression will achieve goal
ii. Relative deprivation – expect vs attain (how frustrated you are based on expectations)
iii. Problem is increasing expectation
a. Due to:
b. Adaptation-level phenomenon
c. Compare upward
- Social Influences
i. Social Learning Theory
a. Rewards/punishments
b. Modeling
c. Grow up in violent home
d. Abuse alters “information processing”
e. Peer influence – reinforce and model
- Proactive aggression – planned, socially motivated (does not lead to social isolation, incr popularity)
- Reactive aggression – angry response to threat (leads to lack of peer relationships)
ii. Aggressive stimulus
a. NRA: “guns don’t kill people, people do”
b. Social psych: “guns kill people”
iii. Other social influences
a. Alcohol – increases aggression only if provoked
b. Heat – increases aggr. Only if provoked
c. Publicized acts of aggression (televised execution)
d. Pornography (if aggressive)
3. Television and Aggression
- People watch a lot of TV (ages 2-17 watch 25 hrs per week)(1 in 5 kids watch 44+ hrs)
- A lot of aggression on TV
i. 28%of children’s programs have 4 or more acts of violence
ii. Majority of violence goes unpunished
iii. Nearly 50% violence is in cartoons
- 1972 report by Surgeon General
4. How do we study TV-Aggression link?
- Laboratory studies
- Field studies (longitudinal)
- Conclusions:
i. Watching violence leads to aggression
ii. Aggressive individuals more likely to watch TV (esp violence)
iii. Aggressive individual more prone to effects of violent TV (person * situation interaction)
5. Explanations for the link between TV and violence
- Observational learning (esp if rewarded)
- Attitude change (cognitive change)
i. increase tolerance for aggression
ii. view violence as acceptable (overestimate crime in America)
- Desensitization (emotional change)
i. Less physiological arousal to violence
- Priming (immediate effect)
i. Aggression becomes salient
- Justification (for own aggressive behavior)
- Social isolation
6. Gender and Aggression
- Men more likely to be perpetrators
i. Depends on kind of aggression
a. Physical: Male > Female
b. Relational aggression: Female > Male
ii. Depends on lab or field
a. Verbal: Male > Female in lab; no sex diff in field
- Situational factors
i. Provocation : sex diff decrease
ii. Arousal:
a. Low: sex diff decrease
b. High: sex diff decrease
c. Medium: largest sex diff
iii. Fear of retaliation: sex diff increase
- Men more likely to be victims
i. 2004 homicides: 65% male perp and male victim
a. Men 10 times more likely than female to commit murder
b. Men 4 times more likely than female to be victim of murder
c. Both men and women kill men more than women
7. Reducing Aggression
- Punishment
i. Modeling behavior you are trying to extinguish
ii. Threat of mild punishment more effective (CD theory)
iii. Effective if immediate and certain (neither present in death penalty)
- Reducing antecedents
i. Frustration
ii. Model non-aggressive behavior
iii. Reduce availability of handguns
- Teach ways to control expression
i. How to communicate anger
ii. Increase empathy
11/13 Prosocial Behavior ch 11
1. Prosocial Behavior: Helping behavior, regardless of person’s motives
2. Altruism: Helping behavior without the receipt of benefits
- Does altruism really exist?
3. When will people help?
- In Class Experiment! -> Ambiguity effect
i. Presented with a scenario about an electrician. Information was either clear (saw electrician collapse) or ambiguous (thought you heard a shout).
ii. Two groups equally likely to enter room, but you were more likely to call for help if the information was clear.
- Presence of other people (# of bystanders)
i. “Bystander Effect” – Latane & Darley
a. Alone 50% in 2 min, 2 others 12%
b. Decision tree: notice the event? -> Interpret the event as an emergency? -> Assume responsibility -> Know how to help? -> Decide whether to help (weigh costs)
- Environmental conditions
i. Weather
ii. Urban vs rural
a. “urban overload” hypothesis
- If you’re a stranger, you will get more help in rural
- But if you know someone, they will help you in rural or urban
- Characteristics of the helper
i. Gender
a. Interacts with situation: women more likely to help people they know, men more likely to help strangers
b. Related to empathy
ii. Culture
a. Interdependent-> more likely to help ingroup, less likely to help outgroup
iii. Good mood
a. Increases helping (short lived)
b. Isen and Levine’s (1972) dime exp: 84% helped with dime, 4% helped w/o
iv. Why does positive mood increase helping?
a. More positive view of world/others
b. Prolongs positive mood
c. Increases self-attention which leads to behaving according to values
v. Bad Mood
a. Guilt -> increases helping even if unrelated
b. Other bad moods -> negative state relief hypothesis
- Depends upon the nature of the mood
- No helping if it leads to self-preoccupation
- Doesn’t work with kids bc helping not rewarding yet
vi. Characteristics of the recipient
a. Help those we like (physically attr, similar)
b. Help those who deserve help
- Depends on attribution of their need for help (internal, cntl -> no help; external, no cntl -> help)
c. Gender
- Men help women but not men, women help both
vii. Time pressures
a. Darley & Batson (1973) seminary student exp: on way to tell good Samaritan story
b. 50% told to hurry, 50% not
c. Man slumped in doorway
d. 10% hurry helped, 64% not in hurry helped
e. Time pressure may lead to less notice of event, but some people always hurry
4. Theories of Altruism
- Evolutionary theory
i. Helping others contributes to survival of genes
ii. Hypothesis: we help those who are most genetically related to us
a. Family more than relatives more than strangers
b. Healthy more than unhealthy offspring
c. Mothers help children more than fathers (9 month investment, certain the baby is theirs, women have finite # children, men can have many)
d. Parents help children, children don’t help parents
iii. But can’t explain helping strangers
- Social norms
i. Societies evolved norms to overcome bias toward self bc adaptive for society
ii. Norm of social responsibility (help others who depend on us)
iii. Norm of reciprocity ( help those who help us)
- Social Learning Theory
i. Modeling
ii. Reinforcement
a. Concern with overjustification effect -> make sure reward is small
- Social Exchange Theory
i. Behavior is aimed at maximizing rewards and minimizing costs
a. Potential rewards: self-esteem, reciprocity, money, people see you
b. Potential costs: embarrassed, time conflict, monetary/physical costs
ii. Challenges view that altruism exists if there are always rewards
- Empathy/Altruism Hypothesis
i. Altruism occurs when we empathize with another
a. If empathy -> don’t consider benefits and costs
b. If no empathy -> consider benefits and costs
ii. Batson et al (1981) experiment (in book)
a. Participant gives shocks to confederate
b. Manipulated empathy (similar/dissimilar to confed)
c. DV: asked if trade places with confed
d. Manipulated cost of not helping: (High – watch all trials)(Low – watch 2)
e. Low costs: High empathy >>> Low empathy
f. Low cost: High empathy > Low empathy
5. Promoting altruism
- Increase feelings of personal responsibility
- Increase self awareness
- Increase guilt (make aware of prior sin)
- Compliance techniques
- Modeling
- Help attribute altruism to intrinsic rather than extrinsic
- Stop giving rewards
- Teach about bystander effect
i. Increase good mood
6. Receiving help
- Are we always happy to receive help?
- Why not?
i. Psychological reactance (threatens independence)
ii. Exchange theory (norm of reciprocity -> creates feeling of indebtedness
iii. Attribution theory (may threaten self esteem – means that we need help)
a. If attribute need to external -> accept help
b. If attribute need to internal -> reject help
11/18 Emotion ch 4 (pp 93-101); ch 5 (143-145),
Schacter & Singer “The self: Perceiving and” 1. Emotion
- “An inferred complex sequence of reactions to a stimulus including cognitive evaluations, subjective changes, autonomic and neural arousal, impulses to action, and behavior designed to have an effect upon the stimulus that initiated the complex sequence”
i. Inferred, not observed – you can feel your own but not others’ emotions
ii. Reactions to a stimulus (as opposed to a mood or disposition)
- A,b,c: affect (feeling), behavior, cognition
i. Fear
a. affect: physical sensation
b. cognition: knowledge that there may be harm
c. behavior: flee
ii. All three are NOT always necessary
- Emotions are functional/useful – often guide our behavior
2. Theories of Emotion
- James-Lange Theory
i. The bodily changes follow directly the perception of the exciting fact, and our feeling of the same changes as they occur is the emotion.
ii. Event -> Action -> Emotional Feeling (perception of action)
a. *g. notice yourself attacking someone -> feel angry
iii. Similar to self-perception theory
iv. Physiological sensation necessary for emotion
v. Theory more applicable to the feeling part of emotion, not cognition
vi. Later clarified that there is a cognitive appraisal that comes between the event and the action
vii. Supported by “facial feedback hypothesis”
a. feel emotion in response to facial expression
b. hold pencil with teeth or lips – red comics – rate funniness
c. more when held with teeth (smiling), less when held with lips (frown) viii. Criticisms of James-Lange theory
a. same bodily changes occur with many emotions
- SNS activation
- Ekman trying to tie distinct physiology to emotions
b. Bodily changes not enough to produce an emotion
c. Emotions occur faster than bodily changes
- Canon-Bard Theory
i. Event independently leads to
a. Appraisal (Cognition)
b. Action (Behavior and physiology)
c. Feelings (Affect)
ii. Emphasizes the cognitive aspect of emotion
iii. Cognitive experience of emotion is independent of arousal and actions but they occur at the same time
iv. Feeling doesn’t lead to behavior and behavior doesn’t lead to feeling
v. Response of body too slow to cause feelings/emotions
vi. Criticisms
a. can have immediate physiological response which can lead to emotion (fear stimuli)
b. hard to believe that actions, feelings, and physiology are independent
- Schacter’s Two-Factor Theory
i. Emotion depends on:
a. Physiological arousal
b. Cognitive interpretation (label)
ii. If aroused and don’t know why, search environment
iii. If aroused and know why, don’t search environment
iv. If no arousal, interpretation is not enough
v. Schacter and Singer 1963
a. Participants given NE which causes arousal, told it is a vitamin
b. Conditions: misinformed (told it affects vision), informed (told it increases arousal), uninformed (not told anything), control (given placebo)
c. Left alone with confederate who acted happy or angry
d. Results:
- Left with Happy person: misinformed and uninformed had greater euphoria than informed
- Left with Angry person: uninformed greater anger than informed and placebo
e. When aroused for no reason, adopt emotion of confederate to explain arousal
3. Misattribution of arousal
- Dutton & Aron Bridge Experiment
i. Woman experimenter asked men to write TAT stories after crossing scary bridge or not-scary bridge
ii. Scary bridge men wrote stories with more sexual imagery, more likely to call experimenter for results
iii. Potential confound! – maybe certain types of men cross scary bridge
iv. Follow-up study – asked men right after crossing bridge or after they rested
a. still found result (randomly assigned)
v. Transferred Excitation: arousal from one experience carries over to an independent situation
- Crucian et al 2000
i. Men rated women in Sports Illustrated on attractiveness
ii. Heard sounds and told it was heartbeat or random sounds (control cond)
iii. Men told it was their heartbeat rated women as more attractive when sounds played faster
4. What are the emotions?
- Primary (basic) vs. secondary
i. Basic emotion decision criteria
a. Universal (i.* across cultures)
b. Serve some kind of function (precipitated by something)
c. Evident early in life (babies)
d. Have a built-in way of expressing it (unique facial expression)(even in blind people)
ii. Basic emotions: fear, anger, sadness, happiness, disgust, surprise
iii. Cultural blends : hurt (sadness+anger), sympathy (sadness+love), jealousy (anger+love)
- Dimensional Approach
i. Arousal on one scale and valence (positive or negative) on other scale
ii. Participants rated how similar each emotion was to every other emotion, put on scale
- Prototypes of emotion -> handout
i. Hierarchy of emotion:
a. superordinate (positive emotions), basic (happiness), subordinate (pride)
ii. Basic level:
a. learned first during language acquisition
b. accessed most quickly
c. convey more than subordinate category
d. better than superordinate category in identifying major categorical distinctions
iii. Shaver et al.’s Prototypes of emotion: -> handout
a. antecedents
- i.* loss of a valued relationship
b. responses (physiological, cognitive , behavioral)
- withdrawing from social contact
c. self-control procedures (if negative)
- suppress negative feelings, try to act happy
5. Gender and Emotion
- Experience emotion
i. Self-report: F>M
ii. On-line measures: no sex difference
iii. Why? – males suppress emotion (demand char) which interferes with memory
- Express emotion
i. F express more than M (self-report and observational data)
a. except anger
- F express to non-target > target (i.* go complain to a friend)
- M express to target > non-target (i.* yell at person who made you mad)
- Physiological arousal
i. No sex difference or M > F
11/20 Attraction ch 10 (pp 305-321, 332-341), ch 5 (pp 145-148)
1. Variables that influence Attraction
- Proximity – functional distance (paths cross more often) - more opportunities, less effort
- Similarity – like to do same things, validation of own views
i. What about Opposites Attracting
a. “Romeo & Juliet” effect – psychological reactance
b. seem different, but are actually similar on issues important to them
c. illusory correlation
d. people change to become more similar to each other after time
- Reciprocal liking – if you know someone likes you, you tend to like them
- Physical Attractiveness
i. Why?
a. evolutionary theory -> health, social status, rewarding, attractiveness is correlated with positive personality traits
ii. Downsides?
a. people overlook your personality traits -> less time to develop them
b. people don’t give you credit, assume accomplishments due to attractiveness
iii. Experiment
a. Study 1: computer chooses date, what is the best predictor of liking of date?
- Men preferred attractive date – no fear of rejection bc computer matched you up
b. Study 2: you choose date
- Happier with similarly attractive date
iv. Contrast effect
a. unattractive older man (resource=$) and young attractive woman (resource = attractiveness) – not as common as you think
2. Theories of Attraction
- Heider’s Balance Theory
i. Balanced triangle: Person, Other, Object
ii. Supported more when person likes other than when person dislikes other
- Cognitive Dissonance Theory
i. Aronson & Mills (1959) sorority initiation
a. Severe: read sexually explicit passages -> want to join the sorority more
b. Mild: read benign info
ii. Helping increases liking, hurting increases disliking
- Reinforcement Theory
i. Accounts for similarity effect
ii. Accounts for attractiveness effect
iii. Even consistency is rewarding
- Exchange Theory (a kind of reinforcement theory)
i. Rewards: attention, good mood, support, sex
ii. Costs: time, money, hurt other relationships
iii. Comparison level (perception of what you deserve)
iv. Investments: time, children, money
v. Comparison level for alternatives: new partner, new place to live
vi. Rusbult’s investment model of relationships
- Equity Theory – adds the notion of fairness
i. Equity -> person gets out proportionally what she/he puts in
ii. Perception is important
iii. Underbenefited or overbenefited unhappy
iv. Overbenefited ok according to social exchange theory
v. Are we always concerned with equity?
a. exchange relationships – governed by equity norm (acquaintances)
b. communal relationships – not governed by equity (at least in short term)
3. Clark & Mills 1979 Experiment: a benefit given in response to a benefit should incr attraction in an exchange relationship but not in a communal relationship
- Make subjects, attractive female confederate
- Manipulation of benefit: female gave points or said thanks
- Manipulation of relationship: female married or new to school
- Interaction: increased liking for Ben+Exchange or for No Ben+Commun
4. Clark & Mills Experiment 2
- Relationship manipulation
- Confed gave help or not and asked for help or not
- Exchange rel: increased attr for Help+Request, or No Help+No Req
- Communal: incr attr for Help+NoRequest, decreased attr: Help+Req
11/25 Attachment and Love ch 10 (pp 321-332)
1. Different Views of Love
- Passionate vs Compassionate
- Typology
- Components
- Evolutionary Psychology
- Attachment process
2. How is love different from liking?
- Quantitative
- Qualitative – passage of time, reinforcement theory applies more to liking than love
3. Passionate vs Companionate Love
4. Lee’s Styles of Love
- Eros – romantic love (M>>>F)
- Ludus – game-playing love (M>F)
- Storge – friendship love
- Mania – possessive, dependent love (F>M)
- Pragma – logical, “shopping list” love (F>>>M)
- Agape – all giving, selfless love
5. Sternberf’s Triangular Theory of Love
- Intimacy – feelings of closeness, connection (emotional)
- Passion – arousal, physical attraction (behavioral)
- Commitment – decision to love, to maintain relationship (cognitive)
- Different types of love for different combinations of the three
i. All 3 = consummate love
6. Evolutionary Psychology
- Behavior aimed at maximizing reproductive success
- Leads to sex differences in mate selection and jealousy
i. Mate selection
a. Men prefer physically attractive women
b. Women prefer men with financial resources
c. Study: Trait preferences among men and women
ii. Jealousy
a. Men provoked by women having sex with men (undermines paternity)
b. Women provoked by men spending time with women (lose resources)
c. Mate diff in jealousy experiment – distress at emotional vs sexual infidelity
- Distress: Women Emot > Men Emot < Men Sex > Women Sex
d. Harris & Christenfeld Study 1996
- Above differences due to different assumptions
- Women link sex with love, Men separate sex from love, Mates know this
7. Attachment Theory
- Infant-caretaker attachment -> relationship attachment
- Infant-caretaker attachment styles: Secure, Avoidant, Anxious/Ambivalent
- Love-subscale Means for the Three Attachment types ( Newspaper Sample)
i. Secure Attachment Style: get along well with others, easy to trust people, longer and more satisfying relationships, less likely to get divorce, etc.
ii. Avoidant: conflict and dissatisfaction with peers, hostile, socially isolated, idealized descriptions of childhood, difficulty trusting others
iii. Anxious: Greater self doubt, find others less willing to commit, impulsive, fearful, tense, too eager to self-disclose, too demanding of relationships, lonely
- Attachment and Caregiving
i. Collins and Feeney 2004
a. couples in lab, manipulate supportiveness by writing positive or negative notes
b. all attachment styles respond similarly to pos notes
c. avoidant and anxious respond more negatively to neg notes
12/2 Health I ch 15
1. Where did it come from? - shift in leading causes of death
2. Biomedical Model
- Still dominant model in medicine today
- Traditional medical model- relies on “germ theory” - external agents invade body, cause disease
- Mind and body are separate
3. Biopsychosocial model
- Body, mind, environment determine if one gets sick
- Disease is caused by how our bodies and minds deal with germs
- Disease results more from vulnerability than external agents
4. Stress
- Stressor -> Stress -> Stress Reaction
i. Stress = environmental demands overwhelm personal resources
- Seyle’s General Adaptation Syndrome (GAS)
i. 3 stages
a. Alarm (mobilization)
b. Resistance (coping)
c. Exhaustion (vulnerable to illness)
- How should we measure stress?
i. Objective events: summation of events, a priori assigned weights, rate impact of events, nature of stressors
ii. Subjective perception of stress (not necessarily linked to an event)
iii. Sex differences in stress?
a. Interpersonal stress: F > M
b. Non-interpersonal stress: M > F
c. Weak effects preadolescence
- How does stress affect health?
i. Stress -> ???? -> Health/Disease
- Does stress always lead to illness?
5. Resistance Factors
- Hardiness
i. Commitment: tendency to involve oneself in whatever one encounters
ii. Challenge: willing to undertake change, confront new things as opportunities for growth
iii. Control: belief one causes events that one can influence the environment
iv. Mechanisms?
- Control
i. Perception one has influence over what happens to self
a. Information control ( preparation after surgery)
b. Decision control (choice of treatments)
c. Behavioral control (nursing home study, headphone study)
ii. Perception of control is important
iii. Mechanisms?
iv. Are there limits to the adaptiveness of perceived control?
- Optimism
i. Generalized expectancy that good things will happen
a. college students: optimism -> fewer phys symp
b. bypass surgery: optimism -> fewer perioperative MIs and faster recovery
- Coping
i. What are some strategies?
ii. Problem focused vs emotion focused
a. problem focused – attempt to alter the problem
b. emotion focused – manage emotions from the problem
c. Which is more adaptive? Under which circumstances?
6. Vulnerability Factors
- Type A behavior pattern
i. Type A -> more heart disease
ii. Cynical hostility is the toxic component
- Pessimistic Attributional Style
i. Internal, stable, global attributions for failure
a. baseball players who don’t take credit for win -> earlier death
b. Harvard grads
- SKIPPED male gender role, female gender role
- Social Support (vulnerability or resistance or both!)
i. Marital status, social ties predict mortality
ii. Study of Japanese living in Japan, Hawaii, and California
12/4 Health II Taylor “Adjustment to threatening events”
1. Self & World Assumptions
- Self is good (self-serving biases)
i. See self as better than average, credit for success/blame others for failure
- World is meaningful/comprehensible place
i. Just World Hypothesis – good things happen to good people/ bad things to bad people
- World is controllable/ self has control
i. Overestimate control over chance events
ii. Part of reason we blame others for failure (fund attr error)
iii. One is vulnerable (optimistic bias)
- Trauma threatens these assumptions
i. Self is victim
ii. Doesn’t make sense that something bad happened to me
iii. Trauma often uncontrollable, not preventable
iv. Trauma is a negative event, unexpected
2. Cognitive Adaptation Theory (Taylor 1983)
- Restore assumptions
i. Self-esteem
a. self-enhancing social comparisons (downward comparison)
b. denial of impact (not illness) [minimization]
ii. Control
a. perceive control over subsequent events
- Is this always adaptive? – match between person and situation
iii. Optimism
a. understand likelihood of recurrence
b. Is this always adaptive? +coping, - risks
iv. Find meaning in trauma
a. locate cause
b. perceive benefits
- These are illusions/cognitive distortions – vulnerable to disconfirmation!
i. Identify cause and you are wrong
ii. Take control and it doesn’t work
iii. Don’t believe it will happen and it does
- What do the data say?
i. Self-enhancing social comparisons, denial of impact, perceived control, optimism -> positive adjustment to illness
a. also predict future cardiac events
- Effects of disconfirmation?
i. Still predict good adjustment, even in face of a setback
ii. People change their beliefs to fit the outcome (estimate of odds of recurrence)
Topics in book that were not covered in class:
1. steps in dissolving close relationships (p. 336-337)
2. altruistic personality
3. cultural differences in prosocial behavior
4. effect of war on aggression
5. justification-suppression model of prejudice
6. display rules and emblems (p. 97)
7. sex differences in coping with stress
Vicki’s Review Topics from Sections I and II of Course
1. commons dilemma
2. mirror-image perceptions
3. actor/observer effect
4. cognitive dissonance (including insufficient justification & post-decisional dissonance)
5. self-perception theory
6. overjustification effect
7. psychological reactance
8. fundamental attribution error
9. self-serving biases (espec #1 on the list & self-handicapping)
10. informational and normative influence
11. 3 compliance techniques (foot-in-door; door-in-face; low-balling)
12. Yerkes-Dodson law (applications to eyewitness testimony, social facilitation)
13. internal vs. external validity
14. gender aschematicity and androgyny
15. illusory correlation
16. base rate fallacy
17. 3 heuristics
18. social facilitation
19. group polarization
20. self-evaluation maintenance theory
21. deindividuation
22. 6 bases of social power
23. groupthink
24. goals of /motives for social comparison
25. balance theory
26. stereotype threat