Social Psychology Study Guide

Hey guys! I stopped the doc from being able to be edited, since the first section is about to take the exam. This ensures that there’s no “academic dishonesty,” since I would be liable because I created the doc. Thanks to everyone who contributed, and good luck!

Flashcards! http://quizlet.com/8735315/compilation-of-221-final-flashcards-flash-cards/

you guys are incredible. thank you.
,
Here is the website for the textbook, it has flashcards and crossword puzzles. I think it’ll be a lot more easier to use this than to create our own. http://www.wadsworth.com/cgi-wadsworth/course_products_wp.pl?fid=M20b&product_isbn_issn=9780495601333&token= 1) Science of Social Psychology- Chapter 1

● The basics - what is psychology designed to do? What are social psychologists interested in studying? ○ Social psychology is the study of how we affect and are affected by others. ○ It is designed to make sense of the diversity of human behavior and the social world ○ Interested in how social factors influence Affect, Behavior, Cognition (ABC Triad) ■ Affect: how people feel inside. How they feel about themselves, others, and various issues. ■ Behavior: What people do, their actions ■ Cognition: What people think about. What they think about themselves, others and various problems ○ Social psychologists are interested in how these three themes are affected by personal and situational forces, although they primarily focus on situation. ■ Focus on situational factors that one may not even be aware of. ● Research vs lay-theories/folk-theories-myth: catharsis decreases aggression ○ Social psychologists takes ideas that everyone assumes to be true and find out what is really true. ○ Lay Theories/Philosophy: love of wisdom ■ Similar concepts/definitions to psychology ■ Psychology is separated from philosophy because of psychology’s heavy reliance on the scientific method ■ Common wisdom or folk theories allow us to happily judge adages as being true and at the same time judge their opposites to be true: ■ Ex: fear is stronger than love. love is stronger than fear ○ Research involves the Scientific Method ● Theoretical perspective - power of situation/momentary effects ○ Stroop Task- words that spell out a color but is shaded with a different color ○ Priming: “spreading activation” planting or spreading an idea in someone’s mind; Automatic ~embedded words, memory, facilitation, personality and brands ○ Semantic Priming- study of meaning, words, phrases facilitate responses to other words “fear snake” effects are always relative ○ Schema: cognitive structures representing ideas in the mind Schema:Mind :: Neuron: Brain ■ Characteristics Schemata: exist in both Conscious/Rational and Automatic/Associative mind. Dynamic (at first); stable & resistant to change when formed) ■ Types of Schemata: concept, specific person, group (stereotypes), self (fluctuates across situations), event (stand alone), procedure/scripts ○ Scripts: an enduring cognitive structure summarizing commonalities; “restaurant script” ■ knowledge base; facilitates communication/cooperation; manifest in behaviors and narratives ● Theories vs phenomena- phenomena is what something is or what an affect is and theories are a symbolic representation of reality; accounts for why something is. ● Validity (internal vs external)- internal: control over variables and validity of measures/tests. external: generalizable ● Correlation vs causation- measures variables to see if they are related. Cause of one variable could correlate with another. correlation does NOT equal causation ● Methods for studying behavior/mental processes/physical processes- surveys, observation (jane gooddall) ○ Meta-analysis: quantitative literature review that combines the statistical results from all studies on a particular topic ○ Field Experiment: manipulate IV in a real-world setting ○ Observational study: pure real-world environment, no control. need good coding, difficult to achieve. ○ Surveys: questionnaire, time-efficient, a lot of data. self-report biases (social desirability) and accuracy of behavior. ○ Experience-sampling: gather data on behavior as it happens, journal ○ Simulation: put people into roles, see how they behave ○ Physiological measurement: fMRI, EEG

2) Social Cognition- Chapter 5 ● Conscious vs automatic mind (also called ‘rational’ and ‘associative’) ○ conscious: ■ slow ■ reasoning ■ effortful ■ flexible ■ controllable ○ automatic: ■ fast ■ effortless ■ unintentional ■ stubborn/stable ■ evaluations based on gut instinct ● automaticity- most psychological processes occur automatically ○ not necessarily outside of awareness, but outside of conscious control ○ ~5% of behaviors governed by conscious control ○ supported by different theoretical perspectives ● priming (‘spreading activation of related mental nodes’) ○ priming activates related concepts/ideas in the mind’s network (automatic, uncontrollable) ○ used by psychologists to examine associations within mental networks and how they affect responses and behavior. ● affective vs semantic priming ○ affective: evaluative network (categorize words “snake” and “garden” as good or bad) ○ semantic: facts ■ The Prime and the target are in the same semantic category and share features. Ex. “dog” will prime “wolf”
Schemas : cognitive structures representing ideas in the mind, exists in conscious and unconscious mind, dynamic, stable, and resistant to change. ○ Types of schemas- ■ concepts ■ specific person ■ group (stereotypes) ■ self (fluctuates across situations) ■ events ■ procedure (scripts; restaurant script) ○ stability over time, impact behavior, thoughts, emotional response ■ dynamic at first → stable and resistant to change when formed ○ impact on person perception, impression, how to behave in certain situations ■ behave certain ways because it’s how you expect it to go

● behavioral confirmation (self-fulfilling prophesy) ○ male-female phone conversation. male shown photo of attractive or unattractive woman: men who thought partner was attractive, behaved more warmly/flirtatiously, rated partners as warmer/more attractive ○ natural observers listened to just the woman’s half of the conversation without receiving a picture, and rated women as more attractive, warmer, likable if they were talking to a man who believed she was more attractive ■ men’s expectation influenced women’s mannerisms/behavior ○ Self-fulfilling prophesy: a prediction that ensures, by the behavior it generates, that it will come true ■ First, the person believes that a certain event will happen in the future. Then, this expectation/prophesy leads to a new behavior that the person would not have engaged in without the expectation. Third, the expectation takes place and prophesy is fulfilled. ● Ex: In an experiment conducted, a teacher was told that certain students in class were smarter and would do better in the class. The teacher gave those students more attention which resulted in them doing better in the class. ● chameleon effect-we are more likely to shake our feet/cross our arms if the people we’re with are doing the same thing. We basically mimic the behavior of others; this increases likability if mimic other person ● color red - effects on perception-women in red rated as more attractive. also can be considered threatening(men see it as strength, masculine) bad for job interviews. ● lie detection ○ decline in ability to detect 4th/5th graders lying ○ 7th graders just as good at lying as adults ○ humans are not good at detecting lies ● Cognitive miser perspective: Don’t want to work the mind too hard ○ use of heuristics, mental shortcuts, to ease cognitive load ○ Heuristic: mental shortcuts that provide quick estimates about the likelihood of uncertain events (***don’t need to know specific heuristic labels) ■ Representativeness Heuristic: the tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the extent to which it resembles the typical case ■ Availability Heuristic: the tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind ● not influenced only by the actual frequency but also by how noticeable the event is, how recent, and whether attention was paid ● idea that planes are more dangerous/likely to crash then cars ■ Simulation Heuristic: the tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which you can imagine (or mentally simulate) it ■ Anchoring adjustment: the tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by using a starting point (anchor) and then making adjustments up or down ○ systematic errors/biases (list these/define) ■ Gambler’s Fallacy: the belief that the probability of an event is based on previous occurrences when in reality, it remains the same ● Ex: If you flip a coin ten times, and each time it landed on heads. Someone with Gambler’s Fallacy would assume that during the 11th time, the probability of heads is less likely because it occurred so many times before. In reality, it’s still a 50-50 chance for heads or tails. just as likely to have HHHHHHHH as THTHHTTH ■ Hot Hand Fallacy: the belief that a positive streak will continue ● Ex: when basketball players believe that they are on a roll during a game if they’re doing well ● confirmation bias ○ search for info that confirms one’s belief ● motivated reasoning ○ mind as a lawyer ○ we seek preferred conclusions and ignore anything that goes against our beliefs ● thought suppression ○ if you try not to think about something, you end up thinking about it more; also called ironic rebound effect (“Don’t think about elephants”-Inception) ● social comparison ○ Social Comparison: examining the difference between oneself and another person ■ Upward: people better than you ■ Downward: people worse off than you ■ Maintain Positive Illusions: ● Healthy People: overestimate their good qualities. Overestimate their perceived control over events. People are unrealistically optimistic. ● Self-Deception Strategies: mental tricks people use to help them believe things ○ Self-serving Bias: a pattern in which people claim credit for success and deny blame for failure ● positive illusions (self-serving bias)- ○ accuracy for perceiving others, but not for self ■ more accurate for perceiving others, not self (inflate perception of self) ● reducing bias is a nearly-impossible challenge ○ meditation and mindfulness help but not reduce biases completely ● metacognition/mindfulness ○ Metacognition: thinking about thinking ○ meditation - increases control over emotion. Increases positive emotion, cognitive ability, memory. Some cases it shows physical health benefits. ● attributions: the inferences people make about events in their lives. A crucial form of information processing that helps determine behavior. ○ internal vs external; stable vs unstable - ■ Internal- ability, personality, attitudes, mood, and effort. ■ External- the task, other people, or luck. ■ Stable- generally doesnt change, the outcome will be the same if you do the same behavior on another occasion. ■ Unstable- changeable, outcome will be different on another occasion ○ explanations for behavior, events, success/failure - Weiner proposed a 2 dimensional theory that combined internal/external and stable/unstable to create different attributions. ■ Internal-stable (ex: I am just really good at taking tests and that is why I aced it) ■ internal-unstable (I did well on the test because I studied hard this one time). ■ external-stable. (I did badly on the test because the tests are hard and the teachers are always unfair) ■ external-unstable. (i got lucky (external) and did well this one time (unstable)) ○ What variables increase likelihood of making an attribution?-when person is under a heavy cognitive load ○ Kelley’s Cube- according to Kelly people make attributions by using the covariation principle- for something to cause a behavior it must be present when the behavior occurs but not present when the behavior does not occur. - ○ Three types of information to make an attribution ■ Consistency-does the person usually behave this way in this situation? ■ Consensus- do others behavior similarly in the same situation? ■ Distinctiveness- does the person behave differently in different situations? ○ make an external attribution when consensus, consistency, and distinctiveness are all high. but an internal attribution when consistency is high but distinctiveness and consensus are low. ○ Fundamental Attribution Error - the tendency to make internal attributions about out-group members while making external attributions about your own group ■ Attribute someone’s mistake on a test to their own lack of studying/knowledge, but blame your own mistakes on the wording of the questions ○ Actor-Observer Bias ■ actor (themselves) → external attributions (accident car crash or failing in sport; cop is a jerk) ■ observer (other people) → internal attributions ( he must have bad luck or did something wrong to deserve that; driver is reckless) ● Easier to blame the other person because they are a “bad person” rather than to think of a situation that would cause them to act badly

3) Self/Personality- Chapter 3 ● i vs me ○ I: existential, spiritual, always with you ○ Me: self concept, physical, manifestation, changes in different situations ○ me is influenced by social effects, and I is impermeable ● self-understanding dimensions ○ Abstraction: describing yourself in abstract terms instead of purely concrete terms. Changes as we grow up. When you are young you describe yourself according to physical features. As we grow up we describe ourselves in more abstract terms (ex. child: 3’5” and brown hair; adult: impulsive, responsible). ○ socialization-parents and peers socialize us in different ways, they influence our behavior, understanding that is part of understanding the dimensions of the self ○ fluctuation-momentary differences in how situations affect our behavior, we are different in different situations ■ variability in certain social frameworks ○ real vs ideal- who we are vs. who we want and strive to be ○ social comparison- ‘looking glass self’, our social perception is bias because we gain info about ourselves from society ○ self consciousness-being aware of how we present ourselves in situations ○ self protection-leads to a lot of bias wanting to protect the ego from disturbing info ○ unconscious self -understanding (being aware) that there are parts of yourself that you cannot control (that you have an automatic part of your mind) ○ integrative self-this is a task for young adults, information you compile about yourself determines who you are, young adulthood is when self concepts are formed, young adults are looking for our identity (when young adults try to form a stable self concept) ● specific effects of self-awareness (does not equal self-consciousness) ○ sense of continuity, structure for understanding ourselves-stable over time; happier ● self-serving biases ○ self handicapping-making up excuses for yourself before hand so that if you fail, it’s not your fault ■ pulling all nighter before exam-->fail-->”I just didn’t get enough sleep” ○ basking in reflected glory-associating yourself with people who are successful so that their success is yours for example, wearing the jersey of the winning team so their glory becomes yours ○ downward comparison- comparing yourself to people who you are worse off than so you feel better about yourself ● self-verification- ○ motivation to maintain self schema despite conflicting info ● Self-expansion ○ motivation to increase self concept, want to experience new things/people ● self-presentation (esp with regard to online/internet interaction) ○ self concept is more accessible when interacting online; we’re more genuine online ● self-esteem ○ appraisal of oneself as good or bad, associated with understanding the self ○ ingredients, outcomes, costs of pursuit, mixed benefits ○ narcissism- high self esteem ○ Self-esteem as good: ■ Ego strength, more assertive, work better in groups, happy with yourself, deals with problems better, overall better mental health ○ Self-esteem as bad: ■ Lack of motivation to improve/learn

● Self-concept clarity ● benefits of adversity for self-concept, personal growth, meaning-making ○ benefit of adversity= being able to learn about yourself and have a greater self concept (learn your strengths and weaknesses) ● 3 levels of personality ○ level 1: trait (introversion, extroversion) ○ level 2: adaption (change with changing environment, ability to deal with problems) ○ level 3: the story we create for ourselves (combining traits and experience) Matching of all 3 levels is called “Vertical Coherence” ● big 5 traits (OCEAN) Openness--willingness to integrate new information (or unwilling) Conscientiousness--how organized people are (or unorganized) Extroversion--how sociable someone is (or introverted) Agreeableness--friendliness, cooperative in social situation (high or low) Neuroticism--emotional instability (or stability) ● judgments of personality from others ○ personality can be somewhat determined by behavioral residue ■ people went to people’s bedroom and picked up on: ● conscientious: clean, organized, matched contents ● openness: peripherally located, low traffic, variety of cds/books ● extraversion: colorful/decorative, noisy ● agreeableness: strong/weak odor ● no signif cues for neuroticism ● stability in personality across lifespan ○ relatively stable, very stable in short term ● role of genetics/heritability ○ 40-50% of personality determined by genes (twin studies)

4) Motivation- Chapter 4 ● intrinsic vs extrinsic motivation ○ intrinsic - don’t need any external motivation/reward for a certain task, motivated by personal enjoyment ○ extrinsic - external motivation/reward needed to complete task ● overjustification effect ○ enjoyment of a task decreases if you reward something that was intrinsically motivated. even after reward is removed, task is still less enjoyable than it was in the beginning ■ Ex. People quit playing at varsity level even though they loved it, because they didn’t want to play while being judged (took away from the fun of the sport because now doing it on a more competitive and serious level) ● self-determination: Self is determining the motivation, control over behavior (comes from “within) ○ 3 elements of self-determination: ■ Competence- capable in abilities to do something (self-efficacy) ■ Autonomy- degree to which people feel in control of their behavior ■ Relatedness- Feelings connected to other people, socially engaged ○ needs are like psychological food ○ love/work: People that want to see you succeed builds intrinsic motivation for yourself ○ dependency paradox: The degree to which you allow yourself to be dependent on others is the degree to which you can be more independent and autonomous (more independent when you are depending on people because then feel strong and gain the confidence you need) ● self-regulation (dr curtis’s guest lecture) ○ control of impulses and delay of gratification (more self-regulation) increases likelihood of success. ○ Regulate your own behavior to achieve those set goals (short and long term). ○ Delayed gratification - ability to make immediate sacrifices for later rewards. ■ Marshmallow test with toddlers - by Walter Mischel. If kids do no eat marshmallow in front of them and wait, then they will get more marshmallows. The kids that waited were shown to live a happier life. ● goals/goal completion vs process, journey ○ Joy is in the struggle, more about the process than the destination. ○ TOTE=(test-operate-test-exit) (method of problem solving)

5) attitudes/attitude change- Chapter 7 ● functions of attitudes (intra and interpersonal) ○ Value Expression: Communicate with others about our ideals, values, and aspects of the self ○ Utilitarian Function: Allowing us to figure out how we feel about a topic ○ Ego Defense: The impression we make on other people and the presentation of the self in social situations ○ Mainly used to sort things into good and bad categories; world is full of info and just figuring things out sometimes isn’t enough, interactions with others. ● attitude formation ○ learning theory - rewards/punishments (Operant Conditioning), observations/modeling (Classical Conditioning) ○ Mere Exposure ○ balance theory (POX) - idea that relationships among one person (P), the other person (O), and an attitude object (X), may be balanced or unbalanced. you want the people you like to like the things you do, and the people you hate to like the things you hate ○ social comparison - placebo effects, observation ■ When people are unsure of what they think or how they should act they socially compare and look to see what attitudes they should hold ■ direction of causality is unclear regarding whether people seek others in their social network that have similar attitudes, or whether people in the same social network influence each others’ attitudes to be similar ○ genetics- Personality and attitudes (did Twin Research) ○ mere exposure - tendency for novel stimuli to be liked more after the individual has been repeatedly exposed to them ● measuring attitudes - methods and issues/constraints (e.g., social desirability) ○ surveys, types of questions ○ other methods (IAT) ■ measures attitudes/beliefs that people are either unwilling or unable to report ○ implicit vs explicit attitudes ■ implicit - automatic and non-conscious ■ explicit - controlled/conscious evaluative responses ○ stability in measurement over time ● attitude-behavior link - it’s weak, why? ○ Reasoned Action Model - attitude-->thinking--->behavior; we need to have a strong and valid intention in order for our behaviors to last because we consciously integrate our attitude before acting (such as going to the gym, if we are not consistent in making ourselves go, we won’t make the gym a habit) ○ specificity of behavior/attitude ■ Attitudes can differ from behavior (Ex. Adolescents smoke pot because they care more about the peer groups attitudes than about their own personal attitudes towards it) ○ reasoned action model--- people have initial attitude, then reason how their behavior is acceptable based on their attitude. (make their attitude fit their behavior so they seem justified in the way they acted) ○ events, subjective norms, more/less thinking, and direct personal experience all influence link between attitudes/behavior/action ■ Norms matter more than personal attitudes Ex. Pot smoking in adolescence ■ Events: trigger both attitudes and norms Ex. cut in line at lib, ball game, bar, dmv ● depending on your location, you react differently to certain actions ○ ex: you’d react differently to someone cutting in line at a baseball game than at the dmv or library. ○ attitude strength (in contrast to valence) ■ valence- where you fall on the spectrum- positive or negative ■ strength is how positive or negative your position is (stronger attitudes are more consistent and higher linked with behavior). ● Ex. mixed views or little information on a topic will make you ambivalent ■ Strength = extremity of emotion; degree certainty vs. ambivalence ■ Increasing information/evidence: Simply having exposure to the same stimulus makes us think we know more about the topic and makes us more certain of our attitude ■ Direct Personal Experience ■ Self Interest: Motivated to act on your attitudes (ex. Kids in Michigan believed the drinking age should be lower but only those that were affected by it/were under 21 did anything to protest it) ● attitude change - learning theory (reinforcement, conditioning, modeling), balance theory, persuasion ○ Conformity → Obedience --> cognitive dissonance → Self-perception → Persuasion ● ○ classical conditioning - type of learning in which, through repeated pairings, a neutral stimulus comes to evoke conditioned response ○ operant conditioning - also called instrumental conditioning, type of learning in which people are more likely to repeat behaviors that have been rewarded and less likely to repeat behaviors that have been punished ○ social learning (observational learning, imitation, vicarious learning) - a type of learning in which people are more likely to imitate behaviors if they have seen others rewarded for performing them, and less likely if they have seen others punished ○ attitude polarization - finding that people’s attitudes become more extreme as they reflect on them ○ equilibrium theory and cognitive dissonance - what IS cognitive dissonance? ■ Cognitive Disonance- the discomfort when your behavior does not match your belief ■ ingredients necessary for cognitive dissonance to occur ● feeling of free choice in decision ● outcome/consequences tied to decision ○ Can’t be random ● minimal external justification ○ $1 vs $20 ● cannot go back and change behavior/reverse decision ■ effort justification - the finding that when people suffer or work hard or make sacrifices, they will try to convince themselves that it is worthwhile (hazing example) ■ post-decision dissonance - experienced after making a hard choice, typically reduced by increasing attractiveness of chosen alternative and decreasing attractiveness of rejected ones ■ tyranny of choice - idea that although some choice is better than none, more choice is not always better than less

6) Social influence/persuasion- Chapter 8 ● compliance - types of strategies ○ conditioning/learning theory - pair with +/- stimulus ○ capturing/disrupting attention ■ pique technique - influence technique in which one captures people’s attention, as by making a novel request ● Panhandlers asking for change, pedestrians usually ignore; if Pandhandlers try something NEW to catch attention, ie. ask for 17 cents, then pedestrians more likely to comply ■ disrupt-then-reframe - influence technique in which one disrupts critical thinking by introducing an unexpected element, then reframes message in a positive light ○ norm of reciprocity ■ “if you take care of me, i will take care of you” ■ door-in-the-face - influence based on reciprocity, in which one starts with an inflated request and then retreats to a smaller one that appears to be a concession (a concession is an offer made during a negotiation that tries to appease the interest of the other party, or make the deal more favorable to them)- also gives the person who refused the first request a chance to get rid of any guilt they may feel for saying no ■ that’s-not-all - one first makes an inflated request but, before person can answer yes or no, sweetens the deal by offering a discount or bonus ○ scarcity ■ what’s rare is valuable ■ limited-# - one tells that an item is in short supply ■ fast-approaching-deadline - one tells people an item or a price is only available for a limited time ○ commitment strategies(cognitive dissonance) ■ hazing rituals: After hazing feels more connected and part of the group, enjoys it more because trying to justify why they went through hazing and convinces themselves it was worth it ■ foot-in-the-door technique - influence technique based on commitment, in which one starts with a small request in order to gain eventual compliance with a larger one ■ low-ball technique - influence technique based on commitment, in which one first gets a person to comply with a seemingly low-cost request and only later reveals hidden additional costs--car dealership example ■ bait-and-switch - draw people in with an attractive offer that is unavailable and then switches them to a less attractive offer that is available ■ labeling - one assigns a label to an individual and then requests a favor that is consistent with the label ■ legitimization of paltry favors - requester makes a small amount of aid acceptable “every penny counts” ● Persuasion - source, message, audience ○ source of message ■ similarity, familiarity, likability, cooperativeness, no conflict of interest, authority figure, celebrity, expertise ■ source credibility - source is the individual who delivers the msg; they can be credible or not credible ● sleeper effect - finding that , over time, people separate the msg from the messenger ○ this implies that if 2 sources give a similar message, and one source is more credible than the other, at first people will think the more credible source’s message is better. over time, however, they will forget who gave the message and the less credible source’s message may be taken ● expertise - how much a source knows ● trustworthiness - whether a source will honestly tell you what he or she knows ● covert communicators - people perceived as credible sources because they are arguing against their own personally held attitudes and behaviors ■ source likability - we are persuaded by sources we like ● halo effect - assumption that because people have one desirable trait, they also possess many other ones--example: some may think an attractive person is also generous ○ the message ■ reason versus emotion ● 2 approaches in presenting a persuasive argument - cold, hard facts, or appeal to emotion ○ Central v Peripheral Routes to Persuasion** ■ stealing thunder - practice of revealing potentially incriminating evidence first to negate its impact ■ one-sided vs two-sided ● one-sided more effective when people are less educated or have already made up their minds ■ repetition ● advertisement wear-out - inattention and irritation that occurs after an audience has encountered the same ad too many times ● repetition with variation - repeating same info but in a varied format ○ audience ■ personality, motivation, distraction/fatigue, intelligence, age, moderate intelligence is most likely to be persuaded ■ intelligence ● receptivity - whether you “get” (pay attention to, understand) the message ● yielding - whether you accept the message ● for example, intelligent people w/high self-esteem may be receptive to a message, but not yield it because they’re confident in their own decision ● moderately intelligent people are easiest to persuade (that seems like it could be such an easy multiple choice question...- it was) ■ need for cognition - tendency to engage in and enjoy effort-ful thinking, analysis, and mental problem solving ■ concern about public image - messages focusing on name brands/stylish products appeal to such people, as they are often high self-monitors who want to appear cool ■ age ● impressionable years hypothesis - proposition that adolescents and young adults are more easily persuaded by their elders ■ culture ● individualistic vs collectivistic (US vs Korea) ● US likes ads that focus on person, while Korea likes ones focused on the group ■ overheard messages - if people think they are overhearing something, it is more persuasive than if they were seeing a sales pitch

7) Altruism/prosocial behavior- Chapter 9 ● obedience ○ types of social influence/power ■ authority - direct power ■ threat to reputation, stigma ■ expertise ■ charisma ○ stanley milgram experiment ■ shocks ■ participant supposed to shock someone every time they made a mistake; they could hear the person’s screams. every time participant hesitated, the experimenter would encourage him to still shock the person. ■ shows how obedience can be detrimental ■ also think of nazi germany ● conformity ○ Normative social influence- desire to fit in (asch line study example of normative social influence) ○ vs. informative social influence - desire to be correct, subjective (autokinetic effect -->three people judge light movement, conform gradually) ■ desire for consistency; schemas for group cohesion ○ variables that influence conformity ■ motivation to belong, social support for resisting, unanimity, size of group, status within group (people in the middle conform), personality ○ need for distinctiveness/uniqueness “NFU” ■ undesired mental state to think we’re like everyone else ■ personality dimension

● “pure” altruism vs. altruism with benefit - be able to describe evidence for each ○ Pure Altruism ■ Empathy- people feel bad when they see someone suffering ■ Brain activation- feels better to be cooperative, more pleasurable ○ evolutionary perspective - competition, sociobiology ■ evolutionary theories suggest that an individuals ability to reproduce largely depends on his or her position within a group ■ therefore, they need to make sure they do reciprocity and are good at helping people because they will reap social benefits that will make them more fit to reproduce ■ reciprocal altruism(expect benefit in return), kin selection(genetic advancement) ● Kin selection: parents who help children are more successful at passing on their genes ○ esteem/status gaining ■ egoistic helping - helper seeks to increase his/her own welfare/status by helping another ● logical perspective - info processing ○ reasons to not help>reasons to help(cognitive miser) ● cognitive miser perspective ● social norms guiding altruistic behavior ○ social responsibility/justice- people have social responsibility to help those in need, but also believe in a just word. social justice counters with FAE and states that those in trouble are there due to their own actions. ○ norm of reciprocity, fairness, consistency, over & under benefitting ■ reciprocity includes an obligation to return in kind what another has done for us ■ norms - standards established by society to tell its members what types of behavior are typical or expected ■ equity - each person receives benefits in proportion to what he contributes ■ equality - everyone get same amount, regardless of what is contributed ■ underbenefitted - less than you deserve ■ overbenefitted - more than you deserve ● social exchange theory ○ how will helping them help us/cost us ■ when you help others than you benefit by feeling good about yourself ■ time, resources, effort, and danger important aspects. ● learning theory (reinforcement, modeling) ○ witnessing others help makes us want to help ● ethics/religious norms - mixed evidence ○ religious people donate more, but in experimental settings we see that they are not more likely to help. time is the key factor ● empathy/altruism instinct ○ we’re moved by suffering of others, trait that some score high in. cooperatively feels better than competition. supporter benefit. ○ bystander effects: people don’t offer help if others are around because they believe others will give help instead ○ diffusion of responsibility: people are less likely to take responsibility in a situation when others are around ■ they divide the responsibility of taking action with the amount of people around, ex: if 2 people are there then they each have 50% of responsibility, 4 people then 25%, 1 person then 100% of it. ○ kitty genovese ● other variables that influence helping behavior (described in detail in text) ○ obstacles to helping: ■ self-concerns, distractions ■ pluralistic ignorance (no one else seems worried) ■ relationship b/t attacker & victim (really an emergency?) ■ ambiguity ■ diffusion of responsibility ■ lack of competence ■ costs exceed rewards ■ audience inhibition

8) Aggression- Chapter 10 ● causes of aggressive behavior ○ biological/physiological ■ it’s not about the amount of hormones but rather the transitioning of different levels ■ testosterone - male sex hormone, linked to aggression when high levels ■ serotonin - feel good neurotransmitter, low levels lead to aggression ■ alcohol - lowers inhibition, higher aggression possible ○ social norms ■ some cultures place positive values on aggression, giving more respect to men who fight. ■ okay to be angry and yell in traffic, not acceptable in other situations. ○ situational variables ■ “running amok” - malaysian culture, refers to behavior of a young man who becomes uncontrollably violent after receiving a blow to his ego ■ lack of self-control ■ often have high self-esteem ○ learning/modeling behavior-modeling: observing and copying or imitating the behaviors of others; rewards and punishments:if the model is rewarded for behaving aggressively, further aggression by model and observer, will be more likely; if the model is punished then the actions are opposite; bobo doll experiment: children readily imitated filmed aggressive models ○ rewards/incentives-punishments can backfire, it increases counter-aggression; people retaliate even when they know there will be negative consequences; reactive anger (reactance) ○ link to emotional arousal-blocking a goal: kids wait for a toy and when they finally get it they are more aggressive; misattribution of arousal: more aroused=more aggressive, more activity, more blood to muscles; emotional regulation increases with age ie domestic violence; aggressive actions can occur without emotional arousal ○ frustration-aggression hypothesis: occurance of aggression presupposes existence of frustration ● evolutionary perspective on aggression, why it may be adaptive in some cases ○ can be path to social status, power ○ competition for resources, good for passing on genes (dominance--> leadership &power -->resources and influence) ○ sexual selection, mate allocation- women prefer socially dominant men and generous men ● aggressive instinct? ○ evidence for/against-Freud argues that human motivation, such as sex and aggression, are based on instincts. 1. For: aggression leads to the stronger individuals procreating, since fighting and mating are similar 2. Against: there is little evidence for an innate aggressive response in humans ○ homicidal fantasies (women with their partner, men with strangers)-people will openly admit that they have fantasies of killing people; 80% of men and 60% of women report this; most involve a male target; more fleeting for women ○ reactance, norms for reciprocity and self-determination ● other topics ○ decline in recent history ○ cultural influences-some cultures are more aggressive than others ○ sexual violence/domestic violence-risk of domestic violence for women who are separated, divorced, or never married is three times higher than the risk for married women ● material on lying/cheating, littering, detection, and effects of media NOT on exam (yay!)
_______________________________________________________________________________
9) Religion/morality- Pretty much only in Lecture ● functions of religion ○ social identity, communication, bonding, cooperation, altruism, handles free rider problems-68% of Americans say religious identity trumps others identities (ethnic, geographic, etc.); identity provides continuity and certainty; ease to generate values, which influence judgments and decisions; bond with other people; significant relationships can be impacted dramatically; free-rider: cooperation requires trust; people are united through norms and standards through behavior that discourage cheating at the threat of external punishment; BUT it can work towards altruism if united through this belief ○ formation/facilitation of large groups and common goals/causes ○ compliance with rules/laws/social norms and in-group loyalty ○ character judgments of others based on religious norms ● effects of religious beliefs and/or belief in God ○ reduced cheating, less dishonesty when primed with vengeful God. ○ increased altruism/prosocial behavior (some situations) ○ personal relationship with god (attachment figure) ○ coping and/or social support from others in religious group/god-God acts as a parental figure (personal relationship with God); compensatory control: people are uncomfortable when they feel that they lack a good sense of what’s going on in the world; lack of control of their own outcomes; terror management: people are scared of death and what happens after death; religion is a coming of terms that we are mortal and the need for certainty of discovering what happens after we are gone ○ moralizing normative behavior ■ association b/w social norms and suicide rates-lower rates of suicide in societies with more social norms because there are more “causes” and “values”; with increased norms comes an increased number of reasons to live ○ competition between groups-competition for resources territory; religion promotes group “deservingness” and “victimization”; religion does not increase violence between groups where there are social/political motives (ex: Israel-Palenstine conflict); when people have other motives to commit violent acts, religion does not act or enforce those motives ● similarities b/w religious people and secular/atheists ○ both describe what are commonly referred to as ‘religious experiences,’ transcend space/time, experience ‘religious emotions’ like awe/inspiration-”religious experiences”: feeling unity with humanity and universe, transcendence of time and space, feelings of unity with not just the rest of people in the world but in the universe. Holy Ground; “elevation” “awe”: emotion that is independent of other existing emotions; may also explain why promoting different beliefs and religions do not always work; when people feel moved (inspired) they are not necessarily going to change their behavior; “awe” is an instinct emotional process and “elevation” is the feeling of being inspired (more of a mental state) ○ both describe feeling connected to humanity, general universe ● discrimination against atheists based on lack of trust-job hiring (teachers, day care, etc.) ● moral foundations (see below) ● moral dumbfounding: The phenomenon when someone will flatly say that something is immoral, yet will not be able to justify with words “why.” This happens more than we realize. ● morality based on emotion (‘intuitiveness’)-”the emotional dog and its rational tail”; moral intuitiveness: logic and reason are afterthoughts; “mind as a lawyer” analogy; we would like to think we are moral and rational when judging other people’s behavior but it’s the opposite ● free will ○ why we don’t have it ■ superficial explanation for behavior," doesn’t trace original causes ■ not measurable ■ only explains a small subset of physical actions linked with effort, but doesn’t explain intention, emotional responses, and a myriad of other mental/psychological/physical states ○ why we might have it ■ our world is not deterministic, and determinism is not equal to causality ■ situations, environment, and even genetics are not definitive, they are probabilistic ■ time might be a poor variable for measuring causality, especially if effects can be demonstrated in the opposite temporal direction ■ mind training (Buddhist monks have increased ‘control’) ■ ‘agency’ rather than ‘free will’

○ why the belief in free will is beneficial ■ increased prosocial behavior and decreases anti-social behavior ■ useful for organizing society ■ priming “free will” increases ● motivation, effort, altruism, and job performance ■ and decreases ● aggressive behavior and cheating ■ existential paradox: we do know through repeated mental power that we have the power to change our minds; paradox: the idea that free will exists is untenable physically, however, belief in free will exists is beneficial, and through scientific research to change our minds---what?! ■ “transcending;” “looking down from clouds”: Escher and the paradox pictures

_______________________________________________________________________________
10) Emotions/affect- Chapter 6 ● utility of emotions ○ motivation to act ○ broaden/build for positive emotions ○ addressing problematic/dangerous situations for negative emotions ○ communication/social bonding ○ attitude formation ● how emotions impact perception/behavioral responses ○ Being in a good mood can make someone more likely to act altruistically ○ Bad moods/negative emotions can make someone less likely to be altruistic/more likely to make external attributions when coming into conflict with others. ○ ^Example: Road rage. Someone cuts you off-->”This asshole can’t drive” instead of “Maybe they’re in a rush to be somewhere important” ○ hedonic treadmill ■ positive emotion can only boost you for so long. as time goes on, your emotional state relaxes back to the state you were in before the positive stimulus occurred.--> homeostatic state of emotions ● affective forecasting ○ we are bad at telling how much emotional pain we will experience for a given event. in actuality, the pain we feel is not near as bad/lasts as long as we predict because we underestimate personal strengths and resilience. ● generating positive affect ○ sex ○ meditation ○ savoring ○ capitalization ● emotional intelligence ○ 4 components ■ perceive and express emotion clearly/accurately ■ generate emotions appropriately and facilitate thought ■ emotional knowledge/understanding- link emotions ■ emotional regulation ○ if you minimize negative emotions you have lower EQ ○ women are more emotionally expressive, translates to self-esteem ○ guys better at utilizing emotions, while girls are better at understanding/being compassionate ● connection between emotional responses & moral judgements/perception

_____________________________________________________________________________

11) Group behavior- Chapter 14 ● commons dilemma AKA public good dilemma- selfish short term wants compete with group long term wants- implications include: money/income, resources (food, fuel), enviornmental protection/polution, property/land ○ free rider problem- “I’ll take while others give”, watching others behave selfishly increases selfish behavior when we see others free-riding. ○ social loafing- diffusion of responsibility; putting in less effort into the work as a group than when working alone ○ deindividuation- decrease self evaluation- could explain negative behavior (Zimbardo); when people are identified individually when working in groups, they are less likely to loaf and actually put in effort into the group ○ ways to reduce selfish behavior in groups - smaller groups/communities, identifiability, individuation, establish norms- social influence, operant conditioning (incentives, altruistic punishment), legality ● pluralistic ignorance - majority of group members privately reject a norm, but assume (incorrectly) that others accept it. assumption that others are knowledgeable, so don’t think to investigate. ● mere exposure-individual input (bystander effect) ○ impact on performance evaluation apprehension-people perform better when observers are present; evaluation apprehension: concern about how others are evaluating your performance ○ variables that influence arousal in public performance settings. arousal influenced by number of people in audience, status of audience, proximity. ● group polarization and risky shift ○ separate people depending on whether they agree or disagree, their opinions will become more extreme, can either be very cautious or take greater risks ○ risky shift: tendency for people to take big risks, reinforce extreme attitudes (want to fit in), normative and informative social influence, schematic assumptions of group behavior ● groupthink- usually includes: centralized leader, pressure to uniformity/cohesiveness (similiar groups at the onset), gatekeeper (dissent is silenced, group is isolated), commitment to a course of action (self censorship, cognitive dissonance), moral imperative, superiority (motivated reasoning) ● power and leadership ○ aspects of leaders, how they’re chosen v ■ component (skilled, knowledgeable, decisive (firm vision), consistent after decision (even when wrong) → cognitive miser perspective, prosocial tendencies; extraversion, communication confidence; norm violates/rule breakers, assertive behavior, power corrupts and corruption empowers (cyclical effects) ● morality at the level of the group vs individual ○ individual holds many more morals than a group, groups don’t make good moral decisions (usually) ● material on ‘toxic leaders’ not on exam
______________________________________________________________________________
12) political psychology- Pretty much only in Lecture ● psychological differences b/w liberals/conservatives ○ socialization - liberals influenced by events dealing with fairness, conservatives influenced by events dealing with authority ○ conservatives: internal attributions, hierarchy vs equality, order by force, lessons involving respect to authority; stability ○ liberals: external attributions, lessons involving empathy, quicker to integrate new stimuli ● change (or lack thereof) across the lifespan in ideology/attitudes ○ little change over lifetime ○ change due to major political events, move to different geographical location, change during college years, but then go back to original viewpoint ● psychological underpinnings of conservatism/liberalism ○ ‘restricted’ vs ‘open’ perception - conservatism “restricted” because there is a need for closure, certainty, and stability; lower ambiguity tolerance and openness; things must be organized and certain; liberals crave diversity, novelty, and change and are more “open” to other possibilities ● 5 ‘moral foundations’ and their association with political ideology. in other words, moral motivations and life histories for liberals & conservatives ○ H F P L A ○ Having to Fuck Purely Loyal Atheists - harm/care, fairness/justice, purity/sanctity, loyalty, respect for authority ○ conservatives focus on all 5, and liberals only on harm/care & fairness/justice ■ harm/care - care, altruism, people when vulnerable need to be protected ■ fairness/justice - reciprocity, justice ■ loyalty/group loyalty - loyalty important in making moral decisions ■ respect for authority - importance in obedience ■ purity/sanctity - living a sanctified rather than carnal way ● what variables make people conservative? ○ situational variables/priming ■ American Flag ■ Hand sanitizer ● perceptions of income inequality/economic behavior ○ people didn’t realize income inequality exists and it is steadily rising; agreed by both liberals/conservatives ○ causes → individual effort, ability, and talent; conservatives are more likely than liberals to make internal attribution for economic failure ○ difference is overshadowed by similarity because americans as a whole are more likely to make an internal attribution ● motivated reasoning and skepticism for incongruent political arguments/evidence ○ People are all motivated skeptics, they will search for information that confirms their beliefs (Confirmation Bias) and believe congruent arguments are ○ more valid. [Lec11: Slide 61] ○ motivated skepticism - increased skepticism that is contrary to what you believe and come up with more counter-argments against anything that is against what you believe; assign ideology to a source that is against your beliefs ○ congruent arguments: rated more “valid” ○ confirmation bias: seeking info → time spent, counter-arguments ● ‘hot’ (automatic) vs ‘cold’ (conscious/rational) processing for political info ○ cold - conscious rational mental processes ○ hot - automatic, explicit tendencies ● system justification ○ when threatened, status quo is confirmed: belief in a just world; conservatives usually feel more threatened; when people are suffering they are more likely to stick with the status quo because of familiarity and it takes more energy to move to a new society where things work differently or work within society that you currently live in to change things ● the media ○ “Don’t shape attitudes/opinions, or voting behavior" because of "source derogation, motivated reasoning" [Lec11:Slide 65]. ○ Media is capable of setting the agenda, of what matters at the moment [Lec11:Slide 66]. ○ fatigue and desensitization: if you watch the news every day, the likelihood that any one news broadcast is going to make a difference decreases; people are more skeptical of counter evidence and will create more counter agruments
______________________________________________________________________________
13) inter-group behavior, stereotypes/prejudice ● minimal group paradigm, ingroup-outgroup bias ○ intra-group cohesion norms vs inter-group competition heuristic prisoner’s dilemma - norms for competition, FAE for out group members, reactance if group is hurt we feel the need to retaliate, risky shift ○ social identity theory, bonding, support, fulfillment, basking in reflected glory ○ socialization, trans-generational norms, observation/learning ○ historical conflict, bias in learning (focus on in-group eg. US-Iraq War), in-group love & out-group hate (no connection between love/patriotism for in group and hate for out-group) ● robber’s cave study - know variables, effects, increasing/reducing conflict ○ two groups of with minimal differences showed conflict beyond regular camp activities ○ Increase conflict: Counselors told each group good things about the other group - kids didn’t buy into it. ■ they tried to increase noncompetitive contact among groups (watching tv together, eating together) but that increased conflicts even more. ○ to reduce conflict: set common goal and common enemy ■ Common goal - both groups had to work together for a specific task. ■ Superordinate goals - goals that can be achieved only by cooperating and working with others. ○ realistic conflict theory--> groups will only compete when there is something to compete over ● stereotypes - what are they? (schemas based on group membership) origins: learning theory (parents and media), genetics(innate to reject outsiders; more likely to share views with someone they are genetically related to) ○ Origins (from book): ■ Prejudice is both learned through socialization and innate. ● We often learn through socialization, information about another group and which groups and characteristics are disliked. ● Other studies also suggest that even children can show signs of prejudice. ○ measurement, implicit/explicit stereotypes/attitudes ■ Measurement: ● Physciological signs: facial muscles, skin conductance ○ ABC’s of intergroup relationships: ■ Affective component - prejudice ■ Behavioral component - Discrimination ■ Cognitive component - stereotyping ○ cognitive miser perspective on stereotypes: stereotypes categorize people which increases our processing speed when analyzing people ■ Categorizing is an easy and efficient way of simplifying the world and reducing mental effort. ○ motivation to maintain stereotypes (motivated reasoning) - in the face of counter-evidence we are motivated to maintain stereotypes and create subtyping - separate category for people who do not fit sterotype ○ scapegoat theory (effects for majority racial groups with low SES) ○ stereotype threat- knowledge of existing stereotype will cause people to behave in a way that confirms the stereotype. ie women in math/science ■ people don’t like being stereotyped and strive hard to show that they do not fit the negative steretypes of their group. ■ This can create self-defeating prophecies - prediction that ensures, by the behavior it generates, that it will not come true. ● Example: people with a “baby face” are presumed as more honest and much nicer that other people. Since this takes away from the social norms that men should be tough and masculine, boys with baby faces try to act tougher and commit more crimes that those that portray masculine features ○ reducing prejudice/discrimination & use of stereotypes (jigsaw classroom) ■ motives for overcoming prejudice: ● dedication to equality and a corresponding belief that prejudice is morally wrong. ● appreciation that expressing prejudice could provoke social disapproval. ● People who are only externally motivated to respond without prejudice report low-prejudice attitudes and beliefs when they have to provide their repsonses out loud to an experimenter or another person, but they are more prejudiced when they are allowed to write their answers. ● People who are internally motivated to respond without prejudce report low-prejudice attitudes regardless of how they present their views. ■ Contact - ● prejudice can be reduced when people of different groups are put in contact with each other. The more they get to know about each other, the less prejudiced they become. ■ Subordinate goals - ● When two groups work on common goals, they are more likely to cooperate and reduce their prejudice towards others. ● Jigsaw classroom - a cooperative learning technique for reducing feelings of prejudice. ● Some contribution from each stuident in a jigsaw classroom is necessary to complete an assignment. ● Decreases racial prejudice and increases academic performance. ● each person learns as much about their assigned topic, students from different groups who are assigned the same topic meet to discuss their knowledge and then they go back to their groups to share what they have learned.
_______________________________________________________________________________
14) Gender & Sexuality- Chapter 12 ● stereotypical ‘masculine’ and ‘feminine’ traits, roles, behavior ○ masculinity(instrumental), femininity(expressive), androgyny-female or male with high degree of feminine & masculine traits ■ doesn’t fit into just one role ○ feminine: pure, altruistic, passive, emotional ○ masculine: aggressive, strong, independent, unemotional ○ how does this impact behavior? stereotype threat ● biological sex vs gender ○ Sex is defined by physiology (e.g., genitalia) [Lec13-1: Slide 4]. ○ Gender is influenced by biological, social, and cognitive factors [Lec13-1: Slide 4]. ● feminism - attitudes, beliefs, and lack of consistency ○ few will say they are feminists, yet most people hold feminist ideals/beliefs (equal pay - 95% and maternity leave - 85%) ● gender differences ○ Men and women are more similar than different ○ Biggest differences: aggression (Men more physical), sexuality (men: bigger sex drive), communication, emotions (women feel more intense emotions), cognitive abilities, friendship networks (face to face vs side by side), helping behavior(men are more likely to help) ○ Men: independent (side by side) shared activities and groups ○ Women: interdependent (face to face) emotional disclosure and friend pairing ○ bigger differences seen in adolescence ● social role theory - gender socialization ○ Gender differences aren’t innate; result of socialization. [Lec13-1:Slide17] ■ Social/environmental influence ■ Parents, peers, siblings (esp. older), the media ■ School ● evolutionary psych ○ sexual strategies theory - what is this? ■ Differential parenting roles ■ Paternity uncertainty for men ● because men face paternity uncertainty, they worry and are more hurt by women having sex with other men ■ Acquiring resources for women ● because women are dependent on men for resources, they worry and are more by men falling in love with other women. ■ Females must be more choosy about their mates because of the cost of their reproductive contribution. Therefore, females choose the males who can provide more valuable resources. ○ mate preferences, sexual partners, sex drive, short-term mating ○ gender differences in erotic plasticity - describe the findings ■ erotic plasticity- degree to which sex drive, emotions, attitudes & behavior can be shaped/altered by cultural & social factors, socialization, and situational concerns [lecture 13-2 slide 14] ■ sexuality is more flexible/malleable for women than men ■ Rates of bisexuality, change in identity ● women are more likely to be bisexual than men because their sexuality is more flexible/ malleable; as education and age increase, women are more likely to identify themselves as bisexual ■ Education increases sexual activity ● men: 70-80% women: 30-80% ■ Intra-individual phases of sexual activity ● After break up men keep continuity (keep sexual behavior going) Women experience a gap in sexual behavior and its not bothersome ● Women expect more change and change more just as a function of being married ● sexual orientation ○ indiscrepancies or ‘discordance’ between behavior, feelings/attraction, identity ■ Urban Men’s Health Survey (2006): Higher % of men who have had sex with only male partners in the past year identify as straight than gay (almost none as bisexual) ○ theories for origins of variation in sexual orientation ■ Genetic: traits passed on through genes. Genes that correspond to homosexual behavior are found to be attractive to heterosexuals too. In a community, some members of the group that are not reproducing use their time and energy to help others that are reproducing. This is advantageous if they share the same genes as those they are helping and are related even through extended family b/c then their genes are being passed on also ■ Social: can’t remember the word but something to do with what’s rare/different being good (girls usually play with girls as a child so when they become an adolescent they are attracted to boys, who are different from what they’re used to) ■ Biological: ← ^ anybody know these?? ○ evidence against sexual ‘orientation’ - individual rather than entire gender ■ attraction and bonding for individuals rather than same or opposite sex ○ fluctuation in sexual orientation across lifespan ■ as people interact with different social/environmental variables sexual preferences, identity and behaviors change ○ changing attitudes toward homosexuality and marriage equality ■ ~50% Americans now support marriage equality ○ dating scripts - approach/receive, courtship, norms for dating ■ Especially prominent in heterosexual relationships ■ socialization and norm enforcement ● alternative explanation to evolutionary framework ● expect men to approach (active) and women to receive (passive) ○ promotes inequality and dissatisfaction ○ enforced by both men and women ● evolution/culture both reinforcing each other - reciprocal bi-directionality ○ both biology/social variables impact gendered behavior ● sexual double standard ○ does it exist? weak evidence ○ men are view more favorably if they are more sexually active. Opposite for women ○ 4 ways people can be evaluated more/less favorable: intelligence, values, popularity, success/power ■ only evidence for double standard in intelligence and success/power ● standards for beauty/thinness - role of cultural/social norms ○ behaviors reinforced by same sex. Men OK with a women who isn’t size 4/6, women put pressure to be that thin on themselves and each other ● homophobia - role of cultural/social norms ○ Norm for male behavior is enforced by men and is mostly a cultural phenomenon not due to biological reasons ● homosociality (bromance) ○ The non-sexual/non-romantic love and affection shared by straight males ○ In bromance: men mimic female behavior; the gay pretense ● role models for gendered behavior ○ what men/women can learn form each other (esp. emotions, empathy, agency/assertiveness) women can learn how to implement action from men, and men can learn to be more expressive from women.
______________________________________________________________________________
15) Attraction- Chapter 11 ● what predicts attraction? learning theory, socialization, mutuality/reciprocity, reinforcement of self-schema ○ Learning Theory: Research shows that what we are attracted to is what we are socialized to be attracted to ○ Socialization: We are attracted to what we have been socialized to find attractive, certain features are culturally normative/valued ■ Behaviors we’ve seen reinforced ■ whats socially normative ○ Confirming self schema: we like those who like us, and its rewarding to have these people around ■ Liking and attraction increases to the degree that we feel its reciprocated ■ Norm of reciprocity: Someone does us a favor and we feel like we need to do it back. So if someone likes us we feel we should like them back ● Similarity- we are attracted to those who are similar to us. ■ Myth: opposites attract- They don’t ■ self-monitoring: ability to change one’s behavior for different situations. ■ matching hypothesis: the proposition that people tend to pair up with others who are equally attractive. ■ Evolutionary explanation: people who preferred to form bonds with people very different from themselves might tend to leave behind fewer offspring than people who attached themselves to others like themselves, ○ Social Rewards- ■ reinforcement theory: people and animals will perform behaviors that have been rewareded more than they will perform other behaviors. ● people like others who are rewarding to them- those who make them feel good. ○ ● situational forces - proximity (mere exposure), physical warmth, misattribution of physical arousal ○ Proximity: As people are closer (in physical distance), general liking goes up ○ Familiarity: The more time you spend with someone the more you like them because then its easier to predict their behavior (we like when we know what the other person is going to do) ○ Physical Warmth (hot coffee example) translates to social warmth ○ Misattribution of Physical Arousal: When they are physically aroused (hear their own heart beat, experience something new, walk on a shaky bridge, etc.) they think that it is because they are attracted to the person near them. Think that they are aroused because they are attracted to someone instead of because of the situation they are in. ● similarity (features, personality, demographics, etc) ○ matching hypothesis ■ we are good at seeking out friends/romantic partners who are physically like us; attractive people seek out other attractive people ● “matching hypothesis”- we know our social worth and reproductive fitness ● Evolutionary perspective: People with the best genes will beat out others with worse genes and pair together ■ Most likely to be attracted to someone who fits your demographic: socio-economic, age, religion etc. ● demographics are more important than personality ■ Features: Halo effect, heuristic ■ Ideal features/standards vs. actual attraction ● ideal standards may not matter as much ● Implicit preferences: “Mind as a Lawyer” ○ Predetermined standards can quickly disappear when presented in an interpersonal state. Meet someone you like and think back and change guidelines of your “type” to include them ○ conscious/rational part of the mind isn’t initiated until after you realize you are building an attraction to someone ● rejection - interferes with cognitive functioning, motivation, can increase aggression/anti-social behavior and decrease altruism ○ rejection literally hurts/feels cold ■ Brain processes mimic physical pain and people also report temp being cold ○ rejection sensitivity - self fulfilling prophesy, behavioral confirmation, expectations for social rejection lead to reality ■ When we are rejected it throws us off balance b/c we feel like we need to be connected to others ● Its an existential threat ● rejection sensitivity- accumulated effects of rejection leads to anxiety and self-fulfilling prophecy that we always expect to be rejected. ● Increase in aggression ○ rejected people are less generous, cooperative, and less helpful than others, and they are more willing to cheat or break rules of good behavior. ○ When people feel socially excluded, they are led to aggressive behavior. ○ Aggression can also lead to exclusion: people usually don’t want to be associated with or around those who possess aggressive tendencies. ● paradox of social norms (similarity vs norm-violation) in predicting attraction ○ Usually people are attracted to others who have similar values, trust and social competence. The like people they can easily understand and predict behavior ○ HOWEVER, Norm-violations, creativity & risk-taking make men more romantically attractive ● loneliness ○ People reduce feelings of loneliness and increase social networking through the internet ○ Parallel feelings for both the virtual and real world ■ If you are depressed you have less fulfilling interactions in real life and online ● Two types of loneliness: ○ Situation: temporary loneliness - a person moves to a new place adn doesn’t know anyone .(quantity) ○ Disposition: long term - A person who is socially connected but perceive themselves to be lonely (quality ● body responses to loneliness: ○ these ppl sleep as much as nonlonely ppl, but they don’t feel refreshed when they wake up, they usually feel chronically tired. ○ they take longer to recover from stress, illness, or injury. ○ Don’t get the rest they need - poor sleep. ○ more prone to waking up at night or not being able to sleep - insomnia.
_______________________________________________________________________________
16) Relationships- Chapter 12 ● love - physical effects (acts as a drug- higher level of neurotransmitter PEA), passionate vs companionate love ● Passionate: strong feelings of longing, desire, and excitement towards a special person. also called romantic love. Starts high but dwindles down. ● Companionate love: also known as affectionate love, mutual understanding and caring to make the relationship succeed. it makes people want to spend as much time as possible together. It is less stronger emotionally, more calmer and serene. means perceiving the other person as your soul mate or special partner. Mutual understanding, are each others best friends, essential to a successful long-term marriage.

● sternberg’s triangular theory of love ○ Contrasts the 2 types of love ideas. proposed that love is composed of 3 different parts: ■ 1. intimacy: feeling of closeness, mutual understanding and mutual concern for each others welfare and happiness. empathy is important. ■ 2. passion: emotional state characterized by high bodily arousal such as increased heart rate and blood pressure. ■ 3. commitment: a conscious decision that remains constant. ■ these 3 are not different kinds of love. Any given love relationship can mix those 3 ingredients. The 3 different parts go on the sides of triangles and can make relationships such as “high in intimacy but low in commitment” ● Intimacy + Passion = Romantic Love ● Intimacy + Commitment = Companionate Love ● Passion + Commitment = Fatuous Love ● All 3 = Consummate Love ● social exchange theory - romantic ‘marketplace’ ○ outcomes vs costs ■ Outcomes = Rewards - Costs ■ ex. Costs: taking away time from hobbies, family, friends, etc. This gets factored into the equation ■ Relationships that last have 5:1 of rewards:costs ● fairness/equity ○ Relationships with more equity and fairness, feeling on the same plane as your partner, do better ● communal vs exchange relationships ○ exchange - expect something in return for something you do for the other person; can be toxic in long-term relationships ■ Norm of reciprocity is bad in romantic relationships ○ communal - don’t expect anything in return, do something because you want to do something for other person without selfish concern ● comparison level & comparison level for alternatives [ Lecture 14-2 slide 6] ○ predicts satisfaction/dependence ■ Satisfaction = Outcome - Comparison Level (CL) ● satisfied if positive ■ Dependence = Outcomes- CLalt ● Dependent if positive ● If CLalt is higher than Outcomes than partner is not dependent ● Even if they are getting more than expected out of the relationship they are likely to leave if they think there are better alternatives ● CL-what you think you should be getting, Outcome-What you are getting CLalt-what you could get elsewhere ○ lack of alternatives and unsatisfying/abusive relationships ■ Even if they are not satisfied, the alternatives are even lower than the outcome of the relationship so they are likely to stay in an unfulfilling relationship ○ cognitive biases/positive illusions ■ See your partner as slightly better than they see themselves ■ Contributes to relationship satisfaction, boosts outcome above CL and CL alt ● acts as a buffer to alternatives ● interdependence model (includes “investments”) ○ Satisfaction (How happy/satisfied you are in the relationship) ○ Investments (How much you have put in the relationship, ex. kids, bank account...) ■ Cognitive dissonance ○ Quality of alternatives (how much you think you can/will find better) ○ Commitment in a relationship is based on all three above ■ If you have made commitment in a course of action for a relationship you feel a need to follow through with that commitment ■ Satisfaction is the biggest predictor of commitment to a relationship ● conflict - 4 types of responses to conflict

○ Voice: Telling your partner what is bothering you (this is the best response to conflict) ○ Exit: Negative criticisms that have nothing to do with the problem at hand (character attacks). OR could be just leaving the situation all together. ○ Loyalty: A general expectation that things will get better and hope to improve ○ Neglect: Don’t think things will ever get better

| |Active |Passive |
|Constructive |Voice |Loyalty |
|Destructive |Exit |Neglect |

● Conflict is not always bad. Can bring couples closer afterwards ● jealous/infidelity ○ evolutionary explanations: ○ Sex differences in jealousy based on sexual strategies theory ■ For men: Sexual infidelity is worse ■ For Women: Emotional infidelity is worse ● attachment theory - broadly, what does it explain? ○ Explains adult close relationships based on early childhood experiences ○ prototype hypothesis: A mother/primary care giver establishes the model by which all other love relations are compared [Lec14:Slide 18] ○ developing schema's for self, other relationships ○ 3 attachment “styles” - secure, anxious, avoidant
1. secure -- confidence in attachment figures; feel more trust, relationship satisfaction, closeness and intimacy
2. anxious/ambivalent (preoccupied) -- hyperactive in increasing closeness; never feel like any kind of closeness they get is enough high = clingy; desiring of a blended one-person unit without any distinct lines
3. avoidant (dismissing) -- uncomfortable with closeness and intimacy; do NOT want to get close in any way high = distrust people and assume that people will betray them; strategy = deactivate (or retreat) - low on anxious and avoidant = secure - high on anxious (low feelings about themselves) = anxious - high on avoidant (low feelings about others) = avoidant - high on anxious and avoidant = doubly insecure ○ effects of attachment security/insecurity for individuals, couples ■ Sex ● Secure: Better and more often have sex because they are not afraid to get too close/using sex as a way of manipulation ● Anxious: Have sex because they think it will get them closer to their partner and their partner will love them more (reason why they have sex they don’t want to have) ● Avoidant: Can either refrain from sex because they don’t want to get too close or can have meaningless one night stands showing that they won’t get attached to sex (keeping love and sex apart). ○ effects of attachment on breakups, particularly for mismatched pairs ■ Secure/Secure: Better communication, more healthy (happier and stable) ■ Secure/Insecure: Secure person usually leaves because they understand what is happening ■ Insecure/Insecure: May actually be very stable and secure because they both don’t know how to be in a satisfying relationship

○ “secure base” - effects for motivation, exploration, autonomy, cognitive openness, achievement, job/school performance ■ other effects - reduce prejudice/increase positive out-group attitudes, increase pro-social behavior ■ When you know another person loves you and cares for you, would sacrifice and help you if you needed it It gives you the confidence to take challenges and explore life ○ change in attachment security - how is it best achieved [Lec14:Slide 30] ■ Knowing your insecurities ■ Through positive, supportive relationships ■ Through therapy (in extreme cases of dysfunction)

In case anyone wants to look at the exam two study guide we had made:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1kvtN42vVeeXjIzijjagbwAMwLoS6nHvyB6DK7PB5MhM/edit?hl=en_US&pli=1z

2 articles:

“Is there anything good about men?” http://www.psy.fsu.edu/~baumeistertice/goodaboutmen.htm theres a good summary at the bottom of the article if you dont want to read it all but the article is interesting

Conclusion

To summarize my main points: A few lucky men are at the top of society and enjoy the culture’s best rewards. Others, less fortunate, have their lives chewed up by it. Culture uses both men and women, but most cultures use them in somewhat different ways. Most cultures see individual men as more expendable than individual women, and this difference is probably based on nature, in whose reproductive competition some men are the big losers and other men are the biggest winners. Hence it uses men for the many risky jobs it has.
Men go to extremes more than women, and this fits in well with culture using them to try out lots of different things, rewarding the winners and crushing the losers. Culture is not about men against women. By and large, cultural progress emerged from groups of men working with and against other men. While women concentrated on the close relationships that enabled the species to survive, men created the bigger networks of shallow relationships, less necessary for survival but eventually enabling culture to flourish. The gradual creation of wealth, knowledge, and power in the men’s sphere was the source of gender inequality. Men created the big social structures that comprise society, and men still are mainly responsible for this, even though we now see that women can perform perfectly well in these large systems. What seems to have worked best for cultures is to play off the men against each other, competing for respect and other rewards that end up distributed very unequally. Men have to prove themselves by producing things the society values. They have to prevail over rivals and enemies in cultural competitions, which is probably why they aren’t as lovable as women.
The essence of how culture uses men depends on a basic social insecurity. This insecurity is in fact social, existential, and biological. Built into the male role is the danger of not being good enough to be accepted and respected and even the danger of not being able to do well enough to create offspring.
The basic social insecurity of manhood is stressful for the men, and it is hardly surprising that so many men crack up or do evil or heroic things or die younger than women. But that insecurity is useful and productive for the culture, the system.
Again, I’m not saying it’s right, or fair, or proper. But it has worked. The cultures that have succeeded have used this formula, and that is one reason that they have succeeded instead of their rivals.

Haidt 5 Foundations:
1) Harm/Care
2) Fairness/Justice
3) In Group Loyalty/ Reciprocity
4) Respect
5) Purity