×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to colorado - PSYC 2606 - Study Guide
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to colorado - PSYC 2606 - Study Guide

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

COLORADO / Psychology / PSYC 2606 / How come familiar people are perceived to be more attractive?

How come familiar people are perceived to be more attractive?

How come familiar people are perceived to be more attractive?

Description

School: University of Colorado at Boulder
Department: Psychology
Course: Social Psychology
Professor: Irene blair
Term: Fall 2016
Tags:
Cost: 50
Name: PSYC 2606: Exam 3 Study Guide
Description: All lecture material and vocab from the textbook
Uploaded: 11/09/2016
36 Pages 50 Views 3 Unlocks
Reviews


PSYC 2606: Exam 3 Study Guide


How come familiar people are perceived to be more attractive?



CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 

Beauty is in the Person  

• Objective standards argument: there are universal standards of  beauty  

o Evidence: people agree on who is considered attractive,  between as well as within cultures  

o Infants prefer attractive over unattractive faces  

• People with features that are more average are perceived as more  attractive (no asymmetry)

Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder

• Subjective standards argument: beauty is not objective nor  universal, but depends on time & place  

o Evidence: perceptions of attractiveness can vary by  historical time period & by culture & across situations  Mere Exposure Effect  


What is the scope of rickety bridge study?



• Repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to a greater liking of that  stimulus  

• Implication for attractiveness: familiar people are seen as more  attractive  

• Classroom study (Moreland & Beach)

o IV: women matched in attractiveness appeared in 0-15  classes during semester

o DV: students rated attractiveness of women shown in  photos after the end of the semester  

o Results: highest rating for women who showed up to class  the most (15 times = highest, 10 times = second highest) Misattribution of Arousal  

• Arousal can lead to perception that another person is more  attractive if the arousal is attributed (transferred) to that person  • Rickety bridge study (Dutton & Aron)


Why are females more careful about mating?



o Men approached by female researcher after crossing  o IV: immediate vs. delayed contact

o DV: # of men who called researched for a date later

o Results: 65% approached immediately vs. 30% delayed  contact, called for a date  Don't forget about the age old question of What is the difference between the core promoter and the regulatory promoter?

o Limit: arousal can also amplify unattractiveness  

Getting Together  

• Proximity effect: best predictor of 2 people getting together is  physical proximity  

o Familiarity (mere exposure effect)

o Opportunity (functional distance)

• Study (Festinger, Schachter, Back)

o 65% of friends mentioned were in the same building  o 41% of friend choices were 1 door away  

o 10% of friend choices were 4 doors away  

Similar is Attractive  

• We like people who are similar to us in background, interest,  values, appearance  

o We expect similar others to provide a rewarding interaction o Similar others validate our world view  Don't forget about the age old question of What are the two types of content marketing?
If you want to learn more check out What kind of electron transfers occur in the formation of calcium fluoride from elemental calcium and elemental fluorine?
We also discuss several other topics like What kind of expansion diffusion spreads by contact?

o Desire balance in their thoughts, feelings & social  

relationships  

o Similar people tend to like us in return  Don't forget about the age old question of How do officers behave under preventive patrol?

• Study of romantic couples found couples were more similar on 66  of 88 characteristics than people paired at random  

Matching Hypothesis  

• We like people who match in physical attractiveness • People are attracted to others who are similar in physical  attractiveness

• Evidence on matched couples  

o More intimate in public settings  Don't forget about the age old question of What is a superficial mycosis?

o Report greater love  

o Dating couples less likely to break up within 9 months  Odds Against Un-matched Couples  

• More attractive partner may leave for someone who is similarly  attractive  

• Less attractive partner may become insecure & jealous of the  attention given to the other  

• Less attractive partner may begin to feel unattractive in  comparison to the other person

Gender Differences (based on evolutionary theory) • Females more selective about mating – more careful  o Want resources: social status, wealth, strength, ability,  intelligence, ambition

• Males less selective about mating  

o Want ability to bear offspring: younger, more physically  attractive mates

o Greater desire for short term mating; more sexual partners • Actual partners (study): no difference between men & women  Relationship Contributions: Benefits & Costs  

• Comparison level: what people think they deserve or expect in a  relationship  

• Comparison level for alternatives: what people think they can get  in an alternative relationship

Exchange Orientation

• People expect & desire reciprocity in their social interactions &  relationships  

1. Social exchange theory: satisfaction comes from  

relationships in which we benefit the most & cost us the  least  

2. Equity theory: satisfaction comes from relationships in  which our ratio of benefits to costs is equalized  

• Most likely  

o Early stages = first 3 months focus is on rewards; both  rewards & costs become important by 7th month  

o Casual relationships  

o Relationships that are defined by exchange (e.g. arranged  marriage or making a good match)

Communal Orientation  

• People in a relationship expect & desire mutual responsiveness o Math is less important or even irrelevant  

o Limited to very close friends, longer-term romantic family &  partners  

o A relationship may shift over time & across situations Implications of Exchange vs. Communal  

• Greater liking for those who repay favors if exchange oriented;  repayment = less liking if communal oriented  

• Lack of payment feels like exploitation if exchange oriented; lack  of payment may even be positive if communal oriented

• Communal attend more closely to partners needs & attempts to  help, especially if sad; less so in exchange  

• More time, effort & money spent in communal relationships  Sternburg’s Triangle of Love  

• Passion: intense emotional state of wanting/longing for another  person; sexual desire; obsessiveness; despair

o Just passion = infatuation  

• Commitment: forces that keep partners in an enduring  relationship; trust, availability, interdependence  

o Just commitment = empty love  

• Intimacy: psychological closeness; high self-disclosure  o Just intimacy = liking  

• Passion + intimacy = romantic love  

• Intimacy + commitment = companionate love  

• Passion + commitment = fatuous love  

• All 3 = consummate love – “perfect couple”

Marriage Eras (Finkel)

• 1700-1850 = institutional marriage  

o Food production, shelter, protection  

• 1850-1965 = companionate marriage  

o Companionship, love & be loved, fulfilling sex life

• 1965-Today = self expressive marriage  

o Self discovery, self-esteem, personal growth, achieve  personal fulfillment

• Link between happy marriage & happy life has grown stronger;  being happy in life increasingly depends on couples working on  their relationships  

o But couples are spending less time together due to work &  intensive parenting  

o Couples who spend time together are significantly happier  Communication in Relationships  

• Communication problems are cited as one of the most common  causes of break-ups  

• All relationships undergo stress & conflict; what matters is how  the partners respond  

Negative Communication Patterns  

• Decrease in self disclosure

• Tit-for-Tat: couples cant let any negative reaction go without a  response in kind, resulting in a never-ending downward spiral  • One person demands & the other person withdraws  • Distress maintaining attributions  

o Negative partner behavior are attributed to internal, stable,  global factors  

o Positive partner behaviors are attributed to external,  unstable, specific factors  

4 Horsemen  

1. Criticism: a compliant taken to the next level by including  statements that are blaming, attack character, or insulting  2. Defensiveness: defending oneself from real or perceived criticism  by making excuses, deflecting blame, or avoiding responsibility  3. Contempt: using mockery, sarcasm & hostile humor with the  intent to make ones partner feel stupid, foolish or inferior  4. Stonewalling: actively disengaging from a conversation; looking  away & not responding to questions  

Positive Interaction Patterns  

• Balance conflict by increasing benefits in other areas of  relationship  

• Engage in new, fun activities  

• Take other persons perspective  

• Take a 3rd person perspective  

• Make relationship enhancing attributions  

o Negative events = situation  

o Positive events = person  

STEREOTYPES & PREJUDICE 

Universal Social Phenomenon  

• Almost any aspect of a person’s identity can result in a group-level  response  

• Ex: nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, major, weight, hair  color, etc.

• 3 big ones: gender, age, ethnicity – also can include situation  specific

Group-Based Responses  

• Stereotypes: beliefs about a social group & its members  o Not making any claims about right/wrong or neg/pos • Prejudice: evaluation of social group & its members (attitudes) o Not making any claims if it is justified or not  

• Discrimination: behavior based on social group membership  • All 3 are bi-directional  

Socio-Cultural Perspective  

• Economics – Realistic group conflict theory: group biases result  from conflict over resources (e.g. land, jobs, education)

Motivation Perspective  

• Motivation to maintain positive social identity  

• Social identity theory: because membership in a positively valued  group enhances self-esteem, we are motivated to ensure our in groups are positive  

Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)

• People confer benefits on in-group members over out-group  members, even when there is no personal gain  

• People are motivated to obtain a relative advantage for the in group rather than maximizing absolute gain  

• E.g. in-group = $7 and out-group = $3, preferred over both groups  getting $10  

Fein & Spencer Study  

• IV1: success vs. failure feedback  

• IV2: Jewish (viewed neg at the time) vs. Italian female target  • DV1: ratings of targets qualifications

• DV2: change in self esteem  

• Results 1: success feedback = rating high of both Jewish & Italian;  failure feedback = rating of Italian much higher than Jewish  • Results 2: success feedback = increase in self-esteem somewhat  higher but equal for both Jewish & Italian; failure feedback = much  higher increase in self-esteem for Jewish than Italian  

Cognitive Perspective  

• Group-based responses result from ordinary cognitive processes  of categorization, perception & memory  

• Categorization:

o An object gains meaning through categorization because it  is assumed to have attributes associated with the category

o Cognitive perspective: easy to categorize people into groups  & then assume group attributions  

o Stereotypes alter perception, interpretation & memory  o Stereotypes are functional  

▪ Stereotyping makes life easier by saving time & effort;  see more stereotyping when people are low in energy  

Correll Study  

• Video game where participants had to decided whether or not  someone had a gun & if they should shoot  

• IV1: white vs. black target  

• IV2: gun vs. other object  

• DV1: decision time (correct)

• DV2: error responses  

• Results 1: armed = faster to say shoot blacks; unarmed = faster to  say don’t shoot whites  

• Results 2: armed = more error to say don’t shoot if white;  unarmed = more error to say shoot if black  

Stereotypes Influence Interpretation & Memory

• Stone study: participants listened to audio replay of a college basketball game & asked to pay attention to particular player  o IV1: told player is black or white  

o Results: athletic ability = better rating for black player;  court smarts = better rating for white player  

• People remember stereotype consistent info better than neutral  or inconsistent info, especially when distracted or pressed for  time  

Research Findings on Stereotype/Prejudice/Cognitive Function  • Time of day; time pressure; multiple tasks; alcohol; reductions in  self-regulatory responses; individuals w/lower executive control Reducing Group Bias  

• Socio-cultural: change media, reduce conflict, increase  cooperation, contact  

• Motivation: expand in-group to include others, self-affirmation  • Cognitive: increase time & attention (beware of fast decisions),  focus attention on individual characteristics (cooperative  personal interaction)  

Explicit Bias  

• Stereotypes & prejudice that are openly endorsed

o Measured by self-report & are vey low toward historically  stigmatized groups (e.g. ethnic/racial minorities)

o Implications for behavior are very clear  

Implicit Bias  

• Stereotypes & prejudice that may not be acknowledged  o Measured by reaction time or other means that reveal  associations without explicit intention of the actor  

• Ex: Koffka Ring

o Perceptions = experience + expectations + cues  

o Happens automatically – no one is perfect  

o Very difficult to ignore perceptions that seem real  

• IAT: implicit association test  

o Respondents sort pictures & words in ways that are  congruent or incongruent with pre-existing associations  • Implicit group biases are only weakly associated with explicit  group biases  

• Implicit bias appears to be involved in judgment & behavior in  subtle ways  

Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner Experiment  

• IV1: measured degree of implicit race bias  

• IV2: measured degree of self-reported (explicit) race bias  • DV1: verbal friendliness during interaction  

• DV2: nonverbal friendliness during interactions  

• Results:

o Explicit prejudice: verbal = .40 nonverbal = .02

o Implicit prejudice: verbal = .04 nonverbal = .41  

Implicit Bias in Real Life  

• Doctors’ interaction with black patients  

• Study of elementary teachers: implicit ethnic bias was associated  with their minority students’ school achievement  

• Study of managers: implicit obesity bias was associated with  inviting an obese job applicant for an interview  

• Studies of college women: implicit men+math bias was associated  with lower participation, more negative beliefs & worse  performance  

Effect on Targets  

• Unfair outcomes in education, housing, finances, health care, law  enforcement

• Health consequences due to bias-related chronic stress  • Self-fulfilling prophecy  

• Attributional ambiguity  

• Stereotype threat  

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy  

• The process by which ones expectations of a person cause that  person to behave in ways that confirm those expectations  • Word, Zanna & Cooper Study  

o Study 1: white participants randomly assigned to interview  a white or black job candidate  

▪ Results: participants sat farther away, made more  

speech error & held shorter interviews with black  

o Study 2: white participants in simulated interview were  randomly assigned to be treated in a distant or close  

manner  

▪ Results: distant treatment rated lower in job  

performance & calm/composed vs. close treatment  

Attributional Ambiguity  

• Uncertainty about whether the treatment one receives is due to  personal attributes or group membership (discrimination) • Negative feedback: did I really do well & should take pride in my  work, or is the person trying to hide their prejudice  

• Research findings:

o Feedback can be viewed as more helpful to white students  than black  

▪ White accepted feedback regardless if evaluator knew  race  

▪ Black only accepted feedback if evaluator didn’t know  race  

o Cognitive load was higher for black students subjected to  more subtle vs. explicit bias  

Stereotype Threat  

• Prevalent negative stereotype about ones group creates concern  about being viewed in terms of the stereotype & anxiety about  confirming the stereotype in the eyes of others  

• Concern, worry, anxiety  

• Increased effort that overloads the system  

• Worst performance

• Steele & Aronson Study:

o Participants: black & white Stanford students  

o IV: test described as diagnostic vs. non-diagnostic of  intellectual abilities  

o DV: performance on difficult verbal test  

o Study 4: randomly assigned to indicate race before the test  o Results: black students underperform compared to white  students when told it is a diagnostic test; absolutely no  difference between blacks & whites when told it is a non diagnostic test  

▪ When race is indicated blacks underperform; no  

difference between blacks & whites when race is not  

indicated  

• Research findings:  

o Female students performed worse on math tests when  asked to indicate gender or when told the test reveals  

gender differences  

o White male students performed worse on math tests when  reminded that Asians do better than whites  

o White students performed worse on golf task when  described as a test of natural athletic ability vs. described as  a test of sports intelligence  

GROUP PROCESSESS 

Social Facilitation: Other People Can Help or Harm  • Why does the presence of other people sometimes improve &  sometimes harm performance?

• Mere Presence Theory: the mere presence of others increases  arousal which improves performance on easy tasks but interferes  with performance on difficult tasks  

• Zajonc’s Cockroach studies:

o Cockroaches tested on their speed of escape from a bright  light  

o Presence of others in an easy task = perform better  w/others presence

o Presence of others in a difficult task = performance slowed  w/others presence

• Mere presence of others --> arousal --> increase in dominant  response tendencies:

o A. Simple or well-learned tasks, the dominant response is  the correct response --> performance is facilitated  

o B. On difficult or novel tasks, the dominant response is an  incorrect response --> performance is impaired  

• Why social facilitation occurs  

1. Mere presence: all it takes is the presence of conspecifics 2. Evaluation apprehension: presence of people raises  concerns about evaluation that increases arousal  

3. Distraction-conflict theory: presence of people increases  attentional conflict that increases arousal  

Practical Applications  

• What should you do if you know other people will be around  when you want to perform your best?

o Practice, practice, practice  

o Learning complex material is better on your own; study  groups are good for consolidating material & getting a  

different perspective (same with new athletic skill)

o Workers with complex jobs will benefit from a private work  area  

Social Loafing

• The tendency to exert less effort on a task when contributions are  pooled (individuals are unidentified)

• Why does social loafing occur?

o People are motivated by rewards  

▪ When individuals effort is hidden, more effort doesn’t  bring greater reward  

▪ Intrinsic motivation may not be enough  

▪ Few people want to be seen as the “sucker” who does  the work while others takes it easy  

o Conditions that increase social loafing  

▪ Individual effort is not identified  

▪ Task is not intrinsically motivated  

▪ No explicit agreement to each do one’s share  

• Decrease social loafing  

o Identify individual effort or make groups small enough to be  identifiable  

o Make the task interesting

o Highlight the importance of each person’s effort for a  successful outcome  

o Poor group performance is punished  

o Increase social identity (social loafing less likely in  

collectivistic cultures)

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

• You are identified  

• Presence of others is  

arousing  

• Easy task = better  

performance  

• Difficult task = worse  

performance

• You are hidden, one of many  • Presence of others is  

relaxing  

• Easy task = worse  

performance  

• Difficult task (challenging) =  better performance

Deindividuation 

• Decrease in self-awareness, which results in reduced self regulation & greater conformity to situational norms  

o People can “lose their selves” under different circumstances  (e.g. loud music, alcohol, darkness) but the presence of  

other people increases the effect  

• Antecedent conditions --> internal state (deindividuation) -->  behavior effects  

• Examples: dancing in a crowded dark bar, at sports stadium • At Halloween (Diener): 1,300 children were observed during trick  or treat on Halloween night; they were told to take one piece of  candy from an unattended bowl, with a second bowl of change  nearby  

o IV1: children in group vs. alone  

o IV2: children anonymous vs. identified  

o DV: percentage who took extra candy or stole money

o Results: more candy taking when in group than alone;  decline in taking more candy when they are identified  

(bigger difference seen in groups)  

• Is it always bad? (Johnson & Downing study)

o Showed more pro-social behavior when participants were  deindividuated by a costume that invoked norms of helping  (nurse’s uniform)

Group Decision-Making  

• Advantages:

o Pooled knowledge  

o Diverse perspectives  

o Others can challenge us to think deeper & more creatively  • Disadvantages:  

o Individuals have group goals besides performance (e.g.  liking, consensus, fitting-in, self-promotion, power)

▪ Groups tend to focus on shared knowledge & fail to  benefit from unique perspectives (biased-sampling)

• Groupthink  

o Faulty thinking by members of highly cohesive groups in  which the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the  issues at hand is subverted by social pressures to reach  consensus  

• Group polarization  

o Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than  those made by individuals

o Whatever way the group as a whole is leaning, group  discussion tends to make it lean further in that direction

CHAPTER 10 VOCAB 

Communal Relationship:  

• Individuals feel a special responsibility for one another &  give/receive according to the principle of need (long-term)  Exchange Relationship:  

• Individuals feel little responsibility toward one another;  giving/receiving governed by concerns of equity/reciprocity  (short-term)

Social Exchange Theory:  

• How people feel about a relationship depends on their  assessments of its costs/rewards  

Comparison Level:

• Expectations about what people think they deserve or expect to  get out of a relationship  

Comparison Level for Alternatives:

• Expectations about what people think they can get out of  alternative relationships  

Equity Theory:  

• Motivated to pursue fairness/equity in their relationships – benefits proportionate to effort of both people  

Attachment Theory:  

• Early attachments with parents can shape relationships for a  persons whole life  

Anxiety Dimension of Attachment:

• A person is worried about rejection & abandonment by  relationship partners  

Avoidance Dimension of Attachment:

• A person is comfortable with intimacy & dependence on  relationship partners  

Functional Distance:

• Influence of architectural layout to encourage or inhibit activities  – contact with people  

Mere Exposure Effect:  

• Repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to a greater liking of the  stimulus

Complementarity:

• People to seek others with characteristics that are different from  & complement of their own  

Halo Effect:  

• Belief that attractive people posses a host of positive qualities  beyond physical appearance  

Reproductive Fitness:

• Capacity to pass ones genes on to subsequent generations  Investment Model of Commitment:

• 3 things make partners more committed  

1. Relationship satisfaction  

2. Few alternative partners

3. Investments in relationship  

CHAPTER 11 VOCAB  

Stereotype:

• Belief that certain attributes are characteristics of members of a  particular group  

Prejudice:

• Negative attitude or affective response toward a group & its  individual members  

Discrimination:

• Unfair treatment of individuals based on their membership in a  particular group  

Modern Racism:

• Prejudice directed at racial groups that exists alongside the  rejection of explicitly racist beliefs  

Artifact:

• Research result arising from a faulty method of investigation  IAT:

• Technique for revealing non-conscious attitudes toward different  stimuli, particularly groups of people  

Priming:

• Presentation of info designed to activate a concept & hence make  it accessible

o A prime is the stimulus presented to activate the concept in  question  

Realistic Group Conflict Theory:

• Group conflict, prejudice & discrimination are likely to arise over  competition between groups for limited resources  

Ethnocentrism:

• Glorifying ones group & vilifying other groups  

Minimal Group Paradigm:

• Create groups based on meaningless criteria & examine how the  members of “minimal groups” behave toward one another  Social Identity Theory:

• Persons self-concept/self-esteem derive not only from personal  identity & accomplishments but also from status &  

accomplishments of the groups to which a person belongs  Basking in Reflected Glory:

• Pride in accomplishments of other people in ones group, such as  when sports fans identify with a winning team  

Out-group Homogeneity Effect:

• People assume that within group similarity is much stronger for  out-groups than for in-groups  

Paired Distinctiveness:

• Pairing of 2 distinctive events that stand out even more because  they occur together  

Subtyping:

• Explaining away exceptions to a given stereotype by creating a  subcategory of the group that can be expected to differ from the  group as a whole  

Stereotype Threat:

• Fear of confirming the stereotypes others have about ones group  CHAPTER 12 VOCAB  

Social Facilitation:

• Initially a term of enhanced performance in the presence of  others; now a broader term for the effect of the presence of others  on performance

Evaluation Apprehension:

• People’s concern about how they might appear to others or be  evaluated by them  

Distraction-Conflict Theory:

• Being aware of another person’s presence creates a conflict  between paying attention to that person & paying attention to the  task at hand, & that attentional conflict is arousing & produces  social facilitation effects  

Social Loafing:

• Tendency to exert less effort when working on a group task in  which individual contributions cannot be monitored  

Groupthink:

• Faulty thinking by members of highly cohesive groups in which the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the issues at hand is  subverted by social pressures to reach consensus  

Self-Censorship:

• Withholding information or opinions in group discussions  Risky Shift:

• Tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals  would  

Group Polarization:

• Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those  made by individuals; whatever way the group as a whole is  leaning, group discussion tends to make it lean further in that  direction  

Power:

• Ability to control one’s own outcomes & those of others; the  freedom to act  

Status:

• Outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences  in respect & prominence, & which contributes to determining a  person’s power within a group

Authority:

• Power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements  Dominance:

• Behavior enacted with the goal of acquiring or demonstrating  power

Approach/Inhibition Theory:

• High power individuals are inclined to go after their goals & make  quick judgments, whereas low power people are more likely to  constrain their behavior & pay careful attention to others  Deindividuation:

• Reduced sense of individual identity accompanied by diminished  self-regulation that can come over people when they are in a large  group  

Individuation:

• Enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing  attention on the self, which generally leads people to act carefully  & deliberately & in accordance with their sense of propriety &  values  

Self-Awareness Theory:  

• When people focus their attention inward on themselves, they  become concerned with self-evaluation & how their current  behavior conforms to their internal standards & values  Spotlight Effect:

• People’s conviction that other people are paying attention to them  more than they actually are

PSYC 2606: Exam 3 Study Guide

CLOSE RELATIONSHIPS 

Beauty is in the Person  

• Objective standards argument: there are universal standards of  beauty  

o Evidence: people agree on who is considered attractive,  between as well as within cultures  

o Infants prefer attractive over unattractive faces  

• People with features that are more average are perceived as more  attractive (no asymmetry)

Beauty is in the Eyes of the Beholder

• Subjective standards argument: beauty is not objective nor  universal, but depends on time & place  

o Evidence: perceptions of attractiveness can vary by  historical time period & by culture & across situations  Mere Exposure Effect  

• Repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to a greater liking of that  stimulus  

• Implication for attractiveness: familiar people are seen as more  attractive  

• Classroom study (Moreland & Beach)

o IV: women matched in attractiveness appeared in 0-15  classes during semester

o DV: students rated attractiveness of women shown in  photos after the end of the semester  

o Results: highest rating for women who showed up to class  the most (15 times = highest, 10 times = second highest) Misattribution of Arousal  

• Arousal can lead to perception that another person is more  attractive if the arousal is attributed (transferred) to that person  • Rickety bridge study (Dutton & Aron)

o Men approached by female researcher after crossing  o IV: immediate vs. delayed contact

o DV: # of men who called researched for a date later

o Results: 65% approached immediately vs. 30% delayed  contact, called for a date  

o Limit: arousal can also amplify unattractiveness  

Getting Together  

• Proximity effect: best predictor of 2 people getting together is  physical proximity  

o Familiarity (mere exposure effect)

o Opportunity (functional distance)

• Study (Festinger, Schachter, Back)

o 65% of friends mentioned were in the same building  o 41% of friend choices were 1 door away  

o 10% of friend choices were 4 doors away  

Similar is Attractive  

• We like people who are similar to us in background, interest,  values, appearance  

o We expect similar others to provide a rewarding interaction o Similar others validate our world view  

o Desire balance in their thoughts, feelings & social  

relationships  

o Similar people tend to like us in return  

• Study of romantic couples found couples were more similar on 66  of 88 characteristics than people paired at random  

Matching Hypothesis  

• We like people who match in physical attractiveness • People are attracted to others who are similar in physical  attractiveness

• Evidence on matched couples  

o More intimate in public settings  

o Report greater love  

o Dating couples less likely to break up within 9 months  Odds Against Un-matched Couples  

• More attractive partner may leave for someone who is similarly  attractive  

• Less attractive partner may become insecure & jealous of the  attention given to the other  

• Less attractive partner may begin to feel unattractive in  comparison to the other person

Gender Differences (based on evolutionary theory) • Females more selective about mating – more careful  o Want resources: social status, wealth, strength, ability,  intelligence, ambition

• Males less selective about mating  

o Want ability to bear offspring: younger, more physically  attractive mates

o Greater desire for short term mating; more sexual partners • Actual partners (study): no difference between men & women  Relationship Contributions: Benefits & Costs  

• Comparison level: what people think they deserve or expect in a  relationship  

• Comparison level for alternatives: what people think they can get  in an alternative relationship

Exchange Orientation

• People expect & desire reciprocity in their social interactions &  relationships  

1. Social exchange theory: satisfaction comes from  

relationships in which we benefit the most & cost us the  least  

2. Equity theory: satisfaction comes from relationships in  which our ratio of benefits to costs is equalized  

• Most likely  

o Early stages = first 3 months focus is on rewards; both  rewards & costs become important by 7th month  

o Casual relationships  

o Relationships that are defined by exchange (e.g. arranged  marriage or making a good match)

Communal Orientation  

• People in a relationship expect & desire mutual responsiveness o Math is less important or even irrelevant  

o Limited to very close friends, longer-term romantic family &  partners  

o A relationship may shift over time & across situations Implications of Exchange vs. Communal  

• Greater liking for those who repay favors if exchange oriented;  repayment = less liking if communal oriented  

• Lack of payment feels like exploitation if exchange oriented; lack  of payment may even be positive if communal oriented

• Communal attend more closely to partners needs & attempts to  help, especially if sad; less so in exchange  

• More time, effort & money spent in communal relationships  Sternburg’s Triangle of Love  

• Passion: intense emotional state of wanting/longing for another  person; sexual desire; obsessiveness; despair

o Just passion = infatuation  

• Commitment: forces that keep partners in an enduring  relationship; trust, availability, interdependence  

o Just commitment = empty love  

• Intimacy: psychological closeness; high self-disclosure  o Just intimacy = liking  

• Passion + intimacy = romantic love  

• Intimacy + commitment = companionate love  

• Passion + commitment = fatuous love  

• All 3 = consummate love – “perfect couple”

Marriage Eras (Finkel)

• 1700-1850 = institutional marriage  

o Food production, shelter, protection  

• 1850-1965 = companionate marriage  

o Companionship, love & be loved, fulfilling sex life

• 1965-Today = self expressive marriage  

o Self discovery, self-esteem, personal growth, achieve  personal fulfillment

• Link between happy marriage & happy life has grown stronger;  being happy in life increasingly depends on couples working on  their relationships  

o But couples are spending less time together due to work &  intensive parenting  

o Couples who spend time together are significantly happier  Communication in Relationships  

• Communication problems are cited as one of the most common  causes of break-ups  

• All relationships undergo stress & conflict; what matters is how  the partners respond  

Negative Communication Patterns  

• Decrease in self disclosure

• Tit-for-Tat: couples cant let any negative reaction go without a  response in kind, resulting in a never-ending downward spiral  • One person demands & the other person withdraws  • Distress maintaining attributions  

o Negative partner behavior are attributed to internal, stable,  global factors  

o Positive partner behaviors are attributed to external,  unstable, specific factors  

4 Horsemen  

1. Criticism: a compliant taken to the next level by including  statements that are blaming, attack character, or insulting  2. Defensiveness: defending oneself from real or perceived criticism  by making excuses, deflecting blame, or avoiding responsibility  3. Contempt: using mockery, sarcasm & hostile humor with the  intent to make ones partner feel stupid, foolish or inferior  4. Stonewalling: actively disengaging from a conversation; looking  away & not responding to questions  

Positive Interaction Patterns  

• Balance conflict by increasing benefits in other areas of  relationship  

• Engage in new, fun activities  

• Take other persons perspective  

• Take a 3rd person perspective  

• Make relationship enhancing attributions  

o Negative events = situation  

o Positive events = person  

STEREOTYPES & PREJUDICE 

Universal Social Phenomenon  

• Almost any aspect of a person’s identity can result in a group-level  response  

• Ex: nationality, race, ethnicity, gender, religion, major, weight, hair  color, etc.

• 3 big ones: gender, age, ethnicity – also can include situation  specific

Group-Based Responses  

• Stereotypes: beliefs about a social group & its members  o Not making any claims about right/wrong or neg/pos • Prejudice: evaluation of social group & its members (attitudes) o Not making any claims if it is justified or not  

• Discrimination: behavior based on social group membership  • All 3 are bi-directional  

Socio-Cultural Perspective  

• Economics – Realistic group conflict theory: group biases result  from conflict over resources (e.g. land, jobs, education)

Motivation Perspective  

• Motivation to maintain positive social identity  

• Social identity theory: because membership in a positively valued  group enhances self-esteem, we are motivated to ensure our in groups are positive  

Minimal Group Paradigm (Tajfel)

• People confer benefits on in-group members over out-group  members, even when there is no personal gain  

• People are motivated to obtain a relative advantage for the in group rather than maximizing absolute gain  

• E.g. in-group = $7 and out-group = $3, preferred over both groups  getting $10  

Fein & Spencer Study  

• IV1: success vs. failure feedback  

• IV2: Jewish (viewed neg at the time) vs. Italian female target  • DV1: ratings of targets qualifications

• DV2: change in self esteem  

• Results 1: success feedback = rating high of both Jewish & Italian;  failure feedback = rating of Italian much higher than Jewish  • Results 2: success feedback = increase in self-esteem somewhat  higher but equal for both Jewish & Italian; failure feedback = much  higher increase in self-esteem for Jewish than Italian  

Cognitive Perspective  

• Group-based responses result from ordinary cognitive processes  of categorization, perception & memory  

• Categorization:

o An object gains meaning through categorization because it  is assumed to have attributes associated with the category

o Cognitive perspective: easy to categorize people into groups  & then assume group attributions  

o Stereotypes alter perception, interpretation & memory  o Stereotypes are functional  

▪ Stereotyping makes life easier by saving time & effort;  see more stereotyping when people are low in energy  

Correll Study  

• Video game where participants had to decided whether or not  someone had a gun & if they should shoot  

• IV1: white vs. black target  

• IV2: gun vs. other object  

• DV1: decision time (correct)

• DV2: error responses  

• Results 1: armed = faster to say shoot blacks; unarmed = faster to  say don’t shoot whites  

• Results 2: armed = more error to say don’t shoot if white;  unarmed = more error to say shoot if black  

Stereotypes Influence Interpretation & Memory

• Stone study: participants listened to audio replay of a college basketball game & asked to pay attention to particular player  o IV1: told player is black or white  

o Results: athletic ability = better rating for black player;  court smarts = better rating for white player  

• People remember stereotype consistent info better than neutral  or inconsistent info, especially when distracted or pressed for  time  

Research Findings on Stereotype/Prejudice/Cognitive Function  • Time of day; time pressure; multiple tasks; alcohol; reductions in  self-regulatory responses; individuals w/lower executive control Reducing Group Bias  

• Socio-cultural: change media, reduce conflict, increase  cooperation, contact  

• Motivation: expand in-group to include others, self-affirmation  • Cognitive: increase time & attention (beware of fast decisions),  focus attention on individual characteristics (cooperative  personal interaction)  

Explicit Bias  

• Stereotypes & prejudice that are openly endorsed

o Measured by self-report & are vey low toward historically  stigmatized groups (e.g. ethnic/racial minorities)

o Implications for behavior are very clear  

Implicit Bias  

• Stereotypes & prejudice that may not be acknowledged  o Measured by reaction time or other means that reveal  associations without explicit intention of the actor  

• Ex: Koffka Ring

o Perceptions = experience + expectations + cues  

o Happens automatically – no one is perfect  

o Very difficult to ignore perceptions that seem real  

• IAT: implicit association test  

o Respondents sort pictures & words in ways that are  congruent or incongruent with pre-existing associations  • Implicit group biases are only weakly associated with explicit  group biases  

• Implicit bias appears to be involved in judgment & behavior in  subtle ways  

Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner Experiment  

• IV1: measured degree of implicit race bias  

• IV2: measured degree of self-reported (explicit) race bias  • DV1: verbal friendliness during interaction  

• DV2: nonverbal friendliness during interactions  

• Results:

o Explicit prejudice: verbal = .40 nonverbal = .02

o Implicit prejudice: verbal = .04 nonverbal = .41  

Implicit Bias in Real Life  

• Doctors’ interaction with black patients  

• Study of elementary teachers: implicit ethnic bias was associated  with their minority students’ school achievement  

• Study of managers: implicit obesity bias was associated with  inviting an obese job applicant for an interview  

• Studies of college women: implicit men+math bias was associated  with lower participation, more negative beliefs & worse  performance  

Effect on Targets  

• Unfair outcomes in education, housing, finances, health care, law  enforcement

• Health consequences due to bias-related chronic stress  • Self-fulfilling prophecy  

• Attributional ambiguity  

• Stereotype threat  

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy  

• The process by which ones expectations of a person cause that  person to behave in ways that confirm those expectations  • Word, Zanna & Cooper Study  

o Study 1: white participants randomly assigned to interview  a white or black job candidate  

▪ Results: participants sat farther away, made more  

speech error & held shorter interviews with black  

o Study 2: white participants in simulated interview were  randomly assigned to be treated in a distant or close  

manner  

▪ Results: distant treatment rated lower in job  

performance & calm/composed vs. close treatment  

Attributional Ambiguity  

• Uncertainty about whether the treatment one receives is due to  personal attributes or group membership (discrimination) • Negative feedback: did I really do well & should take pride in my  work, or is the person trying to hide their prejudice  

• Research findings:

o Feedback can be viewed as more helpful to white students  than black  

▪ White accepted feedback regardless if evaluator knew  race  

▪ Black only accepted feedback if evaluator didn’t know  race  

o Cognitive load was higher for black students subjected to  more subtle vs. explicit bias  

Stereotype Threat  

• Prevalent negative stereotype about ones group creates concern  about being viewed in terms of the stereotype & anxiety about  confirming the stereotype in the eyes of others  

• Concern, worry, anxiety  

• Increased effort that overloads the system  

• Worst performance

• Steele & Aronson Study:

o Participants: black & white Stanford students  

o IV: test described as diagnostic vs. non-diagnostic of  intellectual abilities  

o DV: performance on difficult verbal test  

o Study 4: randomly assigned to indicate race before the test  o Results: black students underperform compared to white  students when told it is a diagnostic test; absolutely no  difference between blacks & whites when told it is a non diagnostic test  

▪ When race is indicated blacks underperform; no  

difference between blacks & whites when race is not  

indicated  

• Research findings:  

o Female students performed worse on math tests when  asked to indicate gender or when told the test reveals  

gender differences  

o White male students performed worse on math tests when  reminded that Asians do better than whites  

o White students performed worse on golf task when  described as a test of natural athletic ability vs. described as  a test of sports intelligence  

GROUP PROCESSESS 

Social Facilitation: Other People Can Help or Harm  • Why does the presence of other people sometimes improve &  sometimes harm performance?

• Mere Presence Theory: the mere presence of others increases  arousal which improves performance on easy tasks but interferes  with performance on difficult tasks  

• Zajonc’s Cockroach studies:

o Cockroaches tested on their speed of escape from a bright  light  

o Presence of others in an easy task = perform better  w/others presence

o Presence of others in a difficult task = performance slowed  w/others presence

• Mere presence of others --> arousal --> increase in dominant  response tendencies:

o A. Simple or well-learned tasks, the dominant response is  the correct response --> performance is facilitated  

o B. On difficult or novel tasks, the dominant response is an  incorrect response --> performance is impaired  

• Why social facilitation occurs  

1. Mere presence: all it takes is the presence of conspecifics 2. Evaluation apprehension: presence of people raises  concerns about evaluation that increases arousal  

3. Distraction-conflict theory: presence of people increases  attentional conflict that increases arousal  

Practical Applications  

• What should you do if you know other people will be around  when you want to perform your best?

o Practice, practice, practice  

o Learning complex material is better on your own; study  groups are good for consolidating material & getting a  

different perspective (same with new athletic skill)

o Workers with complex jobs will benefit from a private work  area  

Social Loafing

• The tendency to exert less effort on a task when contributions are  pooled (individuals are unidentified)

• Why does social loafing occur?

o People are motivated by rewards  

▪ When individuals effort is hidden, more effort doesn’t  bring greater reward  

▪ Intrinsic motivation may not be enough  

▪ Few people want to be seen as the “sucker” who does  the work while others takes it easy  

o Conditions that increase social loafing  

▪ Individual effort is not identified  

▪ Task is not intrinsically motivated  

▪ No explicit agreement to each do one’s share  

• Decrease social loafing  

o Identify individual effort or make groups small enough to be  identifiable  

o Make the task interesting

o Highlight the importance of each person’s effort for a  successful outcome  

o Poor group performance is punished  

o Increase social identity (social loafing less likely in  

collectivistic cultures)

Social Facilitation

Social Loafing

• You are identified  

• Presence of others is  

arousing  

• Easy task = better  

performance  

• Difficult task = worse  

performance

• You are hidden, one of many  • Presence of others is  

relaxing  

• Easy task = worse  

performance  

• Difficult task (challenging) =  better performance

Deindividuation 

• Decrease in self-awareness, which results in reduced self regulation & greater conformity to situational norms  

o People can “lose their selves” under different circumstances  (e.g. loud music, alcohol, darkness) but the presence of  

other people increases the effect  

• Antecedent conditions --> internal state (deindividuation) -->  behavior effects  

• Examples: dancing in a crowded dark bar, at sports stadium • At Halloween (Diener): 1,300 children were observed during trick  or treat on Halloween night; they were told to take one piece of  candy from an unattended bowl, with a second bowl of change  nearby  

o IV1: children in group vs. alone  

o IV2: children anonymous vs. identified  

o DV: percentage who took extra candy or stole money

o Results: more candy taking when in group than alone;  decline in taking more candy when they are identified  

(bigger difference seen in groups)  

• Is it always bad? (Johnson & Downing study)

o Showed more pro-social behavior when participants were  deindividuated by a costume that invoked norms of helping  (nurse’s uniform)

Group Decision-Making  

• Advantages:

o Pooled knowledge  

o Diverse perspectives  

o Others can challenge us to think deeper & more creatively  • Disadvantages:  

o Individuals have group goals besides performance (e.g.  liking, consensus, fitting-in, self-promotion, power)

▪ Groups tend to focus on shared knowledge & fail to  benefit from unique perspectives (biased-sampling)

• Groupthink  

o Faulty thinking by members of highly cohesive groups in  which the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the  issues at hand is subverted by social pressures to reach  consensus  

• Group polarization  

o Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than  those made by individuals

o Whatever way the group as a whole is leaning, group  discussion tends to make it lean further in that direction

CHAPTER 10 VOCAB 

Communal Relationship:  

• Individuals feel a special responsibility for one another &  give/receive according to the principle of need (long-term)  Exchange Relationship:  

• Individuals feel little responsibility toward one another;  giving/receiving governed by concerns of equity/reciprocity  (short-term)

Social Exchange Theory:  

• How people feel about a relationship depends on their  assessments of its costs/rewards  

Comparison Level:

• Expectations about what people think they deserve or expect to  get out of a relationship  

Comparison Level for Alternatives:

• Expectations about what people think they can get out of  alternative relationships  

Equity Theory:  

• Motivated to pursue fairness/equity in their relationships – benefits proportionate to effort of both people  

Attachment Theory:  

• Early attachments with parents can shape relationships for a  persons whole life  

Anxiety Dimension of Attachment:

• A person is worried about rejection & abandonment by  relationship partners  

Avoidance Dimension of Attachment:

• A person is comfortable with intimacy & dependence on  relationship partners  

Functional Distance:

• Influence of architectural layout to encourage or inhibit activities  – contact with people  

Mere Exposure Effect:  

• Repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to a greater liking of the  stimulus

Complementarity:

• People to seek others with characteristics that are different from  & complement of their own  

Halo Effect:  

• Belief that attractive people posses a host of positive qualities  beyond physical appearance  

Reproductive Fitness:

• Capacity to pass ones genes on to subsequent generations  Investment Model of Commitment:

• 3 things make partners more committed  

1. Relationship satisfaction  

2. Few alternative partners

3. Investments in relationship  

CHAPTER 11 VOCAB  

Stereotype:

• Belief that certain attributes are characteristics of members of a  particular group  

Prejudice:

• Negative attitude or affective response toward a group & its  individual members  

Discrimination:

• Unfair treatment of individuals based on their membership in a  particular group  

Modern Racism:

• Prejudice directed at racial groups that exists alongside the  rejection of explicitly racist beliefs  

Artifact:

• Research result arising from a faulty method of investigation  IAT:

• Technique for revealing non-conscious attitudes toward different  stimuli, particularly groups of people  

Priming:

• Presentation of info designed to activate a concept & hence make  it accessible

o A prime is the stimulus presented to activate the concept in  question  

Realistic Group Conflict Theory:

• Group conflict, prejudice & discrimination are likely to arise over  competition between groups for limited resources  

Ethnocentrism:

• Glorifying ones group & vilifying other groups  

Minimal Group Paradigm:

• Create groups based on meaningless criteria & examine how the  members of “minimal groups” behave toward one another  Social Identity Theory:

• Persons self-concept/self-esteem derive not only from personal  identity & accomplishments but also from status &  

accomplishments of the groups to which a person belongs  Basking in Reflected Glory:

• Pride in accomplishments of other people in ones group, such as  when sports fans identify with a winning team  

Out-group Homogeneity Effect:

• People assume that within group similarity is much stronger for  out-groups than for in-groups  

Paired Distinctiveness:

• Pairing of 2 distinctive events that stand out even more because  they occur together  

Subtyping:

• Explaining away exceptions to a given stereotype by creating a  subcategory of the group that can be expected to differ from the  group as a whole  

Stereotype Threat:

• Fear of confirming the stereotypes others have about ones group  CHAPTER 12 VOCAB  

Social Facilitation:

• Initially a term of enhanced performance in the presence of  others; now a broader term for the effect of the presence of others  on performance

Evaluation Apprehension:

• People’s concern about how they might appear to others or be  evaluated by them  

Distraction-Conflict Theory:

• Being aware of another person’s presence creates a conflict  between paying attention to that person & paying attention to the  task at hand, & that attentional conflict is arousing & produces  social facilitation effects  

Social Loafing:

• Tendency to exert less effort when working on a group task in  which individual contributions cannot be monitored  

Groupthink:

• Faulty thinking by members of highly cohesive groups in which the critical scrutiny that should be devoted to the issues at hand is  subverted by social pressures to reach consensus  

Self-Censorship:

• Withholding information or opinions in group discussions  Risky Shift:

• Tendency for groups to make riskier decisions than individuals  would  

Group Polarization:

• Tendency for group decisions to be more extreme than those  made by individuals; whatever way the group as a whole is  leaning, group discussion tends to make it lean further in that  direction  

Power:

• Ability to control one’s own outcomes & those of others; the  freedom to act  

Status:

• Outcome of an evaluation of attributes that produces differences  in respect & prominence, & which contributes to determining a  person’s power within a group

Authority:

• Power that derives from institutionalized roles or arrangements  Dominance:

• Behavior enacted with the goal of acquiring or demonstrating  power

Approach/Inhibition Theory:

• High power individuals are inclined to go after their goals & make  quick judgments, whereas low power people are more likely to  constrain their behavior & pay careful attention to others  Deindividuation:

• Reduced sense of individual identity accompanied by diminished  self-regulation that can come over people when they are in a large  group  

Individuation:

• Enhanced sense of individual identity produced by focusing  attention on the self, which generally leads people to act carefully  & deliberately & in accordance with their sense of propriety &  values  

Self-Awareness Theory:  

• When people focus their attention inward on themselves, they  become concerned with self-evaluation & how their current  behavior conforms to their internal standards & values  Spotlight Effect:

• People’s conviction that other people are paying attention to them  more than they actually are

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here