Psyc 221 Class notes
Psyc 221 Class notes Psyc221
Popular in Social Psychology
Popular in Psychology (PSYC)
This 27 page Class Notes was uploaded by Kajal Kaushal on Thursday September 1, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to Psyc221 at University of Maryland - College Park taught by Dylan Selterman in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 4 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychology (PSYC) at University of Maryland - College Park.
Reviews for Psyc 221 Class notes
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 09/01/16
Attraction & Close Relationships Attraction (All relationships – ie friendships) Socialization; Learning Theory Culturally normative features i.e. we like people who play guitar Mutuality in liking Consistent with reciprocity norms Probability of acceptance We like people who like us Evolutionary perspective Physical attractiveness matters most Consistent ratings across cultures Masculine & feminine features, symmetry Ideal figure for reproduction Dispositional Factors Similarity Features (attractiveness); matching hypothesis Social worth and reproductive fitness Caveat – changes for time known Personality, demographics, attitudes, values (music taste) Opposites attract myth Confirmation bias If you give people a survey, they’ll pick who they have most in common, but this doesn’t matter in speed datin – attractiveness does Situational Factors Proximity/mere exposure Linear association between physical distance and less liking/attraction “Mermaid Theory” from HIMYM Doesn’t work if there’s an intially negative attitude Cheerleader Effect Men and Women are more attractive in groups because the average person looks better than any individual person. The whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Asymmetric Dominance Worthless versions of things make similar comparisons seem better Misattribution of arousal The idea that peopl will feel more attraction to a person if their bodies are aroused. People walked across two types of bridges. Suspended vs not Increase in thoughts on sex and are more likely to call to ask them out. Alcohol (the beer googles effect) Everyone looks more attractive Implications/conclusions: Attraction can be easily manipulated! Rejection Need to belong – relatedness Need for intimacy Rejection interferes with agency, selfcontrol Cognitive effects Decrease in ability, performance Social effects Decreases altruistic motivation, Increases antisocial behavior It hurts Brain processes similar to physical pain It feels colder People report temperature being lower It makes you cold Extremitites, blood to central organs Hurts even for rival groups and universally hated/despised groups i.e. Nazi’s Rejection sensitivity Effects of rejection accumulate Apprehension > rejection, selffulfilling prophesy NOT the same as selfesteem Caveat: Hurts more for the rejector! Guilt & negative affect dominate Rejected individuals recover swiftly Recall: affective forecasting Love Love is a drug (literally) Passionate Love Selective attention Appears to be universal; attitudes vary across culture Compasionate Love Affection, commitment, trust, close friendship Can love last? Yes Companionate love commonly increases Passionate love ~ 10% in older couples Similar fMRI activation Social Exchange Theory Relationships as a marketplace Outcomes = Rewards – Costs 5 to 1 ratio for satisfaction, 5 positive actions for every 1 negative Equity (fairness) Communal vs. exchange relationships Exchange is not healthy, do not keep score Look at it wholisticly – communal is healthy Expectations & Outcomes Comparison Level (CL) Satisfaction = Outcome – CL Comparison Level of Alternatives (CLalt) Dependence = Outcomes – Clalt Dependence Lack of alternatives Unsatifying/abusive relationships Importance of social support and economic resources Positive Illusions Cognitive biases See partner/relationship as better than actual Recall: better than average effect Contribute to relationship satisfaction, boost above CL & CLalt. Interdependence (Investment model) Satisfaction + (correlates with commitment) Quality of Alternatives – Investments + Effort justification, sunk costs Commitment (outcome based on all three) Behavioral intention to maintain Satisfaction is strongest predictor Conflict Myth: Conflict is always bad Truth: Dealing with conflict (constructively) is helpful Correlates with relationship satisfaction Couples often feel closer after conflict Active Passive Constructive Voice Loyalty Destructive Exit Neglect Infidelity Extradyadic partner involvement Occurs in 2045% of marriages Major predictor of divorce 4050% of dating relationships Jealousy Multifaceted emotional reaction Reactive vs. suspicious jealousy Person (trait), dyad (relationship health), situation, target/rival, cultural norms Evolutionary Approach Buss – Jealousy is a necessary evil Men & women – different forms of jealousy? Men must avoid being cuckolded Women must avoid abandonment (resource allocation) Jealousy & Infidelity Partner falling in love vs Partner having sex with someone else Infidelity dilemma Men > sexual infidelity is worse Women > emotional infidelity is worse Physiological response same as selfreport Jealousy & Attachment Insecure attachment > Chronic jealousy Attachment & emotional intelligence Selffulfilling prophesy Attachment Humans/apes form deep emotional bonds Explaining adult close relationships based on early childhood experiences Schema is built for close relationships The Prototype Hypothesis Herein lies the root of a parent’s importance, unique, without parallel for a whole lifetime as the prototype for later in life. Attachment Styles Secure Marked by trust, confidence in others, comfortable with closeness/intimacy “Love can last forever” Avoidant/Dismissing Resistant to closeness/intimacy “Getting too close can leda to trouble” Anxious/Ambivalent Excessive assuranceseeking, oscillation “never find what they call love” Effects of Secure Attachment Individuals in relationships: Satifaction, passion, positive emotion For couples: More and better sex, better communication, conflict resolution Effects of Attachment Decreases intergroup bias Increases positive attitudes toward outgroups, esp. with nationality & religion Increases altruism/prosocial behavior The scecure base: Increases general mental health Increases Openness, curiosity Increases Autonomy, agency Dependency paradox More likely to “Live a bigger life” Leadership & Power Good leaders perceived as: Competent (skilled, knowledgable) Decisive (firm version) Consistent after decision (even when wrong) Heuristic for consistency & stability Effects of Power on Leaders Power “corrupts” (e.g. Stanford Prison Experiment) 1. Feels good – social acceptance/promotion 2. Changes relationships between people 3. Alters attention to rewards and punishment 4. Increases automatic processing 5. Decreases inhibitions, increases approach behavior Leadership & Power People value altruistic leaders BUT… don’t choose altruistic leaders Social skills, extraversion, communication, confidence > key predictors Why? Socialprosocial heuristic (“halo effect”) Norm violations Impoliteness, social dominance, explicit rulebreaking Rated as better potential leaders Power corrupts…but corruption empowers Gender & Sexuality What is Gender? Distinguishing gender & biological sex Sex> defined by physiology (e.g. genitalia) Gender > influenced by biological, sociocultural, and cognitive factors Gender Roles Masculine:Aggressive, dominant, independent, stoic, logical, selfassured, adventerous Feminine: Gentle, tactful, submissive, talkative, emotional, empathetic Gender Masculinity & Feminity Androgyny – high degree of both feminine & masculine traits Ideal romantic partners are adrogynous Stereotypical Gender Roles Role of the media: Men > work, competition, war Women > taking care of kids; household Does this affect behavior? Yes. Recall: stereotype threat Stereotypic advertisements > attitudes conformity; decreases confidence in performance tasks What explains the Wage Gap? Religion (statebystate) Belief in God, religious activity > wage gap. Controlling for: age, education, martial status, occupation, time in workforce Gender Prejudice Deception in negotiations MBA students: 24% of men lie to women, only 3% to men Less negotiation success for women Privileged infor to men: “I’m not supposed to tell you this, but…” STEM Interventions Feminine scientific role models? Backfired and decreased interest in science Nonstereotypical environments? Feminism – What Is It? Identitiy vs. Values Most support feminist ideals 95% support equal pay 85% support maternity leave Significantly less women (even fewer men) call themselves “feminist” Gender Differences Greatly exaggerated in pop culture & media “Gender similarities hypothesis” Differences usually small to moderate Sometimes explained by other variables (e.g. status & power) Physical (behavioral) Sexuality (sex drive) Aggression Emotions Expression (esp. negative) Corumination – not good, misery loves company Intensity Selfreport bias? Emotion intelligence Cognitive Math/science (STEM) Visiospatial abilities (caveat: confidence) Verbal/writing skills Communication Social Role Theory Gender differences aren’t innate; result of socialization Parents, peers, siblings, media School Girls score higher grades, why? At a young age, boys are made more physical while girls pay attention. Reinforcement is different for boys & girls Relationships Stereotype: Men = Independent; Women = Interdependent? Reality: Men are more collectively focused; Women more dyadically focused Men: “side by side”; shared activities, groups Women: “face to face”; emotional disclosure, friend pairing Explaining Gender Differences Evolutionary psych Different selection pressures Sexual strategies theory Differential parenting roles Paternity uncertainty Maternity resources Someone who is there with them through this time Sexual Desire/ Sex Drive Men > Women Frequency & intensity Masturbation; fantasy Tie to satisfaction (general & relational) Investments (money & Time) Women are sexual gatekeepers Short Term Mating Male/female students approached by attractive oppositesex confederate Date – 50/50 Apartment 70/5 Sex – 75/0 Sexual Double Standard Women may mask their sexuality more because of social desirability Men may inflate their sexuality (for the same reason) Are evolutionary explanations still valid? Lisa << Mark Intelligence Mental Health Competence Promiscuity Risky Women less likely to accept. Why? Perceived stigma What about men? If they reject… Similar stigma concerns Specific evaluations (men & women): 1) Intelligence 2) Values 3) Popularity 4) Success/power Strong double standard – success Weak double standard Conclusions & Caveats Promiscuious men and women are both evaluated harshly Men & women both afraid of sexual stigma Albeit for different reasons Clark & Hatfeild Revisited Differences in target’s or proposer’s gender? Physical danger & sex appeal Female >> male proposers: intelligence, warmth, success, STD history, sexual skill, mental health Dating Scripts Socialization & norm enforcement Alternative explanation to evoltionary framework Men approach, women receive Promotes inequality, dissatifaction Enforced by men & women Speed dating study: men approach women, women approach men Women are more selective than men Differences in selectivity went away when women approached Sex at Dawn Chimps, bonobos, humans show hypersexuality & promiscuity Huntergatherer societies & partible paternity; norms for “social monogamy” Partible paternity: A women’s egg can be inseminated by multiple men. Therefore, multiple fathers. We are very possesive in relationships. We value monogamy. It isnt clear that it represents a social advantage. Sexual Orientation Defining sexual orientation Characteristics; gaydar? Challenges in studying sexual orientation Stigma Behavior/feelings/identity – discrepancies Sexual Orientation “Discordance” Urban Men’s Health Survey (2006) Higher % of men who have sex with only men in past year identify as straight than gay Almost none identified as bisexual No difference in demographics Erotic Plasticity/ Sexual Fluidity Erotic Plasticity: Degree to which sex drive, emotions, attitudes, & behavior can be shaped/altered External factors (e.g. school, prison) Rates of bisexuality, change in identity Intraindividual phases of sexual activity Continuity (e.g. Break up, seperation) Martial transition “what does sexual orientation ‘orient’?” Most common form of samegender attraction is a polysexual orientation Attraction, bonding for individuals, not genders Common political stereotypes Conservatives are more likely to say it’s a choice – Wrong Liberals suggest it’s something we are born with – Wrong A lot of room for variation and fluidity, similar to BIG Five traits April 18 , 2016 Moral Foundations Theory Individual – Level Morality: Care (vs. Harm) Fairness/Justice (vs. Inequality) Group – Level Morality: Ingroup loyalty (patriotism, allegiance) Authority/Respect (parents, police, institutions) Purity/Sanctity (sex, food, spirituality) th 6 : Liberty (vs. Oppression) – Would fall under individual “The Culture War” Conservatives: Rhetoric prioritizes traditional group values. E.g., sex/gender, flags, outsiders Liberals: Rhetoric prioritizes worldliness & individual human rights. E.g., healthcare, income equality. Morality & Politics 3 Conditions: Control, recycle, nonrecycle Liberals emphasize harm/care – which is how most environmental messages are framed. Difference disappears for purity framing condition Liberals were not able to conceptualize the reasons that conservatives used Political Socialization Ideology, affiliations, attitudes Modeling/learning Genetics Personal (life) narratives Liberals > Lessons involving empathy & harm Conservatives > Lessons involving authority Change? Across the lifespan, very little change (age 30) Major political events (e.g. 9/11) Moving to a different geographic location College Change in political trust Younger Americans more skeptical Acquiring education & resources Social Comparison Donkeys, Elephants, or sheep? People vote on partisan (group) lines, regardless if it conflicts with ideology E.g. Welfare policy Increased policy knowledge doesn’t matter No difference in addition to details Selfserving bias – good estimates for others’ behavior; inaccurate for own behavior Democrats/Republicans both do this Motivated Skepticism Biased political information processing Source derogation, counterarguments Seeking other information Attitude polarization Solution: SelfAffirmation Conservatism “Motivated social cognition” More psychologically restricted Need for closure, certainty, order, structure, stability, conscientiousness Openess to experience, ambiguity tolerance Conservatives report increased happiness Liberals show increased happiness Terror Management Theory Death anxiety Priming danger & death > conservative ideology & policy preferences Increased authoritarianism, social dominance orientation Preference for hierarchy vs. equality Psychological Differences Liberals are quicker to integrate new stimluli, information Greater neurological activity. More efficient at integrating this new information. Attention to pos/neg stimuli Disgust sensitivity Interpreting faces as threatening Promotion – prevention focus Risk aversion Liberals are more focused on promotion of goals Conservatives are more focused on preventing harms Behavioral Economics Income inequality steadily rising Association with mortality. Mortality risks increase linearly with income inequality. Americans underestimate income inequality Americans want a more “even” distribution Consistent across political views Economy – biggest factor for change in dominant political party Overall state of economy vs. individual economic status Sociotropic theory Implicit Political Cognition “Hot” vs. “Cold” cognition Associative vs. Rational Priming Bill Clinton Gray Davis & Independents Priming the flag More conservative implicit attitudes & voting behavior 8 months later! Embodied Political Cognition “Dirty” Liberals Hand Sanitizers > Conservative attitudes, endorse harsh punishments for violations. Media Outlet for mass communication Don’t shape attitudes/opinions or voting behavior Why? Source Derogation Information vs. Entertainment Fatigue & Desensitization What is the media good for? Setting the agenda What do people talk about? Economy >> Environment, criminal justice Initiating conversation Esp. political satire (John Oliver) April 20 , 2016 Group Behavior Tragedy of the Commons Commons Dilemma AKA “Public Goods” Dilemma Resources (food, fuel), property/land, environmental protection, money/income. Cooperation vs. Competition Freerider problems “I’ll take while others give” Prisoner’s Dilemma > Diner’s Dilemma Torn between two options, rely on what others will do as well to make your decision. When dealing with others as individuals, makes more sense to be selfish. Rational decisions? Social Dilemmas How do we reduce overconsumption? Identifiability Salience; size of group Establish norms; social influence People don’t want to deviate from the norm Promote positive role models Operant Conditioning Rewards/ Incentives; altruistic punishment (the 0 points option) Grouplevel morality; “mean Gods” April 25 , 2016 InterGroup Behavior Social Identity Theory Relatedness needs Connectivity, intimacy, bonding Selfconcept; Identity We define ourselves in terms of the groups we belong to We use them as protection; as something to draw strength from Support & Protection Patriotism & ingroup pride > buffer against social stigma & stress Fulfillment/meaning Selfworth; BIRG Bask in reflected glory associate with groups that are doing well Groups are healthy, they help us define who we are They are vital to human existence Intergroup Behavior Minimal Group Effects Paradgrim (MGP) Bias in resource allocation Ingroup similarity, outgroup dissimilarity Ingroup variance, outgroup homogeneity Known as “ingroup/outgroup” bias Groups tend to be competitive Contrast to ingroup cohesion Extension of attribution bias & reciprocity norms FAE & retaliation Why are groups competitive? Transgenerational norms Observation & modeling Historical conflict Prioritizes American history Bias in learning Focus on owngroup struggles Sports Sports teach us to Intergroup Competition Robber’s Cave Study Induce competition in boys’ camp Separate group bonding Conflict outside of regular organized camp activities Reducing Conflict: Info fail Contact – fail Cavaet – other research Conclusion: Realistic Conflict Theory Gave groups a common problem and a common enemy Presenting groups with positive information of competitors didn’t work Group Schemas Stereotypes – schemas based on group membership Ethnicity, location, affiliation, ect. Not always negative Even low prejudice people are aware of stereotypes Origins Learning theory & modeling Genetics Stereotypes & Motivation Cognitive load – Mental shortcut Increases reliance on stereotypes Stereotype activation Increases processing speed “Stereotypes categorize because it requires too much mental effort to individuate” – Susan Fiske Motivated Reasoning Effort to maintain stereotypes; counterexamples Subtyping Create smaller groups within the larger, to make exceptions Stereotypes Stereotype threat & stereotype lift Affects behavior, performance, learning Behavioral confirmation Multiple identities Also for dominant/ majority of groups (e.g. Christians) Group Schemas Stereotypes (cognitive) Thoughts, usually more conscious Prejudice (affective) Feelings, usually more implicit Discrimination (behavioral) Results from both implicit & explicit variables Attitude Measurement Design Physiological: facial muscles, heart rate, ect. Bogus pipline – IAT Both self surveys and the IAT give us important information, though they do not correlate “Shooter Bias” More likely to shoot at darkskinned targets & not shoot at lightskinned targets Error rates “Emotion Perception Bias” Percieve angry/hostile expression in darkskinned faces Neuro threat response is also greater “Weapon Bias” Falsely see a gun after darkskinned Bias & Racism Predicted by implicit, not explicit prejudice Distinguis skin color < 230 mg Specific to racial stereotypes? Maybe.., Asian targets – no danger association Random Groups (MG) General bias only in people with strong beliefs about interpersonal threats How do we fix this? Better weapons training simulations Focus on other cues (body language) Reduce associations with race & danger Making the stigmatized person an ally: Read about a White man who assaults and a Black man who is the hero. Reducing Prejudice “Implicit motication to control prejudice” 1. Recognition that you have implicit bias 2. Negative attitude toward prejudice a. “shooter bias” nullified; dualprocesse model In school, workplace, other environments: Colorblind approach – doesn’t work Multicultural approach – works a little, unless feel forced Polycultural approach – newer, promising, added element of interconnectivity Crossgroup friendships & IOS, + attitudes Extended contact Person 1 & person 2 (same group) Person 2 & 3 (different group) Person 2 & 3 IOS extends to person 1 & 2 IOS Intragroup Phenomena Social loafing Diffusion of responsibility; freeriding Deindividuation Pluralistic ignorance The smokefilled room ~The bystander effect Social Faciliation vs. Social Inhibition SF: happens when behavior is more successful/increases SI: Less able to, behavior diminishes Mere exposure to others Selfefficacy; difficulty/ease of task Social Impact Theory Arousal = Status x Immedicay x Number Same effects in the animal kingdom (E.g., ants, roaches, peacocks, monkeys/apes) Group Polarization (risky shift) Reinforce extreme attitudes (extra info) Narmative & informative social influence
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'