Scientific Method

1) Observation
2) Hypothesis generation
a) Variables must be operationally defined
b) Hypothesis must be falsifiable
3) Design of Study
a) Description vs. Field vs. laboratory
b) correlation vs. experimental
Pros and. cons of study type:
1) Descriptive
a) Rich source; hypothesis not required (less biased)
2) Correlation
a) Can e done archiavally; can be done when it’s unethical to create one (or more)
variables
3) Experimental
a) Control of extraneous variables; can ascertain causality
4) Field
a) More mundane realism; better generalizability (do results translate to real world)-
also experimental realism (experiment engage subject)
5) Laboratory
a) More enviormental control; can achieve experimental realism (vs. mundane)
Social Psychological Themes
1) Deliberative vs. spontaneous reactions
a) influenced by motivation and ability
2) Personal vs. social identity
a) cultures differ in the degree to which they emphasize one over the other
4) People have at least two basic aims:
a) To be right
b) To be like
i) Relative importance of each varies w/ time and situation
Aronson and Mills (1959)
1) “ In the experiment the only difference was the severity of the initiation, so we know
that any difference was due to that procedure.” (pg. 335)
2) Statistical assumptions underlying findings
3) The meaning of statistical significance
a) What do those “p” values really mean.
i) p=0.05 (5% chance of being wrong in a population)
ii) p<.001 (probability of being wrong <.001, less than 1 in 1000 chance of being
wrong
Problems in Conducting Psychological experiments
1) Lack of awareness
2) Presentation bias
3) Experimental demand
a) Cleaver Hans
b) Pygmalian in the classroom
 c) Attractiveness studies…et cetera!
d) Double blind studies
i) Experiment is blind
ii) Participant is blind
Principles to Guide Social Psychological Studies
1) Avoid pain/discomfort for participants
2) Participants can quit without penalty
a) Part of any informed consent, even descriptive
3) Use deception only when:
a) there is no other way to conduct the test
b) the benefit of the experiment outweighs the cost
4) Use appropriate debriefing procedures
5) Experiments should be worth while and carefully planned (not wasted)

Operating Principles of Social Thought

1) We’re often “cognitive misers”—use only the resources needed
2) We are often swayed by recency—fit new thoughts into recently—used frameworks
(they’re easier to remember)
3) We self-generate, cannot always tell the difference between what’s real and what’s
self generated
a) Checking behaviors
b) Loftus’s work on implanting memory
*Heuristics—rules that simplify—we’re deliberating but not very hard
1) Anchoring & Adjustment heuristics
a) Mental models—ideas of typical people/events
i) Schemes—generalized ideas of how things should occur
ii) Scripts—precise delineations of how things should occur
iii) Prototypes—examples of a category
2) Simulation heuristics

Social Psychological Surveys

1) Efficient—both in terms of time and money
2) Problem w/ response sets
a) Avoid value laden language
b) Forced choice
3) Acquiesce
1) Reverse coding
2) Engaging style and wording

In class video exercise: Marathon de sables

 *Hypothesis 1: Competition is a (primary) social endeavor
*Hypothesis 2: The competitors in the Marathon de Sables are motivated by
social goals
-Hypothesis 1 could be tested by correlational and experimental means

Ethical Dilemma (Ch. 9)

Composition of Institutional Review Board (IRB)
-Every scientific institution has one
-Reviews any experiment using human test subjects
-Follow certain federal guidelines

Conformity: in various forms

Themes: Individual vs. Social

Being right vs. being liked
Conformity: change in behavior or opinion as a result of real or imagined pressure from
a person or group
Denotation vs. Connotation
1) Conformist or team player
2) Nonconformist or deviant
3) Hindsight bias often used to justify & glorify nonconformist
a) In reality we tend not to like them (nonconformist) very well
i) Schachter’s studies of models, deviants, sliders

Ash’s Line Studies

1) ¾ of participants conformed at least once
2) Dateline NBC replicated Ash’s experiments (1997)
a) What change? Opinions? Only behaviors?
i) Based on private behavior, true opinions were not changed; participants
simply trying to be liked
ii) True opinion change results in long-term behavior change
What increases Conformity?
1) Unanimity (regardless of group size)
*Actually, very large groups may create less conformity
2) Lack of commitment to initial judgment
3) Accountability to group
*However, if accuracy is emphasized less conformity tends to occur
4) Self-esteem (especially task-related) low
5) Agreeableness is high
6) Collectivist orientation
7) The group or person is an expert, valued, similar to the individual
8) Being a woman
*Difference is small; usually with male-oriented tank and/or male experimenter

Reasons behind conformity

1) To get reward
2) To avoid punishment
3) When we’re uncertain to how to act
a) Information
b) Done via social comparison (a marker or guideline that tells us how to act, just
seeing an example can change behavior, chain reaction like stopping the water
in the shower.)
c) Examples: showering, washing hands, littering

The Group-think Phenomenon

-Historical example: Hitler, Watergate, Bay of Pigs, Challenger Rocket
-Characteristics
1) Cohesive group; members fear group rejection
2) Group isolated from dissidents
3) Prior success: felling of invulnerability
4) Caught up in the hype of the moment
5) Group requires a unanimous agreement
6) Group believes in its own morality
7) In-group vs. out-group process in magnified

What about brainstorming?

1) Production blocking
-everyone has to wait a turn; may forget idea or get distracted
2) Evaluation Apprehension
-people don’t want to be laughed at, to be viewed negatively, so they hold back on
ideas
3) Social Loafing
-think own ideas aren’t important, they won’t get credit, that enough’s been
accomplished for one day
So how to avoid groupthink?
1) State goal as a good decision, state desire for lots of viewpoints
2) Do not allow personal criticisms; encourage criticisms of ideas
3) Leader should not voice strong opinion
4) Assign a “devil’s advocate”
5) Allow anonymity in voting

Characteristics of Groups
1) They are matuually aware
2) They form a “group identity”
a) Membership may be announced indirectly by association (colors, bumper stickers,
etc.); or directly by verbalizing the affiliation (telling people what town your
from)
3) We tend to feel what the group feels
b) Basking in reflected glory
i. Anounce affiliations when groups succeed; other times cover-up affiliation
ii. Collective self esteem
-Draw some of own sense of worth from group members
In-group favoritism
1) Allocating rewards (norm of reciprocity is accepted within groups, not always
outside; also makes us feel good about self.)
a) Even works with minimal groups (groups that are randomly assigned together:
empty labels
2) Drawing inferences about traits, intentions, & actions (we give preference to our own
group, alter thinking to support inferences)

Competing ruthlessly
o Compete with other groups more greedily than within group
o Competitions is more fierce if groups are salient and cohesive

Group tasks
 Additive
o Group’s accomplishment depends on everyone contributing as much as
possible (tug of war)
 Disjunctive
o Groups accomplishment depends on everyone contributing as much as
possible (tug of war)
 Conjunctive
o Group accomplishment depends on having nobody that is too bad
Social influence on emotion
 Emotion has both a physiological and cognitive component
 Social influence on emotion operates according to the informational principle
 When physiological arousal is present and label is ambiguous, use social
comparison to label
o Schacter & Singer’s study of epinephrine and euphoria vs. anger
o How might this foster mob mentality?
 Arousal: heat, lack of sleep, drugs, loud music
A more precise labeling of social influence:
 Compliance
o Based on power, rewards and punishments
 Identification
o Based on attractiveness; desire to emulate the target (changes belief
weekly)
o Can be changed if target desirability changes, or if desire to be right
strengthens
 Internalization
o Based on credibility; intrinsic reward of being correct (we are convinced)
Obedience: a form of compliance
 Classic examples: Milgram’s study, My Lai Massacre, Eichman in WWII
 Increased by:
o Legitimate authority
o Gradual commitment
o Lack of personal responsibility
 o Lack of protestor (dissidents)
 Decreased by
o Less legitimate or present authority (some cheated)
o Proximity of victim
WE LIKE TO FANCY OURSELVES AS HEROES-
WE WOULD’T HAVE DONE IT
Bystander effect
 Kitty Genovese; Eleanor Bradley
 Darley and Latane—nonintervention as a type of conformity
 Before we intervene
(1) Must define emergency
(2) Must think you have the skills/ability to help
(3) Weigh the costs and benefits of helping
(4) Additional factors
(a) Diffusion of responsibility
(b) Sense of mutual fate; no ability to avoid consequences
So, how would you get help?
1) Define the situation as an emergency; say that you need help.
2) Single someone out; make them feel personally responsible
3) Give specific directions as to what to do; remove the ambiguity in the situation

Types of Power in Leadership

 Expert—based on knowledge/ability
 Referent—emphasize common identity
 Informational—uses power of logically compelling arguments
 Legitimate—invokes social norms/obligations
 Reward—has ability to grant or withhold
 Coercive—uses or threatens punishment
Leadership theories
 Great person theory
o Based on a trait perspective
 Situational theory
o Based on context—“Being in the right place at the right time.”
 Contingency theory
o What’ required for leadership changes as the needs of the group change

Social Cognition
I. Stages of social cognition
-2 stage process
1. Take in raw information/ sensations
2. Initial comprehension (e.g. of words)
3. Organize (use familiar categories)
4. Integrate w/ current thought/need
5. Generate own thoughts to mix with objection inputs
-Deliberative
  Happens only when people have the resources and motivations to do it.
 Applying knowledge to reaction from 1st stage
o General world knowledge
o Goal knowledge
o Personal/ group/ event knowledge
II. Determining Automaticity
1. Efficiency
 Can you think about it even when you are distracted?
 Yes=automatic
2. Intention
 Do you think about it even when you don’t intend to?
 Yes=automatic
3. Control
 Can you bring the thought under conscious control?
 Yes=not automatic
4. Awareness
 Do you know when you are thinking about it?
 Yes=not automatic
III. Views of human cognition
 Completely rational
o Felicific calculus (cost/benefit)
o Naïve Scientist
o Co variation and temporal precedence
o Consistency—do they “always” do this?
o Consensus—do others agree on meaning
o Distinctiveness—do others also do this
 Cognitively miserly
o Contexts, heuristics, stereotypes, attitudes, biases, mental
reconstructions….
IV. Contextual effects
 Comparison of alternatives
o Reference points/contrast effects
 Utilize the anchoring & adjustment heuristics
 House sales, used cars, pornography
 Upward and downward comparisons in both other—and self-
judgment
 Situation Priming
o Current &/or typical interpretational categories influence cognition
 Utilizes recency-effect and familiarity (repetitiveness)
 Priming effects can happen outside conscious awareness
 Framing the issue
o Potential for loss or potential grain
o On average, we opt to minimize loss
 Think of this in terms of persuasive technique
  Information Presentation
o Ordering of information
 Primacy effects stronger than recency effects for forming
impressions of others
 Attention decreases w/ later information
 Interpretative sets “flavor” later information
o Amount of information
 Principle of dilution (distracts; influences similarity)
Use of Heuristics
 Representativeness
o Judge according to how similar something is to the “typical”
representative in category
 Gender, racial stereotypes utilize this, for example
 Availability
o Judge according to how easily we can recall an example
 Attitude
o Categorizations made based on emotional and evaluative properties
 More extreme attitudesmore confidence in judgments
o Combine w/ halo and false consensus effects
 Simulation
o Create mental simulations against which to compare current information;
can be difficult to discern from reality (imagining assumes truth, at least
momentarily).
 Categorization
o Simplification/exaggerationstereotype
 In-group/ out-group categorizations
 Out-groups perceived as more homogeneous
o Process works w/ self vs. other perceptions also
 In-groups preferred, even if minimal groups
 Stereotypes influence expectations and behaviors
o Influence interpretation of ambiguous data; create illusory correlations
o Cognitive filters regulate information we process
o Rationalization allows us to maintain stereotypes in the face of
contradictory evidence
o Create self-fulfilling stereotypes (prophesies)
Re-constructing Memory-creating reality
 Influences on recall
o Warding of questions (suggestibility; emotion; representativeness)
 Interplay of hits, misses, correct rejections, and false alarms
 Nonverbal cues can be important reinforcers
o Motivation of person recalling (personal and social)
o Schemes (self-and-others_
 Striving for consistency
 Reducing cognitive dissonance
Types of Bias
  Confirmation bias
o Seek to confirm initial impression/belief
 Hindsight bias
o Sense of having known it already
 Actor-observer bias
o Tendency to attribute own behavior to situational influences; others
behavior to dispositions
 Fundamental attribution error
o Tendency to underestimate situational influences
Can we control social thought?
 Goal directs the deliberative stage
o Tries to focus on a different topic
o Send signal to organizing operation for displacement
 Ironically, this creates a hyper-vigilante state
 There’s also evidence for a rebound effect—when guard is down, thought
increases even more
 Engaging in distracting process that requires skill/ concentration works better (but
still not all that well)
The case of person perception
 Spontaneous
o Categorize: sex, race, age. Etc.
o Inference: assume the person has characteristics you associate w/ above
social categories
 Deliberative
o Gather more information
 Add new info, preferably confirmatory
o Re-categorize
 If new info disconfirms initial impression either
 Find subcategory or
 Find a different category that fits both initial impression
and info that did not fit
Types of information
 Spontaneous trait inferences are made
o Verbal Information
 What we read/hear from others
 What we read/hear from the person
o Nonverbal cues
 Facial-visually prominent=dominant; attractiveness, “Baby face”;
expressiveness; gaze
 Voice-tone, volume, pitch, variability, etc…
 Movement/body-youthful gait; touch; open/closed posture; lean
 With all nonverbal cues, baseline is very important
 (& we sometimes don’t use it)
Implicit Personality Theories
 Personal ideas about “what goes with what”
 o Central traits vs. peripheral traits
 Extrovert vs. introvert
 Norm vs. Cold
o Observe ability of traits is also important in determining how they are
used
o Certain traits can be misleading (e.g. “baby face” example from before.)
 Innate reaction tendencies-evolutionarily adaptive, but may lead to
inaccuracies.
Honesty & Lying
 We tend to attribute honesty to:
o Baby faced individuals
o Attractive individuals
Lying
 We lie because it is adaptive to do so
 Plants and non-human animals all “lie”
o Worth the efforts b/c when successful the liar benefits
o Camouflage; birds faking injury; chimpanzees failing to show teeth
 Lies can be beneficial to both liar and the person lied to
o Save feelings from getting hurt
Why do lies succeed?
 Truthfulness bias
o Polite: otherwise social flow impeded
 Most behavior accepted at face value
o Sense of coherence, just world
 Self-preservation
o We often choose to believe what we want to believe (how flattering is it to
think, “She’s not busy, she just doesn’t want to see me,” better to believe
the cover story.
Types of Lies
1) Lies of omission
2) Lies of commission
3) Lies to self
a. Within categories: lies protect/ help self, protect/help others;
exaggerating; jokes; behaviors; lies for no reason
b. Does a lies purpose matter?
c. How does maintaining consistency change behavior? Change you as a
person?
 Verbal cues to
deception Used? Valid?
Negative Statements no yes
Irrelevant Statement no yes
Generalizing no yes
Distancing no yes

Vocal cues to
deception Used? Valid?
Hesitation yes yes
Higher Pitch yes yes
Speech errors yes yes
Delay b/f speaking yes no
Speaking slowly yes yes
Length of speaking no yes

Visual Cues Used? Valid?

Dilated pupils no yes
Adaptive behaviors no yes
Blinks no yes
Shrugs no yes
Avoid eye contact yes no
Posture shifts yes no
Not smiling yes yes
Emblems no yes
Illustrations no yes
Manipulators yes no

 Lies often detected by inmates b/c liar demonstrate fear, guilt, or “duping delight
(snappy, a little rehearsed)”
o Fear/guilt allows the polygraph to work
 Othello effect-taking cues to indicate lying when in fact the person is not
 Knowing cues help you detect lying more than 50% of the time, but we should
still know the baseline, each person is different

Characteristics of Decisions
 Characteristics that predict dissonance reduction behavior or cognitions
o Irrevocability
 You can’t change your mind
 It seems too difficult to change your mind
 Social norms (politeness) dictate consistency
o Importance of the decision
 You are somehow invested I the outcome and/or the process
Basic types of justification
 External justification
 o Based on situational constraints
 Rewards, punishments, peer pressure, etc…
 No attitude change, or certainty no lasting
o Internal Justification
 Based on attitudinal change; cognitive manipulations
 Occurs when there is inadequate external justification
 Creates long-lasting and stagnant beliefs/attitudes
Sub-categories of Justification
 Justification of effort
o Increased perception of goal’s value
o Decreased perception of effort/price
o Increased perception of progress toward goal
 Justification of cruelty
o Dehumanizing
o Victim blame
o Distancing
o Diffusion of responsibility
Self-justification—form & functions
 Desire to be right (vs. desire to think you are right)
 Principle of rationalityprinciple of rationalization
o Consistency is rational
 Cognitive dissonance
o Discomfort caused when two cognitions (attitudes, beliefs) are
incompatible
 Behaviors don’t always match attitudes and beliefs, but we tend to
think they do
Dissonance Reduction
 Ego-protective or ego-enhancing
o Thus, this is a form of personal bias
 Influential in terms of memory
o Encoding (recall for plausible information that is consistent with current
belief and for implausible information that is in consistent with current
belief
o More naïve acceptance of consistent information; more critical analysis of
inconsistent information
 Illustrates why inoculation effect information
Dissonance & Decision-moving
 Following a decision, especially if it’s costly (money, time, energy)
o Rational exploration decreases
o Confirmation-seeking benefits
 Why? The decision isn’t “perfect” so there’s some dissonance that needs to be
reduced
 Even if not costly, decisions may prompt dissonance reduction
o Underlying principle for “foot-in-the-door” technique
 o Same process as discussed before—taking small steps toward an endpoint.
(Milgram)
Dissonance is greatest when:
 We feel personally responsible for our actions
 Our actions have serious consequences
 Because… these situations challenge our self concept
o If we can externally justify our deeds, or they aren’t important, they don’t
relate importantly to self-concept
o Thus, behaviors might be molded according to these principles
 Provide little external justification (just-enough_
 Require thoughtfulness regarding outcomes of behavior
Dissonance vs. Self-perception
 When making attributions, both are possible
o Self-perception (dispassionate reflection on own behavior to define self)
occurs when there is no clear, unambiguous belief to start
o Dissonance and threats to self-concept became relevant when a clear
initial belief is present
Overcoming our reliance on dissonance reduction
 Understand our dissonance-reduction tendencies
 Realizing that acting irrationally doesn’t mean that we are completely irrational
 Learning to tolerate personal errors
 Increasing value placed on error-recognition
 Creating a self-perception that includes learning from mistakes (making errors, &
learning from them, consistent w/ self-image.

Chapter 6: AGGRESSION

Is it thought?
What triggers it?
Media influences.

PRECURSORS OF FANTASIES ABOUT KILLING

Personal Threat & Public Humiliation = greatest precursors of homicidal fantasies: 55%
both male & females

Women: 40% lover's quarrel Men: 40

Family Argument:
Women 35 Men 18

Work dispute & road hassle: more with men than women

Aggression: any form of behavior intended to injure someone physically or

psychologically
 *Not the same thing as "assertiveness" although colloquially they are often
interchanged
*Can include action (physical) or words (verbal)
*May be hostile (started by anger) or instrumental (driven by goal-orientation)
- Instrumental questions the "intent" in our definition-but intent is not personal
(instrumental: driven by a goal, trying to accomplish something)

Aggression doesn't have to be obvious

* Passive aggression
- ABC Primetime special on parking
- Gang members' graffiti on territory
* Are we pre-programmed to engage in at least some aggressive behavior?

THEORY OF AGGRESSIVE INSTINCTS

*Freud's concept of "Thanatos" (our drive to death, tug-of-war with our life instinct of
eros)
-Hydraulic theory (drives can build up if we don't let them out); catharsis to relieve (get
the anger out)

*Survival of the fittest = survival of the most aggressive

- but we have fight OR flight responses
- we also can be cooperative
- what about the theories of inclusive fitness?
* Maximizing outcomes for own group..
- It seems that FLEXIBILITY is what creates "fitness"

(Rat, bread to be aggressive, becomes non-aggressive after loosing a couple rigged fights.
& Nonaggressive became aggressive)
(So genetics plays some role, but also environment plays a part)

GENETIC AND BIOCHEMICAL CONTRIBUTORS TO AGGRESSION?

*XYY males (supermales?)

* research is flawed
* there may be genetic factors, but so far we haven't successfully identified them
(XXY also show up higher in prison than normal population. Possible reason is both
XXY and XYY tend to have lower IQs)

* testosterone?
* there clearly are some links, but they are complex, operating via reactivity,
socialization, etc.
(Testosterone may be correlated, but may not be cause of higher aggression)
 * When viewing non-violent aggression (e.g., "relational aggression" the M/F patterns
reverse)

IS THERE A LEARNING COMPONENT TO AGGRESSION?

Yes.
* Effects somewhat stronger if model is similar or respected/admired
* Effects even stronger if model is rewarded

Can teach non-aggressive behaviors as well; socialization in non-human animals can

yield surprising (non-instinctual) behaviors

Sex differences largely due to socialization

* decreasing (but no in a positive way)

HOSTILE AGGRESSION: NON-BIOLOGICAL CAUSES

*Aversive Experiences (something unpleasant that happens to you)

- Attacks (physical or verbal)
; Columbine High School example
; "Sticks & stones. . . " not true!
(video game which stopped throwing ball to person activated the same pain center in
brain as place for physical pain)

- Frustration

Frustration aggression hypothesis:

(If you are working toward a goal, and something gets in the way, you will be frustrated
at it and will agress against it)

; Proximity to goal rule (how close were you, kids will tower almost built)
; Aggressive cues hypothesis
(your amount of aggressing will be affected by what type of cues are in the environment,)
- Irritating environmental conditions

* Arousal (excitation transfer)

- Must be unaware that arousal is still there, or think it's due to another cause.
(inappropriate attribution to cause of arousal)

* Disinhibition (our ability to release inhibitions)

11-04-03 cont

DISINHIBITION
 -Weakening or removing normally present inhibitors of aggression
; social disapproval
; fear of retaliation
; mitigating circumstances (we don't want to be wrong)
; personal responsibility
* Chemical factors (i.e., alcohol)
* Deindividuation
- Take on a group identity
(no longer fear social disapproval or retaliation, feel safe with others to
protect you, social comparision, no longer my fault since I am just one piece of the
group)

HOW DOES MEDIAL VIOLENCE AFFECT US?

* Previously learned _inhibitions weaken_

* Provides a _role model_; methods/techniques

* _Priming_ leads to construal of own feelings are more negative and extreme

* _Desensitization_; the shock value is gone, empathy recedes

MEDIA, PORN, & VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN

* Non-violent porn -> no relation to violence

* Violent porn -> associate with more acceptance and higher incidence of sexual violence
and violence toward women
- Study of film viewing, followed by Milgram’s learning study
- Follow-up responses to Sexual Attitude Survey
- Fantasies & beliefs in "rape myth" (believe women enjoyed rape)

SOME REASONABLE INTERVENTIONS?

* Logical argument and reasoning (doesn't seem to be affective)

*Punishment for aggressive behavior

(effective in short run)
- Temporary effects
; Rebound (if punisher gone, behavior returns); aggressive modeling (you, as a
punisher, are yourself modeling aggressive behavior and think it can be appropriate at
times); frustration (if get frustrated, more likely to aggress)
; Compliance vs. internalization (will get compliance, but won't get long term
change of attitude or behavior)
* Punishment of aggressive models
- Doesn't decrease behavior below baseline (show aggressive behavior followed by
punishment not affective enough to merit showing it in the first place)

* Rewarding appropriate behaviors

(when reward goes away, behavior may stop, so need to make sure to emphasize intrinsic
rewards)

* Presence of non-aggressive models

* Teaching empathy (role playing, meet people, practice, make it become a habit as much
as possible)

11-10-03

Prejudism

THREE COMPONENTS OF (NEGATIVE) ATTIDUES TOWARD GROUPS

* Stereotypes (biased assumptions)

- individual or collectivist
- often based on easily seen characteristics

* Prejudice (biased emotions)

- tend to match/influence stereotypes
- "...hostile or negative attitude toward a distinguishable group based on generalizations
derived from faulty or incomplete information." (p. 243)

* Discrimination (biased treatment, actual behavior)

- may be overt (blatant, in your face) or covert (more subtle)

2-STAGE PROCESS OF STEROTYPES, PREJUDICE, AND DISCRIMINATION

* Spontaneous Stage (initial)

- categorize
- biased assumptions
- biased emotions
- biased treatment

* Deliberative Stage (adjustment)

- gather new information
- re-categorize
- avoid guilt
 - suppress reactions (no effort to change, likely to see rebound)

(we have to be actively looking and sometimes there will be conflicts with what we
already believe)

WHY DO WE DO IT?
* Patterned Thought Processes Exist
- Illusory (doesn't exist, based on an illusion) correlation (relationship between to
variables)
- ignoring covariation (oversimplifying, there are many other variables that we may not
be looking at: does A lead to B which actually causes C, Is B a factor of both A and C?)
- implicit (self-generated) stereotyping (i.e., using different criteria for judging different
groups)

* Personal Relevance Influences Us

- maintain positive social identity (ingroup/outgroup effect, people in our group are
better people, we want to feel good about our group, self-esteme)
- symbolic values (how our society ought to be, where we fall in the greater scheme of
things)
- conflicting emotions ("ambivalence amplification:" our tendancy to think of groups
with more extremes when ambivalence is involved. When you have little informatino to
go by, you exaggerate what you have to make an opinion)

* Social Functions are Served

- group goals
- media bias
- social roles/norms

Prejudice may exist on both sides and society may perpetuate it. And both sides may buy
into a stereo type, and then we get self-fulfilling prophecies.

BENEVOLENT (looks good, compassionate, or nice) VS. HOSTILE PREJUDICE

*Sexism, racism, etc.

- Implicit stereotyping (different criteria)
- Stereotypically positive views of groups
- Stereotypically negative views of groups with strong desire to help/protect group
; Benevolent is more difficult to tackle from both sides
- Perpetrators feel justified/moral
- recipients feel ungrateful/petty

STEREOTYPE THREAT

* Steele & Aronsons's study

- Addresses issue of covariation
 - Addresses issue of social norms

* Found that extra burden of apprehensiveness re: stereotype impaired performance on

test
- True for all tested groups
(fear of perpetuating stereotype actually made groups perform worse)

VICTIM BLAME-AGAIN

* May occur as scapegoating (creates teh victim)

* Corelated with lower levels of empathy (be be in their shows, feeling what they are
feeling)
* Associated with belief in a just world
* Strengthened by hindsight bias
* Particularly strong in abiguous situations
- Utilizes the "ultimate attribution error" - making attributions consistent with
presjudices when situation is ambiguous

CONDITIONS PROMOTING PREJUDICE (ALLPORT)

* Social structure marked by heterogeneity

* Vertical mobility is permitted (one gets job at another's expense)
* Rapid social change in progress (creates tension)
* Ignorance & barriers to communication
* Size of minority group is large (pose larger threat, more contact, harder to subdue)
* Direct competition/realistic threats exist (limited resources)
* Exploitation sustains important interests (slavery)
* Customs favoring aggression are favorable to bigotry
* Justifications for ethnocentrism are available
* Neither assimilation nor cultural pluralism favored

STOPPING THE PROCESS

* Contact Hypothesis
- mutual goals (interdependence)
- equal status for the groups (possible? arguable)
- acquaintance potential (know individual)
- Generalization (flip side of individuality)

* Re-categorization Hypothesis
- Combination (melting pot idea) (problem: inequity in who loses the most identity,
minority groups are giving up a lot)
- sub-typing (interdependency combined with emphasis on individual uniqueness)
(supposedly better than melting-pot)
; Found in some jigsaw technique situations
 Chapter 8
November 17, 2003
Liking, Loving, Etc…
Multiple Influences on Interpersonal Attraction
 Evolutionary Pressures
o Men maximize reproductive success by mating
o Women maximize reproductive success by parenting
 Need to belong
o From infancy, both men and women need to belong in close relationship
 Cultural standards
o Men traditionally assign to acquire resources
o Women traditionally assigned to care for children
 Many modern men advertise for physically attractive women by offering
resources
 Many modern women advertise for successful men by offering looks

What is attractive?
 We like people whose behavior provides us with maximum rewards at minimum
cost.
o Similar beliefs/interests
o Skills/abilities
o Admirable qualities (honesty, kindness, beauty, loyalty)
o Those who like us
 What about our liking what has been hard earned, or suffered for?

Personal Characteristics
 Competence vs. Similarity
o Yes, we generally like competent people; but if they are too perfect, they
may be resented, so a “fall” may make them more likeable (more “like
us”).
o Pratfall effect—error accentuating the positive or negative initial
perception
o Pratfall effect functions best when we perceive competition w/ the
competent person.

Personal Characteristics
 Physical Attractiveness
o What we say vs. what we do
o Similarity in level of attractivness
 o Implicit personality theory holds here
 Agreement on what is attractive and what characteristics attractive
people have.
o Self-fulfilling prophecies
 Beliefs about attractiveness of new acquaintance
 Translated into actual attractiveness, rated by blind assessors

Personal Characteristics
 Person likes you
o Similarity
o Self-esteem is boosted
o Reward-cost theory vs. gain-loss theory
 Exclusively positive evaluations will result in more attraction (R-
C)
 Changes in evaluations will carry more impact than stable
evaluations (C-L)
 Sequence must imply a change of heart
 Change must be gradual
Liking vs. Loving
 Follow along the lines of exchange vs. communal relationships
o Exchange-monitored equity
o Communal-equity trusted, not monitored
 Important to love; proximity, similarity, & many of the factors that are also
important in liking.

Chapter 8
November 20, 2003
Liking, Loving, Etc.
Liking vs. Loving
 Follow along the lines of exchange vs. communal relationships
o Exchange—monitored equity
o Communal—equity trusted, not monitored
 Important to love; proximity, similarity, and many of the factors that are also
important in liking

Definitions & Types of Love

 Hatfield and Rapson
o Passionate-emotional, sexual, preoccupied; relatively short-lived
o Companionate-milder, more stable, trust/dependability/ warmth; long –
lasting
o Sternberg’s “Triangle of love”
 Passionate—euphoria, sexual excitement
 Intimacy—feeling understood, free to express
 Commitment—loyalty, need to be w/ the other
  Passion + Intimacy=romantic lovecompanionate (Intimacy +
commitment
 Consummate love blends all three (rare)
Definitions & Types of Love
 Hendricks &Hendricks Love styles
o Game-playing
 Treating love like a game or a sport
o Possessive
 Wanting to bind the partner to and endearing relationship
o Logical
 Treating love as a practical, down-to-earth decision
o Altruistic
 Sacrificing for love, putting partners happiness above your own
o Companionate
 Loving affection, companionship, and friendship that develops
over time
o Erotic
 Sheer physical excitement and sexual pleasure
Applying Gain-Loss Theory to Love
 As we get to know people better, we know their faults—change from positive to
more even positive/negative (less desirable).
o Does personal behavior bear this out? Yes
 As we expect rewards from our partner, their behavior toward us may be less
rewarding than that of a “stranger” (ceiling effect—how much more can we get?).

Initiating Close relationships

 Clark & Hatfeild Study
o Male/Female differences—evolutionary pressures
o Differences minimal when long-term relationship is specified
o Rules of disclosure; norms of reciprocity
 Level of disclosure equal for Male/Female
 Types of disclosure & behavior different for male/female

Types of Marriages (Fiske)

 Communal Sharing
o Merging of selves; sharing body, time, space values
 Authority Ranking
o One spouse has control over the other and responsibility for the other
(status)
 Equality Matching
o Spouses have equal rights, take turns, have distinct coequal personalities
 Market Pricing
o Spouses give as few concessions as possible try to get best terms

Problem Behaviors
  Possessive
o More often cited by men
 Inconsiderate
o More often cited by women
 Abusive
o More often cited by women
 Neglecting
o More often cited by women

Active—Passive & Destructive—Constructive

Exit Voice Neglect Loyalty

Gottman’s Corrosive Behaviors

 Complaining & Criticizing
o Bring up areas of disagreement; call attention to problems
 Contempt
o Put down partner; show contempt w/ hostile humor, mockery, sarcasm
 Defensiveness
o Communicate blamelessness; deny responsibility; attribute negative
feelings/attitudes to partner
 Stonewalling
o Withdraw from interaction; do not look at partner or acknowledge partner

Authenticity in Communication
 Showing negative elements makes us vulnerable
 The alternatives to this may create new problems (Alice and Phil example in
book).
 “Straight talk” is most effective, yet difficult to achieve:
o Direct & open
o Not allowed to fester, to second-guess
o Stating feelings vs. Judgement
o Validating
o Making bids for attention (signs of healthy relationship).