psych exam three

aggression

physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone

physical aggression

hurting someone else’s body

social/relational aggression

hurting someone else’s feelings or threatening their relationships

hostile aggression

aggression that springs from anger, its goal is to injure

instrumental aggression

aggression that aims to injure, but only as a means to some other end

instinctive behavior

an innate, unlearned behavior pattern exhibited by all members of a species

frustration

blocking of goal-directed behavior

displacement in aggression

redirecton of aggression to a target other than the source of frustration

~ displaced aggression is most likely when the target shared some similarity to the instigator and performs a minor irritating act

~ Vasquez experiment, USC students were provoked by having an experimenter insult their performance on an anagram-solving test (1), shortly later participants had to decide how long another students would be required to immerse their hand in painful cold water when completing a task (2), when the student committed a trivial offense of giving a mild insult, the provoked participants recommended a longer cold-water treatment than unprovoked participants

relative deprivation

perception that one is less well off than others with whom one compares oneself

~ the greater the income gap, the higher the sense that others are getting something you’re not

~ people who saw themselves as lower in socioeconomic status, whether they were or weren’t, were more aggressive

social learning theory of aggression (aggression as learned social behavior)

theory that we learn social behavior by observing and imitating and by being rewarded and punished

~ Bandura experiment, preschool child put to work on interesting art activity, adult in another part of room, where there is an inflated Bobo doll and after playing with the Tinker Toys for a bit the adult gets up and attacks the inflated doll, after this child is taken to diff room with many good toys but told these are the best toys and must be saved for other children, frustrated child goes into another room with toys designed for aggressive and nonaggressive play, two of which are a Bobo doll and mallet, children not exposed to aggression rarely displayed aggressive play or talk, those who observed aggression more likely to pick up mullet and lash out at doll

catharsis

emotional release

og frustration-aggression theory

frustration always leads to aggression and aggression always comes from frustration

~ Breuer study, college students who were frustrated by losing a multiplayer soccer video game blasted opponents with longer and louder bursts of painful noise

~ Brown study, surveyed British ferry passengers heading to France, found more aggressive attitudes on a day when French fishing boats blockaded port and ferries couldn’t get through, passengers became more likely to insult French person who had spilled coffee

revised frustration-aggression theory

frustration produces aggression only when others’ actions seem unjustified, so, frustration leads to anger which leads to readiness to aggress

~ frustrated person is likely to lash out when aggressive cues pull the trigger, cues associated with aggression amplify aggression

biological theory of aggression

three theories of aggression

~ instinct

~ frustration

~ social learning

aversive experiences influencing aggression

pain, heat, attacks

aggression cues

violence is more likely when aggressive cues release pent up anger

types of attachment styles

secure, avoidant, anxious

proximity

more often, proximity prompts liking

~ functional distance: how often people’s paths cross

~ anticipation of interaction: adaptory liking

~ mere exposure

functional distance

~ In Lykken and Tellgen study, half of identical twins recall liking their twin’s fiance selection, only 5% say they could’ve fallen for the selection

~ repeated exposure and interaction with someone may cause infatuation to fix upon anyone as long as anyone has roughly similar characteristics and who reciprocates affection

anticipation of interaction

~ University of Minnesota study, give women ambiguous info about two other women, one of whom they are expected to interact with, women preferred the person they expected to meet

mere exposure effect

familiarity fosters fondness

~ in a study, people of differing nationalities, languages, and ages prefer letters appearing in their names and appear in their language over others

~ if incessant repetitions, liking eventually drops

~ Allen and Harmon-Jones study, when repeatedly show people a woman’s face, their cheek muscles become more active with repetition

~ even stronger effect when stimuli is received without awareness

~ women heard music in one headphone and words in another, told to concentrate on words and repeat them out loud, when they hear tunes later among similar ones not played before, they didn’t recognize them, but liked these previously heard tunes best

~ emotions are more instantaneous than thinking

~ monkey’s amygdala lesioned, only impaired emotional responses, hippocampus lesioned, only cognition impaired

~ has adaptive significance as helped ancestors categorize things as familiar and safe or unfamiliar and potentially dangerous

~ mita study, women showed picture of themselves and mirror image

~ when asked which pic they preferred, it was mirror image, when close friends were asked, true image

physical attractiveness

~ Meltzer study, in longitudinal study, wife’s physical attractiveness predicted husband's marital satisfaction better than husband’s physical attractiveness predicted wife’s satisfaction

~ ay and straight men value appearance more than lesbian or straight women

~ Hatfield study, University of Minnesota first-year students matched for a dance, gave each student personality and aptitude tests, but then matched couples randomly

~ when evaluating date, only one factor was determined, attraction

matching phenomenon

tendency for men and women to choose as partners those who are a “good match” in attractiveness and other traits

~ White study, UCLA dating couples, those most similar in physical attractiveness 9 months down the line to have fallen more deeply in love

halo effect (physical-attractiveness stereotype)

assume physically attractive people possess other socially desirable traits such as happiness, intelligence, success

~ Lemay et al., more eager to bond with attractive people which motivated our projection of desirable attitudes such as kindness into them

~ attractiveness most affects first impressions and superficially made choices

~ Roszell et al. looked at Canadian incomes for whom interviewers rates on a 1 to 5 scale, between homely and strikingly attractive, for each additional scale of rated attractiveness, on average $1,988 earned annually

likeness-leads-to-liking

~ people entering room of strangers sit closer to those similar to themselves

communal vs. exchange relationships

psychologists Clark and Mills distinguish between two primary types of social bonds:

• exchange relationships: guided by the logic of rewards and equity, these often focus on direct reciprocation and are more common in modern cultures. high focus on equity in a marriage is often correlated with lower relationship satisfaction.

• communal relationships: defined by a sense of mutual responsibility and care rather than direct reciprocation, typical of families, close friends, and small villages. partners give one another more credit, which is associated with less burnout.

cultural and religious variations in relationships

• workplace: in east asian cultures, a long-term employee who struggles might be treated like family and kept on the payroll, whereas western cultures often view the relationship as a contractual exchange and may let them go.

• religion: catholic countries generally tend more toward communal norms compared to protestant countries.

self-regard and partner regard

individuals find value through the eyes of their partner, measured through:

• actual regard: the partner's true opinion.

• perceived regard: how the individual thinks their partner views them. murray’s longitudinal study found that both actual and perceived regard predict changes in self-esteem (se).

rejection sensitivity (rs)

rejection sensitivity is a fear of losing a close person, distinct from general self-esteem. it functions as a protective strategy to watch for signs of rejection. high rs individuals may increase efforts to gain acceptance through self-silencing or ingratiating behaviors.

the michelangelo effect

this concept describes how partners help one another reach their "ideal selves":

• perceptual affirmation: the partner’s view aligns with your ideal self-image.

• behavioral affirmation: the partner takes actions to elicit behaviors that move you toward your ideal, impacting goal attainment.

noticing the event

the seminarian study showed that students ahead of schedule helped a person in distress 63% of the time, while those behind schedule helped only 10% due to a 'narrowing of attention.'

interpreting correctly (avoiding pluralistic ignorance)

pluralistic ignorance occurs when bystanders look to others to define the situation. in the smoking room study, 75% reported smoke when alone, but only 10% did so when with passive confederates. the lady in distress study demonstrated that participants were more likely to help if alone (70%) versus in pairs (40%). if facing each other, their concerned reactions broke pluralistic ignorance and increased helping.

clarity of cries

helping is more frequent when a victim screams they are being assaulted compared to yelling 'fire' because 'assault' is less ambiguous.

assuming responsibility (avoiding diffusion of responsibility)

diffusion of responsibility occurs when the presence of more people reduces personal pressure to intervene. in the epilepsy study, 85% helped if they believed they were the only witness, compared to 31% when four others were listening. the beach study showed that strangers asked to watch things helped 95% of the time compared to only 20% when asked for a match.

deciding how to help

the bystander must feel competent to act, such as knowing cpr. this involves a cost-benefit analysis of the risks and efforts of helping against the benefits.

the role of happiness

prosocial spending leads to greater happiness than spending on oneself.

gratitude

sarah algoe's 'find, bind, and remind' theory suggests that gratitude helps identify and strengthen bonds with trustworthy partners, increasing communal strength and the comfort of voicing concerns.

empathy-altruism

high empathy leads individuals to help even in situations where escape is easy (80-90% help regardless of ease of escape).

cialdini’s inducement techniques

• guilt: making someone feel responsible for a mishap increases their likelihood of helping a stranger later.

• door-in-the-face: starting with a massive request makes people more likely to agree to a smaller, subsequent request.

• low-ball: inducing a commitment through a promise and then withdrawing it often results in continued behavior even without the original incentive.

positive effects of giving and gratitude

~ prosocial Spending and Happiness: Liz Dunn’s research found that prosocial spending (spending money on others) is positively correlated with happiness, even when controlling for income levels

~ in an experimental replication, participants were asked to report their happiness in the morning and then given an envelope of money to spend on either themselves or a friend; those who spent the money on others reported being significantly happier in the evening

~ the "Find, Bind, and Remind" Theory: Sarah Algoe proposes that gratitude serves to find trustworthy partners, bind individuals together, and remind them of people they can count on

~ in a study on romantic partners, one partner’s report of doing something thoughtful predicted the other’s feeling of gratitude

~ this gratitude led to both partners feeling the relationship was stronger the following day

~ communal Strength: In a study by Lambert, undergraduates expressed gratitude to a close friend for three weeks

~ compared to a control group, these friends reported higher communal strength (feeling mutual responsibility for one another) and felt more comfortable voicing concerns

sociobiology and evolution

the evolutionary perspective on altruism is centered on the concept of the "selfish gene"—the idea that helping is a strategy to ensure genetic survival

empathy and helping

~ the Batson Empathy-Altruism Study: Participants were placed in a situation where they watched another person (who was supposedly frightened) receive electric shocks

~ low Empathy: Participants who observed the situation "clinically" only helped if they were forced to stay and watch; if they could easily escape, their helping dropped to 18%

~ high Empathy: Participants who put themselves in the victim's shoes helped 80–90% of the time, regardless of whether it was easy to escape the situation

~ concern for Future Generations: Abigail Marsh’s work on "super altruists"—people who donated kidneys to strangers—found that these individuals score higher on concern for future generations

~ this suggests they have an expanded sense of who they consider "close" to them, extending even to people who have not yet been born

inducing help

~ guilt

~ dissertation Breakdown: In a study where a researcher's "dissertation" (a stack of cards) was knocked over, people who felt responsible for the mess were more likely to sign a "save the redwoods" petition later (80% vs. 45% in the control group)

~ b oken Camera: When led to believe they broke someone's camera, 55% of people helped a subsequent stranger with a grocery spill, compared to only 15% who were told the camera just "acted up" on its own

~ reciprocal Concessions (Door-in-the-Face): Starting with an extreme request (e.g., being a "big sibling" for 2 years) makes a smaller request (chaperoning a zoo trip) more likely to be accepted because the smaller request is viewed as a concession

~ the Low-Ball Technique: This involves getting a commitment based on a promise, then withdrawing that promise. In an Iowa energy conservation study, people who were promised their names would be publicized in the newspaper for conserving energy continued to conserve—and even increased their conservation (up to 15%)—after they were told the names could no longer be published

~ modeling: seeing others help increases the likelihood of an individual helping

~ examples include "salting" tip jars (putting your own money in first to show others have tipped) or seeing someone else stop to help change a tire on the side of the road

~ study of 100 Holocaust rescuers found they frequently reported that stories of altruism and helping were a central part of their upbringing

judge and jury agreement

A major study of 3,600 criminal trials by Kalven and Zeisel found that judges and juries agree on verdicts about 75.5% of the time

. When they disagree, the jury is significantly more likely to be more lenient; juries acquitted in 16.9% of cases where the judge would have convicted, while judges only sought to acquit in 2.2% of cases where the jury convicted

. This frequent disagreement suggests that juries are far from perfect and are influenced by factors other than pure legal interpretation

jury selection process

Implicit Theories and Scientific Selection: Lawyers often rely on their own "implicit theories" when picking jurors, such as assuming people from one side of a classroom are more prone to judge guilt

. However, scientific jury selection uses data to find specific biases; for example, research shows women are more likely to convict in grape cases but less likely to convict a woman accused of killing a battering husband

Death Qualification: In capital cases, states exclude jurors who are morally opposed to the death penalty, a process called death qualification

. This process tends to exclude more African Americans, women, Democrats, and the poor

. Furthermore, death-qualified jurors are more pro-prosecution, trust police more, and are less concerned with due process

. Individual jury members are 25% to 44% more likely to vote guilty if they are death-qualified

. Despite this evidence of bias, the Supreme Court ruled the practice constitutional in 1986 (5-4), asserting that jurors can "drop" their biases—an assertion many psychologists find implausible

juries as a group

Conformity and Majority Rule: Although two-thirds of juries start in disagreement, 95% eventually reach a verdict

. Usually, the final decision aligns with the initial two-thirds majority, suggesting that social conformity plays a massive role in deliberations

Jury Size (6 vs. 12): Six-person juries are less representative and more likely to result in "single-person minorities"

. While smaller juries often have more even deliberation (everyone talks), they spend less total time deliberating, consider less evidence, and are more variable and inconsistent in their verdicts compared to 12-person juries

Decision Rules (Unanimity): While most states require unanimous verdicts, the Supreme Court has upheld 9-3 decisions in some cases

. Research shows that once the required number for a verdict is reached (e.g., 8 out of 12), deliberation often stops immediately, and the minority view is largely ignored

. In these non-unanimous juries, minority members often rate the majority as more close-minded

eyewitness testimony

Inaccuracy Studies: In a study of a televised purse snatching, witnesses were only 14.1% accurate—worse than if they had just rolled a die

. In another study, 41% of participants identified an innocent bystander as the perpetrator

DNA and Wrongful Convictions: Of the thousands of eyewitnesses in court cases annually, one reasonable study estimates about one-third are incorrect

. Strikingly, more than half of wrongful convictions overturned by DNA evidence involved faulty eyewitness testimony

The Problem of Certainty: Juries cannot easily distinguish between accurate and inaccurate witnesses; one study found that both were believed about 80% of the time

. Additionally, a witness's confidence is only weakly related to their accuracy (r=.25), yet more confident witnesses are much more likely to be believed by a jury

Weapon Focus: The presence of a weapon (like a gun) draws a witness's attention away from the perpetrator’s face, further reducing the accuracy of their identification

reducing legal error

Unprompted Recollection: Asking witnesses to describe what they saw without prompting leads to better testimony than using leading questions

Unbiased Lineups: Lineups should not have a "suspect" who uniquely matches the description while everyone else looks different (like the case of Ron Shatford, who was the only "good-looking" man without a tie in his lineup)

Double-Blind Lineups: Neither the witness nor the officer conducting the lineup should know who the suspect is; this prevents the officer from unintentionally sending signals to the witness

dollar auction and escalation

The Rules: An auctioneer sells a dollar bill to the highest bidder, but with a catch: the second-highest bidder must also pay their bid, receiving nothing in return

The Outcome: This context drives participants to bid far more than a dollar to avoid being the "second bidder" who loses money without gain

International Relations: This model was famously applied to the Vietnam War, suggesting the U.S. gradually escalated its investment to avoid losing the "dollar" (its initial investment/goal), leading to a war that was incredibly costly in terms of lives and destruction

prisoner’s dilemma

The Scenario: Two separated partners (A and B) must choose to confess or not confess to a crime

~ if you confess and your partner doesn’t, you get probation (0 years) and they get 10 years

~ if both confess, both get 5 years

~ if neither confesses, both get only 1 year on a lesser charge

The Logic of Self-Interest: No matter what your partner does, you are better off confessing (5 years vs. 10 if they confess; 0 years vs. 1 if they don't)

The Result: Because both parties act in their best interest, they both confess and end up in a worse spot (5 years) than if they had cooperated and remained silent (1 year)

tragedy of the commons

This occurs when individuals exploit a shared resource for large personal profit, while the small cost of that exploitation is dispersed among the entire group

Modern Examples: Situations following this logic include pollution, fast fashion, overpopulation, overfishing, and runs on banks

. It even applies to higher education, where universities engage in aggressive recruitment spending to get tuition-paying students; if all do it, the system faces massive budget cuts

Rapaport’s Group Study: In groups of four, a pot of 0.60woulddoubleeveryroundforsevenroundsifleftuntouched,eventuallytotaling∗∗76.80**

. However, because any player could grab the money at any time, no group ever reached the optimal end; they typically divided the initial $0.60 immediately due to a lack of trust

conflict resolutions

1. Behavior of Others (Repeated Interaction) Signaling through behavior can change a partner's response. In repeated dilemmas, the Tit-for-Tat strategy (doing whatever the partner did in the previous round) is the most effective, leading to only 30% competition compared to 80% when one party always competes

. Reputation also matters; a study on homeowners found that people are more likely to take energy-saving steps when their sign-ups are public and tied to their names rather than an anonymous ID number

2. Communication Allowing parties to talk significantly reduces exploitation

. In the Dawes study, participants chose between $2.50 or $12 (which incurred a tax on the group).

Without communication: 70% of people took the $12 (defected)

With communication: The number of defectors dropped to 30%

3. Regulation For shared resources with a "Tragedy of the Commons" structure, well-designed regulations (like pollution laws) are necessary to prevent the system from collapsing due to collective self-interest

4. Group Norms and Motivation

The Ross Study: RAs nominated "cooperative" or "non-cooperative" students, but these individual differences did not predict behavior

. Instead, the label of the game dictated the norm: when called the "Wall Street Game," only 1/3 cooperated, but when called the "Community Game," 2/3 cooperated

Academic Culture: At Cornell, 72% of economics majors defected compared to 47% of other majors, suggesting the culture of economics (which teaches self-interest) creates a competitive norm

Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Goals: In a tree harvesting game, extrinsically motivated groups (seeking money/fame) harvested early and made less profit in the long run

. Intrinsically motivated groups (seeking community/self-acceptance) cooperated, allowing the trees to grow, and paradoxically ended up better off materially

kruglanski deradicalization

Lay Epistemology Components:

Availability: Knowledge is formed when an individual lacks alternative explanations or options for a situation

Motivation:

Need for Closure: The desire for a firm answer to end uncertainty

Specific Closure: A motivation to reach a particular conclusion, such as believing one is a good person

Epistemic Openness: The motivation to stay curious and entertain alternatives, similar to the enjoyment found in reading a mystery

Application to Extremism: Extremists are governed by these same principles; they "know" their ideology because they lack alternatives and have high motivation for closure

De-radicalization Specifics:

Incentivizing Openness: Providing individuals with a future, such as jobs programs, can increase their motivation to reconsider alternative life paths

Epistemic Authority: Using trusted figures like clerics or former detainees can effectively introduce doubt and new alternatives into an extremist's settled knowledge

Quest for Significance: This newer work suggests that extremism is often triggered by a deprivation of significance

. When individuals feel they do not matter, they seek significance through extremist narratives (ideologies) and networks (groups that reinforce those beliefs)

peacemakers

Muzafer Sherif’s classic study at Robbers Cave State Park illustrates how conflict is created and, more importantly, how it is resolved

Study Description: 22 boys (aged 11) were divided into two groups, the Eagles and the Rattlers

. Competition in the second week led to high hostility, including stolen flags and "socks stuffed with rocks" for use as weapons

The Failure of Contact: Simply bringing the groups together for non-competitive events like meals or movies did not work; it often exacerbated the conflict, leading to food fights

Successful Cooperation: Peacemaking was achieved through superordinate goals—tasks that required both groups to work together to succeed

Examples: Fixing a sabotaged water supply and using a rope to pull a "stuck" truck

Outcome: By the end, 30% of their friends were from the rival group

Need for Success: For cooperation to reduce conflict, the efforts must be successful

. If the cooperative task fails, groups tend to blame the other side, which can worsen the relationship

social and clinical psych

Attributional Style and Depression:

Reformulated Learned Helplessness: This theory suggests that depression stems from the belief that bad events are uncontrollable

Depressive Dimensions: A "depressive attributional style" involves explaining bad events through causes that are:

Stable: The cause will last a long time (e.g., "I'm stupid" vs. "I didn't study for this specific test")

Global: The cause affects many areas of life

Evidence and Origins:

College Onset: Students with a stable/global attributional style are at a higher risk for their first onset of major depression when faced with major stressors

Children of Substance Abusers: These children are more prone to stable/global attributions, likely due to having a parent whose addiction is a constant, broad cause for family struggles, or through modeling their parents' own attributional styles.

Health and Marriage:

Longevity: Studies of Baseball Hall of Fame speeches and Harvard essays found that individuals who made stable/global attributions for bad events died younger on average

Marriage: In distressed relationships, partners tend to make internal attributions to their spouse (blaming their partner's character) for bad events, which predicts further relationship decline