Social psych- Chapters 9, 10, 12, 13

What is a group?

A set of two or more people who interact and are interdependent (their needs and goals cause them to influence each other)

People in a group have :

-Direct interactions with each other over a period of time

People in a group have joint membership in a social category based on…

sex, race, or other attributes

People in a group have a shared…

common fate, identity, or set of goals

Social Brain Hypothesis

Humans are drawn to groups for survival and reproduction

Large brains among primates reflect this tendency

Social identity theory

People’s feelings of self-worth are derived from group membership

3 key features of a group: #1

Roles- individuals expected behaviors

3 key features of a group- #2

Norms- rules of conduct

3 key features of a group- #3

Cohesiveness- closeness

The two fundamental types of roles:

-Instrumental role

-Expressive role

Instrumental role

helps the group achieve its tasks

Expressive role

provides emotional support and maintains morale

group norms can be…

formal or informal

Groups exert pressure on members who…

deviate from the norms

Group cohesiveness

the extent to which members are attracted to each other and motivated to stay in the group

Cohesiveness and group performance are…

casually related, but the relationship is complex

-group cohesiveness can be affected in different ways as a function of cultural differences

Social Facilitation (Zanjonc, 1965)

Social facilitation: presence of other people → arousal → dominant response → performance improves on easy tasks, but performance declines on hard tasks

• Easy task: A runner may run faster during a race because the crowd energizes them.

• Hard task: A student may do worse solving a tough math problem while others watch because pressure increases mistakes.

Why does the presence of others cause arousal

-Makes us more alert as they may do something we need to respond to

-Evaluation apprehension (concerned about being judged)

-People are distracting (attentional conflict)

Evaluation apprehension

the concern about being judged by others, which can lead to increased arousal and influence performance.

Attentional Conflict

Divided attention

Social loafing

Social loafing is the tendency for people to put in less effort when working in a group than when working alone, especially when individual contributions are hard to identify.

Ex: group project

how does social loafing work

Presence of other people → NO AROUSAL → RELAXATION → performance declines on easy or unimportant tasks, but performance improves on hard or important tasks

People “loaf” less when…

• Individually evaluated or rewarded

• Task is important or meaningful

• Individual effort necessary for success

• The group expects to be evaluated on performance

• The group is small and cohesive

Social dilemmas

-Conflicts, where if individuals choose an outcome that’s best for them, everyone suffers in the long run

-Selfish choices create the worst outcome for the group

What is the saying about social dilemmas

“What’s good for one is bad for all”

Prisoner’s Dilemma

-Involves two people who each have a decision to either be selfish or cooperate for a mutually beneficial outcome. If both cooperate, they achieve a better result than if both choose selfishly

• Benefits/costs of the decision depend on partners decision

• Selfish choices create the worst outcome for the group

Golden Balls Game Show- split or steal

A game where two contestants must decide to either split the prize money or steal it, where stealing leads to a higher reward for one but nothing for the other if both choose to steal.

Real world examples of prisoner’s dilemma

• Cutting up while driving

• Escaping a fire

Two types of resource dilemmas:

Common goods dilemma, public goods dilemma

Common goods dilemma

“Tragedy of the Commons”: scenario where individuals, acting in their own self-interest, deplete shared resources, causing long-term collective ruin

Modern examples of common goods dilemma

deforestation, overfishing, toilet paper during COVID

Public goods dilemma

• Everyone is supposed to contribute to the common pool

• If we don’t all contribute, then the public good in question disappears

Modern examples of the public goods dilemma

Blood drives, paying taxes, paying dues in frats/sororities

Solving dilemmas

• More likely to cooperate when dealing with family and close others

• Individuals are more cooperative than groups

• Framing of the dilemma matters too

Framing of the dilemma example

• “Wall Street” game versus “community” game

• Participants played the same Prisoner’s Dilemma-style game, but it had different names:

  • Wall Street Game → sounded competitive, profit-focused, win-lose

  • Community Game → sounded cooperative, shared-interest, teamwork

  Even though the rules were identical, people in the Wall Street Game acted more competitively, while people in the Community Game cooperated more.

In solving group dilemmas, conflict escalates when…

group distinctions (in-group versus out-group bias) are strong

One way to reduce group dilemmas is to appeal to a…

superordinate identity

superordinate identity

a shared identity that transcends individual group memberships, promoting cooperation and reducing intergroup conflict.

Ex: People from different states seeing themselves as Americans during a national crisis United States

Process loss

-Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits group performance

Ex: people don’t listen to each other, 1 person dominates the conversation, rely on shared knowledge vs unique

Process gain

-When a group performs better than expected because members help each other and combine strengths effectively.

Ex: Not changing mind for the sake of harmony, relies on a person with expertise, searches for good solutions rather than compromises

Group polarization

When individuals who have similar, though not identical, opinions participate in a group discussion, their opinions become more extreme

Ex: A jury initially thinks a defendant is somewhat guilty. After discussing the case together, members become much more convinced the defendant is guilty and recommend a harsher punishment.

What creates group polarization

Persuasive arguments, social comparisons

How do persuasive arguments lead to group polarization?

Exposure to a large number of persuasive arguments→ extreme views

How do social comparisons lead to group polarization?

Comparison to views of other group members → more extreme views

Ex: A group of friends talks about environmental issues. At first, most think recycling is important. During discussion, everyone hears others strongly supporting eco-friendly habits. Wanting to seem caring and responsible, members begin expressing stronger views than they originally held, such as banning all plastic or refusing to buy from certain companies. By the end, the group holds a more extreme environmental stance than any individual had at the start.

social comparison

The process by which individuals evaluate their own opinions or abilities by comparing them to those of others in their group, often leading to more extreme positions or beliefs.

Ex: A student thinks they studied enough, but after seeing classmates study for five hours, they feel unprepared.

Need for Affiliation

A pervasive drive to form and maintain lasting, positive, and significant interpersonal relationships

• A fundamental human drive and motive

Schacter (1959)

• Tested whether anxiety increases people’s desire to be with others by telling participants they would receive either painful or mild electric shocks.

• Participants in the high-anxiety (painful shock) condition were much more likely to choose to wait with others, while low-anxiety participants preferred to wait alone.

Conclusion: Anxiety increases the need for affiliation, as people seek others for comfort and to compare their feelings in stressful situations.

Determinant of attractiveness

-Proximity

-Familiarity

-Similarity

-Physical attraction

-Reciprocal liking

Propinquity effect (related to proximity)

• Propinquity effect: the tendency to form friendships or romantic relationships with those they encounter often

  • The single best predictor if two people will begin a relationship

• Not just physical distance but functional distance as well

Mere exposure effect (related to familiarity)

the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more likely we are to like it

Moreland and Beach (1992)

-Familiarity

• Moreland & Beach (1992) had 4 women confederate sit in on a large lecture hall

  • All of the women attended the class for different amounts of time

  • The women who attended the class the most were viewed as the most attractive

Matching hypothesis (related to similarity)

people are more likely to become romantically involved with others who are equivalent in physical attractiveness

Similarity- experiences and interests

people who have similar experiences and interests (age, race, religion, education, politics) are more likely to be attracted to each other

How do men and women differ in importance of physical attractiveness?

Men weigh physical attractiveness more than women, but behaviorally, men and women behavior similar (equally important)

Objective perspective

symmetrical faces (indicator of good genes)

subjective perspective

ideal body type changes over different eras and times and times

reciprocal liking

Ex: someone liking you first, and then you start to like them more when you find out they like you

ender Differences in Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Perspective (Women)

• Suggests that women need to be pickier than men

  • Limited by reproductive biology

  • Preference for men can provide resources/support

    • Economic and career achievements

Gender Differences in Mate Preferences: Evolutionary Perspective (Men)

• Suggests that men may not be as picky as women

  • Less limited by reproductive biology

  • Preference for markers of fertility

    • Physical appearance: age and health

Gender Differences in Mate Preferences: Sociocultural Perspective

• Society has different expectations and roles for men and women

  • Men approach women = women are more selective

  • Other gender roles

  • Different access to resources and power

    • The more economic power women have, the more they value physical attractiveness

Evolutionary perspective on mate selection

need to pass on our genes = influences mate selection preferences

Sociocultural perspective on mate selection

learned norms, social roles = influences mate selection preferences

Speed dating study (finale and Eastwick, 2009)

• Two conditions: men rotating, women rotating

• Regardless of gender, rotaters were less selective than sitters

• Rotaters felt there was greater romantic chemistry than sitters

Types of jealousy

Sexual jealousy, emotional jealousy

sexual jealousy

based on suspected or imminent sexual infidelity

emotional jealousy

based on suspected or imminent emotional infidelity

• Women typically are more upset by emotional infidelity

• A woman is more likely to take a man back following sexual infidelity

• Men are more sexually jealous because men face paternal uncertainty (Evolutionary)

• Masculinity tied to sexual prowess = sexual infidelity threatens masculinity (Sociocultural)

• Women risk the loss of resources and commitment if their partner finds another (evolutionary)

• Women socialized to be nurturers and value relationships = emotional infidelity viewed as more threatening to the sense of self than sexual identity (sociocultural)
  

Types of love

companionate love, passionate love

Companionate love

intimacy and affection not accompanied by physiological arousal

passionate love

intense longing for someone accompanied by physiological arousal

Triangular Theory of Love

A framework proposed by Robert Sternberg that describes love in terms of three components: intimacy, passion, and commitment.

Relationship satisfaction: Social exchange theory

• Benefit: traits, behaviors, status, money, network, activities

• Cost: annoying traits, behaviors, etc.

• Comparison level: expectation of the outcome of your relationship

  • High comparison or Low comparison

Comparison level for alternatives: satisfaction bsased on perception of relationship could be replaced with something better

Relationship Satisfaction: Equity Theory

• Most satisfied when rewards/cost are fairly equal

• Equitable relationships comfortable/satisfying

  • Overbenefited partner = guilty 

  • Underbenefited partner = angry, resentful

Exchange relationships

• need equity in relationships; more typical in new relationships

Communal relationships

primary response is other people’s needs; More typical in long-term, reciprocal relationships

What is aggression?

Behavior that is intended to harm another individual (even if they dont actually harm)

The harm may be _____ or _____

physical or psychological

Instrumental aggression

harm inflicted as a means to a desired end

Ex: football, self defense

Hostile aggression

Harm inflicted for its own sake, usually stemming from anger

Ex: a heated argument that escalates into a physical fight.

Origins of aggression through Evolutionary psychology

• Aggression is innate, adaptive, and promotes genetic survival

  • Human warfare originated not only to obtain valuable resources but also to attract mates and forge intragroup bonds 

• Emphasis is placed on genetic survival rather than survival of the individual

  • Accounts for the inhibition of aggression against genetically related others

• Predicts gender differences in aggressive tendencies

  • Men and women should use different tactics to ensure reproductive success

Why do men aggress

• to display to women that they are high status mates

• in response to sexual jealousy

Why do women aggress

• To defend their offspring (due to high investment)

• To protect themselves so they can protect their offspring

• Indirect or relational (low risk) aggression is most likely

Are men more aggressive than women?

No, but boys are more overtly aggressive than girls. Girls display more relational aggression than boys

relational aggression

a form of indirect aggression that targets a person’s relationships and status

Gender Differences: Non-Evolutionary Perspectives

• Males and females are rewarded differently for aggression

• Overt aggression more acceptable for boys

Social learning theory

Behavior is learned through the observations of others, as well as through direct experience of rewards and punishments

Rewards and punishment through the lens of the social learning theory

• Rewards increase aggression

• Punishment decreases aggression

• Learn specific aggressive behaviors

• Develop more positive attitudes and beliefs about aggression in general

Positive reinforcement

Aggression produces desired outcomes

Ex: receiving cheers from friends for punching another person

Negative reinforcement

Aggression prevents or stops undesirable outcomes

Ex: Punching another person stops that person from intimidating or bullying you

“Bobo the Doll” Study (Bandura et al., 1961)

• IV: Role model behavior

• DV: number of aggressive acts 

Constrict aggressive “scripts” – cycle of violence

Origins of aggression- culture

Cultures with cooperative and collectivist values have lower levels of aggression than European societies

Culture of honor

emphasizes honor and status, particularly for males, and the role of aggression in protecting that honor.

“A**hole Study” (Cohen et al., 1996)

• Participants: U of Michigan students who grew up in the North or South

• IV: insult or no insult

• DV: perceptions of threatened masculinity, levels of testosterone, and aggressive behaviors displayed (Game of Chicken)

• South had stronger results for aggression

Stereotypes (cognition)

beliefs that associate a whole group of people with certain traits

prejudice (affect/feeling)

negative feelings about others because of their connection to a social group

discrimination (behavior)

negative behaviors directed against persons because of their membership in a particular group

Social Categorization

The process by which we place people into meaningful social groups

What is the consequence of social categorization?

stereotypes

stereotypes are inevitable but social categorization isn’t because….

• We overestimate the difference between groups

• Underestimate the differences within groups

• Focus on stereotype-consistent information

• Don’t notice (rationalize way) inconsistent information

Study (labeling lines)

• The lines that were labeled were remembered differently 

• Displayed underestimating differences within groups and overestimating the differences between groups

Outgroup homogeneity

belief that there is greater similarity among outgroups than ingroups