P104 Final Exam Study Guide W26

Natural vs. Sexual selection

Natural selection = characteristics will be "selected for: that improve organisms chances of survival

Sexual selection = characteristics will be selected for that improve organisms chances of reproductive success

The mere exposure effect

Merely being exposed to something repeatedly will make us like something more

Basic animal tendency - neuphobia (do not like novelty)

Neural stimuli are liked more with repeated exposure

(related term: Mere association - Sigall & Landy (1973) - gain status through association with others)

Propinquity

Propinquity: liking those who are close

Social Exchange Theory (Kelly & Thibaut 1978)

We like those who reward us more than they cost us - makes us feel good

Relationships involve calculation of rewards vs costs (preferred relationships is reward over cost)

Comparison level - based on expectations

Comparison level for alternatives - "shopping around"

Equity Theory (Walster et al., 1978)

Equity theory - people are motivated to pursue fairness

Equitable relationship = satisfying and comfortable (balance of rewards and costs)

Inequitable relationships I (favors others) - not satisfying/comfortable

Inequitable relationship II (favors self) - not satisfying/comfortable

The impact of physical appearance on attraction: why is it important? Does it vary by culture? By gender?

Variation of beauty standards and etc.

Evolutionary psychology studies on families (i.e. adopted children vs. stepchildren vs. biological)

Treatment of Stepchildren (Non- paternal certainty)

Differential parental solicitude

- Children with a stepparent were overrepresented by a factor of 17-77 among victims of violence related deaths (cinderella effect)

- Found that children with a stepparent were at 2-15x greater risk for unintentional death

- Other studies find similar results

- Adoptive parents don't follow these patterns

- Qualitatively different

Attractiveness "stereotype": what kinds of judgments to we make about attractive people?

The attractiveness stereotype: What is beautiful is good and kind and warm and smart

Assumed intelligence (Clifford & Walster (1973)

Roszell et al (1990) - every attractiveness point on 5 point scale - reward with $1988 in annual salary

Self-fullfilling prophecy - photos given in experiment to men (attractive vs unattractive) and told thats who they are talking to on phone - Snyder et al. (1977)

Attractiveness is Socially Rewarding

Mere association - Sigall & Landy (1973) - gain status

BIRGing: basking in reflected glory of an attractive person - Cialdini et al (1976)

Blink - Warren Harding/Halo effect

Elected president 1920

Unconscious bias - implicit associations sometimes non-rational

Perpetuated by media - the world of disney

Similarity and attraction

Similarity: liking those who are like us

What is the evolutionary explanation for gender differences in attitudes toward sex?

Differential Parental Investment (Trivers, 1972)

In humans as in almost all species, one parent invests more in offspring than other does, in most species it is the female

Female investment = time to have sex + gestation

Ova are precious (limit to number produced in lifetime)

This differential investment creates different evolutionary pressures on the different sexes

Interest in Sexual Partners

- Whichever sex is more heavily invested in offspring should be more choosy in sexual behavior

- Best strategy to maximize reproductive success:

Men - have sex with many women (Low investment so why be choosy)

Women - be selective about sexual partners (High investment so pick ones with good genes and characteristics who is likely to stick around)

The relationship between women's ovulation and physical attraction

Compare judgements across menstrual cycle and find that when women are near ovulation:

More quickly recognize male faces as male

More attracted to bodily smell of symmetrical men

More attracted to confident assertive and competitive men

More attracted to masculine (rather than feminine) male faces

Men are also affected

Rate women as more attractive when they are near ovulation

Raises testosterone levels

Festinger, Schacter, & Back (1950)-Friendships at MIT

Festinger,Schachter, & Back (1950)

Friendship patterns in MIT married student apartment complex

Randomly assigned to apartments

When residents named 3 closest friends

⅔ came from same building

⅔ of those come from same floor

Most frequently chosen person was the next door neighbor

41% named closest friend as naming next door neighbor as closest friend

21% named neighbor next door from next door neighbor

10% named a neighbor across the hall same floor

Functional vs Actual Distance

Functional distance increases likelihood of interaction, actual distance matters less than functional distance

Residents living near staircases more likely to have close friends than residents in middle apartments because of more opportunity of interaction

Hostile Aggression

Hostile aggression = ultimate intention is to inflict pain or harm

Instrumental Aggression

Instrumental aggression = infliction of pain is a means to an end

Biological theory of aggression

Biological theories of Aggression

Focus on internal factors like genetics (temperament, impulsivity), brain structures (amygdala), neurotransmitters, hormones (testosterone), and the effects of alcohol/drugs. Note: the vast majority of people with mental illness are not violent.

The Goldilocks Critique of Aggression Theories:

Instinctual Theories are too general; they explain why aggression exists but not specific acts.

Biological Theories are too specific; they explain individual differences and extreme cases but not everyday aggression in most people.

Social Learning Theory

Social Learning Theory

General theory (not specific to aggression)

How humans learn through their social environments - applies to aggression and everything

Aggression is learned behavior

Direct reinforcement

Active - parent praises kid for fighting

Passive - kid gets attention for fighting

Instrumental - kid learns that fighting works

Observational learning or Modeling

See aggression in parents or on TV, movies, media

Learn how to aggress

Learn reinforcement contingencies

Frustration-Aggression Theory

Frustration-Aggression Theory

Psychodynamic/drive theory view

Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears (1939), Miller (1941)

2 major tenets

Aggression is ALWAYS a product of frustration

Frustration is ALWAYS leads to aggression

Frustration = interruption of goal sequence

Aggression Cues Theory

Perfect relation between frustration and aggression too strict

Need something in addition to frustration for aggression to occur

Need cue to trigger aggression

Frustration with no aggression cue → anger dissipates

Catharsis

Catharsis = release of energy

Displaced Aggression

Displacement = redirection of aggression from actual frustrator

Watching others aggress gives vicarious catharsis

The relationship between income inequality and aggression within societies

High income inequality is strongly associated with increased societal aggression, violent crime, and homicide rates.

Culture of Honor

Prevalent in the southern US - legacy of herding culture of Britain, Scotland

Sensitivity to slights to one's reputation (honor) - respond with violence

Examined this with wide variety of methods

- Homicide records (argument related murders are higher in south and southwest than in non southern states) (threats to integrity/honor → aggression)

- National opinion surveys

- Analysis of state laws and policies

Field experiments

- An "Experimental Ethnography"

Northern and southern male college students randomly assigned to either a control or a bump-insult condition

- Biological: Northern did not have cortisol spike, southern did have cortisol spike, Northern have spike of testosterone, southern had less

- Behavioral: Southern subjects did not move as far in distance to get out of the way in comparison to Northern subjects

Realistic Conflict Theory

the theory that hostility between groups is caused by direct competition for limited resources (ADD MORE LATER?)

Aggression Cues Theory - Berkowitz (1968)

Perfect relation between frustration and aggression too strict

Need something in addition to frustration for aggression to occur

Need cue to trigger aggression

Frustration with no aggression cue → anger dissipates

Berkowitz & LePage (1967)

"Gun on the Table": Angered participants gave more electric shocks to a confederate when a gun (an aggressive cue) was present on the table, compared to a neutral object like a badminton racket.

Bandura, Ross, & Ross (1961)-Bobo Doll Study

Children who watched an adult model act aggressively toward a Bobo doll were significantly more likely to imitate that aggression, especially if the model was the same sex as the child. Demonstrated observational learning.

Nisbett & Cohen (1996)

Culture of Honor Experiments: Found that Southern males, when insulted, showed a distinct pattern of physiological (spike in cortisol and testosterone) and behavioral responses (more aggressive, less yielding in a hallway) compared to Northern males.

Eron & Huesmann (1984; 1985)

Longitudinal Studies on TV Violence: Their research, using cross-lagged panel correlations, showed that watching violent TV at age 8 was a significant predictor of aggressive behavior at age 19, providing evidence for a long-term causal link (contrary to the catharsis hypothesis).

Fein & Spencer (1997)

Prejudice and Self-Esteem: This study fits here as an example of a motivational theory of prejudice, but it also relates to aggression/disparagement. They found that participants who received a self-esteem threat (negative feedback) were more likely to derogate a stereotyped target (a Jewish applicant), which in turn helped restore their self-esteem.

Diffusion of Responsibility

In a group, the burden of responsibility to act is shared (and thus diluted) among all bystanders. This reduces the likelihood that any single individual will intervene.

The Bystander Effect

The finding that the greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help.

What is the evolutionary perspective on altruism? Why is true altruism unlikely to happen according to this view?

Evolutionary Perspective on Altruism:

True altruism (selfless helping with no benefit to self) is paradoxical to evolution, which favors self-interest.

Non-paradoxical explanations include:

Inclusive Fitness/Kin Selection: Helping others who share our genes can promote our genetic legacy, even at a cost to ourselves.

Reciprocal Altruism (Trivers, 1971): Helping can be adaptive if it is likely to be reciprocated in the future ("I'll scratch your back, you'll scratch mine").

Moral dumbfounding

Moral Dumbfounding: "Its wrong I just can't tell you why"

Inclusive Fitness

Behavior that helps others who have your genes can be selected for

The Empathy-Altruism hypothesis vs. Negative State Relief hypothesis

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Batson): When we feel empathy (other-oriented concern) for a person in need, we are motivated to help for purely altruistic reasons—to relieve their distress.

Negative State Relief Model (Cialdini): When we feel distress (sadness, guilt), we are motivated to help for egoistic reasons—to relieve our own negative feelings. If another way to feel good (e.g., praise) is available, helping decreases.

The Urban Overload hypothesis

The urban setting can be overstimulating, increasing frustration

Decision-Tree Model of Bystander Intervention

1. Notice the event.

2. Interpret it as an emergency.

3. Assume responsibility for helping.

4. Know what to do to help.

5. Implement the decision to help.

Notice event → Interpret event agent as an emergency → Assume responsibility for helping? → Know what to do to help? → Implement a decision to help?

Reciprocal Altruism

A behavioral strategy where an organism temporarily reduces its own fitness to help another, with the expectation that the favor will be repaid in the future.

What has research shown about the relationship between social class and altruism/cooperation?

Lower class usually higher level of altruism

Darley & Batson (1973) "Good Samaritan"/ "From Jerusalem to Jericho" study

Tested the "knowing how to help" and "implementing" steps. Seminary students were rushing to give a talk (on the Good Samaritan or another topic). On the way, they passed a man in distress. The only thing that predicted helping was how much of a hurry they were in. The content of their talk and their personality did not matter.

Latane & Darley (1970) Bystander Intervention

The Unresponsive Bystander: Why Doesn't He Help?, proposed that the presence of others inhibits helping behavior due to diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance.

Latane & Darley (1968) Smoke Filled Room

Tested the "interpreting the emergency" step. Participants were alone or in a group when smoke filled the room. Those in groups were far less likely to report the smoke due to pluralistic ignorance (looking to others for how to interpret the ambiguous situation and seeing them remain calm).

Attribution Theory

The study of how people explain the causes of their own and others' behavior.

The Phenomenological Assumption

This perspective holds that situations are constructed by the perceivers, meaning that for an individual, "reality" is defined by their subjective interpretation.

Principle of Construal

Construal refers to the way people perceive, comprehend, and interpret their social world.

Personal vs. Impersonal Causality

Personal Causality: Behavior is caused by the person (internal/dispositional attribution).

Impersonal Causality: Behavior is caused by situational/external forces.

The Fundamental Attribution Error

The tendency to overestimate the role of dispositional (personal) factors and underestimate the role of situational factors when explaining other people's behavior. (Jones & Harris, 1967; Ross et al., 1977). While universal, it is more pronounced in Western, individualistic cultures.

Ex: "That person didn't do X because they are lazy"

Cross-cultural research on attribution style

Westerners (individualistic cultures) tend to prioritize dispositional/internal attributions, emphasizing personal traits. Conversely, East Asians and other collectivist cultures lean toward situational/external attributions, focusing on context, group harmony, and situational constraints, which reduces the prevalence of the fundamental attribution error.

Self-Serving Bias

The tendency to attribute our successes to internal factors (I'm smart) and our failures to external factors (the test was unfair).

Framing Effects

How information is presented (the "frame") can significantly influence judgment and decision-making.

Confirmation Bias

The tendency to seek, interpret, and remember information that confirms our pre-existing beliefs.

What are schemas? What purpose do they serve and how do they influence our behavior and judgments?

Schemas are mental frameworks or cognitive structures built from knowledge, beliefs, and experience that help organize information into meaningful patterns

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

A belief or expectation that leads to its own fulfillment by influencing behavior towards the target (e.g., Rosenthal & Jacobson's "Pygmalion in the Classroom").

System 1 and System 2 Thinking (Dual-Process Theory)

System 1: Intuitive, automatic, fast, emotional, effortless.

System 2: Deliberate, controlled, slow, rational, effortful.

What are heuristics? Why do we have them?

Mental shortcuts or "rules of thumb" that allow for fast, efficient judgments. They are usually correct but can lead to systematic errors (cognitive illusions).

Availability Heuristic

Judging the frequency or likelihood of an event by how easily examples come to mind.

Representativeness Heuristic

Judging the likelihood of something by how similar it is to a typical case or prototype.

Illusory Correlations

The perception of a relationship between two variables where none exists (or overestimating a weak relationship), often due to paired distinctiveness

Kelly's Covariation Model of consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency

Distinctiveness: how a person acts in other situations

--> High distinctiveness: acts differently in other situations

-->Low distinctiveness: person acts similarly in other situations

Consensus: how other people act in same situation

-->High: other people act similarly to person

-->Low: other people act differently than person

Consistency: how person acts in same situation in the past '

Egocentric Bias

Example: Egocentric Bias

Who does more house cleaning, you or your roommate/spouse?

When asked to estimate % how much they contribute

Availability key contributor - easier to remember your own contributions

Discounting

Discounting principle: "In the role of a given cause in producing a given effect is discounted if other plausible causes are also present"

Job interview example: is someone being nice because they are nice or are they nice because they trying to get the job

Discounting the role because of reasons

Augmentation

Augmentation principle: if an "inhibitory cause" is present the role of a "facilitative cause" will be judged to be greater than if no "inhibitory cause" were present

Example:

Advocate position despite cost: under which condition would you think a person really believes in the cause they are protesting → rain or shine

Augmenting role because of reasons situationally

Counter-factual thinking

Imagining alternatives to reality ("what might have been"). This amplifies emotional reactions

(e.g., bronze medalists are happier than silver medalists because they can more easily imagine "what might have been" - getting no medal at all) (Medvec, Gilovich, & Madey, 1995).

Actor-Observer Bias

Actor- Observer Bias

Observers tend to make internal attributions (Fundamental attribution error)

Actors more likely to make external attributions

Perceptual explanation for A-O bias/FAE

Actor → oriented outward / Observer → watches actor

Self-Handicapping

Self- Handicapping (Jones & Beglas, 1978)

Actively sabotage own performance to provide external reason

Heider & Simmel (1944)

Showed participants a film of geometric shapes moving. Participants spontaneously described their movements in social terms (e.g., "the triangle is chasing the circle"), demonstrating our innate tendency toward personal causality and attribution.

Medvec, Malley, & Gilovich (1995)

bronze medalists tend to be happier than silver medalists

Kelly's Covariation Model (1967)

People as lay statisticians : Kelley's (1973) covariation model

People try to determine what causes - internal or external attribution

Attributions use 3 pieces of information

Distinctiveness: how a person acts in other situations

High distinctiveness: acts differently in other situations

Low distinctiveness: person acts similarly in other situations

Consensus: how other people act in same situation

High: other people act similarly to person

Low: other people act differently than person

Consistency: how person acts in same situation in the past '

Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz (1977)

Quiz Show Study: Demonstrated the FAE. Randomly assigned participants to roles of "quizmaster" (made up hard questions) or "contestant." Both contestants and observers rated the quizmasters as being more knowledgeable than the contestants, failing to discount the huge situational advantage the quizmasters had.

Kahneman & Miller (1986)

Focuses on counterfactual thinking and how events evoke their own alternatives. (ADD)

Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)

Pygmalion in the Classroom: Demonstrated a self-fulfilling prophecy. Teachers were told certain students were "intellectual bloomers." At the end of the year, those randomly selected students actually showed greater IQ gains, because teachers' expectations led them to treat those students differently.