Social Psych Exam 3

Ch 10-13

Aggression

Physical/verbal behavior meant to hurt someone

Hostile vs. Instrumental

Hostile: Injury is the goal

Instrumental: Injury is a means to a goal

Physical vs. Social

Physical: action with intent to cause bodily harm

Social: intended to damage social relations.

How do we measure aggression

Self report surveys

methods of violence

behaviors in lab

behavior in real world

Aggression is evolutionary:

gain resources and mate

higher test = higher aggro

Frustration-Aggression Theory

Frustration = blocked goal, blocked goal triggers aggression

Happens when frustration is UNJUSTIFIED

Relative deprivation is a frustration: perceived unfairness creates anger

Social Learning Theory

We learn aggression through seeing others.

Bobo doll: kid sees guy punch doll, kid also is aggressive to doll.

Displacement of Aggression

When we can’t express anger, we turn to a scapegoat

Aversive influences for aggression

Hot temps

Physical pain

Social pain

Influence of Aggressive Cues

Firearm = longer shock delivered (firearm aggressive cue)

badminton racket = shorter shock (racket neutral cue)

Group Influence of Aggression

ie. Riots, mobs, bullying groups, groups administer harsher punishments.

Deindividuation

Diffusion of Responsibility

Social contagion

Influence of Violence in Media

Watching aggressive models:

desensitizes to violence

teaches aggressive behaviors

develops positive attitudes towards aggression

Longitudinal and Experimental evidence for violence in Media (Robertson and Coyne studies)

Longitudinal: Watching TV ages 5-15 predicted criminal conviction by age 36

Experimental: Watching movie with violence = longer noise blast and more critical.

Catharsis

People release anger thru aggression, usually towards objects

Catharsis is ineffective; punching bag actually raised aggression vs sitting quietly.

Using Social Learning to Lower Aggression

Reward non-aggressive behavior

consume prosocial media

learn how to resolve conflict / regulate emotions

Physical Features in Attraction

Averaged faces attractive bc: symmetrical (implies better health and fertility)

Beauty standards change over time / cultures

Men = Physical, Women = Social status but still show preference for physical.

The Matching Phenomenon

We tend to pair with ppl of similar desirability

Physical Attractiveness Stereotype

Attractive ppl are seen as better:

• Nicer

• Outgoing

• Happier

• Smarter

• Successful

media portrays beauty as good too.

Proximity in Attractiveness

We like those who are near us.

More interaction = more chances to interact and grow attraction.

Mere exposure effect plays a role.

Reciprocity in Attraction

We like people who like us

When A is told B likes them, mutual liking from both parties rose.

Similarity and Complementarity in Attraction

We like similar people:

• Validation/reassurance

• Easier interactions

• Fits into social network

• Social approval

• Acceptance

Complementarity: we like people that are instrumental to our goals, we can use our partners for our goals

Why do matching algorithms not work

perceived similarity is a better predictor for compatibility instead of calculations

Misattribution of arousal leads to attraction

ppl mistake physical arousal for romantic arousal. Bridge experiment: dangerous bridge mistaken for attraction

Importance of relationships for health

Mental and physical well-being

Interpersonal Model of Intimacy

Share personal stuff, feel understood and validated, and become closer after.

Fast Friends Paradigm

Efficient way to foster relationships

mutual self disclosure, identifying similarities, and creating group identity

Attachment and the Working Model of Self

Working model sets beliefs about relationships

Leads to types of attachment.

High and Low Anxious/Avoidant Attachment

Novel Activities in Maintaining Relationships

Misattribution of Arousal

Avoids Boredom

Expands the self

How Prosocial Behavior Influences Happiness

Dunn etal. found spending on others made people happier

Universal because evolutionary.

Prosocial Behavior and Happiness Feedback Loop

Feel good, do good, feel even better.

Why Sad vs. Happy People Help

Happy: Feel good, do good

Sad: Negative state relief

• 1984 study: helping is a self-serving mechanism.

Social Exchange Theory

Shows ppl do things to minimize cost and max reward.

If reward > cost, likely going to help.

Norms and Prosocial Behavior

Social norms: people help bc social expectations

Reciprocity norms: help bc you’ve been helped.

Attributions in Helping

External: person can’t control it so you help. (empathy)

Internal: Person can control it so less likely.

Altruism

Helping despite no benefit

Altriusm likely when empathy is high.

Motives to reduce own distress. Empathy creates oneness = egoistic helping.

Bystander Effect

ppl are less likely to help if they see other bystanders.

Kitty Genovese was murdered despite 38 witnesses. Sparked research.

Steps to Intervene in an Emergency NIAKD

• Notice

• Interpret as emergency

• Assume responsibility

• Know how to help

• Decide to help

Time Pressure in Emergencies

No rush = more helping

Bigger rush = less helping

Pluralistic Ignorance in Emergencies

Alone: high report rate of smoke in room

3 group: medium reporting

Confederate: no reporting

Diffusion of Responsibility in Emergencies

ppl less likely to take action when others available.

How to Increase Helping

• Make it clear that help is needed

• Single someone out to help

• Tell them what to do

“I need your help!! You, in the jacket! Call 911!!”

Persuasion and Social Learning in Helping

Personalized appeals: (request that feels bad to refuse, eye contact, stating one’s name)

Prosocial modeling and learning by doing

Conflict

Perceived incompatibility of actions / goals

Peace

State of low hostility and mutually beneficial relationships

Social Dilemmas/Traps

Conflicting parties with separate interests = mutually destructive behavior

Prisoner’s Dilemma

Two ppl know the benefit of cooperation but both confess bc they want max personal benefit

Tragedy of the Commons

Individuals/groups consume common good to depletion.

Why do Social Traps Create Conflict

Fundamental Attribution Error

Evolving motives (from extrinsic to intrinsic as conflict persists)

Zero-sum beliefs: if one wins, one must lose.

Competition and Perceived Injustice

Competition: limited resources / perceived threat

Perceived injustice: causes anger nstuff idk

Mirror-Image Misperceptions

Perceived incompatibility of goals

Each side thinks of the other as bad.

Intergroup Contact for Peace

Happens when:

• Equal status

• Common goal (superordinate)

• cooperation

• support from norms / authority

Superordinate Goals and Cooperation in Peacemaking

Cooperation towards common goal = decreased aggression

Outcomes of Intellectual Humility

Awareness that ur beliefs can be wrong

Leads to:

• scrutiny of misinformation

• openness to opposing views

• cooperative behavior

How to Exercise Intellectual Humility

• Distance from the issue

• Explain how things work

• Be open to different views

• Be willing to change ur own views

Constructive Communication

• Paraphrase: check if ur understanding right

• Acknowledge how the other guy feels

• Avoid criticizing. Use “I” statements

Ideal Partner Preferences and Attraction

Predicts attraction when looking at the abstract (High Construal)

• schematic traits like “funny” or “ambitious”

Does NOT predict when face-to-face. (Low construal)

• Concrete details like their laugh.