Social Psych Exam 3

3325H

The need to belong

A basic human motive

When the need to belong is not met:

People will display depression, anxiety, efforts to restore relationships, and withdrawal

Exchange Relationships

When people expect and desire equity in a relationship

Example of Exchange Relationships

* Expect immediate repayment of benefits
* Strangers, acquaintances, business partner

Communal Relationships

When people expect and desire mutual responsiveness to each others needs

Example of Communal Relationships

* Care for people without worrying about getting something for it
* Close friendships, romantic relationships, family

Attachment Theory

Originally theorized in development psychology to explain how a child interacts with their parents

\- similar patterns can develop in our adult relationships

\- often these are the same patterns developed in infancy, but there can be change

The 2 dimensions that can describe most of adult attachment

Anxiety & Avoidance

Anxiety in regards to attachment

Fear of rejection and abandonment

Avoidance in regards to attachment

Avoid intimacy in relationships

4 Different Attachment Styles

* Secure
* Anxious-preoccupied
* Dismissive-avoidant
* Fearful-avoidant

‘Secure’ in regards to Attachment Theory

Confident, comfortable with intimacy

Anxious-preoccupied in regards to Attachment Theory

Seek out intimacy because they fear being abandoned

\- clingy

Dismissive-avoidant in regards to Attachment Theory

Fear intimacy

\-self-reliant, don’t want to rely on others

Fearful-avoidant in regards to Attachment Theory

Mixed feelings

\-Want to be close, but aren’t comfortable with intimacy

\-High on both anxiety and avoidance

What Predicts Attraction

1. Proximity
2. Physical Attractiveness
3. Similarity
4. Reciprocal Liking
5. Reactance

Propinquinty Effect (Proximity Effect)

The more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends

The single best predictor of attraction

Physical proximity

The Propinquity Effect (study)

* Examined friendship patterns in a married student housing complex at MIT
* Couples randomly assigned to buildings and apartments

The Propinquity Effect (study) Results

The closer the apartments the closer the friends

Who were close friends?

* 65% lived in the same building
* 41% were next-door neighbors
* 22% lived three doors down
* 10% lived three doors down
* Those on first floor living near the stairs had more upstairs friends

Mere Exposure Effect

The more often we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we come to like that stimulus

\- Does not happen if you initially dislike the stimulus, must be at least neutral to it

Example of the Mere Exposure Effect

People like pictures of their mirror-image (what they usually see) and their friends like actual pictures

Moreland & Beach - Exposure Effects in the Classroom (Study)

* Female confederate sit in on large college classrooms either 0, 5, 10, 15 times
* She never interacted with any other students
* At the end of the semester, students were shown the woman’s picture and asked to rate how attractive she was

Moreland & Beach - Exposure Effects in the Classroom (Study) Results

The more the female visited the higher the rating she got on the attraction scale

People seem to prefer faces that are:

Average (not meh, but computerized average)

Computer program that makes composites of faces

\- The more faces included in the composite, the more attractive that averaged person is rated

Study that proves that people prefer average faces

Why the more faces included in the composite, the more attractive that averaged person is rated?

* Composites more familiar, more prototypical
* Composite faces more symmetrical

Why do we like beautiful people?

* (BIRGing) It is inherently rewarding to be in the company of people who are attractive
* The stereotype that beautiful people are good people

‘What is beautiful is good’ stereotype (A.K.A halo effect)

Belief that attractive people also possess positive personality characteristics

Attractiveness and self-fulfilling Prophecy (Snyder, Tanke, Berscheid) Study

* Male participants talked to female participants
* The males were shown a picture of an attractive or unattractive female they thought they were talking to

Results of Attractiveness and self-fulfilling Prophecy (Snyder, Tanke, Berscheid) Study

When shown picture of attractive women:

* Men - formed more positive impressions of women, friendlier on the phone
* Women - were more warm more confident, and more animated towards the man

We tend to associate with others who are:

Similar to ourselves

\- Hard to relate to someone who’s so different, especially long-term

Can be similar on:

* Demographics
* Attitudes
* Attractiveness
* Subjective Experience

Why do we like others who are similar to us?

* We’re more likely to meet similar others

\- Similar interests- similar activities, hangout spots
* They provide us with validation for our characteristics and beliefs

\- They make us think we’re right

Reciprocity

We like people who like us, or who like us back

\- Usually flattered when someone likes you, even if you didn’t initially like them

Reciprocal liking can be:

A self-fulfilling prophecy (You like someone because they like you)

Reactance

When we are told that we cannot have or do something, it often increases desirability to us

\- Important to be externally hard to get - forbidden to outside forces

Example of reactance:

* The “Romeo & Juliet” effect
* Playing ‘hard-2-get’ in moderation, often works
* Secrecy also increases attractiveness

Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love basic components:

* Passion
* Intimacy
* Commitment

Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love

Love as a theory with different types of relationships

Passion in regards to Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love

Arousal, sexual tension

Intimacy in regards to Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love

Feelings of being close to and bonded with one’s partner

Commitment in regards to Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love

Long-term stability

Sternberg’s Triangle Theory of Love knowledge check

Stereotype

A belief that associates a group of people with certain traits

Prejudice

A preconceived negative judgment towards persons based on the membership to a certain group

\- An attitude

\- Includes feelings, cognitions

Discrimination

Negative behaviors towards other groups

The main perspectives to prejudice and discrimination

* Economic Perspective
* Motivational Perspective
* Cognitive Perspective

Economic Perspective

Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory

* Direct competition for valuable but limited resources lead to conflict and prejudice
* In an economic sense, resources are always limited (competition can be real or imagined)
* Prejudice attitudes increase in times of competition

\- During economic, recessions, wars
* Robbers Cave Study

Robbers Cave Study

Researchers divided boys at a summer camp into two groups, (Rattlers vs. Eagles)

\- in conflict and competition for scarce resources. In the case of the experiment, the scare resources were medals and prizes.

\- Hostility arose

Motivational Perspective

* Don’t need competition to have prejudice
* Just need to put people into different categories and prejudice will naturally follow

\- Can put people in randomly assigned ‘minimal groups’ (eye color, estimation of dots) and still see bias
* Social Identity Theory

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner)

* People favor ingroups over outgroups to enhance their self-esteem
* Group membership has implications for “collective self”

\- “We” aspect of our self-concept

\- We want to be members of the best group

To achieve being members of the best group we:

Enhance our own group, derogate others, or both

\- BIRGing can enhance our group

Dehumanizing Outgroups as part of the Motivational Perspective

People will associate outgroups with lower-order animals

\- Ex: rats, apes, dogs

\- Have found evidence of this with Black men and those with lower SES

Outcomes of Dehumanizing Outgroups

* Police who implicitly associate Black men with apes used more force against Black children
* Men who associate women with animals/objects show stronger inclination towards harrassment/rape

Cognitive Perspective

Argues that stereotypes are used because they allow us to process information efficiently

* Social cognition has the connection to schemas
* Easy to make quick categories for people

If Cognitive Perspective Theory True

Would most likely be used when tired, distracted, or mentally taxed

\- Saves time and energy, but also leads to inaccurate impressions

Proof of Cognitive Perspective

Participants who were ‘morning people’ were more likely to use stereotypes at night

Ingroups

Group to which an individual belongs

Outgroup

Group to which an individual does not belong

Ingroups vs. Outgroups leads to:

* Outgroup homogeneity effect
* Us vs. them mentality

\- Ex: Ohio vs. Michigan

Outgroup homogeneity effect

The tendency to see outgroup category members as all the same, while seeing ingroup members as unique

Explanations for Outgroup homogeneity effect

* Have less opportunities for learning
* Have little personal contact with outgroups
* The more familiar = the less homogenous
* We don’t see representative outgroup members
* Tend to see stereotypes in media

Is stereotyping & prejudice inevitable, if our brains naturally work this way?

Stereotypes are often activated without our knowledge and can operate at an unconscious level

* To be activated have to know what the stereotypes ae

Devine (1989) Dissociation Model

* Automatic Process
* Controlled Process

Automatic Process: Stereotype Activation

* Assumes everyone knows the stereotypes for different groups
* These stereotypes are automatically activated whenever a cue is present regardless of personal prejudice level

Controlled Process: Stereotype Application

* Once a stereotype is activated, people can use controlled processes to overcome the influence of the stereotype
* Because controlled processes take motivation and effort, they can’t always be used

Cognitive Perspective: Stereotype Activation

Police shooting an unarmed man, were they more likely to think he was holding a gun because he was black?

Cognitive Perspective: Gun Experiment (Payne, 2001)

* measured automatic prejudice
* primed participants with White or Black faces and then categorized objects as guns or not

Cognitive Perspective: Gun Experiment Results

When primed with Black faces -

* participants more quickly noticed guns


* also more likely to mistake other objects (wrench, tools) as guns

Stereotype Threats

A self-confirming apprehension that one will be evaluated based on a negative stereotype

Steele & Aronson (1995) study

* Gave Black and White college students questions from the GRE test
* Some subjects were told the test measured general intelligence and some subjects told it did not

Steele & Aronson (1995) study results

* When told the test measured intelligence - White participants did better on the test
* When told the test did not measure intelligence - Black and White participants scored equally

\- Prove stereotype threats

Why Stereotype Threats happen?

* The stereotype is distracting and leaves less attention to focus on the task
* One’s anxiety about confirming the stereotypes increases arousal (heart rate, etc.)

How do we reduce prejudice?

1. Recategorization
2. Practice inhibiting stereotypes (make it a habit)
3. Increase self-control
4. Education
5. Change social norms
6. Trust & Belonging (to reduce stereotype threat)
7. Culture
8. Contact between groups (but meets conditions)

Recategorization

* Common group identity model

\- Change ‘they’ to ‘we’
* Riek (2010) study

\- When participants reminded of political parties (R vs. D) they rated others negatively. When reminded of their similarities (being American) rated other positively

Problems that would prohibit increasing self-control

alcohol, exhaustion, lack of internal motivation

Education in regards to reducing prejudice

Helps form new social norms

Change social norms

* Prejudice thrives when it’s the norm
* Must combat it to change what is ‘normal’

Trust & Belonging in regards to reducing prejudice

* If participants feel safe in environment then the effects go away
* Need to decrease feeling that “people like me don’t belong here”

Culture in regards to reducing prejudice

* Exposure to diversity
* Seeing outgroup in visible roles

Contact between group (conditions) in regards to reducing prejudice

A. equal status of groups

B. Shared goal

C. Broad social norms support contact

D. One-on-One interactions

Aggression

Behavior that is intended to physically or mentally harm another person who does not want to be harmed

\- Rules out emotions, thoughts, and wishes

\- Rules out accidents

\- Rules out things like “jackass”

Instrumental Aggression

* Harm inflicted as a means to reach a desired goal
* If there was some other way to reach the desired goal, aggression would not occur

Example of instrumental aggression

Killing someone for money or self-defense

Emotional Aggression

* Harm is inflicted for its own sake (solely to harm another person)

Example of emotional aggression

Jealous lover killing partner in rage

Surveys of Northern and Southern men find that Southern men endorse using aggression:

* for self-defense
* against insults
* as a tool to teach children (to fight back against bullies)

Nisbett (1993) study

* Southern and Northern men had to walk down a narrow hallway where another confederate bumped them

Nisbett (1993) study results

* show increased testosterone
* not give way in chicken game
* give firmer handshakes
* assume evaluator thought he was less masculine

Cohen & Nisbett (1997) fake job application study

* Male applicant who was a convicted felon
* either because he stole a car to pay debts
* or because he killed a man who taunted him about having an affair with his fiancee

Cohen & Nisbett (1997) fake job application study results

In West and South, employers were more understanding of the convicted killer

Social norms seem to maintain

Gender differences

Example of gender differences in social norms

Males and females are rewarded and punished differently for aggression

\- they also have different models for aggression

Prosocial behavior

Any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person

Altruism

Unselfish behavior that benefits others without regard to consequences for oneself

\- Often a cost to oneself

Batson argues

There is pure altruism

Two components to empathy in regards to altruism

* Cognitive - perspective taking (must see it through someone else’s eyes)
* Emotional - empathetic concern (sympathy)

\- Not personal distress (alarmed or upset)

Cialdini argues

that there is no true altruism