PSCI 104S Final Exam Study Guide

Relationships and Attraction

Key Terms and Concepts:

Natural vs. Sexual selection

Natural selection-  An evolutionary process that molds animals and plants so that traits that enhance the probability of survival is passed on to subsequent generations.

• operates on behavioral inclinations and physical traits

• characteristics selected to improve survival

S. selection - characteristics will be “selected for” that improve organisms chances of reproductive success

• Darwin focused only on NS

The mere exposure effect

1. Mere exposure effect (Robert Zajonc): The idea that repeated exposure to a stimulus, such as an object or a person, leads to greater liking of the stimulus.

• Limit to the Mere exposure effect- Repeated exposure to different kinds of stimuli–including paintings, photographs, words, and ideographs—increases liking until 35 repeated exposures, then liking of stimulus declines

Propinquity

Propinquity: Liking those who are physically close

Social Exchange Theory

• Social exchange theory: humans seek rewards in interpersonal interactions + willing to pay costs to obtain rewards 

  • Comparison level: expectations people have about what they should get out of a relationship

  • Comparison level for alternatives: outcomes people think they can get out of alternative relationships 

Equity Theory

1. Equity theory: combination of too many rewards & too few costs in a relationship can be unattractive; feels unfair —people seek fairness

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

1. The role of gender: attractiveness = more of a determinant of women's life outcomes than men’s

2. The universality of physical attractiveness: physical attractiveness is influenced by facial symmetry, clear skin, signs of youth (in women)

   1. Facial symmetry correlates with greater physical health: fewer respiratory & intenstinal infections → signals ability to resist disease

   2. Preference for geometrically average faces: resembles golden mean of faces

Attractiveness “stereotype”: what kinds of judgments do we make about attractive people?

1. The halo effect: common belief that people who are attractive have positive qualities beyond physical attractiveness

   1. Happier, more intelligent, higher income

   2. Negative inferences: immodest + bad parents + vain 

   3. Independent cultures: perceived dominance & assertiveness 

   4. Interdependent cultures: perceived generosity & empathy

Similarity and attraction

1. Studies of similarity + attraction: more likely romantically involved when social class, educational level, and religious background are similar 

   1. Similarity of engaged couples is strongest for demographic characteristics (social class) + physical characteristics (health, physical attractiveness); less strong for personality traits (leadership, sensitivity)

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

1. Investment in offspring: 

   1. Women invest more into the conception of offspring

   2. Men express desire for a greater number of sexual partners

      1. Less selective of sexual partners + More likely to have affairs

   3. Gay men express less interest in monogamy than lesbian and heterosexual women 

2. What do men want? What do women want?

   1. Resources + status: women should be attracted to men who are ambitious, physically strong, and high social status

      1. Youth: Men should be attracted to younger women: smooth skin, lustrous hair, full lips, waist narrower than hips 

      2. kindness + intelligence: both genders

The relationship between women’s ovulation and physical attraction

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, competitive men

• More attracted to masculine (rather than feminine) male faces

Key Studies:

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

• Friendship patterns in MIT married student apartment complex

• Randomly assigned to apartments

• When residents named 3 closest friends 

  • ⅔ came from same building

  • ⅔ came from the same floor 

  • Most frequently chosen person– next door neighbor 

• Functional vs. Actual Distance

Buss et al (1992)

Sex differences in Jealousy

• sexual infidelity matters more to men

• emotional infidelity matters more to women

Buss 1989; 1990

Importance of financial prospects (1989)

• important to women

• unimportant to men

Preferred Self-Spouse Age Difference (1990)

• women prefer older

• men prefer younger

Aggression and Violence

Key Terms and Concepts:

Hostile Aggression

Hostile aggression -intent to inflict pain or harm 

Instrumental Aggression

Instrumental aggression - inflict pain as a means to an end (using aggression) 

Biological theory of aggression

1. Biological Theories of Aggression 

   1. Genetic factors

      1. Temperament + impulsivity 

   2. Mental illness 

      1. American Psychiatric Association: most violent people do not suffer from mental illness 

      2. Brain structure- amygdala 

         1. Small amygdala= more aggressive 

      3. Alcohol + other drugs- increase in impulsivity 

      4. Testosterone 

         1. Gender diff. = girls more indirect / boys more physical 

         2. In men - testosterone level linked to aggression 

Social Learning Theory (Albert Bandura)

• People learn what to approach and what to avoid simply by watching relevant others.

• They observe other people’s behavior and its consequences, adopt the behaviors that seem to be successful, and avoid those that are punished.

Frustration-Aggression Theory

1. Aggression is always a product of frustration 

2. Frustration always leads to aggression 

   • psychodynamic theory view

   • frustration = interruption of goal sequence

     • Arbitrary: goal sequence interrupted for no reason 

     • Nonarbitrary: goal sequence interrupted for a good reason 

Aggression Cues Theory

An effect of TV violence; provides triggers for individuals who are “ready” to aggress

Catharsis

1. Catharsis & displaced aggression 

   1. F-A Theory predicts perfect relation between frustration & aggression 

   2. Catharsis = release of energy

Displaced Aggression

Displacement = redirection of aggression from actual frustrater

The relationship between income inequality and aggression within societies

• higher income inequality = more violence + conflict

  • feelings of social rejection felt by low SES

  • physical pain + less trust

  • inequality = more competition for resources + mates; motivation for murder/crime

Culture of Honor

1. Culture of Honor Nisbett & Cohen (1996)

   1. Prevalent in the Southern US – legacy of herding culture of Britain, Scotland

   2. Sensitivity to slights to one’s reputation (honor) – respond with violence 

   3. Examined culture of honor with wide variety of methods 

      1. Homicide records- argument related murders higher in south + southeast as opposed to non-south states 

Realistic Conflict Theory

Key Studies:

Berkowitz (1968)

Aggression Cues Theory

• perfect relation between frustration & aggression = too strict

  • something in addition to frustration is needed to cue aggression

• Theory → frustration + aggressive cue + additional provocation or cognitive cue associated with violence = aggression

Berkowitz & LePage (1967)

Gun on the Table Study

• aggression-priming effects of guns observed only in conditions of anger

  • badminton on table + angered or not angered = no agression

  • gun on table + not angered = no aggression

  • gun on table + angered = high aggression

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

• children watch adult models ( m or f ) play in a room full of toys → children put into room of toys

• DV= # of aggressive acts

• results:

  • model was aggressive + same gender = most aggressive

  • model was aggressive + opp. gender = aggressive

  • model was not aggressive = not aggressive

Nisbett & Cohen (1996)

Culture of Honor

• north + south male college students randomly assigned to control group or experimental (bumped, insulted, chicken game, handshake)

  • insult (south) = 40% increase in cortisol; 10% increase in testosterone

    • insult (north) = stayed the same or went down

  • chicken game (south)= got out of the way 60 inches closer when insulted

    • north = stayed the same

  • firmness of handshake (insulted + south)= 4.4/4.6

  • firmness of handshake (control + south) = 3.8/4.6

    • firmness of handshake increased when insulted + south

    • firmness of handshake stayed the same with northern subjects

Eron & Huesmann (1984; 1985)

Cross-Lagged Panel Correlation

• Participants age 8 watched violent TV → engaged in aggressive behavior

• Participants age 19 watched violent TV → did not engage in aggressive behavior

Fein & Spencer (1997)

When encountering threats to self-esteem, people often defensively put down members of stereotyped groups

Altruism & Cooperation

Key Terms and Concepts:

Diffusion of Responsibility

knowing that others have seen the situation; each bystander assumes someone else will intervene

The Bystander Effect

individuals are less likely to help if others are present because of diffusion of responsibility & pluralistic ignorance

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

Moral dumbfounding

insistence on a moral conviction in the absence of reason, suggesting that gut feelings or intuition guide moral judgments

Inclusive Fitness (Hamilton, 1964)

The adaptiveness of a behavior is measured not just by the effect it has on the actor’s reproductive fitness, but by the effect it has on other’s fitness

The Empathy-Altruism hypothesis vs. Negative State Relief hypothesis

1. NSR: Victim suffering → Self based feelings → Helping 

2. EAH: Victim Suffering → Empathy for victim → Helping

dv= helps (takes shock for others)	Low empathy	High empathy
No anticipated mood enhancement	High	high
Anticipated mood enhancement (funny tape)	low	Low -NSR  High –EAH

The Urban Overload hypothesis

Adaptations to urban overload create characteristic qualities of city life that can be measured

Decision-Tree Model of Bystander Intervention (Latane & Darley, 1970)

notices event + interprets event as an emergency →

assumes responsibility for helping →

knows what to do to help →

implements decision to help →

→ Helps

Reciprocal Altruism

helping other people with the expectation that they’ll help in return at some other time 

• Reduces likelihood of dangerous conflict, helps overcome problems arising from scarce resources, and helps form alliances

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

lower SES = more altruistic

wealthy direct acts of philanthropy that benefit people like themselves

• private universities, colleges, art organizations

• rather than: social service organizations that benefit lower SES

Key Studies:

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

1. seminary students asked to give lecture on careers for ministers or Parable of the good samaritan 

   1. IV= low hurry, med. Hurry, high hurry 

   2. DV= % stopping to help 

      1. % stopping to help was predicted by amount of time they could spare

      2. High hurry= high cost to help 

      3. Low hurry= low cost to help

Latane & Darley (1970) Bystander Intervention

Decision-Tree Model of Bystander Intervention

noticing + interpreting = smoke filled room (Latane & Darley 1968)

assuming responsibility = person asked to watch radio stops theft Moriarty (1975)

knowing what to do = group given first aid training helped more (schwartz & clausen)

implements decision to help = low hurry + low cost

Latane & Darley (1968) Smoke Filled Room

1. ambiguous factors: only seeing a glimpse of an emergency; only the aftermath of an incident; surrounding context 

   1. Smoke-filled room study: when 2 confederates show no signs of concern to smoke filling the room, only 10% reported the smoke

      1. 75% reported smoke when alone

2. Pluralistic ignorance: if bystanders aren’t sure what is happening and don’t see anyone else responding → they may do nothing

Interpersonal Perception

Key Terms and Concepts:

Attribution Theory

how people understand the causes of events

The Phenomenological Assumption

what matters is if you think something is happening in a situation: if you think someone is watching you, but they aren't, what matters is that you think they are

Principle of Construal

How we interpret situations and behavior is unconscious

• perceptions drive behavior

Personal vs. Impersonal Causality

Impersonal causality (situational attribution)

1. Consensus & distinctiveness = both HIGH

Personal causality (dispositional attribution)

1. Consensus & distinctiveness = both LOW

The Fundamental Attribution Error

The failure to recognize the importance of situational influences on behavior, along with the corresponding tendency to overemphasize the importance of dispositions on behavior.

Cross-cultural research on attribution style

Fundamental attribution error is universal — collectivists adjust better

Self-Serving Bias

tendency to attribute failures and negative events to external circumstances; attributing successes and positive events to disposition

Framing Effects

The way information is presented (such as order) influences how its processed and understood

spin framing: form of framing that varies the content (changing words) , not just the order, of what is presented

• high quality product → customers choice framed as quality choice

• low quality product → customers choice frames as savings choice

• “tax relief” - relief implies that taxes are a burden

Positive vs. Negative framing: framing that emphasizes the good or bad + predictable effects on peoples judgments

• 10% fail rate vs. 90% success rate

  • same info. different focus.

  • positive framing = more appealing

  • negative framing = less appealing

Confirmation Bias

tendency to seek out information that supports/conforms proposition and ignoring information that refutes it

• leads to false belief because we can find supportive evidence for almost everything

• occurs when we look for evidence consistent with propositions or hypotheses we wish to EVALUATE — we need to examine evidence for and against claims

motivated confirmation bias: when people are motivated to deliberately search for evidence that supports their preferences or expectations

• occurs when we seek out and embrace evidence that confirms a proposition we WANT to be TRUE and ignore contradicting evidence

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

• generalized knowledge about the physical or social world

  • tells us how to behave or what to say in certain situations

  • how to behave in seminars, funerals, or restaurants

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

error in thought resulting in a confirmation and maintaining of expectations

System 1 and System 2 Thinking

System 1: intuitive, reactive, emotional, associative, quick,

-quick-snap judgments; habitual 

System 2: systematic, deliberate 

-rational processes 

What are heuristics? Why do we have them?

automatic mental shortcuts

• provide answers to common judgment

• rational bias, usually correct, can lead to misjudgment (cognitive illusions)

Availability Heuristic

The process whereby judgments of frequency or probability are based on how readily pertinent instances come to mind.

causes of death

• overestimated: motor vehicle accidents, tornadoes, floods, cancers, fires, homicides

• underestimated: diabetes, lightning, stroke, asthma, emphysema, TB

Representativeness Heuristic

reflects implicit assumption that a member of a given category resembles the category prototype

• effective strategy

other potentially useful sources of information: Base-rate information ( frequency of members of a category )

Illusory Correlations

thinking that 2 variables are correlated because (1) they resemble each other and (2) the occurrence of 2 similar evens stands out more than 2 dissimilar events

• makes us more likely to remember instances in which they’re paired

Egocentric Bias (Ross & Sicoly, 1978)

• Who does more cleaning, you or your roommate?

  • both roommates estimates add up to over 100%

  • availability heuristic = key indicator

    • easier to remember your own contributions

Discounting

reason behind action is discounted if other plausible causes are also present

• helped by higher status person = no discount, they must be nice

• helped by lower status person = 2 causes available, kindness is discounted

Augmentation

if an “inhibitory cause” is present, the role of a cause will be judged to be greater than if no “inhibitory cause” were present

• advocation position despite cost example

• greater weight is attributed to a behavior if it occurs despite obstacles or cost

  • ex: behavior = saying no to drinking, inhibitory factor = peer pressure

    • greater weight is attributed to saying no because of obstacles

Counter-factual thinking

thoughts counter to facts of what happened; considerations of other outcomes

• “If only I had studied harder” - implies lack of effect caused poor test grade

Actor-Observer Bias

tendency for actor to make situational attributions & observer to make dispositional attributions

• Ex: actors engage more in situational attribution; observers engage more in dispositional attribution 

Self-Handicapping (Jones & Beglas, 1978)

actively sabotaging ones own performance to provide external reason for poor performance

• ex:

  • sabotaging behavior: not studying for a test

    • excuse for poor performance

Key Studies:

Heider & Simmel (1944)

Attribution Theory

• humans anthropomorphize moving shapes (triangle and circle) assigning social intentions, emotions, and personalities to them

• large triangle is aggressive and male

• small circle is scared

• findings: tendency too attribute meaning to a narrative + perceive personality in movements

Medvec, Madey, & Gilovich (1995)

Counterfactual thinking + olympic medals

• silver medalist engages in counterfactual thinking

  • easy to imagine getting gold

• bronze medalist engages in counterfactual thinking

  • easy to imagine not placing

Kelly’s Covariation Model (1973)

attributions use 3 pieces of information 

1. Distinctiveness: How a person acts across situations 

   1. High: acts differently across situations 

   2. Low: acts similarly across situations 

2. Consensus: How other people act in same situation 

   1. High:  others act the same

   2. low: others act different

3. Consistency: How a person acts in the same situation in past 

   1. High: similar actions in past

   2. low: different actions in past

Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz (1977)

Trivia quiz study (1977) + fae

subjects randomly assigned to questioner, contestant, or observer

• questioner writes 10 difficult trivia questions → contestant tries to answer them and does poor'

  • observers rate contestants intelligence 50% lower than questioner

    • internal attributions to contestants poor performance

Kahneman & Miller (1986)

Theory of counterfactual thinking

Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968)

“Pygmalion in the classroom” - examined the effect of teacher’s expectations on students’ intellectual development and achievement

• 20% of students were randomly assigned as “late bloomers”

  • if a teacher believed the child was going to gain in intellectual development → the teacher behaved toward the child in a way that such a gain was likely to occur

  • effect only occurs if expectations are manipulated early in the school year ( 2 weeks)

  • teacher expectation effects are greater for 1st and 2nd graders

    • bias against low SES and black children

Intergroup Perception

Key Terms and Concepts:

Economic vs. Motivational vs. Cognitive Perspective of Stereotyping and Prejudice

Stereotype Threat

The fear of confirming the stereotypes that others have about one’s group.

• threat inhibits performance

Scapegoating

Research on Minimal Groups

groups based on arbitrary criteria = preference for in group

• willingness to favor their minimal in group, even willing to beat out group at the cost of the in group

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

technique for revealing unconscious biases

• a series of words or pictures are presented on a computer screen →

Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

Subtyping

Social Identity Theory

Realistic Group Conflict Theory

Illusory Correlation via Paired Distinctiveness

Key Studies:

Correll et al (2002)

Darley & Gross (1983)

Sherif’s Robbers’ Cave study

Aronson’s Jigsaw Classroom study