social psych unit 3

jhu

minority influence

a person in the minority being able to stand their ground or can actually move the majority to the minority

consistency

• in the face of the majority, a minority can only be effective in standing up to that majority if they are consistent and stick to their position. Cannot be swayed. If that person gives any one point or fact, the majority will put more effort. Being consistent in sticking to your point

confidence

• someone who has an aura of “I am sure I am right” is much more easily able to withstand the pressure of the majority. Also, get more respect from the majority that their opinion is not moving. The majority will start to wear down because they don’t see the point.

independence/objectivity

• A person in the minority doesn’t have any stake at hand that they would benefit from or be penalized by for having a particular stance. If there’s no objectivity, the majority are more likely to prey upon them (doing this for yourself)

rectangle-circle table study (leadership in intragroup)

rectangular vs circular table. Subjects signed up for a psych study on group interaction. There will be a half-hour group interaction, and they will be randomly assigned where people would sit around each of the tables. They gave a decision-making task, where one person could become a leader. They kept track of who spoke the most, who got asked the most questions, and who got addressed the most. People at the heads of rectangular tables were more likely to speak more, to be asked more questions, and to be deferred to more. At the end, people would select a leader, and they would choose that person (significantly more likely to be chosen as a leader). This is due to the heuristic of the head of the rectangular table. When they had the round table, no one spot was assigned as leader (whoever spoke most, asked most questions, or who people chose as leader).

leadership intragroup example

• All on jury duty, everybody dresses professional casual for the first three days, but when the guy comes in suit on the fourth day, he goes into the room first and sits at the head of the table before anyone else can. Pretty quickly, they elect Joe as the forum. He was going to be forum, made sure to sit at that table, dressed up well. People automatically made him a forum. 

socio-emotional leadership

• They are good listeners, sounding boards, open to ideas, make people feel like they are being heard/understood, they keep people in a better mood, and people like working for them

task leadership

People who are really good at making people do shit. They follow up and keep people on task. They are not necessarily good at the socio-emotional aspect.

task leadership

• People who are really good at making people do shit. They follow up and keep people on task. They are not necessarily good at the socio-emotional aspect.

self-monitors: leadership styles

Good self-monitors can choose whichever type to fit the situation. They can spot what the group needs at that moment. People with both skills tend to be really effective leaders.

leadership styles examples

sports team coach is task, assistant coach is socio-emotional

crowd behavior: panic

• there is some sort of aversive stimulus that causes fight or flight behavior in a large group (e.g., fire). People act in ways they wouldn’t rationally be acting just so they can save themselves. 

panic examples

• EX. Seoul. Lots of crowd-crushing deaths, Halloween. small avenue. funeled into area by police that didnt fit them all

• EX. Hillsborough Soccer Championship - more crowd-crushing. As it was getting closer to the start of the match, people were crushing in. 30 people got crushed on the metal gates, but then people in front got panicked. bc didnt opne gates until 20 min before game. only opened one gate for some reason.

• EX. The Iroquois Theater Fire

destructive event

purposeful negative behavior. (e.g., property destruction, violence, looting, etc.). When in a large group, people are prone to act in ways they normally wouldn’t if there’s negative group behavior.

destructive event examples

• 2024 MLB World Series Celebration in LA - LA dodgers win World Series, ppl burning cars, fires, looting

• 2020 Kenosha, WI unrest: a multi-day series of protests, riots, and arson triggered by the police shooting of Jacob Blake, a Black man, on August 23, 2020. Following nationwide police brutality protests, the city saw massive destruction, with over $50 million in damages, and the arrival of armed militias

• 2011 Vancouver Riot after NHL Game 7 loss (“Facebook Riot”) - when the team lost, people routinely destroyed police cars. People used FB videos to convict people. These people were not necessarily destructive hooligans; they just joined in because they got swept up in the behavior of the group. 

social rage approach

systemic issues and dramatic events crystallize frustrations/outrage, leading to collective protest that can turn into large-scale destructive behavior.

However,

• The majority of large protests are peaceful

• Systemic issues are often continuous, but destructive events are most often episodic (one event)

• Destructive behavior can occur in the aftermath of good news

social rage approach: destructive behavior in aftermath of good news example

• (e.g., LA winning the 2024 World Series) ex. On campus, basketball teams that reach the final four, on uni campuses, you’ll see destructive behavior happen in celebration. At UMD, when they made the final four, everyone went to college on the street excited and celebrating, and it turned violent; people were tipping over cars, lighting fires, tearing down telephone poles, and participating in looting behavior.

how destructive events develop

unifying event and convergent norm

unifying event

• for some reason mass of people come together

  • Spontaneous or planned (Freddy Gray’s death, planned march)

  • Open (anyone), closed (only certain people from 1 community), or mixed (maybe starts off closed, then open, people taking advantage of the looting going on)

convergent norm

• a substantial enough number of like-minded people who would favor destructive behavior. A potential instigator must have the confidence that others are thinking like he/she is thinking and would follow suit

the instigator

•  just having many people in the same mood doesn’t start destructive behavior. Most people make the calculation that if they start it, they might get caught. Need someone willing to risk it anyway.

instigator has to weigh…

• Risk of getting caught: ratio of crowd/police

• Probability everyone will join in

probability everyone will join in example

• MD: Regarding when chaos broke out after the team made it to the final four, one of the criticisms that the police chief and mayor got was there just weren’t enough police downtown to keep people from doing destructive events. So, two years later, when UMD was in the final eight, the police chief made the call that they were gonna have tons of police on the main street. Also had cops on horses, which were especially intimidating to people; no destructive event kicked off because anyone (or even many people) who might’ve considered doing so knew they would get caught. 

presence of convergent norm example

spike lee’s “Do the right thing”

Tension between Black neighborhood and white pizzeria guy. An instigator sets off a riot by throwing a trash can through the glass window of the pizzeria. Everyone was already upset because the police had been there and arrested  and hurt someone and drove away.

how destructive events unfold

once started: contagion, emergent norm, deindividuation

contagion

• destructive energy becomes contagious (exhilarating, exciting), causes you to join and do something you wouldn’t normally do if you were by yourself (Le Bon’s 1895: “Psychology of Crowds”)

emergent norm

• what was acceptable behavior actually starts to change. The norm shifts, and the destructive event becomes the norm.

deindividuation

• If you’re embedded within a large crowd, you will feel that no one can tie your behavior to your identity in such a large crowd and in all the chaos–ex, no one will know I stole this watch from this jewelry store. If you feel deindividuated, you are freed up to behave in a nonnormative and negative way. 

social dilemmas

• the conflict between wanting to maximize self-interest and the interest of the group as a whole

commons dilemma

when you’re taking from a resource. This gets its name from the Tragedy of the Commons. In medieval times, the town set aside a common area for farmers to bring their cattle to graze on. Only area in this rough, jagged part of the country. The issue was, if too many farmers brought their cattle to graze frequently, it would be quickly depleted. It’s a dilemma between maximizing your own self-interest and the interest of the group as a whole.

commons dilemma: natural resources

• water usage during a drought. Cities in south africa’s reservoirs are in the last month - if too many people people act selfishly, the water source could be depleted. Water restriction requirement in Dallas: couldn’t wash car, couldn’t run sprinklers, asked to take showers shorter than four minutes. The goal was for people to behave less selfishly in terms of the amount of water usage that you had. For the good of the group as a whole. 

• Whaling industry in 18-1900s - no regulations of how many whales each whaling fleet could take from the ocean. So, there was rampant overharvesting of blue and humpback whales (they almost went extinct)--because each individual wanted to maximize their profit. But the group is too large–if they all take too many whales from the sea, they will eventually deplete the resource. THere’s not enough time to replenish that resource. Same for the lobster industry in Maine. They were overfished, even lobsters who hadn’t met reproductive age so the population growth was slowed; the resource was being depleted faster than it could be replenished. 

• Overharvesting in rainforest in Brazil

public Goods Dilemma

• you HAVE to contribute to the resource, do something to keep resource going and good for everybody happening. 

public goods dilemma example

• NPR - funding for public radio stations comes primarily from annual pledge drives, will spend three weeks doing pledge drives. If too many people listen for free and don't give any money, that resource could be depleted

•  Recycling - tomorrow is my recycling day. During the week I have to keep track of my recycling–sort everything, bring a blue bin, etc. It takes effort. Easy to say “my part doesn’t matter” and not do it. If too many people act that way, there are repercussions for the entire group. Less landfill space (more trash) , less recycled. Need to harvest more petroleum, more trees. This has trickle down effects (environmental degradation). If too many people act selfishly, there is a negative impact on the greater group. (landfill space, harvesting trees, petroleum products)

General Social Dilemma

• there is tension between wanting to maximize self-interest versus interests of the group, but it’s not some in terms of some resource–it’s just the inherent battle between these two interests. 

general social dilemmas examples

• Beltways outside cities can get really overcrowded with traffic causing a terrible traffic jam. Cities come up with ways to decrease amount of cars and also have byproduct of less smog/pollution. So they created HOV lanes - (high-occupancy vehicle) one lane set aside, its instructed to be in that lane you have to have 2 or more passengers. But there is a temptation (if its just you) to go in it if its going faster than other traffic. If too many people act in that selfish way, it defeats the entire purpose of eliminating the traffic jam.

• Oftentimes within large groups of people, “my” being selfish doesn’t have much impact. 

• Also, if one restraining themselves, but they see evidence that others are not, that makes them more likely to act selfishly too.

• Another example - walking from ames to hodson hall; there is a green area left of Levering. People walked through it (you weren’t supposed to, landscaping needs to look nice), a month into classes, there was a worn beaten down muddy paht through this green area, as it’s a social dilemma. Too amny people acting that way creates this muddy mess. One thing uni did: out green or black chain fence around it, but people stepped over it. They put a big ugly statue, and that had an effect.

ways to reduce selfish behavior

normative/informative social influence, descriptive/conjunctive norms, smaller groups, deindividuation - identifiability, operant conditioning (rewards/cost), legal measures (often last resort)

normative influence

normative pressure gets put on people when they violate a norm. (alter behavior out of desire to fit in/to be liked): If the norm is established, when people violate that norm, often times you’ll get flak for it.

normative influence example

• avid Robinson’s yard was all lush and green during a drought in Dallas, someone calls it out to newspaper. Then, he writes letter to editor explaining that there was  water break - impression management.

• See someone litter? Might judge or say something to the person

• Recycling is normative.

informative influence

• (alter behavior out of desire to be correct): aka “the reason why” you should recycle

informative influence examples

• Ad campaigns - benefits of carpooling (emissions)

• Oil embargo in 70s, middle eastern states refused to sell oil to US, so there was an oil crisis. In old buildings, stickers around saying “last one out, shut off the lights–it saves energy.” attempt to give info about why you should turn off lights

descriptive norm

•  norm abt how do most ppl behave

descriptive norm example

• 85% of hopkins pop recycles, stated to incoming freshman, that how u should behave (everyone behavior)

injunctive norm

• Injunctive - how one ought to behave - what do the ppl you care abt think abt this behavior? This is related to reasoned action model. Social ramifications-wanna fit into the group, they all recycle. (ppl you care abt behavior)

smaller groups

• greater impact of selfish behavior

  • If divided into groups of 10, if 2 or fewer wrote 10 pts, more groups would solved it. Bc ppl feel like tier behavior is more impactful.

  • Smaller works also BC of deindividuation, harder for ppl to keep track of who is selfish and who is not

deinidividuation - identifiability

• if he were to randomly draw people and they had to tie their name to amount of points, they less likely to do so because they don’t wanna be tied to the selfish behavior

operant conditioning (rwards/cost)

• programs to reward people for showing restraint in a social dilemma

operant conditioning examples

• EX: baltimore gas and electric, utility company. “Degree day” if you use less elec, on average on this wednesday tahn you did on previous four wednesday, for every watt you use less, we will give you a dollar less on your bill.

• Rewards more effective than punishment - still needs to be consistent, habituation still applies

• EX: in maine, in order to inc ppl recycling, created Bottle Bill: when buying six pack of soda, you had to pay extra 5 cents for each can of soda. But youd get certain amt money back fi you returned cans to recycling center. (both punishment and reward)

legal measures (often last resort)

• form of punishment, you’ll get a fine if you’re caught acting selfishly in a social dilemma

legal measures examples

• In Dallas water example, they had ability to fine people if they caught them watering lawns or w sprinklers on

• People start to weight probability of getting caught.

  • EX: overharvesting od lobsters. Only harvest certain size of male and female lobsters. This reflected their reproductive status. If you got caught, you get a fine. But when they first introduced this there were like 30k boats on the water but only four patrol boats. Lobstermen making calculation - whatre the odds I'll get caught? Took that risk. As odds go up, selfish behavior gets reduced.

  • EX: red light cameras: keep people from running red lights. (reduce crashes). Camera takes photo fi your car is intersection and light is red. Fine gets sent to registration of address of license plate. Happens automatically, foolproof system. So this really reduced the selfish behavior. Also interesting side effect, intersections that don’t have red light camera, accidents go up there because they pruposefully go to intersectio where theres no camera so they can blow through. This is also operatn conditioning

  • Oftentimes  the legal stuff is last resort. Other stuff works a lot better (norm!!)

discontinuity effect

• intergroup behavior is much more competitive than inter-individual behavior.

PDG

• a way of representing different motives within inter-individual versus intergroup behavior

  • People report to lab, either have two individual reporting to diff rooms or group of six ppl split into two groups of three. Each individual or each group A and B gets 30s to think about what they want to choose on any one trial. Then they meet in the middle (two individuals or representatives from each group). 30s to tall about what they wanna choose. Then go back to room and decide if they are choosing x or y. This gets handed in, experimenters says ok you did x-x you both get 3. Numbers in top righthand corner of each cell represents what the person/group A gets. Bottomlefthand corner is what group/person B gets. Higher amt of points is better. You do x number of trials, 30s think, meet, then choose back in room. You dont know when last trial is. 2 individuals doing task will choose x abt 95% of time. Versus 2 groups choose x 50% of time and y 50% of time. X is cooperative choice, (both get 3), versus y (competitive response). Best strategy for doing task is choose x every time. Bc two trials of x gives 6, and one of each only gets 5 points.

  • Why? Two indiv choiduals come to trust each other. Even if they agree and then choose idfferently they express regret teh next time they meet. But groups relish in screwing each other over. If 1 group convinces another to choose x and they choose y, that next trial, the other group is out for blood. Hard to regain any trust.

  •  One ting not clear - choosing x making other choose y - are you doing this out of GREEd or doing it out of FEAR. if you fear the other group is choosing y, you might choose y simply to get something rather than get nothing. Not clear if Y is a greedy pr fear choice.

PDGalt

• added a third choice Z - if you choose Z, regardless of what other group chooses, you get 2 points automatically. Z response is the fear response (choosing in case the other group chooses Y). Y now remains competitive, X remains cooperative. What they find is two individuals choose X 95% of time. Two groups choose x-x 50% of time, 25% Y and 25% z responses. 

reasons for intergroup competition

schemas of fear and greed, social support for greed, diffusion of responsibility, deinidividuation, reciprocity effects, in-group-outgroup bias, social identity theory

schemas of fear and greed

• at a young age, kids schemas about intergroup behavior before school is in terms of cooperation. After, due to competitions in gym or class, kids develop schemas about intergroup competition versus inter-individual competition as being different. In group, it;s okay to be greedy. Means you should also fear that the other group will be greedy. They don’t develop tis aboutinter-individual interactions. Only cooperate when one-on-one.

social support for greed

• there can be social support for greed that can’t happen when ur the only one making the decision

social support for greed example

Ran PDG study. But inside of each group, there was one confederate. During planning and decision-making 30 seconds, condederate acts in diff ways: control, act neutral, no stance. Experimental: floats get them to choose x and we choose y, let’s screw them over. Control, rates of 50% cooperation and 50% competitiveness were same. In exp group; rate 25% cooperation and 75% competition. Other people got more influenced. When is 1v1, there is no social support for the greedy behavior. Can only happen within groups. Maybe the reason why it happens in the group si because not only do you have schemas about fear and greed, but someone voices that greed

diffusion of responsibility

• in intergroup behavior, not 100% on you. Common thing in PDG study, during meeting, spokesperson blamed Y choice (going back on agreed-upon x-x choice)  on group. Say they got outvoted me, “i wanted to choose x!”

deindividuation

• when my behavior isnt connected to me, im freed up to behave non-normatively. Can be positive or negative. 

deinidividuation example (intergroup behavior)

• Each subject has to wear nametag in pdg study. If they do, doesnt change individuals behavior, but groups behavior increases cooperation to 70%. Anonymity frees us up

reciprocity effects

• tit for tat. Once one group convinces other to choose x and we choose y? Very next time the other group does the same thing to them. Individuals, once on choose y, next time that one offers to choose x. Once there is one act of greed in groups, immediately the other group does same thing. If there parameter where lvl of aggression increases, amt of white noise getting blasted thru headphones if they chose Y. this intensity level continues to increase as the trials progress. Essentially, once there is reciprocity of competitive behavior, it escalates pretty quickly.

ingroup-outgroup bias

• we think very differetnyl about the groups we are members of. Our schemas for people f our group are different than schemas of those in outgroups. Tend to think ppl from our group are more moral and deserving better ppl. Outgroup is worse, not as good as us, bad ppl. Tends to accentuate in intergroup situations. Not as moral - we think negative characteristics. So fi something si at stake, ex pdg game, you escalate ingroup-outgroup differences, esp for those we are in competition with.

ingroup-outgroup bias study

• study on ethnic stereotypes for immigrant groups in New York City. Vitriol in terms of schemas about other groups tended to be most stringent/extreme when the two grups were in competition for the same job. Polisha nd Germans compete for dock jobs - strong negative outgroup schemas about each other. But not necessarily about Italians because they weren’t trying to get those jobs. When there’s smth at stake (competition) we especially resort to ingroup-outgroup bias. 

social identity theory

• the way we think about ourselves (evaluation) comes from group membership. Part of identity comes from social groups. We don’t think about ourselves entirely as an individual (ex also as Hopkins student). As a result, if part of self-esteem comes from groups we belong to, we naturally want our groups to do better than other groups. Want Hopkins to be ranked higher than others. Bc part of ym self-esteem tied to groups i belong to. Leads to intergroup competition.

social identity theory study

•  study, 100 ppl in green versus red group. Take some individuals out of both, bring to room, give them $100 each to distribute however they want to the remaining subjects. Ppl give most of $100 to own group. Ex most to green and very little to red. Called minimal group paradigm - no meaning, random assignment, yet still favor your group

reduction of intergroup competition

simple contact effects, higher level goals

simple contact effects

• if you want to reduce intergroup comp (ingroup/outgroup bias), you can bring ppl from the groups tg and have contact w each other o equal footing, intergroup instincts will be eliminated (ingroup outgroup bias) bc they see commonalities between traits of selves and other group’s members

robber’s cave study

summer camp, kids from small city , 10 yr old boys, diff schools, same background. Tried to create ingroup competition, then reduce it. First few days all tg, then kids placed into groups and allowed to name their groups (Rattlers and Eagles). Switched up housing to match, had competitions where can win trophy for the day (ex soccer match). Naming important for creating identity. Pretty quickly those kids competed in every way possible, food fights in kitchen, rattlers stole trophy back one night, raided cabin. Next day eagles raided their cabin for underwear. Tried to reduce conflict through simple contact. Mixed up cabins, mixed during eating times rattlers and eagles together. Put on equal footing, interaction, naturally see commonalities and not think in terms of rattlers vs eagles. Turns out this didn’t necessarily work.

robber’s cave: higher level goals

• Where two groups come together to solve some activity, and could only do it tg. Camp had no water supply. Every couple days water truck would come down and deliver drinking water.oen day truck got stuck in ditch on way to camp. Planted winch w rattlers, eagles w heavy duty chain. Helpful if both attached get truck out of ditch. Allowed kids themselves to figure it out. Having t work tg to solve problem of water for camp reduced ingroup outgroup bias. Hooray we are ALL robbers cave ppl. Working on superior level goal had effect of reducing group conflict.

• Other thing they did: another camp down road. Had robbers cave vs thai new camp olympics. Now it was nt rattlers vs eagles anymore, it was this (in soccer, checkers, etc.) that had TREMENDOUS effec ton ingroup outgroup bias. We are ALL together robber’s cave. No need to think abt differences within camp. Differences across camps. Thinking in terms of “us” rather than “me vs you” elimiantes ingroup outgroup bias bc we all in same ingroup.

jigsaw classroom

• put kids into small groups (tsted on aspects of civil war), each kid tested on one topic within this. Ex one kid gets gettysburg address, aother SC battles. Each kid learns heir part but also teaches other kids abt it. Become dependent on each other. In order for me to do well, do MY gettysburg address stuff but also rely on other kid to do their work and teach me abt Antietam. Effective teaching. One class in traditional learning performed worse on exam in comparison to jigsaw classroom. One side effect, kids who were mixed group ethnicity, gender, jigsaw classroom also tended to reduce the outgroup stereotypes they had abt each other. Having to be dependent upon each other was effective strategy for reducing that as well. 

positive intergroup examples

study, six hours on a Saturday. 40 subjects, strangers, college. Quickly separated into minimal groups. Green vs lue gym pinnies. Had them do diff activities, both competition and cooperation type, within groups and across groups. Were quickly able to establish taht once you did between group stuff, they started to think different;y abt each of the groups ingroup outgroup bias quickly meegred despite meaningless groups. Then halfway thru study - took one person from each group to itneract in diff room. They had them do activities thatcould be cooperation or competition. Bc of disocntinuity effect, individuals tneded to be cooperatte w each other. Then had them go back to the groups. 20 min breka, blues hang out w each other, greens hang otu w each other. Ppl in blues would say to perrson who had talked to the other group’s person “what was that like, were they awful a jerk?” person who had positive ecperinece tended to report no it was act pretty cool we got along. This positive outgroup inter-individual example having a good experience affected rates of ongroup outgroup bias that blues and greens had. Was even mor effective if the person was popular, a leader. Sometimes we see if these two ppl of diff groups get along, iamye it not so bad, ill generalize maybe not everyone from the group is bad

accommodation

how we respond when ur partners does smth that hurts you, how you respond indicates how relationship going and how committed you are. motivation for it to

active

visible response

passive

not doing as much

constructive

intent to make things better

destructive

intention to hurt person back

accommodation example

• waiter comes ask for dessert, bf calls you chunky. active - hurt person back (ur the one who’s fat) passive (giving silent treatment). active constructive aka voice (demonstrating it hurt i cant believe you said that why you say that) constructive passive (loyalty) not do anything, shift convo to smth else

accommodation study

•  commitment eleven retest stuff etc of couples. didn’t know that’s why they were in study. put them thru scenarios. included accommodation situation, ur partner did smth to hurt you. had array of behavioral choices. for half ppl, they made decision immediately, other half condition, had to wait right seconds before deciding. what they found, couples who weren’t committing there’s to behave destructively regardless of time. with eight second, committed individuals were ben more likely to behave more constructively if waiting eight sec. immediate response is to lash out.

• EX. whenever partner or they hurt their partner, record in diary what happened. did it make things better or worse? wasn’t dramatic how much less committed individuals had conflict, but what they behaved was diff. couples in less committed tended to behave more destructively when they got hurt. committed money to behave constructively less destructively. big disconnect in less committed ineiciduals, oftentimes partner hurt and other didn’t even know. committed couples tended to know every time. person doing the hurting in noncommittal insidious oftentimes did not

• couples more likely to record if they did neglect response over loyalty. passive constructive weren’t seen much and passive drsteuctive made things worse while constructive made things better or smaller degree.

derogation of alternative

if it was threatening alternative, pay attention to the persons faults and emphasize them. less committed people didn’t do that. only did this if that emerson was attractive.

waring off alternatives study

• couples in committed vs less committed. told to interact w someone else. profiles either very attractive and single and interested in relationship versus less attractive person. make videotape of yourself. committed ppl much more likely to play up negative things abt themselves for attractive people. ppl rated these vids were giving bad first  impressions. when person want attractive, they didn’t do that. non committed ppl played up positive trusts and flirtatious behavior for more pretty and les pretty they did less of that. committed individuals would also mention their relationship in the video

distancing behaviors

• go out fo way to spend less time w that attractive person

relationship enhancement

• heightens their positive feelings abt their romantic relationship 

sacrifice

• willing to do things you don’t rant to do but do it for good of partner 

• OR give up smth that irritates ur partner ex smoking

  • couples more willing to sacrifice than less committed oned

infidelity study

• study: ppl in romantic relationships over smeetser. start off asking abt if they naturally attracted to person, then soon asked 

• committed couples less likely to have emotional and physical closeness e somebody toher then their partner t

• another study: all interactions 19 min more over spring break. couples led committed had more opposite sex interactions had emotional and physical intimacy

love

• know it when ur in it, hard to define and hard to describe

passionate love

• high autonomic nervous system arousal when around person excitement adrenaline obsessive thoughts her s sexual desire 

• passionate love much more difficult to maintain over time. accelerates in beginning. true in dating married etc

companionate love

• close, intimacy, less excitement, rly enjoy spending time w them, good interactions

• companionate does not show systematic pattern of development rly while passionate does (accelerates in beginning)

• sternbergs triangle theory of love 

passion, commitment, intimacy

• diff versions of love spending upon whether these three are high or low

• lots of passion three day wknd love, you’ll looks back at that as love. that IS. aversion of love.

• some relationships high commitment and intimacy. many married couples tend to have less and less sexual desires. still a form of love

self-expansion theory

• life as a journey of human growth: we literally grow as we experience more

• When we fall in love, there is self-expansion that happens on a couple level. Take on traits and experiences and aspects of romantic partner and incorporate to your self and vice versa as you both try new things.

• as a theory of life: specific self-other expansion. take aspects of the other in the relationship and grow. expand w each other and grow w each other.

social cognition testing

how we measure traits about people. able to establish that people who reported other positive things in their relationships had growth in a particular direction such that they took on aspects of the traits of their partner

inclusion of other in the self-scale (IOS)

• which pair of circles represent you and ur partner. this scale measured as well as sixty item scale. bottom three heavy overlap circles had more committed, higher functioning, ess likely to behave destructively in accommodation situations, more willing to sacrifice, etc. helped ot broadeneverything out bc more researchers more likely to att this one-item scale.

relationship maintenance behaviors

things ppl do that indicate how wel tings r going

accommodation, warding off alternatives

warding off alternatives

derogation of alternative, derogation of self, distancing behaviors, relationship enhancement

distancing behaviors

• go out of way to spend less time w that attractive person

derogation of self

 committed ppl much more likely to play up negative things abt themselves for attractive people.

interpersonal attraction orientations

physiological approaches, learning theory, social exchange theory, contact effects, trait approaches

primacy effect

first things we learn tend to matter a great deal (even if they shouldn’t) whether that’s atittitudinal positions, physical attractiveness, demographics. Also why halo effect is so powerful bc physical attractiveness is a first impression thing

confirmation bias - first impressions

once we form an impression, whether we want to spend time w them, what their characteristics are–we look for things consistent w this schema we have abt this person, ignore inconsistent things

confirmation bias - first impressions example

think someone is fun? Primacy effect, we think that, thenn confirmation bias, we tend topay attention to fun things abt them. Helps maintain schema stability, but problematic if first impression didn’t relect who they rly were.

overconfidence

we tend to be overconfident in terms of how much we think we know somebody based upon really thin slices of interactions w them.