Final Exam Review: Key Psychological Theories and Concepts

Affect control theory

We base our attitudes towards people on aspects such as their moral goodness (evaluation), social power (potency), and liveliness (activity).

Evaluation

Moral goodness/badness.

Potency

Power/weakness.

Activity

Liveliness/idleness.

Affective sentiments

Capture our attitudes towards people based on traits like evaluation, potency, and activity.

Impact of familiarity on technology evaluation

Advanced technology will be rated lower in evaluation than traditional technology, but higher in potency and activity.

Objectification Theory

Explains how individuals—especially women—are treated and perceive themselves in ways that prioritize their appearance over their personhood.

Self objectification

Women and girls come to see themselves through the lens of an outside observer, constantly monitoring their appearance.

Body Mass Index (BMI)

No significant differences were found across conditions, indicating that participants' body sizes were comparable.

Self-Objectification

Scores did not significantly differ between groups, suggesting that the anticipation of gaze did not immediately alter participants' self-objectification levels.

Body Shame

Participants anticipating a male gaze reported significantly higher body shame compared to those anticipating a female gaze.

Social Physique Anxiety

Those in the male gaze condition experienced greater anxiety about their physique in social settings than those in the female gaze condition.

Dietary Intent

No significant differences were observed, suggesting that short-term exposure to the male gaze did not influence participants' intentions to diet.

Aggression

Any physical or verbal behavior intended to harm someone who does not want to be harmed.

Assertive behavior

Goal-directed, confident, and respectful without intent to harm.

Aggressive behavior

The intent to cause harm or injury, either physically or emotionally.

Hostile aggression

Aggression driven by anger or emotions with the primary goal of hurting another person.

Instrumental aggression

Aggression used as a means to achieve a goal, not necessarily personal.

Overt aggression

Direct and obvious behavior intended to cause harm, often physical.

Indirect aggression

More subtle and less visible forms of harm, such as spreading rumors or sabotage.

Relational aggression

A form of indirect aggression that harms someone's social relationships or status (e.g. exclusion, gossip, silent treatment).

Amygdala

Plays a central role in processing emotions like fear and anger.

Prefrontal cortex

Helps regulate impulses - damage or underactivity can increase aggression.

Genetic influence

Can be partly heritable - studies show identical twins are more similar in aggression than fraternal twins.

MAOA gene

Certain genes (e.g. MAOA, the "warrior gene") may be linked to increased aggression.

Testosterone

Positively associated with aggression.

Alcohol

Impairs self-control and lowers inhibitions, making aggressive behavior more likely.

Environmental influences

Heat, crowding, and noise can increase irritability and aggression.

Culture of honor

A social norm where personal or family reputation must be defended with aggression if necessary.

Frustration-aggression theory

Suggests that frustration (being blocked from a goal) increases the likelihood of aggression.

Proximity to goal

The closer one is to achieving a goal when frustrated, the more intense the aggression (e.g. being cut in line near the front causes more anger).

Individual responsible for frustration

Aggression is more likely if a specific person can be blamed for the frustration.

Berkowitz

Expanded the frustration-aggression theory to include cues in the environment.

Weapons effect

Participants who saw a gun in a room were more aggressive than those who saw neutral items.

Social-cognitive learning theory

Aggression can be learned through observation, as demonstrated in the Bobo doll experiment.

Hydraulic theory

Aggression builds up inside like steam in a pressure cooker and must be released.

Catharsis

The idea that 'venting' aggression (e.g. punching a pillow) releases built-up anger; research generally does not support this.

Venting anger

Bushman et al. (2002) found that venting anger (e.g. hitting a punching bag) increases aggression rather than reducing it.

Prosocial Behavior

Any act performed with the goal of benefiting another person.

Altruism

Helping others with no expectation of personal gain, purely to benefit someone else.

Egoism

Helping behavior that ultimately benefits the self, whether through rewards, social approval, or reduced distress.

Social exchange theory

We help when the rewards outweigh the costs.

Empathy altruism hypothesis

When we feel empathy for someone, we help them regardless of personal gain. If empathy is low, we help only if it benefits us.

"Carol" study (Toi & Batson, 1982)

Participants listened to a story about a student named Carol who needed help. When empathy was high, people helped regardless of personal cost. When empathy was low, help depended on whether the helper would see her again (egoistic reasoning).

Slacktivism

Performing minimal, easy prosocial actions (e.g. liking a cause on social media) without deeper engagement.

Token support

Giving minimal support that makes one feel good without meaningful impact.

Poppy study

People were more likely to donate or wear a poppy when asked face-to-face and in public, indicating influence of being observed.

Petition study

Participants signed petitions more often when the cause was socially desirable or when their support was visible to others.

Feel-good do-good hypothesis

People in good moods are more likely to help - positive emotions increase sensitivity and desire to maintain mood.

Isen & Levin, 1972

Participants who found a dime in a phone booth (boosting mood) were more likely to help someone who dropped papers.

Negative state-relief hypothesis

Helping can improve a negative mood by reducing guilt or sadness. People help to feel better.

Exceptions to "feel bad-do good"?

When the mood is self-focused (e.g. depression), people may be less likely to help.

Thompson et al., 1980

Some people help only if they believe it will relieve their bad mood.

Kin selection

We help those who share our genes, especially in life-threatening situations.

Social responsibility norm

We help others who depend on us or who are in need, especially when they can't help themselves.

Reciprocity norm

We help those who have helped us or may help us in the future.

Indirect reciprocity

"I help you, someone else helps me later" - builds a helpful reputation in the community.

Direct reciprocity

"I help you, you help me" - clear exchange between individuals.

Signaling theory

Helping serves as a signal of desirable traits (e.g. generosity, strength), especially in mating or social contexts.

Halo effect

We tend to assume attractive people have other good traits (e.g. kindness, competence), making us more likely to help them.

Van Vugt & Iredale, 2013: Signaling Generosity

Men donated more money when observed by women than by men, suggesting generosity can be a mating signal.

Norm of fairness (equity theory)

We help when we perceive imbalance or unfairness - restoring equity is motivating.

Public goods dilemma

People must decide whether to contribute to a common pool. Helping often depends on trust, reputation, and fairness.

Attributions made for situations

We are more likely to help when we believe the person is not responsible for their situation (e.g. accident vs. laziness).

Social identity and perceived group membership

We help in-group members more than out-group members.

Levine et al. 2005; "Manchester fan" vs. "football fans"

Participants helped someone more if they believed they shared group membership. Framing the victim as a Manchester fan (vs. Generic football fan) changed helping behavior.

Culture and gender influences

Men are more likely to help in emergency or heroic situations.

Women

More likely to engage in nurturing, long-term helping (e.g. caregiving)

Religiosity

Can increase helping, especially when the help is public or aligns with values of compassion

Collectivist cultures

May show stronger in-group helping

Individualist cultures

May emphasize personal responsibility and heroic action

Kitty Genovese example

In 1964, Kitty Genovese was murdered in New York while many witnesses failed to help, sparking research on bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility

Urban vs rural helping

People in rural areas are more likely to help

Urban overload hypothesis

City dwellers are bombarded with stimuli and may tune out needs around them

Bystander effect

The more people present, the less likely an individual is to help, due to diffusion of responsibility

Latane and Darley's 1970 Bystander Intervention Decision Tree

Includes five steps: Notice the event, Interpret as emergency, Assume responsibility, Know how to help, Decide to implement help

Darley & Batson, 1973: Seminary students

Students in a hurry were less likely to help a man slumped in a doorway, even when preparing a sermon on the Good Samaritan

Darley & Latane, 1968: 'where there's smoke...'

Participants in a room filling with smoke were less likely to report it when others were present and doing nothing, demonstrating pluralistic ignorance

Latan & Darley, 1970: 'A fit to be tied'

Participants heard someone having a seizure over intercom; when alone, 85% helped, with 5 bystanders only 31% helped, demonstrating diffusion of responsibility

The Propinquity Effect

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

Physical distance (Festinger, Schachter, and Back 1950)

Residents assigned to apartments at random; 65% of friends mentioned lived in the same building

Functional Distance

Refers to aspects of architectural design that determine which people you cross paths with most often

Mere Exposure Effect

The more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it

Moreland and Beach, 1992

Study showing that students liked women more the more frequently they had seen them, even without interaction

Woman A

Attended 0 times

Woman B

Attended 5 times

Woman C

Attended 10 times

Woman D

Attended 15 times

Attractiveness ratings

Students rated women higher the more frequently they had seen them, demonstrating the mere exposure effect

Reciprocal Liking

we like to be liked, just knowing that a person likes us fuels our attraction to that individual

Gain Condition

The confederate started off disliking the participant, but gradually began to like them more.

Loss Condition

The confederate started off liking the participant, but grew to dislike them.

Consistent Positive

The confederate consistently liked the participant.

Consistent Negative

The confederate consistently disliked the participant.

Similarity

a match between interests, attitudes, values, background, or personality

Complementarity

no supporting research evidence for committed relationships, opposites may be attractive if only looking for a 'fling'

Marriage Shift

Dating: more satisfied when partners view over-positively; Married: more satisfied when partners verify their self-concepts.

Self-verification theory

explains how people are motivated to maintain consistency between their self-concept (how they see themselves) and how others perceive them - even when that self-view is negative.

I-Sharing

the belief that two or more people share the same subjective experience.

Reward Theory of Attraction

we like those whom we associate with good experiences; we are more likely to continue with a relationship that we perceive as having more rewards than costs.