SOP 3004 - Chapter Slides

9/17/2010
Introduction
to
Social Psychology
Chapter 1
Class Outline
I. The Mysteries of Social Life
II. What Is Social Psychology?
III. Major Theoretical Perspectives of Social
Psychology
Mysteries of Social Life

• Story of Greg Mortenson
• http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=679
5249n&tag=contentMain;contentBody
1
9/17/2010
Describing and Explaining

Social Behavior
• Social psychology, like any science, involves:
Description -
careful and reliable observation
Explanation -
development of theories that connect and organize
observations
Describing and Explaining

Social Behavior
• Theories are scientific explanations that
Connect and organize existing observations
S
Suggest
t fruitful
f itf l paths
th for
f future
f t researchh
What makes a good theory?

• Predictive ability
• Broad applicability
• Simplicity
• Testability/falsifiability
– A theory can never be proven correct, only proven
incorrect.
– Theories are approximations of truth
2
9/17/2010
The scientific method
"Science is a way of thinking much more than it

is a body of knowledge.”
-Carl Sagan

1) Define a question
How can we improve children’s performance in

school?

2) Collect information
Being rewarded for a behavior has been shown

to increase the likelihood of performing that
behavior in the future.
future
3
9/17/2010

3) Use theory to form a hypothesis (i.e., make a
prediction)
Rewarding children with ice cream when they

get a good grade will improve their grades on
later tests.

4) Collect and analyze data that test the
hypothesis
Give some children a reward for getting a good

grade Give other children no reward for
grade.
getting a good grade. Look at their grades on
later tests when they do not get ice cream.

5) Interpret data and form conclusions
– Support or reject hypothesis
Children who
Child h gott a rewardd for
f a goodd grade
d
actually performed worse on later tests.
4
9/17/2010

6) Revise theory
Maybe rewarding people for behavior only

improves performance when the reward is
maintained.
Major Theoretical Perspectives
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
Sociocultural Perspective
• Sociocultural perspective -
a theoretical viewpoint that searches for the
causes of social behavior in influences from
larger social groups
5
9/17/2010
• What drives social behavior?
Forces in larger social groups such as:
• norms within cultural groups
• social class differences
• nationality/ethnicity
• fads/trends
• Social norm -
a rule or expectation for appropriate social
behavior
• Culture -
the beliefs, customs, habits, and language
shared by the people living in a particular time
and place
• Sociocultural theorists might ask:
What are the differences in social behavior across
cultures?
For example, women in some societies marry more
than one man (polyandry).
6
9/17/2010
Culture and social behavior

• In some regions of Pakistan and Afghanistan,
it is regarded as inappropriate for a girl to
receive an education
Evolutionary Perspective
• Evolutionary perspective -
a theoretical viewpoint that searches for the
causes of social behavior in the physical and
psychological predispositions that helped our
ancestors survive and reproduce
Genetic predispositions inherited from our ancestors
that promoted their survival and reproduction, such
as:
• The tendency to automatically recognize an angry face
• The tendency for mothers to feel protective of their
children
7
9/17/2010
• Evolutionary theorists might ask:

– Are there similarities in social behavior across species?
– What are the similarities in social behavior across cultures and
historical periods?
Social Learning Perspective

• Social learning perspective -
a theoretical viewpoint that focuses on past
learning experiences as determinants of a
person’s social behaviors

Classically conditioned preferences
• For example, the feeling of fear at sight of person who
hit you.
Habits rewarded by other people
• For example, a boy who fights frequently after his
father praised him for winning fight with
neighborhood bully.
8
9/17/2010

What drives social behavior?
Imitating the rewarded behavior of others
• For example, buying a gun after seeing a movie in
which the hero wins true love after shooting half the
people
l in
i his
hi girlfriend’s
i lf i d’ neighborhood.
i hb h d
Learning Violence from

Video Games

Video Games
• One team of researchers hypothesized violent

video games may make aggression rewarding,
by allowing person to win points for killing &
maiming human-like opponents (Anderson &
Dill, 2000).
9
9/17/2010

Video Games
• In an experiment, students first played a
violent video game (Wolfenstein) or a
nonviolent game (Tetrix).
• They then played a competitive game in
which they could retaliate against real
opponents by delivering unpleasantly
loud blasts of noise.
Anderson & Dill, 2000
85
Students who
played a violent
video game
Retaliatory demonstrated
Aggression
((unpleasant
p
significantly
noise level) higher levels of
retaliatory
aggression
80
Nonviolent Violent
Type of Videogame
Social Cognitive Perspective

• Social cognitive perspective -
a theoretical viewpoint that focuses on the
mental processes involved in paying attention
to, interpreting, and remembering social
experiences
10
9/17/2010
Social Cognitive Perspective

What we pay attention to
How we interpret and judge social situations
Wh t we retrieve
What ti from
f memory
• People notice the behaviors of group members
who are in a minority, and exaggerate the
significance of the things they do.
Perspective What Drives Social Behavior?
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
Sociocultural
Forces in larger social groups
such as: norms, fads, social
Evolutionary class, ethnic identity,
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
11
9/17/2010
Sociocultural
Genetic predispositions that
promoted our ancestors’
Evolutionary survival and reproduction, suc
as: the bond between parent
and
d child
hild
Social Learning
Social Cognitive
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Classically conditioned
preferences;;
p
Social Learning habits rewarded by others;
imitation of behavior we have
Social Cognitive seen rewarded in others
Sociocultural
Evolutionary
Social Learning
What we pay attention to;

Social Cognitive how we interpret and judge
social situations;
what we retrieve from
memory
12
9/17/2010
The Person & the

Situation
Chapter 2
Class Outline
I. The Person
I. Motivation
II. Knowledge
III. g
Feelings
II. The Situation
III. The Person / Situation Interaction
The Interaction Between the

Person and the Situation
• By person psychologists mean the
features or characteristics that individuals
carryy into social situations.
• By situation psychologists mean the
environmental events or circumstances
outside the person.
• Persons and situations influence one
another in a number of ways.
1
9/17/2010
Motivation: What Drives Us

• Motivation -
the force that moves people toward their
desired outcomes
• Goal -
a desired outcome; something one wishes
to achieve or accomplish
• Motive -
a goal fundamental to social survival
Motivation
• What are your goals?
What goals do you have for today?
What goals do you have for this semester?
What goals do you have for your career?
What goals do you have for your life?
Motivation
• Gain Status
Get Well-
Well-Paying, Highly
Respected Job
Earn High Grades
Attend Take Study for
Class Notes Exams
2
9/17/2010
Motivation
• Attention -
the process of consciously focusing on aspects
of our environment or ourselves
• We have limited mental resources

• We are cognitive misers and motivated
tacticians
– We act to conserve our mental resources
Motivation
• Automaticity -
the ability of a behavior or cognitive process to
operate without conscious guidance once it’s
put into motion
Motivation
• Willpower -
the self-control strength used to overcome
counterproductive impulses to achieve
difficult goals
3
9/17/2010
Willpower
• Participants in one experiment were
asked to eat radishes rather than nearby
cookies.
• Others were asked to eat cookies and
ignore the radishes.
• The students were then asked to solve
puzzles (which, unbeknownst to them,
were actually impossible).
Willpower: Use it and Lose it

25:00 25:52
20:00 18:54
Persistence 15:00
on puzzles
(minutes) 10:00 8:21
5:00
Control Cookie-eaters Radish-

(Puzzle (No Radishes eaters
Task Only) Allowed) (No Cookies
Allowed)
• Participants who had to exercise willpower to
resist the cookies had less willpower left over
for the difficult puzzles
25:00 25:52
20:00 18:54
Persistence 15:00
on puzzles
(minutes) 10:00 8:21
5:00
Control Cookie-eaters Radish-

(Puzzle (No Radishes eaters
Task Only) Allowed) (No Cookies
Allowed)
• These findings are consistent with the
hypothesis that:
• Using willpower for one task reduces its
availability for later tasks.
4
9/17/2010
Motivation
• Thought suppression (Wegner, 1989)
– People cannot control their thoughts when they are
instructed to control their thoughts
– The “white bear” effect
• Reactance theory (Brehm, 1966)
– Instructions restricting freedoms are resisted
– People may strive to restore decision-making
freedom
– “You can’t tell me what to do!”
Knowledge
 Our view of ourselves and the world
Knowledge
• Schema -
a mental representation capturing the general
characteristics of a particular class of
episodes, events, or individuals
e.g., a fancy restaurant
• Exemplar -
mental representation of a specific episode,
event, or individual
e.g., Barton G’s
5
9/17/2010
Knowledge
• Priming -
the process of activating knowledge or goals,
of making them ready for use
e.g.,
g , easier to think of the word for a toucan after
you’ve thought about parrots
Feelings
• Attitudes
• Emotions
• Moods
Feelings
• Attitudes -
favorable or unfavorable evaluations of particular
people, objects, events or ideas
• Emotions -
relatively intense feelings characterized by
physiological arousal and complex cognitions (e.g.,
(e g
fear, anger, joy)
– Emotions are more intense than attitudes
• Moods -
relatively long-lasting feelings that are less focused
than emotions and not directed toward a particular
target
6
9/17/2010
Facial Feedback Hypothesis

• Pen-holding experiment
• Ss who held the pen with their teeth rated the

cartoons as funnier than the control group
• Ss who held the pen with their lips rated the
cartoons as less funny compared to the control
Counterfactual Thinking
 The process of imagining alternative “might
have been” versions of actual events
• “If only” statements generated following an
event with salient,, alternative ppossible
outcomes
• Olympian study
• Norm Theory
– The easier it is to imagine that things turned out
differently (i.e. the more abnormal a situation is),
the greater the emotional reaction that results
Counterfactual Thinking
• “If only” thoughts of what might have been
• Particularly salient when an alternative
outcome can be easily imagined
• This occurs when an abnormal or exceptional
event takes place
7
9/17/2010
Miller & McFarland, 1986

• Negative events evoke counterfactual thinking
• The content of that thought is filled by
returning things back to “normal”
• Abnormality is determined by:
– Distance—temporal or spatial
– Exceptional event
Miller & McFarland, 1986

• Study 1—Store Shooting
– IV: Frequency of visiting the store (2)
• Regular vs. Irregular
– DV: Victim compensation
• Study 2—Plane Crash
– IV: Distance from safety-where the man died
• Close to safety vs. Far from safety
– DV: Victim compensation
• Ss gave more victim compensation when an
alternative outcome was highly salient
NEGATIVE EVENT
ABNORMALITY
NEGATIVE AFFECT
COUNTERFACTUAL THINKING
AFFECTIVE RESPONSE
CAUSAL ATTRIBUTION
ALTERED JUDGMENT
8
9/17/2010
Persons as Situations
• Descriptive norm -
information about what people commonly do
in a situation
E.g. Wearing shorts is common in parks in
Canada rare on streets in Mexico
Canada,
• Injunctive norm -
rules that define what is typically approved
and disapproved of in a situation
• Scripted situation -
a situation in which certain events are
expected to occur in a particular order
Persons as Situations
• Pluralistic ignorance -
the phenomenon in which people in a group
misperceive the beliefs of others because
everyone in the group is acting inconsistently
with their beliefs
Culture
• Individualist culture -
a culture that socializes its members to think of
themselves as individuals and to give priority
to their own personal goals
• Collectivist culture -
culture that socializes members to think of
themselves as members of a larger group and
to place the group’s concerns before their own
9
9/17/2010
The Person & the Situation

Interact
Does playing violent video games

increase aggressiveness?
10
9/17/2010
Non-violent game
50
Violent game
45
Amount of 40
Aggression 35
30
25
>
Inexperienced
• Inexperienced players blasted opponents more after

violent than after nonviolent video game
Non-violent game
50
Violent game
45
Amount of 40
Aggression 35
30
25
>
Inexperienced Experienced
• Experienced players tended to respond at a

generally high level of aggression, independent of
type of game.
Different Situations Prime

Different Parts of the Person
• Inside each one of us, there are different

motives,
ti memories,
i andd feelings
f li
• Each of these is likely to be triggered by some
situations more than others
11
9/17/2010
Different Situations Prime

Different Parts of the Person
• Example: After reading a word jumble with

words
d activating
ti ti the
th “elderly
“ ld l stereotype”
t t ”
participants walked more slowly down the
hallway
12
9/17/2010
Social Cognition
Chapter 3
Class Outline
I. Heuristics & Biases
II. Attribution Theories
What Is Social Cognition?

• Social cognition -
the process of thinking about and making
sense of oneself and others
1
9/17/2010
Four Core Processes of

Social Cognition
• Attention
• Interpretation
• Judgment
• Memory

Social Cognition
• Attention -
the process of consciously focusing on features
of the environment or oneself
Attention is limited, and different people may focus
on different features of the same situation.

Social Cognition
• Interpretation -
the process through which we give meaning to
the events we experience
Many social situations can be interpreted in more
than one way
2
9/17/2010

Social Cognition
• Judgment -
the process of using information to form
impressions
p and make decisions
Because we often have limited information, many
social judgments are “best guesses”

Social Cognition
• Memory -
storing and retrieving information for future
use
Memory can influence our decisions by affecting
what we pay attention to and how we interpret it
The Goals of Social Cognition

• Conserving Mental Effort
• Managing Self-Image
• Seeking an Accurate Understanding
3
9/17/2010
Errors
• Confirmation Bias
– A tendency to search for information that confirms
one’s preconceptions
• Behavioral Confirmation
– Self-fulfilling prophecy
• When an initially inaccurate expectation leads to actions
that cause the expectation to come true
More Errors
• Illusion of Control
– Perception of uncontrollable events as subject to
one’s control or as more controllable than they are
• Regression
g Toward the Mean
– The statistical tendency for extreme scores or
extreme behavior to return toward one’s average
Even More Errors

• False Consensus
– The tendency to overestimate the commonality of
one’s opinions and one’s undesirable or
unsuccessful behaviors
• False Uniqueness
– The tendency to underestimate the commonality
of one’s abilities and one’s desirable or successful
behaviors
4
9/17/2010
Considering Alternatives
• With
W ddifficult
cu dec
decisions,
s o s, it iss ooften
e helpful
e p u to
o
play the Devil’s Advocate – i.e., to consider
the opposite side of the argument
Conserving Mental Effort

• Correspondence Bias
• (Fundamental Attribution Error) -
tendency for observers to overestimate causal
influence of personality factors on behavior
andd to
t underestimate
d ti t the
th causall role
l off
situational influences
• Actor-Observer Bias—FAE + the tendency to
take situational influences into account when
interpreting one’s own behavior, often in a
self-serving manner
• Cognitive
g heuristics -
mental shortcuts used to make judgments
5
9/17/2010

• Representativeness heuristic -
a mental shortcut – classifying something as
belonging to a certain category to the extent that it is
similar to a typical case from that category
• Illusory
Ill sor Correlation
– Perception of a relationship where none exists, or
perception of a stronger relationship than actually
exists
• Base Rate Fallacy
– Ignoring prior probability in judgments
Availability Heuristic
• Availability Heuristic -
a mental
t l shortcut
h t t – estimating
ti ti the
th likelihood
lik lih d
of an event by the ease with which instances
of that event come to mind
Anchoring and Adjustment

Heuristic
• Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic -

a mental
e shortcut
s o cu – us
usingg a rough
oug estimation
es o
as a starting point and then adjusting this
estimate to take into account unique
characteristics of the current situation
6
9/17/2010
Attributional Logic:
Seeking the Causes of Behavior
• Attribution theories -
theories designed to explain how people
d
determine
i theh causes off behavior
b h i
Attribution Theories
• Theories that describe how people explain the
causes of others’ behavior.
• E.g., Kelley’s attribution theory
– Internal vs. external attributions
• Internal attribution: disposition, attitude, personality,
etc.
• External attribution: situation, circumstance, aspect of
the environment, etc.
Attributional Logic
• Correspondent inference theory -
people presume a behavior corresponds to an
actor’s internal disposition if the behavior:
- was intended
- had foreseeable consequences
- was freely chosen
- occurred despite countervailing forces
7
9/17/2010
Attributional Processes
• Covariation Model (Kelley’s Attribution

Theory)-
people determine the cause of an actor’s
b h i by
behavior b assessing
i
– Consensus - Does everybody do it?
– Distinctiveness - Does it occur only in this
situation?
– Consistency - Does it occur repeatedly?
Kelley’s attribution theory

Your friend raves about a movie. Why?
• Consensus: Do (or would) most people behave the
same way in this situation?
– Do other people like the movie?
• Distinctiveness: Does this person behave this way in
other situations as well?
– Does your friend like every movie or just this one?
• Consistency: Does this person behave this way in all
situations of this type?
– Does your friend always rave about this movie?
Kelley’s attribution theory

• If high in consensus, high in distinctiveness,
high in consistency, then attribution is
external
– Your friend likes the movie because it is a good
movie
i
• If low in consensus, low in distinctiveness,

high in consistency, then attribution is
internal
– Your friend likes the movie because your friend
likes every movie
8
9/17/2010
Sadness
• People who are mildly depressed are more
thorough when thinking about social events
When extra thought is beneficial, being a bit sad
makes us more accurate
When extra thought interferes with effective
processing, being a little sad hurts
9
10/9/2010
Self Presentation
Chapter 4
Class Outline
I. Presenting the Self
I. Detecting Deception
II. Appearing Likable
III. Appearing Competent
IV. Conveying Status & Power
What Is
Self‐Presentation?
• Self presentation ‐
the process through which we try to control
the impressions people form of us
Self presentation is synonymous with impression
management
1
10/9/2010
Why Do People
Self‐Present?
• To acquire desirable resources
• To help “construct” our self‐images
• To enable our social encounters to run more
smoothly
Why Do People
Self‐Present?
• Dramaturgical perspective ‐
perspective that much of social interaction
can be thought of as a play, with actors,
performances, settings, scripts, props, roles,
etc.
Problems with Self‐Presentation
• Self‐presentation can backfire
– E.g.,
• Can lead to health problems
– Sun tanningg
– Eating disorders
– Smoking/drug use among teenagers
2
10/9/2010
When Do People
Self‐Present?
• When we think others are paying attention to
us
• When others can influence whether or not we
reach our goals
h l
• When those goals are important to us
• When we think observers have impressions of
us that are different from the ones we desire
The Spotlight Effect:
• Gilovich and colleagues asked Cornell students
to sit in room with five other subjects while
wearing a Barry Manilow T‐shirt
• The student who wore the shirt then
predicted how many of the other students in
the room could recall and identify who was on
the shirt
the shirt
3
10/9/2010
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Predicted Actual Control
• The students who wore the t‐shirt
predicted that nearly half of the others
would know who was on the shirt
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
• In reality, less than a quarter of the
other subjects recalled who was on the
shirt
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
• Control students who watched the
subjects on video closely predicted how
many students would identify the shirt
4
10/9/2010
Self‐Presentation
• Self‐presentation differs according to a
personality trait called self‐monitoring
• Self‐monitoring: the tendency to change
b h
behavior in response to the self‐presentation
h lf
concerns of the situation
Self‐Monitoring
• High self‐monitors:
Are inconsistent across situations
Are good at assessing what others want and
tailoring their behavior to fit those
tailoring their behavior to fit those
demands
• Low self‐monitors:
Look inside themselves to decide how to act
Don’t change as much across situations
Self‐Monitoring
• Low self‐monitors have a relatively
consistent ‘self’ regardless of the
situation
5
10/9/2010
Self‐Presentation
– Illusion of transparency
The tendency for people to overestimate the
degree to which their personal mental state is
known by others
known by others
Detecting Deception
Human Lie Detectors
• In general, people are not very good at
detecting deception
– Meta‐analysis: 57% accuracy rate (Vrij, 2000)
• Verbal vs. Nonverbal Cues
– People tend to use nonverbal cues
6
10/9/2010
Deception Detection
• Discriminating between liars and truth‐tellers
• Physiological Measures
– Polygraph
• Behavioral Measures
Behavioral Measures
– Microexpressions
• Neuropsychological Measures
– EEG and fMRI
Polygraph
• Not as much a lie detector as it is an
emotion/anxiety detector
• Measures physiological responses
– Blood pressure
– Pulse
– Respiration rate
– Galvanic skin response
• Believed that specific patterns of physiological
reactions to questions are indicators of
deception
Polygraph Output
Heart rate
Blood pressure
Respiration rate
Galvanic skin response
Voice stress analysis
7
10/9/2010
Guilty Knowledge Test
• Does not assess emotions/stress
• Assesses presence/absence of knowledge about
event
q
• Requires much information about the criminal
event
• Procedure:
– Give subject multiple‐choice test regarding “facts” of
crime
• E.g., “was the individual killed with a knife, gun, rope, etc.?
– Require “yes”/”no” responses to each item
GKT
• Interpreting results
– Increased physiological response to “correct”
option indicates guilty knowledge
– Truthful innocents should not
Truthful innocents should not show pattern of
show pattern of
increased response to “correct” options
– Guilty liars will show pattern of increased
response to “correct” options
Other Methods
• Behavioral‐Physiological Measure
– Voice Stress Analysis / Psychological Stress
Evaluation
• Behavioral Measures
Behavioral Measures
– Gestures
– Eye Gaze
– Microexpressions (see Paul Ekman)
• Neuropsychological
8
10/9/2010
Other Methods
• Neuropsychological Measures
– Guilty Knowledge Tests
– EEG (Electroencephalogram)
– fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging)
• Blood flow to different areas of the brain
• Cognitive Based Verbal Measures
– Liars report fewer details
– Longer response latencies
– Report fewer contextual and sensory details
– Impart less emotion
Bottom Line
• There is no perfect lie detector
– Currently, there is no effective method for
detecting deception
• Humans are not good judges of who’s lying or
being honest
being honest
– Average person no better than chance
– Trained investigators only slightly better than
chance
– Some individuals are very good
• But unknown why they are, nor what they are basing
their judgments on
Goals of Self‐Presentation
• To be seen as likeable (ingratiation)
• To be seen as competent (self‐promotion)
• To be seen as powerful (intimidation)
9
10/9/2010
Appearing Likeable
• Ingratiation ‐
an attempt to get others to like us
Potential Friends and Power‐ Holders
• We are generally interested in being liked by
people with whom we want to start or
maintain a friendship and by people who are
i
in positions of power
iti f
Express Liking
for Others
Goal:
To appear
To appear
likeable
10
10/9/2010
Express Liking for

Others
Goal:
To appear
To appear Create Similarity
likeable
Express Liking for

Others
Goal:
To appear
To appear Create Similarity
likeable
Make Ourselves
Physically Attractive
Attractive Benefits
• Attractive people receive many benefits,
including:
They are seen as more honest
They are more likely to be hired for
managerial positions and elected to public
office
They are paid more
They receive shorter sentences for felonies
11
10/9/2010
Express Liking for

Others
Goal:
To appear
Create Similarity
lik bl
likeable
Project Modesty Make Ourselves

Physically Attractive
Appearing Competent
• Self‐promotion ‐
An attempt to get others to see us as
competent
Staging Performances
Goal:
To Appear
To Appear
Competent
12
10/9/2010
Staging Performances Claiming Competence
Goal:
To Appear
To Appear
Competent
Claiming Competence
• Claims of competence are appropriate:
When they are invited
• (e.g. at job interviews)
When they are second‐hand
When they are second‐hand
• (e.g. if friend talk us up or if we show people letters of
recommendation)
Goal:
Using the Trappings of
To Appear
To Appear C
Competence
t
Competent
13
10/9/2010
Goal:
Using the Trappings of
To Appear
To Appear C
Competence
t
Competent
Making Excuses or
Claiming Obstacles
The Paradox of Self‐Handicapping
• Self‐handicapping ‐
withdrawing effort or creating obstacles to
one’s future successes
e g drinking the night before an important exam
e.g., drinking the night before an important exam
Display Artifacts of
Power
Goal:
To Convey
To Convey
Status
14
10/9/2010
Display Artifacts of Conspicuous

Power Consumption
Goal:
To Convey
To Convey
Status

Power Consumption
Goal:
Associate with People of
To Convey
To Convey St t and
Status dPPower
Status
15
10/9/2010
Personal Associations
• Basking in reflected glory ‐
broadcasting our associations with successful,
high‐status others and events
• Cutting off reflected failure ‐
di t i
distancing ourselves from unsuccessful, low‐
l f f l l
status others or events

Power Consumption
Goal:
Associate with People of
To Convey
To Convey St t and
Status dPPower
Status
Non-verbal
Non-
dominance
Status and Power and Nonverbal
Expressions
• Body language ‐
p p
the popular term for non‐verbal behaviors
like facial expressions, posture, body
orientation, and hand gestures
16
10/9/2010
Status and Power and Nonverbal
Expressions
• Compared to low‐status people, high‐status
people are more likely to:
Maintain eye contact when speaking
Pay less attention when listening
Pay less attention when listening
Interrupt others
Place themselves in positions of prominence
Touch others and enter others’ personal space.
17
10/9/2010
Attitudes & Persuasion
Chapter 5
Class Outline
I. ABCs of Attitudes
II. Attitude Change / Persuasion
I. Elaboration Likelihood Model
III. Attitude Consistency
I. Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Attitudes
• A favorable or unfavorable evaluation of a
particular thing
1
10/9/2010
Attitude Formation
• Attitudes spring from several sources:
Classical conditioning
Operant conditioning
Observational learning
Observational learning
Heredity
Attitudes
• Components of attitudes
– Affective component: emotional reactions
– Behavioral component: actions/behaviors
– Cognitive component: thoughts and beliefs
Attitude Strength
• Strong attitudes:
Are more likely to remain unchanged as time passes
Are better able to withstand persuasive attacks or
appeals specifically directed at them
appeals specifically directed at them
2
10/9/2010
Attitude Strength
• The two main reasons strong attitudes resist
change are
Commitment ‐
people are sure they are correct
Embeddedness ‐
people have connected these attitudes to other
features of their self‐concept, values, and identity
Types of Attitudes
• Attitudes may be explicit or implicit
– Explicit Attitudes: Attitudes we consciously
endorse and can easily report
– Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes that are involuntary,
Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes that are involuntary
uncontrollable, and at times unconscious
Do attitudes predict behavior?
• LaPiere and a Chinese couple
– Were refused service only 1/250 times
– >90% of these places said they would refuse
service
3
10/9/2010
When do attitudes predict behavior?
• Correspondence (level of specificity)
– Attitudes will predict behaviors better if they are
both measured at the same level of specificity
both measured at the same level of specificity
• Aggregation
– Attitudes will predict “averaged” behaviors more
than individual behaviors
When do attitudes predict behavior?
• Social influence
– bogus pipeline
• Strength of attitude
Strength of attitude
– Vested interest
– Personal experience
– Accessibility
Attitude‐Behavior Consistency
• The following factors influence the likelihood
that a person’s attitude will be consistent with
his behavior:
Knowledge
Personal relevance
Attitude accessibility
4
10/9/2010
Attitude‐Behavior Consistency
• Theory of planned behavior ‐
Theory stating that best predictor of
behavior is one’s behavioral intention,
which is influenced by:
hi h i i fl db
‐One’s attitude toward specific behavior
‐Subjective norms regarding the behavior
‐One’s perceived control over the behavior
How do attitudes guide behavior
• Theory of Reasoned Action / Planned Behavior
– Rational processes drive behavior. We are guided by
• Our attitudes toward a behavior
–Look at the + or – consequences of the behavior
• The subjective norms
–Will others approve or disapprove of the behavior?
• Perceived behavioral control
–People’s appraisal of their ability to actually
behave
Theory of Planned Behavior
Attitude
(One’s evaluation of the specific
behavior in question)
Subjective Norm Behavioral

(One’s perception that important Intention
others will approve of the (One’s aim to Behavior
behavior) perform the
behavior)
Perceived
Behavioral Control
(One’s perception of how
difficult it would be to perform
the behavior)
5
10/9/2010
Does behavior predict attitudes?
• Self Perception Theory
• Role
A set of norms that defines how people in a
given social position ought to behave
What Is
Persuasion?
• Persuasion ‐
change in private attitude or belief as a result
of receiving a message
How would you design a study to measure the
effectiveness of techniques of persuasion?
6
10/9/2010
Measuring Attitude Change
• Nonreactive measurement ‐ measurement
that does not change a subject’s responses
while recording them
Covert techniques are more nonreactive than self‐
Covert techniques are more nonreactive than self
reports
The Within‐Subjects Design
• A before‐and‐after design
1. Measures people’s attitudes on a topic
2. Provides half of those people with a persuasive
message
3. Measures the change in people’s attitudes
However, step one could sensitize people to an
issue, so it may not test the effectiveness of
the argument alone
The Between‐Subjects Design
• The after‐only design assesses persuasion by
measuring attitudes only after the persuasion
attempt
• It requires random assignment
It requires random assignment
7
10/9/2010
The Between‐Subjects Design
• If the attitudes on the after‐measure alone are
significantly more favorable to the message in
the experimental group than in the control
group the message was probably effective
group, the message was probably effective
Cognitive Response Model
a theory that locates the most direct cause of
persuasion in the self‐talk of the persuasion
target
• Counterarguments ‐
arguments that challenge and oppose other
arguments
• Inoculation procedure ‐
a technique for increasing individuals'
resistance to an argument by first giving them
weak, easily defeated versions of it
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)
there are two routes to attitude
change—the central route and the
peripheral route
• Dual process model of persuasion ‐
a model that accounts for the two ways
that attitude change occurs—with and
without much thought
8
10/9/2010
ELM Outline
I. The Audience
II. The Source
III. The Message
ELM Outline
I. The Audience
A. Motivation
1. Personal Relevance
2. g
Need for Cognition
B. Ability
I. Audience Factors
• Message recipients will consider a
communication deeply (via the central
route) when they have both:
– the motivation
the motivation
– the ability
9
10/9/2010
Factors Influencing Motivation
• Factors that influence a person's
motivation to process a message deeply:
Personal relevance of the topic (does it
matter to you?)
Need for cognition ‐
tendency to enjoy and engage in deliberate
thought
Factors Influencing Ability
• Factors that influence a person's ability
to process a message deeply:
– Knowledge
– Time
– Cognitive Load
Persuasion Audience Processing Persuasion

Attempt Factors Approach Outcome
High Lasting
motivation Central processing, change that
and ability to i.e. the quality of the resists fading
think about message arguments and
the message counterattack
Message
Peripheral
Temporary
Low processing, i.e.
change that
motivation surface features like
that is
or ability to the communicator’s
susceptible to
think about attractiveness or the
fading and
the message # of arguments
counterattack
presented
10
10/9/2010
The Effects of
Personal Relevance
• Petty & Cacioppo (1984) asked college
students to read arguments in favor of
mandatory comprehensive exams
• Students would be required to pass these
exams before being allowed to graduate
The Effects of
Personal Relevance
• The issue was either highly relevant to them
(They would personally have to take the exams to
graduate)
• Or of low relevance to them
Or of low relevance to them
(Policy would not take effect for ten years – long
after they’d graduated)
The Effects of
Personal Relevance
• Arguments were either high quality
e.g., “Average starting salaries are higher for
graduates of schools with exams”
• Or low quality
Or low quality
“Exams would allow students to compare
performance with other schools”
• Some students heard only three arguments
• Others heard nine arguments
11
10/9/2010
High Low Argument

Personal Relevance Personal Relevance Quality
Toward Exams
High
12 Low
10
8 For students with a

Attitude T
personal stake,
stake more
6
strong arguments
4 were more
convincing
2
0
3 9 3 9
Number of Arguments
High Low Argument

Toward Exams
High
12 Low
10
8 But more weak

Attitude T
arguments left them

6
less convinced
4
0
3 9 3 9
Number of Arguments
High Low Argument

Toward Exams
High
12 Low
10
8
Attitude T
6
Students who wouldn’t be
4 affected didn’t process
quality
2
0
3 9 3 9
Number of Arguments
12
10/9/2010
ELM Outline (cont’d)
II. The Source
A. Credibility
1. Expertise
2. Trustworthiness
B. Similarity
C. Attractiveness
II. The Source
•  Who is presenting the message?
Expertise & Trustworthiness
• People rely on the credibility of a
communicator principally when the message
is highly complex
• Expertise
– Having unique knowledge and experience
• Trustworthy
– Portray honesty by reducing appearance of
persuasion for personal interests (“for your own
good”)
– Present both sides of the argument
13
10/9/2010
Similarity & Attractiveness
• The communicator of the message is seen as
more likable…
– The more similar they are to you
– The more physically attractive they are
The more physically attractive they are
ELM Outline (cont’d)
III. The Message
A. Reason vs. Emotion
B. Discrepancy
C. One‐Sided vs. Two‐Sided
D. Primacy vs. Recency
III. The Message
• Central processing is based on an examination
of the quality of the message / persuasive
argument
14
10/9/2010
Reason vs. Emotion
– Fear appraisals: Fear can create attitude
change IF the audience is told how to avoid
the danger
– Positive emotions: Feeling good leads to a
gg
more positive outlook, which increases
one’s tendency to use the peripheral route
to persuasion
• E.g., People who watch commercials while
eating are more easily persuaded than those
who watch the commercials but don’t eat
Discrepancy
• How extreme a position should you take in
order to maximize attitude change?
• Moderate discrepancy is best ‐ too extreme a
position will lead people to quickly reject and
position will lead people to quickly reject and
refute the arguments
One‐Sided vs. Two‐Sided
• When trying to persuade, is it better to
acknowledge opposing viewpoints?
• One‐sided is better if:
– Audience already agrees
Audience already agrees
– Audience is not aware of opposing views
• If either of these situations do not hold, two‐
sided arguments are better
15
10/9/2010
Primacy vs. Recency
• When trying to persuade, is it better to give
your message before or after your opponent?
• Depends on time…
primacy vs. recency
Time
Message 1 Message 2 Decision
Primacy
Time
Message 1 Message 2 Decision
Recency
The Goals of Persuasion
• Why do people change their attitudes
and beliefs?
• Individuals may yield to a persuasive
message in order to
message in order to
hold a more accurate view of the world
be consistent with themselves
gain social approval and acceptance
16
10/9/2010
• Belief perseverance
Persistence of one’s initial conceptions, as
when the basis for one’s belief is discredited
but an explanation of why the belief might be
but an explanation of why the belief might be
true survives
Cognitive Consistency Theories
• Consistency principle ‐
principle that people will change their
attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and actions to
make them consistent with each other
• Balance Theory (Heider, 1946)
• Cognitive Dissonance Theory (Festinger, 1957)
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Cognitive dissonance ‐
unpleasant state of psychological arousal
resulting from an inconsistency within one's
important attitudes beliefs or behaviors
important attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors
• Counterattitudinal action ‐
a behavior that is inconsistent with an existing
attitude
17
10/9/2010
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
• Discrepancies between attitudes and behavior
produce aversive arousal (cognitive
dissonance)
• People are motivated to reduce arousal
People are motivated to reduce arousal
Ways to Reduce Dissonance
• Change attitude • “Smoking isn’t unhealthy”
• Change behavior • Quit smoking
• Add consonant • “Smoking helps me lose
cognitions weight”
• Minimize the • “We’re all going to die, so I
importance of the might as well enjoy myself”
conflict • “I had no choice – everyone
• Reduce perceived else was smoking”
choice
3 Reasons for Cognitive Dissonance
1) Justifying attitude‐discrepant behavior
2) Justifying effort
3) Justifying difficult decisions
18
10/9/2010
1) Justifying attitude‐discrepant
behavior
Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959
• Participants perform a dull task
• They are then asked to tell another person that the
experiment was fun
• Some people are paid $1, some people are paid $20
for the lie
• Question: Which group of people will later rate the
task as more enjoyable?
Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959
Rating
of task
enjoyment
No lie $20 lie $1 lie
Insufficient Justification
• Insufficient justification
– You acted contrary to your attitudes for no tangible
reason
– You have to convince yourself that your behavior
You have to convince yourself that your behavior
was not inconsistent with your attitudes
– Change attitude to match behavior
19
10/9/2010
• People alter their attitudes to justify that for
which they suffer.
– E.g., the sex discussion study
– The discussion was “one of the most worthless
and uninteresting discussions imaginable.”
Rated
enjoyment
of discussion
No initiaiton Mild initiation Severe initiation
• People alter their attitudes to justify that for
which they suffer.
– E.g., the sex discussion study
– Hazing rituals
– When Prophecy Fails
p y
20
10/9/2010
Quotes from the cult members
• “I have to believe the flood is coming on the
twenty‐first because I’ve spent all my money. I
quit my job, I quit computer school…I have to
believe.”
• “I’ve had to go a long way. I’ve given up just
about everything. I’ve cut every tie. I’ve burned
every bridge. I’ve turned my back on the world.
I can’t afford to doubt. I have to believe. And
there isn’t any other truth.”
3) Justifying difficult decisions
• Once people make a tough decision (between two
equally‐appealing options), they tend to convince
themselves that they made the best decision
• “Spreading of alternatives”
– E.g., product ratings
Justifying difficult decisions
Chosen item
Unchosen item
Rated
attractiveness
of product
Before choice After choice
21
10/9/2010
4 necessary components of cognitive
dissonance
1) Behavior must produce negative consequences
2) Feeling of personal responsibility
– E.g., negative consequences were foreseeable and
g, g q
freely chosen
3) Physiological arousal
4) Attribution of arousal to own behavior
– Not to external cause
22
10/9/2010
Social Influence
Chapter 6
Types of Social Influence
I. Persuasion
II. Mindlessness
III. Conformityy
A. Acceptance
B. Compliance
IV. Obedience
Social Influence
• A change in overt behavior caused by real or
imagined pressure from others
1
10/9/2010
Mindlessness
• Many decisions are made without careful
thought
• We are often persuaded by unimportant
variables
– E.g., photocopier study, spare change study
Photocopier Study
100
90
80
70
Percent 60
h
who 50
agreed 40
30
20
10
0
No excuse "In a rush" "Need to
make copies"
Spare Change Study
Money
made
Typical ("Can you spare Atypical ("Can you

a quarter?) spare 37 cents?")
Request
2
10/9/2010
Goals of Social Influence
• Social Approval
• Consistency
• Accuracy
Conformity
• changing one’s behavior to match the
responses or actions of others (not necessarily
due to pressure)
Conformity
3
10/9/2010
Line Studies (Asch)
Types of Conformity
• Normative social influence
– We conform because we want to be liked and
accepted by others
Conformity
4
10/9/2010
Light Study (Sherif)
8
7 Participant A
6 Participant B
5 Paticipant C
Inches of
perceived 4
movement 3
2
1
0
Pregroup Group Group Group
session 1 session 2 session 3
Types of Conformity
• Informational social influence
– We conform to others' behavior because we
believe they know more about the correct way to
behave than we do
– This type of conformity works best when
individuals are uncertain of reality
• Acceptance
– Conformity that involves both acting and believing
in accord with social pressure
Compliance
• Conformity that involves publicly acting in
accord with an explicit request while privately
disagreeing
• Behavior change in response to a direct
Behavior change in response to a direct
request
5
10/9/2010
Compliance Techniques
1. Reciprocity
2. Commitment & Consistency
3. Social Proof
4. Liking
5. Scarcity
6. Authority
1. Reciprocity
• “Treat others as they treat us”
• Christmas card study:
– 578 cards sent to random people
– 117 sent a card in return!
1. Reciprocity
• Door‐in‐the‐face technique
1. Make a large request (and get turned down)
2. Make a smaller request
• People feel a need to return a concession

People feel a need to return a concession
6
10/9/2010
1. Reciprocity
• Control group – people were asked:
“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid chaperons
for juvenile delinquents on a day trip to the zoo?”
• Experimental group – people were asked:
“Would you be willing to serve as unpaid
counselors to juvenile delinquents 2 hrs./week for
2 years?”
“No? OK, would you be willing to serve as unpaid
chaperons for juvenile delinquents on a day trip
to the zoo?”
Door‐In‐The‐Face
50
45
40
Percent 35
agreeing to 30
2nd request 25
20
15
10
5
0
With no large 1st request With a large 1st request
7
10/9/2010
1. Reciprocity
• Supermarket samples and censor battles
2. Commitment & Consistency
• Once we make a commitment, we feel
pressure to behave consistently
– Cognitive dissonance
Examples of Commitment and
Consistency
• Beach towel study
8
10/9/2010
Beach Towel Study
100
90
80
70
60
Percent 50
who 40
intervened 30
20
10
0
Control "Please watch my

things"
2. Commitment and Consistency
• Foot‐in‐the‐door technique
1. Get person to comply with a small request
2. Increase the request
– “DRIVE CAREFULLY” study
DRIVE CAREFULLY Study
80
70
60
Percent 50
who agreed 40
to billboard 30
20
10
0
Control Small initial request
9
10/9/2010
2. Commitment and Consistency
• Low‐balling
1. Secure agreement with a request
2. Reveal hidden costs
• E.g., the 7am experiment

E.g., the 7am experiment
3. Social Proof
• We view a behavior as correct in a given
situation to the degree that we see others
performing it
• While often accurate, this can lead us to
respond to ‘false’ social proof
p p
– E.g., canned laughter on sitcoms
– Tip jars
– Doomsday cult
When does social proof work?
• Uncertainty – When people are unsure of
how to act, they look to others.
• Similarity – The more similar others are to
you, the more likely you are to look to them
to determine what to do.
– E.g., Person‐on‐the‐street
10
10/9/2010
4. Liking
• People are more likely to comply with people
they like
What determines who we like?
• Physical attractiveness
– Halo effect
• Similarity
• Familiarity
– Mere exposure effect
Mere exposure effect
5. Scarcity
• Opportunities seem more valuable to us
when they are less available
– Limited numbers
– Limited time
11
10/9/2010
5. Scarcity
• E.g., cookie study
• Psychological reactance – we want what we
cannot have
• Works for two reasons:
1. Scarcity implies social proof
1 Scarcity implies social proof
2. We hate to lose an opportunity we once had
6. Authority
• We tend to comply with authority figures
– Even if authority is unrelated to the request!
12
10/9/2010
Obedience
Obedience
• Changing one’s behavior in response to a
directive from an authority figure
Milgram’s Obedience Studies
• How far would people go in the name of
following authority?
13
10/9/2010
• Participants are instructed to deliver shocks
to a ‘learner’ whenever the learner makes a
mistake
14
10/9/2010
Milgram’s obedience studies
• Shocks range from 15 volts to 450 volts;
shocks increase with each mistake by the
learner
• 75 volts Grunts
• 120 volts Shouts in pain
• 150 Refuses to continue the
experiment
• 200 Complains about heart
condition
• 300 Screams; refuses to
answer
• 330+ Silence
15
10/9/2010
Experimenter’s Orders
• “He’s fine. Go on.”
• “The experiment requires that you go on.”
• “It is absolutely essential to go on.”
• “You have no choice. You must go on.”
What People Predicted
• Disobey at around 135 volts
• Only 0.1% would deliver the maximum
possible shock of 450 volts
What Really Happened
Shock level % Obeying
Slight-strong shock (15- 100%
240)
Intense shock (255-300) 88%
Extreme intensity shock 68%
(315-360)
Danger: Severe shock 65%
(375-420)
XXX (435-450) 65%
16
10/9/2010
Factors That Affect Obedience
• The authority
– Legitimacy
– Proximity
• The learner
– Proximity
P i it
• The procedure
– Gradual escalation
– Dissenters
Ethics of the Milgram
Experiment
17
10/9/2010
Obedience
• Behavior change produced by the commands
of authority
– Mindlessness
– McDonald’s Strip Search
Nurse Study
• Unknown physician called hospital nurses and
told them to administer an obvious drug
overdose to patients
• Medication needed written orders, the drug
was unfamiliar to the nurses, the dosage was
, g
extremely high and had harmful effects
• Nonetheless, 21 out of 22 nurses immediately
obeyed!
Eardrop Study
• A patient is suffering from an earache
• Doctor orders ear drops to be “placed in R ear.”
• The nurse reads the orders and promptly puts
the ear drops into the patient’s anus
18
5/17/2011
Affiliation &
Friendship
Chapter 7
Goals of Affiliation
I. Getting Social Support
II. Getting Information
III. Gaining Status
IV. Exchanging Material Benefits
What Is a Friend?
• Friend -
someone with whom we have an
affectionate relationship
• People’s personal definitions of
friendship include such features as the
following:
– Friends participate as equals
– Friends enjoy each other’s company
– Friends help each other in times of need
1
5/17/2011
What Leads to Friendship?

• Liking those who like us
• Similarity
• Proximity
• Personal gain
Domain-General Models
• Reinforcement-Affect Model
• Social Exchange Theory
Domain-General vs. Domain-

Specific Models
• The reinforcement-affect and social exchange
models posit domain-general goals (getting
rewards)
• Domain-specific models assume different
relationships have different goals at different
times
2
5/17/2011
Liking Those Who Make Us Feel

Good
• Reinforcement-affect model -
theory that we like people we associate with
positive feelings and dislike those we associate
with negative feelings
Similarity-Attraction Rule
• Being around people who share our attitudes
makes us feel good
Liking Those Who Offer Us a

Good Deal
• Social exchange theory -
theory that we evaluate relationships based on
the trading of benefits within the relationship
• Economic view of relationships

– Maximize benefits
– Minimize costs
3
5/17/2011
Threats: Why Misery

(Sometimes) Loves Company
• Impersonal dangers, the fear of death and
social isolation all increase our motivation for
social support
Birth Order and Fear

• Stanley Schachter (1959) informed students
they would be receiving electric shocks that,
though “quite painful,” would do no
“permanent damage”:

• “These shocks will hurt. They will be painful.
As you can guess, if, in research of this sort,
we’re to learn anything at all that will really
help humanity, it is necessary that our shocks
be intense” (High Fear)
4
5/17/2011

• Other students (Low Fear) told they’d receive
mild & painless electrical stimulations –
“resemble more a tickle or a tingle than
anything unpleasant”
• Students were then given opportunity to wait
alone or with others

• Researchers compared how first-born (& only
children) reacted to fear, vs. later-borns
• Schachter hypothesized that first-borns, whose
parents were more likely to soothe every
concern would be more likely to want to
affiliate with others when threatened
100
75
Percentage
Wanting to 50
Wait With
Others 25
0
Low Fear High Fear
• Later-born participants’ decisions to wait

alone or with others NOT influenced by fear
5
5/17/2011
100
75
Percentage
Wanting to 50
Wait With
Others 25
0
Low Fear High Fear
• First-born participants, however, were

substantially more likely to want to wait with
others when afraid
Pushing Support Away

• We do not always perceive social support as a
good thing, especially when we cannot
reciprocate
• The potential for embarrassment decreases the
motivation to seek support
Getting Social Support

• Under stress of
potential
embarrassment, pets
provide better
emotional support
(Allen, Blascovich,
Tomaka, & Kelsey,
1991)
6
5/17/2011
Attachment and Social

Development
• People whose parents provided a secure
relationship are better suited to handle stresses
later on in life
• This may be because they are better equipped
to get support
Self-Disclosers and Non-

Disclosers
• A key aspect of being a friend is self-
disclosure
• Self-disclosure -
the sharing of intimate information about
oneself
– People who disclose more about themselves are
more likable
– Women are generally more disclosing than men
Getting Information
• Other people can provide a wealth of facts
helpful for solving problems in the physical
world
– Example: How to build a fire
• When it comes to social realities (do others
perceive you as friendly?), other people’s
opinions are more or less all that matters
7
5/17/2011
Social Comparison and

Liking for Similar Others
• Our motivation to obtain information from
others is partly driven by a desire for accurate
information
• But part of the attraction of getting information
from similar others is the positivity bias
• Information that others agree with us makes us
feel good
Uncertainty about Important

Issues
• Uncertainty increases the desire to make social
comparisons
• When we’re afraid, part of why we desire the
company of others is to compare our own
reactions with theirs
Similarity to Us
• Many studies support the theory that when
we’re uncertain, we prefer information from
similar others
• But if the issue is highly important to us, we
prefer affiliating with others who can give us
accurate information, whether they are similar
or not
8
5/17/2011
When Dissimilarity Can Save

Self-Esteem
• We tend to be uncomfortable when someone
excels on a characteristic we see as central to
our self-esteem, especially when that person is
a close friend
Social Comparison of Friends

• Friends vs. Strangers
– Password Study
• Ways to cope with an ego-threat from a friend

performing well on a relevant task:
– Reduce the relevance of that task
– Distance yourself from that person
– Improve your performance on that task
– Harm your friend’s performance on that task
When Dissimilarity Can Save

Self-Esteem
• Chronically happy people’s self-appraisals
seem to be relatively oblivious to information
that another has done better than they have
9
5/17/2011
Gaining Status
• People often form alliances to improve their
position in the social dominance hierarchy
Men’s Status-Seeking May Erode

Social Support
• Men’s relationships are marked more by
hierarchy and instrumentality (components of
status-seeking)
• Women emphasize intimacy
• Consequently, men get more respect in their
relationships, but women get more affection
Do men and women treat friends

differently?
• In one experiment, students took difficult
exam paired with friend, relative, or stranger
• Afterwards, experimenter said their pair’s
score was way above average
• Asked: “Who was responsible for the score?”
10
5/17/2011
Attribution of Success
Ackerman et al., Evolution & Human Behavior, 2007
PARTNER
6
Responsible for success
Women
Men
4
SELF
Kin Friends Strangers
Partner relationship
Do men and women treat friends

differently?
• Both sexes gave more credit to relatives than
to strangers
• Women treated their friends like kin, men
treated them more like strangers
Status by Association
• Students in one experiment were assigned to
the “Blue Team,” to work together on
intellectual problems
• They were later told that their team scored
either:
– Above 90 % of people their age
– Below 70 % of people their age
– Controls were given no information
Snyder, Lassegard, & Ford (1986)
11
5/17/2011
100
Percent 80
Taking a
60
“Blue
Team” 40
Badge 20
Failure No Success
Information
• Students whose team had performed well “basked
in reflecting glory,” proudly displaying their team
affiliation
100
Percent 80
Taking a 60
“Blue
40
Team”
20
Badge
Failure No Success
Information
• Students whose team had performed poorly “cut
off reflected failure” by avoiding wearing the
badges
Exchanging Material Benefits
12
5/17/2011
Exchanging Material Benefits

• Because of the importance of sharing
resources, all societies have strong rules about
sharing
Fundamental Patterns of Social

Exchange
• Social exchange -
trading of benefits within relationships
Fundamental Patterns of Social

Exchange
• Equity -
state of affairs in which one person’s benefits
and costs from a relationship are proportional
to benefits and costs incurred by partner
• Equity is not the only form of social exchange
for all relationships
13
5/17/2011
Models of Social Exchange Rules Example

Exchange
Communal
Sharing
Authority
Ranking
Equality
Matching
Market
Pricing

Exchange
Communal All group members share Tight-knit
Sharing in the group’s resources family
as needed and depend on
one another for mutual
Authority care
Ranking
Equality
Matching
Market
Pricing

Exchange
Communal Tight-knit
Sharing family
Authority Higher-ranking individuals Military

Ranking are entitled to loyalty, squad
respect, and deference;
lower-ranking individuals
Equality are entitled to protection,
Matching advice, and leadership
Market
Pricing
14
5/17/2011

Exchange
Communal Tight-knit
Sharing family
Authority Military
Ranking squad
No one gets more than Children

Equality others; people take turns, playing a
Matching share equally, and game
reciprocate benefits
Market
Pricing

Exchange
Communal Tight-knit
Sharing family
Authority Military
Ranking squad
Children
Equality Individuals trade playing a
Matching according to rational rules game
of self-interest, taking
goods and services in
Market proportion to what they Customer &
Pricing put in, and seeking the Shopkeeper
best possible “deal”
Individual Differences in
Communal Orientation
• People who have a communal orientation are
less concerned with keeping careful track of
inputs and outputs in their relationships with
others
15
5/17/2011
Communal and Exchange

Relationships
• People are more likely to adopt a needs-based
rule in communal relationships
– Example: If you are taken sick, your spouse will
excuse you from your share of the housework, but
your credit card banker won’t care
Proximity and Social Capital

• Proximity-attraction principle -
the tendency to become friends with those who
live or work nearby
Proximity and Social Capital

• The proximity-attraction principle may be due
partly to the ease of exchange with neighbors,
and partly to:
• Mere exposure effect -
the tendency to feel positively towards stimuli
we have seen frequently
16
5/17/2011
• There has been a decrease in membership

among voluntary social groups in the past 40
years
Social Network on the Internet

• Contact via cell-phone and Internet does not
yield the same benefits of face-to-face contact
• Melanie Green and colleagues found that such
contacts are easier, but over long-haul may
decrease face-to-face contacts and increase
loneliness
17
5/17/2011
Love & Romantic

Relationships
Chapter 8
Chapter Outline
• Defining Love and Romantic Attraction
• The Defining Features of Love
• Are There Different Varieties of Love?
• The Goals of Romantic Relationships
• Obtaining Sexual Gratification
• Establishing Family Bonds
• Gaining Resources and Social Status
• Breaking Up (and Staying Together)
Defining Features of Love

• Beverly Fehr asked Canadian students to
list as many features of love as they could
in 3 minutes
• Students’ lists commonly included:
Caring Happiness
Friendship Warmth
Trust Commitment
Euphoria Sexual passion
Heartrate increases etc
o
1
5/17/2011
The long list could be reduced

to three essential components:
Romantic attraction,
PASSION longing, sexual desire
and arousal
Feelings of a close
INTIMACY bond, sharing, support
Deciding one is in love,

COMMITMENT dedication to long term
Sternberg’s Triangular
Theory of Love
Passion
•
Romantic Companionate
Love Love
• •
Intimacy Commitment
Fatuous Love
Are There Different Varieties

of Love?
• Not all types of “love” involve same mix of
passion, intimacy, and commitment
• Theory with TWO distinct types of love:

• Passionate love -
a state of intense longing for union with
another
• Companionate love -
affection and tenderness for those whose
lives are entwined with our own
2
5/17/2011
What is attractive?
• Waist-to-hip ratio of .7 for women
What is attractive?
• Men find “baby-faced” features attractive in
women – big eyes, big forehead, round
cheeks, small nose, wide smile
3
5/17/2011
So what is attractive?
• Men find “baby-faced” features attractive in
women – big eyes, big forehead, round cheeks,
small nose, wide smile
• Facial symmetry
• Women find “masculine” features attractive in
men – V: broad shoulders and small waist, large
jaw
Did you think about sex even for a

moment during the last 5
minutes?
• When men and women under the age of
twenty-five were asked this question,
50% of the men and 40% of the women
said “Yes”
Among those 26-55: 1 in 4 men and 1 in 7
women said “Yes”
• College men and women report several
sexual fantasies per day
Students in one series

of studies were asked:
• What is the minimum percentile of
intelligence you would accept in
considering someone for:
A date
A sexual partner
A one night stand
A steady dating partner
A marriage partner?
Kenrick, Groth, Trost & Sadalla (1993)
4
5/17/2011
Minimum Intelligence Desired
Women desire slightly above

average for a single date
50th
%ile AVERAGE
DATE
…and want more with

increasing commitment
50th
%ile
DATE SEX STEADY MARRIAGE
Men have similar criteria

for dates
5
5/17/2011
…and for long-term mates
Men’s criteria are

considerably
lower for sexual
partners
Gender Differences in
Sexuality
• Men and women differ in their criteria for
sexual partners
• But their criteria for long-term partners are
very similar
6
5/17/2011
In one study, students were

approached by another student of
the opposite sex, who said:
• “I have been noticing you around
campus. I find you very attractive”
• This was followed by one of three
invitations:
“Would you go out tonight?” or
“Would you come over to my apartment?”
or
“Would you go to bed with me?”
Clark & Hatfield

Men were even more
100 likely to say “yes” to
the sexual invitation
Percent Saying “Yes”
80
60
Not a single
About half of woman said
40 both sexes said “yes” to the
“yes” to the date sexual
20 invitation.
0
Go Out Go to Apt. Go to Bed
Physical Attractiveness
• 3 lines of evidence to suggest physical
attractiveness may be biological:
– Infants (2-months old) look longer at faces
considered attractive than at faces considered
unattractive
– Cross-cultural consistency of what is beautiful
– Some features are consistently and reliably
associated with attractiveness
7
5/17/2011
Hormones & Pheromones
• Strip club study

• Study of men’s t-shirts
• Increased levels of testosterone is associated

with more sexual fantasies in men and women
Sociosexual Attitudes
• Sociosexual orientation -
individual differences in tendency to prefer
either:
Unrestricted sex (without the necessity of love)
Restricted sex (only in the context of a long-term,
loving relationship)
Evolution & Attractiveness

• Men “prefer” women who can reproduce
– Youthfulness
– Attractiveness
• Women “prefer” men who have resources
– Older men
– Money and status
• Cross-cultural
8
5/17/2011
Cheating
• Imagine you discover the person with whom
you’ve been seriously involved has become
interested in someone else
• What would distress you more?
1. Imagining partner falling in love and forming a
deep emotional attachment
2. Imagining partner having sexual intercourse with
that person
Jealousy and Same-Sex

Competitors
• Majority of men reported more distress to the
sexual infidelity
• About 80% of women more distressed over
emotional attachment
• Debate on this issue: both types of jealousy are
intertwined
Sexual Situations Look

Different to Men and Women
• Compared to women, men perceive more
sexuality in an interaction between a man and
a woman
• This is true whether they are participants or
observers
• However, men see interactions involving their
sister as platonic
9
5/17/2011
Bridge Study
• Men crossed either:
– Wobbly, shaky bridge 230 feet above rapids
– Sturdy bridge 10 feet above the ground
Bridge Study
• Men crossed either:
– Wobbly, shaky bridge 230 feet above rapids
– Sturdy bridge 10 feet above the ground.
• They were met by a female research assistant
who gave them her number
Men on shaky bridge were more likely to call
than men on sturdy bridge (Dutton and Aron,
1974)
Misattribution of Arousal
(Excitation Transfer)
• When physiologically aroused (heart beating

faster, sweaty palms, etc.) we tend to attribute
the arousal to a source
• We often misattribute the source of our arousal
10
5/17/2011
Two-Factor Theory of Emotion

• Schachter & Singer, 1962
• Theory that affective feelings consist of:
General Physiological Arousal

+
A Label for That Arousal
• Theory posits that we can confuse the specific
cause of our arousal and may mistake fear or
anxiety for love
Schachter & Singer, 1962

IV: Drug (2)—epinephrine vs. saline
Expected effects (3)—arousal vs.
headache vs. none
Confederate’s behavior (2)—happy or
angry
DV: Participant’s behavior and emotions
Results: When ss experienced arousal without
knowing why they looked to the environment
to label the emotions they were feeling
Establishing Family Bonds

• Passionate sexual attraction fades with time
• But feelings of intimacy and commitment
increase
• Loss of a spouse is one of the most stressful of
life events
11
5/17/2011
The Importance of Attachment

• Need to belong
– the human need to form and maintain strong,
stable interpersonal relationships
• The same feeling that keeps a romantic couple
bonded may be what keeps them attached to
their children
Attachment Styles
Attachments marked
by trust that the other
SECURE
will continue to provide
love and support
Defensive detachment
AVOIDANT from the other
Fear of abandonment;
ANXIOUS/
feeling that one’s needs
AMBIVALENT are not being met
Gaining Resources and Social

Status
• In many animal species, females choose males
who have managed to defend the most
valuable territories
• Among humans, power and status bring access
to material rewards
• Men with power and status have an easier time
attracting mates
12
5/17/2011
SINGLES ADS
Singles’ ads by
young men show Oldest preferred
no preference for Youngest preferred
20younger partners
DIFFERENCE FROM
20
But older men prefer Marriages show a
partners younger than similar pattern
TARGET'S AGE
10
themselves 10
0 0
-10 -10
Women of all ages ask
for men around their
own age or older
-20 -20
10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s 10s 20s 30s 40s 50s 60s
MALE'S AGE FEMALE'S AGE
Kenrick & Keefe, Behavioral & Brain Sciences, (1992
Men’s Preference for

Reproductive Resources
• Older men are attracted to relatively younger
women (Kenrick & Keefe, 1992) and younger
women are generally attracted to older men
• Younger men are attracted to relatively older
women (Kenrick et al., 1996)
• This same pattern is found across societies and
historical periods
What Happens When Women

Gain Status and Resources?
• In societies where women have little wealth or
power, the desire for wealth in a man is greater
than in societies where women are relatively
better off
13
5/17/2011
Culture, Resources,
and Polygamy
• Monogamy -
marital custom in which one man marries one
woman
• Polygamy -
marriage involving more than one partner,
includes:
Polyandry -
one woman weds more than one husband
Polygyny -
one man weds more than one wife
Culture, Resources,
and Polygamy
• Polyandrous woman’s multiple husbands are
usually brothers who share limited resources.
• Extreme polygyny (e.g., harems) involves:
Steep social hierarchy
Great wealth in some families
Possibility of starvation for others
Social Exchange in
Committed Relationships
• Equity rule -
each person’s benefits and costs in a social
relationship should match the other’s benefits
and costs
Occurs in low-intimacy relationships
14
5/17/2011
Social Exchange in Committed

Relationships
• In relationships characterized by very positive
feelings partners follow a need-based rule
Giving what partner needs, without counting
When Dominance Matters

• Although women are initially attracted to sex-
typed dominant males, over time less sex-
typed men are easier to get along with (Ickes,
1993)
• To be attractive to a woman, dominance must
be accompanied by agreeableness (Jensen-
Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995)
When Dominance
Matters
• Women in one study read about a man who
was either
Dominant or
Non-dominant
• And either
Agreeable or
Disagreeable
15
5/17/2011
Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995
Nondominant
9 Dominant
Desirability 7
as a Date 5
Disagreeable Agreeable
• When the man was disagreeable, women
found him undesirable as a date, regardless of
whether he was dominant or nondominant.
Jensen-Campbell, Graziano, & West, 1995
Nondominant
9 Dominant
Desirability 7
as a Date 5
Disagreeable Agreeable
• When he was agreeable, women found him
desirable as a date
- and his desirability was enhanced if he was also
dominant
Some People Are

Better at Getting Along
• People in unstable relationships tend to be
Unconventional and extraverted
Prone to negative moods
16
5/17/2011
Studying Healthy Communication

• Markman and colleagues videotaped happy
couples & unhappy couples as they discussed
problems:
• Unhappy couples responded to conflict with
“zingers” – negative statements about their
partners
Rules of Effective Communication

• The researchers developed a premarital
training program in effective communication
• Some of the helpful rules included:
• 1. Positive framing: Say “I’d enjoy playing
tennis” NOT “I don’t want to go hang out with
your boring friends again!”

• 2. Express appreciation: Say “Thanks for
doing the dishes” versus “You missed one!”
• 3. Avoid silent treatment: Say something
when arriving, leaving, or going to bed
17
5/17/2011

• 4. Don’t be a “psychopest”: Don’t analyze
your partner’s behavior as a guise for being a
critic. “Hmm, that’s just like your mother’s
behavior”
• 5. Speak for yourself, not your partner: Don’t
say “I know YOU’D enjoy a movie,” say “I’d
really enjoy a movie”

• 6. Say it directly: Don’t say “do you want to
eat out?” when you’re thinking “I’m dying to
eat Mexican food”
• 7. Nothing nice to say? Then keep quiet
18
5/17/2011
Prosocial Behavior
Chapter 9
Chapter Outline
• 5 Steps to Helping Behavior
• Goals of Prosocial Behavior
Improving Our Basic Welfare:
Gaining Genetic and Material Benefits
Gaining Social Status and Approval
Managing Self-Image
Managing Our Moods and Emotions
• Does Pure Altruism Exist?
Helping Behavior
• Prosocial behavior
– action intended to benefit another
• Benevolence
– action that benefits another person
intentionally for no external reward
• Pure altruism
– action intended solely to benefit another for
no external or internal reward
1
5/17/2011
Social Responsibility:
The Helping Norm
• Social responsibility norm -
societal rule that people should help those who
need their assistance
• Case of Kitty Genovese
Latane and Darley (1970)

• Ps discussed an issue over an intercom with
(they thought):
– 1 person
– 2 people
– 5 people
• One participant had an epileptic seizure
• Would the number of other participants affect
the likelihood of helping?
Number of Bystanders
100
Alone
1 other bystander
80
4 other bystanders
Percent 60
who
40
helped
20
0
60 seconds 150 seconds
Number of seconds elapsed

from start of epileptic seizure
2
5/17/2011
Bystanders as sources of help

• Bystander effect -
tendency for a bystander to be less likely to
help in an emergency if there are other
onlookers present
Bystanders as sources of help

• Diffusion of responsibility -
tendency for each group member to dilute
personal responsibility for acting by spreading
it among all other group members
Example: bystanders to an emergency may assume
someone else will call the police
Bystanders as sources of
information about helping
• Pluralistic Ignorance -
phenomenon that occurs when bystanders to an
emergency, trying to look poised, give
misleading cues to others that no help is
needed
3
5/17/2011
• In one study, researchers pumped smoke into a
lab while students filled out a questionnaire
Some students were left alone
Some with two other real participants
Some with two other confederates who pretended
nothing was wrong
Latane & Darley (1968)
80
60
Percentage
Reporting 40
Smoke 20
Alone With two With two

other real calm
subjects confederates
• Results suggest that people look to others to
provide information
• If no one else seems upset, that suggests this
isn’t an emergency
4
5/17/2011
Bystanders as sources of approval

or disapproval
• Sometimes people assume help would be seen
as an unwelcome intrusion
• When a woman fighting with a man shouted:
“I don’t even know you!” – help was more
likely than if she shouted:
• “I don’t know why I married you!” (Shotland
& Straw, 1976)
Effects of Onlookers on Decisions to Help
Others as Others as
Others as Sources of Sources of
Sources of Whether Approval or
Help Helping is Disapproval
Called For for Helping
The Helping Decision
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
1. Noticing
– In order to help, we must notice that there
is an emergency.
– Other people can distract our attention
5
5/17/2011
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
2. Interpreting the event as an emergency
– Is the situation really an emergency or are
we misinterpreting something?
– When ambiguous, we look to others. If
they’re not panicking, we don’t panic.
– But everyone is looking to everyone else;
therefore, no one looks panicked!
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
3. Taking responsibility
– When alone, people feel responsible
– When others are present, people place the
responsibility on everyone else
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
4. Knowing how to help
– Do we know how to help?
– Provide assistance directly, call someone
else…
– Lack of competence
6
5/17/2011
When do we help?
5 steps to helping
5. Deciding to help
• Audience inhibition
• The more people, the greater the potential
embarrassment
• Rewards and costs
Latane & Darley (1970)

5 Steps to Emergency Intervention
How can we increase helping?

• Just being aware of the obstacles to helping
increases helping
1. Distraction
2. Pluralistic ignorance
3. Diffusion of responsibility
4. Lack of competence
5. Audience inhibition
• Make it clear that you need help
• Single someone out
7
5/17/2011
A Stranger in Distress
• Heroism – actions that involve courageous risk
taking to obtain a socially valued goal
– Doesn’t include risky behavior for fun
– Can be either deliberative or automatic
– Might also involve people who take other risks, like
donating body parts for transplant, Peace Corp
members, doctors etc.
When do we help?
Situational influences
• Number of bystanders
• Time pressure
– Good Samaritan study
When do we help?
Time pressure
• Theological students were either early or late
to give a talk
• Encounter a man slumped on the street,
coughing and groaning
• Early 63% helped
• Late 10% helped
8
5/17/2011
When do we help?
• Number of bystanders
• Population density
• Time pressure
– Good Samaritan study
• Priming
– Broken down motorist
• Mood
– Happiness (smiling, aromas, cookies, dimes)
– Guilt (confession, breaking a camera)
When do we help?
Situational factors
• Attractiveness
• Similarity
– Empathy
Empathy: Perspective-Taking &

Emotion
• Empathy – Affective and cognitive responses to
another person’s emotional state
– Affective component – You can sense distress in other
people
– Have a desire to solve the problem
– Perspective taking
9
5/17/2011
Empathy: Perspective-Taking &

Emotion
• Perspective taking
– Imagine other – imagine what another person is feeling
– Imagine self – imagine how you would feel in that
position
– Character identification – feel empathy for story
characters
When do we help?
Situational factors
• Attractiveness
• Similarity
– Empathy
– Genetic relatedness
• Familiarity
– Friends
– Depends on ego-relevance
• Self-focus / Awareness
Situational Factors
• Helping those you like or those who are close to
you
– People are more likely to help their own family members
and friends
– You are more likely to help people that are similar to
you
– Familiarity is related to proximity: more likely to live
near and have more contact with your relatives (70% of
people do)
– You are more likely to help physically attractive
people
10
5/17/2011
Genetic Relatedness
and Helping
• Would you lend your car to your brother?
What about your grandfather?
What about a cousin?
What about an attractive stranger?
• Michael Cunningham and his colleagues asked
people whether they would be willing to help
other people in different situations
Cunningham et al., (1995)
80
60
Percentage
Volunteering 40
to Help
20
0
High Mod. Low None
(parents, (grand- (first (attractive
siblings, parents) cousins) strangers)
children)
Degree of Relatedness
Similarity and Familiarity

• Similarity may be a cue to genetic relatedness
(our relatives look like us)
• Competitors in a negotiation game were more
trusting if shown a photo of their opponent that
had been “morphed” to look like them
11
5/17/2011
Similarity and Familiarity

• Familiarity may also be a cue to genetic
relatedness (our ancestors encountered their
relatives on a daily basis)
• In animal and human societies, familiarity
increases helping
Genetic Similarity
and Need
• The tendency to help relatives over strangers is
stronger when the help is more related to
survival
• Participants in one series were asked to
imagine scenarios like the following:
Genetic Similarity
and Need
• There are three people asleep in different
rooms of a burning house:
A cousin
A grandfather
An acquaintance
• You have time to rescue only one
• Which do you save?
12
5/17/2011
Genetic Similarity
and Need
• There are three people who need you to run a
small errand to the store:
A cousin
A sister
An acquaintance
• You have time to help only one
• Whose errand do you run?
Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama (1994)
3.0
For everyday help,
people tended to help
2.5
close relatives more
than non-relatives
Tendency
2.0
to Help
1.5
1.0
High Mod. Low None
(parents, (grand- (first (acquaintances)
siblings, parents) cousins)
children)
Burnstein, Crandall, & Kitayama (1994)
3.0
The difference became
even more pronounced
2.5
in life-or-death
situations
Tendency
2.0
to Help
1.5
1.0
High Mod. Low None
(parents, (grand- (first (acquaintances)
siblings, parents) cousins)
children)
13
5/17/2011
Insights into the Evolution of

Help
• Inclusive fitness -
the survival of one’s genes in one’s own
offspring and in any relatives one helps
Helping a brother or sister promotes the survival of
genes he or she shares with the helper
Situational Factors
• Helping those who are responsible for their problem

– If someone is responsible for their own predicament, you
let them “lie in the bed they made”
– A “Just World” bias?
Just World Bias

• People may not be helpful when they believe the
needy person deserves his or her fate
• We are taught as children that good is rewarded
and evil is punished. Thus people who are
punished must have been evil and needed
punishing
14
5/17/2011
Just World Bias

• When we perceive injustice, however, we are
quick to act
– Barnes, Ickes, and Kidd had “Tony Freeman” phone up
students and ask them for their class notes, attributing
his need to:
• external factors beyond his control (he missed class
due to illness)
• or his own personal failings (I am not a good note
taker).
– More likely to help when his failures were beyond his
control
Situational Factors
• Self-focus / Awareness: Situations that focus us
inside should increase our helping behaviors.
Making someone look in a mirror make them self-
conscious and more likely to render help
Labeling Effects
• Our self-images are greatly influenced by how
others see us; if you label someone as helpful,
they will live up to the label
• Labeling a child as “kind and helpful”
increases his or her later willingness to donate
prizes to other children (Grusec & Redler,
1980)
15
5/17/2011
Gender and Help

• Women are universally perceived as kinder,
more soft-hearted, and more helpful (Williams
& Best, 1990)
• But over 90% of Carnegie Hero awards go to
men (for saving, or attempting to save, the life
of another)
• Why?
Gender and Help

• Women are more likely to help those they
already know
• Men are more likely to help strangers in
emergency situations
Gender Differences
• Gender: Male
– Men are likely to help women due to:
• Gender differences in skills
• Sexual attraction
• Women are more likely to seek help
– Men are more likely to render aid when physical
danger is involved
• They render help that is daring, forceful, noble,
and directed at strangers and friends alike
16
5/17/2011
Gender Differences
• Gender: Women
– Women are more likely to render emotional aid and
informal counseling in personal matters, especially
for those in their families and friendship circles
– In a meta-analysis, Eagly and Crowly found 172
studies that included 50,000 male and female helpers
• Men helped more in dangerous situations
• Women helped more in emotional situations
Why do we help others?

Social exchange theory
• Maximize rewards; minimize costs
• We help when rewards > costs
• Rewards: Feeling good, social approval,
enhance job prospects, etc.
• Costs: Potential harm/embarrassment, time-
consuming, guilt, etc.
• People help for egoistic (selfish) reasons
The Social-Exchange Theory

• Social Exchange Theory: Human interactions are
transactions that aim to maximize one’s benefits and
minimize one’s costs
– Blood drive:
• Don’t donate blood
– Costs: feel bad for not donating, disapproval
– Benefits: Save time, no discomfort / anxiety
• Donate blood
– Costs: the pain of the needle, the lost time, the
fatigue
– Benefits: feel good about helping, cookies!
17
5/17/2011
The Social-Exchange Theory

• Rewards: External
– You get something for your help (attention; love; respect)
• Social approval of helping increases helping behavior
• Yet the act of helping others can make you feel good,
too!
• Rewards: Internal
– Helper’s emotional states or personal traits
• Guilt or your own distress – help to reduce these
feelings
• Grief (feel bad, do good)
• Do good, feel good
Managing Emotional Arousal in

Emergencies
• Arousal/cost-reward model -
view that observers of suffering help to relieve
their own personal distress

Emergencies
• We will help in emergency if:
1. We feel negative arousal
2. There is a “we” connection
3. Helping to reduce arousal is low-cost & high-
reward
18
5/17/2011
Arousal/Cost-Reward Model of Helping

If Arousal Is
If Cost of Strong
Helping Is
Small
Increased
Observation Increased Increased
Chance
of Another Negative Chance That
That Help
in Clear Emotional Help Will Be
Will Be
Need of Aid Arousal Offered
Offered
If Rewards
Are Large
If “We”
Connection

Non- Emergencies
• Mood management hypothesis -
idea that people use helping tactically to
manage their moods
• Throughout life, we learn that helping others
can lead to rewards
• This reward makes us feel good, and we learn
to use helping to manage our mood
Altruism Debate
• Negative State Relief Model (Cialdini)
– People engage in helping behavior to counteract
bad moods or reduce the feeling of negative
emotions like sadness
– An egoistic explanation of helping behavior
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Batson)
– When people experience empathy they will engage
in truly altruistic helping behaviors
– A purely altruistic explanation of (some) helping
behavior
19
5/17/2011
Presence of Sadness
• Helping can be increased by events triggering
temporary sadness, such as:
Reminiscing about unhappy experiences
Reading depressing statements
Failing at a task
Witnessing harm to another
Costs/benefits of Helping
• Students in one study were put into either:
happy
sad or
neutral mood
• Then given an opportunity to help a non-
profit organization
Costs/benefits of Helping
• The benefits of helping were either:
Low - help was for Little League
High - American Cancer Society
• Costs of helping were either:
Low: Sit at donations desk
High: Collect door-to-door
20
5/17/2011
Low High Benefit

Low
Cost
High
Happy students helped
80 more than those in a
neutral mood, with
little regard for costs
% Volunteering
60
and benefits
40
20
0
Happy Neutral
Mood Weyant (1976)
Low High Benefit

Low But students in
Cost a sad mood
High only helped
when benefits
80
were high, and
costs were low
% Volunteering
60
40
20
0
Happy Neutral Sad
Mood Weyant (1976)
Ability of Helping Act to

Influence Mood
• Students in one study told their drink
contained drug – “freezes” mood for half hour
(Manucia, Baumann, & Cialdini, 1984)
• This did not influence helping by students in a
neutral or happy mood
• But decreased helping among sad students
21
5/17/2011
Why do we help others?

Empathy-altruism hypothesis
• Is all helping self-serving?
• Truly altruistic helping will occur when we
experience empathy
Egoistic motive
You will help

if rewards
outweigh costs
Do you feel
Observe
empathy
someone in
for this
need of help
person?
You will help
regardless of
rewards and costs
Altruistic motive
Test of the empathy-altruism

hypothesis
• Participants observed a woman getting
shocked
– High and low empathy
– Allowed to leave or not allowed to leave
• Would the participants help the woman by
switching places with her?
22
5/17/2011
100
Difficult escape
Easy escape
80
Percentage 60
who helped
40
20
0
High Low
Empathic concern
Does Pure Altruism Exist?

• Empathy-altruism hypothesis -
Presumption that empathizing with another’s
plight will lead one to want to help that person
for purely altruistic reasons
• Empathic concern -
Compassionate feelings caused by taking the
perspective of a needy other

• Students in one experiment were given the
opportunity to help a suffering student (Elaine)
by taking her place in an electric shock
experiment
Half could easily escape the whole situation by
leaving immediately
The other half would have to stay and watch as she
received the remaining shocks
23
5/17/2011

• Students given the easy opportunity to escape
usually took it
• But if they felt high empathy for Elaine they
were more likely to help her out
• Batson & colleagues argue – empathy
engages pure altruism, and overrides selfish
motivations
An egoistic alternative
• Cialdini and his colleagues argue - there is an
egoistic explanation of these findings:
Empathy causes an observer to feel kinship with the
victim, thus tapping into a basic selfish motivation
– to serve myself by serving those who share my
genes
24
5/17/2011
Aggression
Chapter 10
Chapter Outline
• What Is Aggression?
• Theories of Aggression
• Social Goals of Aggressing Against
Another
What is Aggression?
• Aggression -
any behavior intended to harm another who is
motivated to avoid harm
It is behavior (not angry feelings)
It is intended (not accidental harm)
It is aimed at hurting (not assertiveness or
playfulness)
1
5/17/2011
What is Aggression?
• Assertiveness -
behavior intended to express dominance or
confidence
• Assertive behavior (such as returning an
undercooked dish in a restaurant) is NOT
aggressive unless it is also intended to harm
another person
Buss’s 3 Dimensional Model of

Harm or Injury
1. Physical vs. Verbal
2. Active vs. Passive
3. Direct vs. Indirect
Definition Example
Indirect
Aggression
Direct
Aggression
2
5/17/2011
Forms of Aggression
Definition Example
Indirect
Spreading a
Aggression Attempt to
rumor that
hurt another
your ex-
Direct without
romantic
Aggression obvious face-
partner has a
to-face
venereal
conflict
disease
Forms of Aggression
Definition Example
Indirect
Aggression Behavior
A hockey
intended to
Direct player
hurt
Aggression punches
someone
another
“to his or
player
her face”
Types of Aggression
• Emotional Aggression / Hostile Aggression
aggression where the goal is harm to another
– Behavior that is an end in itself
– Usually motivated by anger
– “Hot” aggression
• Instrumental Aggression
 aggression where harm to another is done to
achieve some other (nonaggressive) goal
– Behavior is a means to an end
– Calculated actions
– “Cold” aggression
3
5/17/2011
Types of Aggression
Definition Example
A child
Hurtful throws a
behavior temper
Emotional that stems tantrum
Aggression from angry after mom
feelings refuses to
Instrumental
buy candy
Aggression
Types of Aggression
Definition Example
Hurting A mother
another to spanks a
accomplish child to
Emotional
another discourage
Aggression
(non- him from
Instrumental aggressive) repeating a
Aggression goal tantrum
Gender Differences
• There is no clear sex difference in reporting
feelings of anger
• Women are more likely to use physical
aggression against partners (e.g., slapping)
• But male’s aggression is more likely to do
physical harm
• Females use more indirect aggression (e.g.,
spreading rumors)
4
5/17/2011
Goals of Aggressive Behavior

• Coping with Feelings of Annoyance
• Gaining Material and Social Rewards
• Gaining or Maintaining Social Status
• Protecting Oneself or Others
Theories of Aggression
• Instinctive Theories of Aggression
• Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
• Aggression Cues Theory
• Cognitive-Neoassociation Theory
• Social Learning Theory
Catharsis
• Catharsis – releasing pent-up energy
– Freud believed that if we don’t release our
pent up emotions, it will lead to psychological
harm
– Based on Lorenz’s theory
– Do football players become less aggressive
after football?
• No, they become more aggressive
5
5/17/2011
Catharsis
• Bushman – A study confederate insulted a
participant, who then:
– 1) punched a punching-bag while thinking of
it as exercise
– 2) punched a punching-bag while thinking
about the person who just insulted them, or
– 3) controlled sitting (not doing anything).
– #3 was the least angry, #2 the most
Catharsis
• Geen – A confederate angered a participant by
disagreeing with his or her opinion. Then, on a
learning task, the participant either
– 1) shocked the confederates who erred or
– 2) simply noted the errors
– Then they engaged in a second learning task
and a second shock task
• People who gave shocks the first time
around gave shocks that were even more
aggressive the second time
• Wouldn’t they have vented all of their rage?
Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis
• Original - Theory that aggression is an
automatic response to any blocking of goal-
directed behavior
• Revised - theory that any unpleasant
stimulation will lead to emotional aggression
to the extent that it generates unpleasant
feelings
6
5/17/2011
• Frustration
interference with a goal-directed behavior
sequence
• Displacement
directing aggression towards something /
someone that was not the source of the
frustration
• Vicarious Aggression
frustration satisfied by seeing the aggressor
aggressed against
Original Frustration-Aggression
Hypothesis
Frustration
(and only frustration)
Aggression
(of all forms)
Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
(Reformulated)
Any Other
Frustration Pain Heat Unpleasant
Experience
Negative Feelings
Emotional Aggression
7
5/17/2011
Unpleasant Situations: Pain

• Students in one experiment were asked to
place their hands in either
Painfully cold water
Water closer to room temperature
• The students who suffered pain were more
likely to administer electric shocks to another
student (Berkowitz, 1993b)
Unpleasant Situations: Heat

• High temperatures are associated with:
More aggressive horn-honking
Increases in assaults
Increases in murders
Increases in urban riots
Major league pitchers throwing more balls at batters
0.6
Players Hit Per Game
0.5
0.4
0.3
below 70 70-79 80-89 90 +
Temperature ( Degrees Fahrenheit)
Reifman, Larrick, & Fein, 1991
8
5/17/2011
Heat
• More violent crimes are committed in the
summer than any other month
40
35
30
Percentage 25
of yearly 20
total 15 Uprisings
10 Family disturbances
Rapes
5
Assaults
0
Winter Spring Summer Fall
Unpleasant Situations: Poverty

• Lynchings in the American South during the
years 1882 to 1930 were negatively related to
cotton prices (Hovland & Sears, 1940)
Later analyses found that lynchings were highest
when a recession followed a period of economic
well-being (Hepworth & West, 1988)
This supports a frustration hypothesis
9
5/17/2011
Feelings of Arousal
and Irritability
• Excitation transfer theory -
theory that anger is physiologically similar to
other emotional states, and any form of arousal
can enhance aggressive responses
Example: Students were more aggressive after
watching nonviolent erotic films or riding an
exercise bike
Not angered
Angered
Shock level
delivered by
participants
Did not exercise Exercised
Heat and Misattribution of

Arousal
• Heat increases arousal
• Most people think heat lowers arousal
• Therefore, arousal caused by heat can be
easily misattributed to anger
• Therefore, heat can lead to aggression
10
5/17/2011
Aggression Cues Theory

• Berkowitz found that children who had just
played with a toy gun were significantly more
likely to knock down another child’s blocks
• U.S. ~10000 handgun homicides per year

• G.B. ~24 handgun homicides per year
• G.B ¼ the # of homicides per capita
• D.C. gun laws
Annoyance Leads to Changes

in Perception of Situations
• Weapons effect -
tendency for weapons, such as guns, to
enhance aggressive thoughts, feelings, and
actions
Berkowitz & LePage (1967)
6
5
Number of
4
Shocks
Delivered to 3
Other 2
Subject 1
Other Subject Other Subject

Rewarding Annoying
weapons
present Weapons did not But annoyed
increase participants
no weapons aggression when delivered more
present participants were shocks when guns
not annoyed were present
11
5/17/2011
Cognitive neo-association theory
Unpleasant Experiences (pain, heat, etc.)
Negative Feelings
Angry Thoughts
and Associations
Fight
Negative Feelings
OR
Angry Thoughts Fearful Thoughts

and Associations and Associations
Fight Flight
Negative Feelings
OR
Objects or
Events Angry Thoughts Fearful Thoughts
Priming and Associations and Associations
Aggression
Fight Flight
12
5/17/2011
Negative Feelings
Objects or Angry
Thoughts and
Associations
Aggression
Fight Flight
Negative Feelings
Objects or Angry
Thoughts and
Associations
Aggression
Fight
Fight Flight
Learned Theories of Aggression

• Social learning theory: Social behavior is
learned through observing others as well as
rewards and punishments.
– Bobo doll study
13
5/17/2011
Social Learning Theory of

Aggression
• Social learning theory of aggression -
theory that aggressive behavior is learned
through:
Modeling  imitation of adults
• Bobo Doll Study
Operant Conditioning  direct reward
• (Father buys son ice cream after he wins a fight)
Vicarious Conditioning / Observational Learning
observing others being rewarded for
aggressiveness
• (A television character wins the girl of his dreams as a
result of killing several people)
Situational Factors That

Influence Aggressive Behavior
• Alcohol
• Violent Media
– Television
– Video games
– Pornography
Alcohol
• Alcohol increases aggression
– Weakened inhibitions (letting your true feelings out)
– Narrowing of focus, leading to an inability to use
cognitive functioning to override aggression
– Placebo effects (expectations)
14
5/17/2011
Violent Media
– Correlational studies
– Longitudinal studies
– Experimental studies
Exposure to Media Violence

• Media violence – depictions of violence in the
media lead to aggression
– 58% of television shows contain violence
• 78% of those are without remorse or resolution
– The average 12-year-old has seen 100,000 acts of
violence and 8000 TV murders
Violent Media
Correlational studies
• More violent TV watching = more
aggressiveness
– Even when we account for other variables
• What if it’s just that aggressive kids tend to

watch more violence on TV?
15
5/17/2011
Violent Media
Longitudinal studies
• Kids who watch violent TV are more likely to
commit a serious criminal offense later in life
A longitudinal study
45
40
35
Seriousness
30
of criminal
25
acts by age
20
30
15
10
5
0
Low Medium High
Frequency of TV viewing at age 8
Violent Media
Longitudinal studies
• Viewing violence at age 8 predicted
aggressiveness at age 19
• Aggressiveness at age 8 did NOT predict
viewing violence at age 19
• Viewing violence precedes aggressiveness, not
the other way around
16
5/17/2011
Violent Media
Experimental studies
• Participants either watch violent TV or non-
violent TV
– Watching violent TV increases aggression in the
lab, the classroom, the lunchroom, the playground,
and the athletic field
• Freedman: Review of field experiments and
correlational research
– Consistent positive correlation between viewing TV
violence and aggression
– However, there is little convincing evidence in
natural settings

• Liebert and Baron
– Exposed kids to 1) violent or 2) exciting but non-violent
TV
– Those exposed to violent TV were more aggressive
• Josephson
– Exposed kids to violent / non-violent TV and then had
them play hockey
– Kids were more aggressive after watching violent TV,
especially those kids already prone to aggression
6
Boys
5
Girls
Average
4
duration of
aggressive 3
responses
2
0
Nonviolent TV show Violent TV show
17
5/17/2011

• What about adults?
– Johnson – studied 700 families over 70 years: Found a
strong correlation between those who watch more TV
and likelihood of subsequent violence, regardless of
parental education, income, or neighborhoods
– Phillips: found that homicide rates increased the week
after a boxing match
• When white (black) boxers lose, more white (black)
victims

• The Effects of Media Violence – Why do they occur
– People may become desensitized to violence
– Thomas – Participants watched / did not-watch violence
(a violent police drama vs. a volleyball match)
• Those who didn’t watch violence responded with less
emotion to a scene where two preschoolers were
verbally and physically aggressive

– College students who watch violence are less
physiologically aroused by violence, and they deliver
higher shocks to others
– Cline – Correlational study found that those who watched
more violence in general were desensitized to bloody
boxing
18
5/17/2011
Why does violent TV increase

aggression?
1) Weakened inhibitions
-Legitimizes violent behavior
2) Increased arousal & priming
-Misattribute annoyance as anger
3) Imitation
-Ideas about aggression (e.g., post-Columbine)
4) Desensitization
-After awhile, violence no longer arouses us
Criticisms (good and bad) of TV

violence research
• Effects are small and short-lived
• Clips from movies used in lab studies are given
without context
• Many people watch violent TV and do not
commit violent crimes
• Lab studies are artificial, and do not reflect what
goes on in the real world
• Correlational and field studies do not prove
causality
Violent Video Games

• College students randomly assigned to play a
violent video game (Mortal Combat) later had
more aggressive thoughts and feelings than
those who played a nonviolent game (PGA
Gold) (Anderson & Dill, 2002)
19
5/17/2011

– Hostile Attribution Biases
• Strong expectation that others behave aggressively
– Bushman and Anderson – Exposed participants to
aggressive or non-aggressive video games, & then had
them finish stories
• Those who played the aggressive games completed the
stories with aggressive storylines
– People develop knowledge structures relating to
aggression
Pornography
• Nonviolent pornography:
– Lowered aggressiveness
– Attitude change
• Violent pornography:
– Greater male-to-female aggressiveness
– Greater acceptance of violence against women
– Greater acceptance of rape myths
Violence & Pornography

• Experimental Study: 2 x 2 Factorial Design
• Participants watched movies
• IV: Violent (2—yes or no)
• IV: Erotic (2—yes or no)
• Main effect violent movies led to increased

aggression
20
5/17/2011
Violent Pornography
• Correlational and experimental data suggest
that a relationship between pornography and
men’s hostility to women:
Does exist to some extent
Is particularly found in violent pornography
Is more likely among men who have several risk
factors for violence against women
(Malamuth et al., 2001)
Reducing Violence
• Gerald Patterson and his colleagues found that
teaching parents to reward non-aggressiveness
can reduce aggressive behavior
• In general, psychologists feel that punishment
may not always be effective in training people
to be nonaggressive
Techniques for Reducing Violence

• Novaco’s cognitive approach focuses on
training people to modify their own thoughts
while
Preparing for provocation
Confronting provocation
Coping with arousal and agitation
Reflecting on the provocation
21
5/17/2011
Techniques for Reducing Violence

• Studies comparing homes with and without
guns and countries with and without gun
control suggest that serious gun-control
interventions could result in dramatic
decreases in murders and suicides
22
5/17/2011
Prejudice,
Stereotyping, &
Discrimination
Chapter 11
Chapter Outline
• Definitions
• Current Forms of Prejudice
• Types of Stereotypes
• Forms of Discrimination
• Goals of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and
Discrimination
• Prejudice -
a generalized attitude toward members of a
social group
• Stereotype -
a generalized belief about members of a group
• Discrimination -
behaviors directed toward others because of
their group membership
1
5/17/2011
Change in prejudism over time

Percentage of White participants selecting a trait to
describe Black Americans
Trait 1933 1967 1993

Superstitious 84% 13% 1%
Lazy 75% 26% 5%
Happy-go-lucky 38% 27% 2%
Ignorant 38% 11% 5%
Musical 26% 47% 12%
Very religious 24% 8% 17%
Stupid 22% 4% 0%

Percentage of White participants who report being willing to
admit Blacks into various relationships with them
Willing to admit Black to: 1949 1968 1992

Employment in my occupation 78% 98% 99%
My club as personal friends 51% 97% 96%
My street as neighbors 41% 95% 95%
Close kinship my marriage 0% 66% 74%

Percentage of Adult participants who agree with the
statement: “It’s all right for Blacks and Whites to date
each other”
1987 1997
48% 69%
2
5/17/2011
The Subtle Expression

of Bigoted Views
• Participants in one study were asked to judge
white and black applicants for university
admission
• Participants did not discriminate when the
applicant’s test scores, grades, etc. were
consistently strong or weak
• The following slide shows how discrimination
emerged when the applicant’s credentials were
ambiguous
Highly White Applicant

recommend
Black Applicant
4
Strength of 3
recommendation for
admission 2
1
Barely Non-prejudiced Highly Prejudiced
recommend Participant’s Rating Participant’s Rating
• Participants who scored highly on scales of

prejudice gave black applicants much weaker
recommendations than they gave the white
applicants (with ambiguous credentials)
G. Hodson, J.F. Dovidio, S.L. Gaertner (2002)
Modern Racism
• Modern racism: A form of prejudice that
surfaces in subtle ways when it’s safe, socially
acceptable, and easy to rationalize
• People perceive themselves as fair, but still
harbor negative feelings towards members of
other racial groups
3
5/17/2011
Types of Attitudes
• Attitudes may be explicit or implicit
– Explicit Attitudes: Attitudes we consciously
endorse and can easily report
– Implicit Attitudes: Attitudes that are involuntary,
uncontrollable, and at times unconscious
Sexist Attitudes
Sexism—one gender is superior to the other
• Hostile Sexism
– Belief that men should be dominant over women
– OR Negative attitudes toward the opposite sex
• Benevolent Sexism
– Belief that women should be protected as the weaker sex
– OR Positive, but stereotypical, attitudes toward the
opposite sex
Harassment and Attitudes

Wiener et al. (1997)
• Hostile and Benevolent sexism
– Males high on Hostile sexism – less likely to
perceive defendant’s behavior as harassing
– Effect eliminated for those who are also high on
Benevolent sexism
4
5/17/2011
Sexual Harassment Victims

• 40%-60% of women experience some form of
sexual harassment at work
– 37%-50% of men
• Women more likely to experience moderate
forms
– E.g., teasing, attempts to initiate romance/date
• Men more likely to experience severe forms
– E.g., touching, forced touching of another
• Both men & women more likely to be harassed
by men
• More prevalent in jobs dominated by men
• More prevalent in higher male/female ratio
environments
What is Sexual Harassment?

• Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for
sexual favors, and other verbal or physical
conduct of a sexual nature
• It is harassment if
– Acceptance of it is made a condition of
employment, implicitly or explicitly
– Submission or rejection is made a basis for
employment decisions
– Such conduct has the purpose of effect of
unreasonably interfering with the individuals work
performance or creates intimidating, hostile or
offensive working environment
Types of Sexual Harassment

• Quid pro quo
– Involves an implicit or explicit bargain
– The victim must comply sexually or forfeit an
employment benefit
• Hostile environment
– Life is made so difficult for the victim that s/he
can’t carry out job responsibilities
– Includes:
• Gender harassment
– Lewd/negative comments directed at victim’s gender
• Unwanted sexual attention
– Overtures for sexual contact including flirting & uninvited touching
5
5/17/2011
Sexual Harassment Research

• Blumenthal’s meta analysis (1998)
– 111 studies, 34,000 participants
– Ambiguous behaviors are perceived somewhat
differently by men and women
– Woman rate these behaviors as more offensive
– The difference is relatively small (only about 10%
of the variance)
Sexual Harassment
as Gender Discrimination
• Men are more likely to harass than are women
• But whether men harass or not depends on the
man and on the situation
• In one study, male students were asked to train
a young woman on a complex word-processing
task
Sexual Harassment
• The men were introduced to the female trainee
by a male graduate student who acted either:
Sexist – put his arm around trainee, visually checked
out her body
Professional – respectful of trainee
6
5/17/2011
Sexual Harassment
• The dependent variable in the research was the
amount of sexuality expressed by the male
student while instructing the female trainee
• Results depended on the participant’s chronic
disposition to harass
Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)
4
Sexuality
of Physical 3
Contact 2
1
Professional Sexist
Disposition to Role Model’s Treatment of Woman
Harass
Low
High
• Stereotyping -
process of categorizing an individual as a
member of a particular group and then
inferring that he or she possesses the
characteristics generally held by members of
that group
7
5/17/2011
Stereotypes
• Stereotype: A belief that associates a group of
people with certain traits
• E.g.
– Athletes
– New Yorkers vs. Californians
– Car salesmen
– College students
• Stereotypes are not necessarily negative and
can be accurate
• The problem with stereotypes is when they
overgeneralize
Implicit vs. Explicit Stereotypes

• Implicit Association Test
– IAT (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998)
Criticisms of the IAT

• Arbitrary metric
– Does response latency (time) really measure
preference?
• Implicit attitudes
– Is preference equivalent to prejudice?
– What is the size of the effect on behavior?
• Implicit associations
– Does this simply measure awareness of the
stereotypes?
8
5/17/2011
Psychological Costs of Prejudice,

Stereotyping, and Discrimination
• A token minority in a group tends to
– become self-conscious
– perform less well on tasks that require
concentration
Stereotype Threat
• In one study, black and white students were
asked to take a difficult exam taken from the
verbal portion of the GRE (Graduate Record
Exam)
• For some students, race was made salient by
asking them to report it at the beginning of the
test
Steele & Aronson (1995)
10
Number of 8
Items
Answered 6
Correctly
(adjusted by 4
SAT score)
2
0
Not Salient Salient
Student’s Race
Black
Salience of Race
White
9
5/17/2011
Stereotype Threat
• Stereotype threat -
the fear that one might confirm the negative
stereotypes held by others about one’s group
– Anxiety causes this to come true
• A self-confirming apprehension that one will

be evaluated based on a negative stereotype
– E.g., verbal test between White students and
Black students
– E.g., math test between men and women
Stereotype Threat
• White men did worse on athletic tasks they
thought tapped “natural ability”
• But black men did worse if they thought it
tapped “athletic intelligence” (Stone et al,
1999)
• White men did worse in math when they
thought they were being compared to an Asian
(Aronson et al, 1999)
• Differences in performance due solely to
expectation
Stereotype Threat
White students
Black students
Test
performance
Nondiagnostic of Diagnostic of
abilities abilities
What was said about the test
10
5/17/2011
Stereotype Threat
30
Men
25 Women
20
Performance 15
10
0
Gender difference not Gender difference
expected expected
Stereotype Threat
• Stereotype threat sometimes leads people to
disidentify with those arenas where society
expects them to fail
• Disidentify -
to decide that the arena is no longer relevant to
their self esteem
• Self-handicapping
Reducing Stereotype Threat

• Humor reduces anxiety associated with threat
• Role models who contradict stereotype
• Simply learning about stereotype threats can
reduce them
11
5/17/2011
Dual Process Theory of

Stereotyping
• Dual process theory
Explains how a cognitive phenomenon can
occur in two different ways
• Phase 1: Automatic—implicit, unconscious
• Phase 2: Deliberative—explicit, controlled
stereotypes are activated automatically but can
be overridden under the proper circumstances
-Mental resources
-Time (Devine, 1989)
Goals of Prejudice, Stereotyping,

and Prejudice
• Supporting and Protecting One’s Group
• Seeking Social Approval
• Managing Self-Image
• Seeking Mental Efficiency
The formation of stereotypes

• Social categorization: We like to sort people
into groups
– Makes the world easier to think about (remember,
we don’t like to think!)
12
5/17/2011
The formation of stereotypes

• In-groups vs. out-groups: We carve the world
into groups that we belong to (in-groups) and
groups that we do not belong to (out-groups)
– E.g., your country, religion, sports team
• In-group bias: the tendency to favor our own

groups
• Perceived out-group homogeneity

The phenomenon of overestimating the extent
to which members within other groups are
similar to each other
The out-group homogeneity effect

• The tendency to assume that there is greater
similarity among members of out-groups than
among members of in-groups
• “Asians/Blacks/Jews/Hispanics/Whites/______
_ are all alike”
• Why does it exist?

– Greater contact with our in-groups
– More intimate contact with our
in-groups
13
5/17/2011
Eyewitness Identifications
• Cross-race identifications
– Witnesses are poorer at accurately identifying
individuals of a different race than those of their
same race
– Known as the “cross-race effect” (CRE), “own-race
bias” (ORB), or “other-race effect”
Causes of the Other Race Effect

• Not related to racial attitudes
– People with prejudicial attitudes are not more
likely to experience the ORE than unbiased people
• Cognitive Explanation
– Physiognomic variability
• Perceived differences based on physical features
• Hair color – whites, skin color – blacks
• Social Explanation
– In-group/ out-group differences
• Other race - attention focused on categorizing rather
than facial features
• Same race – categorizing step is skipped
Creating and Maintaining

In-group Advantage
• In-group bias -
tendency to benefit members of one’s own
groups over members of other groups
14
5/17/2011
Minimal Intergroup Paradigm

• Example: students give preferential treatment
to others who they believe share otherwise
irrelevant traits:
A tendency to “overestimate” dots
A preference for the artist Kandinsky
A random assignment to a group with the same color
T-shirt
Creating and Maintaining

In-group Advantage
• Realistic group conflict theory -
proposal that intergroup conflict, and negative
prejudices and stereotypes, emerge out of
actual competition between groups for desired
resources
Example: Members of different ethnic groups may
compete for the same jobs or the same farmland
Robber’s Cave Study (Sherif, 1961)

• In-Group Formation
– The Eagles and the Rattlers
• The Friction Phase
– Competition
• The Integration Phase
– Propaganda—DIDN’T WORK
– Non-competitive situations—DIDN’T WORK
– Superordinate goals
15
5/17/2011
• Superordinate goals are goals that are

achieved by the contribution and cooperation
of two or more people working together with
people whose individual goals are normally in
opposition to theirs
– A goal that could only be achieved through
cooperation between opposing groups
Personal and Social Identities

• Social identity -
beliefs and feelings we have toward the groups
to which we see ourselves belonging
Social Identity Theory

• We desire to feel good about ourselves
• Part of our identity comes from the groups to
which we belong
• Just as individual social comparison can boost
self-esteem, comparing our in-groups with out-
groups that are less well off can raise our self-
esteem (Rubin & Hewstone, 1998)
• Derogating out-groups makes us feel better
about ourselves
16
5/17/2011
Failure
• People whose self-esteem is threatened by
failure may attack members of out-groups
Example: Students in one study derogated a Jewish
student after they themselves failed (Fein &
Spencer, 1997)
Self-esteem and threat

• Derogation of out-groups is generally more
common among those with chronically low
self-esteem (Crocker et al., 1987)
• But when people with high self-esteem are
threatened with failure, they may be even more
prejudiced (Aberson, Healy, & Romero, 2000)
Low-Status Sorority
High-Status Sorority
2.0
Amount of
Negative Bias
against 1.0
Members of
Other Sororities
0
Low High
Subjects’ Self-Esteem
• In a study of sorority women at Northwestern

University, those with low self-regard
derogated members of other sororities
17
5/17/2011
Low-Status Sorority
High-Status Sorority
2.0
Amount of
Negative Bias
against 1.0
Members of
Other Sororities
0
Low High
Subjects’ Self-Esteem
• The views of women who thought highly of

themselves, however, depended on the prestige
of their own affiliations
Goal-based approach
• Give people alternative ways to satisfy their
goals
Example: Students who got to affirm their self-worth
by writing about things important to them later
expressed less stereotypes about a Jewish job
candidate (Fein & Spencer, 1997)
Cognitively Taxing
Circumstances
• 1-704-8926 – Imagine trying to keep that
number in mind while also forming an
impression of “Hilda,” an elderly woman
• Students used more stereotypes in forming
impressions if their minds were occupied with
remembering an eight digit number (Pendry &
MacRae, 1994)
• Cognitive Load
• Time Pressure
18

SOP 3004 - Chapter Slides

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

SOP 3004 - Chapter Slides

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

9/17/2010

Mysteries of Social Life

Describing and Explaining

Describing and Explaining

What makes a good theory?

The scientific method

"Science is a way of thinking much more than it

The scientific method

How can we improve children’s performance in

The scientific method

Being rewarded for a behavior has been shown

The scientific method

Rewarding children with ice cream when they

The scientific method

Give some children a reward for getting a good

The scientific method

The scientific method

Maybe rewarding people for behavior only

Major Theoretical Perspectives

Culture and social behavior

• Evolutionary theorists might ask:

Social Learning Perspective

Social Learning Perspective

Social Learning Perspective

Learning Violence from

Learning Violence from

• One team of researchers hypothesized violent

Learning Violence from

Anderson & Dill, 2000

Social Cognitive Perspective

Social Cognitive Perspective

Perspective What Drives Social Behavior?

Perspective What Drives Social Behavior?

Perspective What Drives Social Behavior?

Perspective What Drives Social Behavior?

Perspective What Drives Social Behavior?

What we pay attention to;

The Person & the

The Interaction Between the

Motivation: What Drives Us

• We have limited mental resources

Willpower: Use it and Lose it

Control Cookie-eaters Radish-

Control Cookie-eaters Radish-

Facial Feedback Hypothesis

• Ss who held the pen with their teeth rated the

Miller & McFarland, 1986

Miller & McFarland, 1986

The Person & the Situation

Does playing violent video games

• Inexperienced players blasted opponents more after

• Experienced players tended to respond at a

Different Situations Prime

• Inside each one of us, there are different

Different Situations Prime

• Example: After reading a word jumble with

What Is Social Cognition?

Four Core Processes of

Four Core Processes of

Four Core Processes of

Four Core Processes of

Four Core Processes of

The Goals of Social Cognition

Even More Errors