socialpsych2

• analyze the attributes. evaluate the attributes. form an evaluation of the thing/person by integrating all info
• we don't really do this - our attitudes are more primitive than this

• attides are more based on emotion
• immediate reactions before detailed analysis

• evidence for why you don't need reason for attitudes!
• more times you are exposed to something, the more you like it
• another effect of fluency (more fluent, more truer, more familiar = more positive

that attitudes could predict behavior --> wrong from stuides by LaPiere

• "power of the situation" - situational contexts has effects (like disliking but serving Chinese couple)
• specificity matching hypothesis: must make sure that the attitude is at the same level as the behavior (there an be differences between general attitudes and specific behavior)
• habitual behavior - triggered by environmental cues - without much thought to them

• people are thoughtful abotu making choices of what they are goin to do
• formulate attidues through rational process
• we have a reasoned attitude, which leads us to an intention, which leads us to actually doing it
• acknowledges that there are other things that affect our behavior (social norms, perceived behavioral control) --> feed into intention

• we are not rational in behavioral responses - it is more spontaneous but attitudes can still affect us
• attitudes get activated (automatic effects on how we see the world)
• these guide our perception which is biased by the attitude itself (selective perception)
• attitude biased action: react in way that is biased to your attitude, how you define the situation

• deliberative: ample resources, motivation, free attention, time
• spontaneous: resources lacking (behaviors are still influenced by attitudes but in a more spontaneous way)

cognition, affect, past behaviors

• inconsistency (between attitudes and facts of the world) is aversive
• it motivates efforts to restore consistency

• coping strategies
• rationalization/self-justification: come up with reasons to explain the inconsistency or make it trivial (our first choice)
• attitude and belief change: if no easy way to justify, we change our attitudes to go in line iwth behavior/reality

if you make it difficult to join the group - people of the group become more committed (why would they do such hard/embarassing things if teh group was dumb - they justify their actions by saying the group is great)

• people forced to make difficult choice between similarly desirable options
• once committed to a choice, there are then inconsistencies about not going with the other option
• you resolve this dissonance by convincing yourself that your choice was the best (reinterpret the options they were confronted with)
• spreading of alternatives!

• after you make a tough decision
• choice you make: think its much better
• choice you don't go with: think its worse

yes they show spreading of alternatives when were choosing for a friend - when focused on other people, not themselves

• central route
• peripheral route

• thoughtful analysis of arguments (deliberate, analytic minds)
• based on information/learning new information
• in process of analyzing about an argument you can have different kinds of thoughts (supportive elaboration or counterarguing)
• suportive elaboration is the one in which you get persuaded

• teh cognitive responses to the central route - deliberative proceses
• supportive elaboration: helps persuasion, supportive thoughts about the argument
• counterarguing: you won't be persuaded

• spontaneous processes
• go at it in a roundabout way to be persuaded quickly/easily
• create positive feelings - not really any information, just a feeling (humor/beauty)

• another way the peripheral method works
• we have positive reactions to communicators who appear to possess credibility (a role of thumb to decide if point has merit or not)
• Trustworthiness
• Expertise

• Motivation - must be motivated to take central route (relevance or not)
• Attentional Capacity - ability to think a lot about it
• Distracted - decrease ability to think analytically
• Repetition - would increase analytical ability

• central route - gives them a new way to think about that issue! (but audience must have motivation and attentional capacity)
• peripheral route can be transitory

• it is difficult to change people's minds
• related to cognitive dissonance
• we want to feel free, independent, control of our own fate --> when people restrict that freedom --> psychological resentment
• typical response to this is defiance: do the opposite of what you are told not to do --> more entrenched in own viewpoint

• product placements - incidental persuasion
• "buzz agents" - recruit people to be product testers
• subliminal persuasion

• stimuli registered in CNS without conscious awareness (processed but we don't notice it)
• they have effects on some observable response

• repeated subliminal exposure = increased likeness
• another example of fluency

• judgments/evaluations can be influenced by concepts that are activated subliminally
• like parafoveal priming - if focus on center, stuff in periphery don't get processed acutely

• norms are unwritten rules for acceptable/expected behavior
• local norms arise in immediate situations
• global orms pervade a cultural/societal context

• informational social influence
• normative social influence

• majority's behavior can be information (signal) for the situationally correct response/behavior
• likely to occur when uncertainty is high
• its based on the need to be right

• arises even when you know what the correct behavior is
• the majority's behavior produces conformity by implied social pressure (groups power comes from ability to accept/reject you)
• based on the need to be liked/avoid social rejection

perception of lines

conformity drops

if lots of broken windows - it conveys that the norm in that area is to now worry about following the law - let these crimes happen - influences people to engage in criminal behavior

• part of participants became guards and other part became prisoners
• you did things you would normally not do because of the power of authority - power of the situation
• can't resist the expectations that go along with your role

• compliance gaining
• door in the face
• foot in the door
• bandwagon
• outward appearance of authority

• social influence targeting behavior directly - getting someone to do what you want
• Cialdini - The Psychology Influence of Persuasion - methods to manipulate people's beaviors

• start by asking for some really big donation - then immediately ask for a small donation
• based on the reciprocity norm: treat other people the way they treat you (when they scale down the request it is a "concession" so you feel obligated to now say yes)

• treat others they way they treat you
• basis for the door-in-the face techniue

• start out with trivial request that everyone will say yes to
• is say yes, they are more likely to say yes to another question
• based on the need for personal consistency: process of self-perception, we want to see ourselves as consistent (if first cooperate must continue to cooperate)

• process of self-perception
• we want to see ourselves as consistent (related to dissonance theory too)
• basis for foot in the door technique

• technique to influence people to do certain behavior
• make the appearance that everyone else is doing it
• actual/manufactured consensus creates a basis for information and normative social influence (people go along with the group)

• creating the appearance of credibility/authority often works just as well as actually having credibility
• people use appearance to gauge credibility/authority

• we are much more likely to yeild to the influence of people we like and (seem to) like us
• similarity is one key to being liked (way to create instant social bond)
• resemblence created between subjects and candidates (subjects preferred those candidates pictures who had some similarity to their face) --> effect seen biggest in independent partisans

desire to approach

energized by a universal need for affiliation

• target factors - physical attractiveness
• perceiver factors - momentary need for social connectedness
• target x perceiver factors (chemistry) - similarity or complementarity?
• environmental/situational factors

• similarity
• reciprocal liking
• the context - situational arousal
• facial attractiveness
• social status

• the tendency to be attracted to, and affiliate with, others who are similar to oneself
• similarity is a big determinant to chemistry!
• pricipal exception = dominance/submission

• there is a reinforcement value of being liked
• a determinant of chemistry
• gneralized vs selective liking (we want to be selectively liked and we can tell when we are)

• can lead to chemistry
• arousal can be misattributed to attractive bystanders

• a potent target factor for attractiveness
• attractive people are assumed to have positive characteristics (halo effect)
• gender asymmetry - attractiveness has a bigger impact on women's popularity and dating success than on mens
• facial attractiveness can signal reproductive fitness - our preference for certain characteristics could have been shaped by evolution --> explains same judgments across cultures

attractive people are assumed to have positive characteristics

• a potent target factor for romantic attraction
• people try to forge connections/coalitions with others who have higher social status
• enhance one's own status by affiliation
• people avoid interactions with low status, stigmatized indiviudals
• "courtesy stigma"

• the evolutionary psychology perspective
• female investment - big, males interested in cues to a women's ability to make these investments
• male investment - small, but potential for envionrmental investments, females interested in cues to a man's ability to make these investments (status, ambition, age)

when women are high fertility, they pay more attention to attractive males than if they were in low fertility

• "andrenarche"
• in both boys and girls, adrenal glands produce androgen (DHEA)
• before puberty
• around age 10
• rises through adolescent years
• androgen levels predict sexual interest and activity in adults

• yes - t-shirt study
• when t-shirts form ovulating women were smelled the testosterone was much higher than of t-shirts form non-ovulating women

• genes
• hormones
• fraternal birth order: each older brother increases odds of homosexual attraction by 38%
• sex-typical patterns of sexual intersts and behavior
• erotic plasticity - how malleable is sexual attraction? are we all inherently bisexual?

• can sexual orientation be malleable?
• are we all inherently bisexual?
• data kinda says yes

• environmental circumstances
• characteristics of target
• characteristics of perceivers
• chemistry betwen perceiver and traget

• sex drive
• romantic love
• attachment

• a bio system for relating to others
• a basic drive (like drive for food)
• target substitutability
• androgen based
• deprivation = tension --> negative reinforcement
• can not produce closeness
• evolutionary function: mate seeking - initate contact, explore options

• a bio system for relating to others
• non-substitutability
• dopamine = huge role (reward/pleasure) - Ventral Tegmental Area activated --> releases dopamine
• reward-craving (like crack addicts)
• Caudate Nucleus in midbrain also activated -obsessiveness
• Evolutionary function - move beyond superficial attraction, focus on reproduction, mate slection
• doesn't last forever!

• ventral tegmental: activated when see pics of romantic lover - releases dopamine - like addiction
• caudate nucleus - has to do with OCD, obsessiveness to romantic partner

• non-substitutability --> specific person
• vasopressin - possessiveness of mate
• oxytocin - the bonding hormone (buffers anxiety and builds trust) - strong social bond
• evolutionary function (committment, tolerate imperfect mates)

• deals with attachment bio system for relating to others
• deals with possessivness of mate - mate guarding

• in attachment bio relations system
• is a bonding hormone
• creates a connection - makes people trust each other more (child/caregiver)

• infants cannot survive alone! - very dependent on caregivers
• need to have strong predisposition for mother to have strong bond with child - to take care of it

• stranger anxiety - differential responses to other people
• separation distress
• non-substitutability

6-8 months old (for mothers its during childbirth)

• Ainsworth's research
• tested quality of parent-child attachment
• 3 patterns of attachment (3 styles of attachment)

• adaptive attachment
• create strong bond between infant and caregiver
• mother = safe base
• separation distress
• happy reunion

avoidant and anxious/ambivalent

• mom is not the safe base - not concerned with her,
• lack of separation distress
• anger and avoidance at her return
• no feeling of safety when mother is around

• anxiety prior to separation - no safe base (doesn't explore just clings to her)
• very upset with separation
• mixed reactions when reunited (can continue to be stressed)
• bond, but not a healthy bond

• same ones
• secure - happier, more trust, less fear of intimacy, less jealousy
• avoidant - fear of intimacy, less acceptance of partner, short term relationships
• anxious - emotional extremes, obsessions, jealousies
• same % breakdowns as child attachment styles (most are secure)

• early experience --> we develop generalized models of the self and of important others
• a model of what relationships are like - a set of expectations - if we can trust people/relate to them
• negative self model
• negative other model

• associated with anxiety
• fear if we are lovable and this leads to fears of rejection
• leads to jealous tendencies/clingyness

• associated with view that others are not trustworthy and a corresponding critical/dismissing attitude toward significant others
• avoidant attachment style

• avoidance dimension (how you think abotu others)
• and anxiety dimension (positive view of self or not)
• low avoidance high anxiety = anxiety
• low anxiety low avoidance = secure
• low anxiety high avoidance = dismissive avoidant
• high avoidance high anxiety = fearful avoidant

• dismissive - high avoidance low anxiety - classic avoidant person, positive self view, neg. others view
• fearful - high avoidant, high anxiety - neg view of others and self - most undesirable pattern to have!

very few sex-linked idfferences in relationship complaints except inconsiderateness (husbands accused of being inconsiderate much more than wives were)

• complaining and criticizing (this doens't mean disagreeing)
• showing contempt
• defensiveness - cant' accept possibility that you have some flaws
• stonewalling - disengage from discussion

• that men and women are fundamentally diferent (think conflict is an unsurpassable problem)
• that partners cannot change (entity theory = bad, want an incremental thoery)
• sexual perfectionism - not every time will be perfect
• that disagreement is destructive - unaddressed problems only grow!

• couples provided interpretations to the interactions they had
• see hostility when non was intended (hostile attribution bias)
• see own behavior as reasonable and other as a problem (self-serving bias)
• seeing partners neg. behavior as unjustified and from character flaws (fundamental attribution error)

• can be very painful --> mental health problems (depression, substance abuse)
• women more likely to show symptoms of depression after breakup, but in an ongoing intact relationship that was under stress men have stronger reaciton and more problems

• Myth 1: homosexuals don't want/can't maintain long relationships - break up rates are equal!
• Myth 2: homosexuals have unhappy relationships - no difference in relationship quality!
• Myth 3: successful relationships require complementarity (husband and wife roles) - not the case, majority of couples there are no husband and wife assigned people

• the sources of rationalization people use to bring their attitudes in line with their actions
• balance theory
• cognitive dissonance theory

• people try to maintain balance among their beliefs, cognitions, and sentiments
• peopel remember balanced relationships better and rate them more favorably

tendency to reduce dissonance by finding reasons for why we have devoted time, effort or money to something that has turned out to be unpleasant

• subtly compelling individuals to behave in manner that is inconsistent iwth beliefs/attitudes/values - leads to dissonance and change in original values to reduce dissonance
• get people to do something and internalize the message - use smallest amount of incentive necessary
• if big incentive - people don't have to rationalize thei rbehavior

• implicates core sense of self
• behavior was freely chosen
• behavior not justified
• behavior had negative consequences
• negative consequences were foreseeable

• bolstering our identity and self esteem by taking note o f important elements of our identity (way people deal iwth threats to self esteem)
• way to reduce dissonance

• people know attitudes by looking at behavior and inferring what attidues they must have
• not dissonance theory working - find otu attitudes by looking outward at actions instead of inward
• no arousal involved like in dissonance thoery
• invoked when attitudes are vague or unimportant

people motivated tos ee existing social and political system as desirable, fair, and legitimate

• people deal with paralyzing anxiety of inevitability of death by striving for symbolic immortality through preservation of valued worldview and conviction that one has lived up to their values/prescriptions
• things they value wil live on
• connected to a broader culture

• utilitarian - alert us to rewarding objects
• ego-defensive - protect us from being aware of unpleasant facts
• vlue-expressive - help us express values
• knowledge - help organize our understanding of the world

• characteristics of person who delivers the message (attrativeness, credibility, expertise)
• sleeper effect

messages from unreliable sources exert litle influence at first but over time can shirt ttitudes (unreliability of person gets dissociated form the mesage)

• aspects of message itself
• mroe vivid - mroe attitude changing
• more moved by plight of single, vivid individual than by abstract bunch of people

• of person who receives te message
• mood of message must match mood of receiver

assume that others are more sucesptible to being influenced by persuasive messages than they are

• media shapes what you think is important/true
• it doesn't reflect actual reality

people dismiss evidence that contradicts their initial views and derive support from evidence that is consistent with their views

extended thought about a particular issue tends to produce more extreme, entrenched attitudes

• attentioal biases
• previous committments
• pre-existing knowledge
• attitude inoculation: small attachks that would engage our attitudes and counteract the larger attack

tendency to mimic posture/expressions of people around us --> because of ideomotor action - thinking about behavior makes its performance more likely - and interaction will go more smoothly

group size, unamity, expertise --> informational/status --> normative, culture, gender (women conform a bit more), difficulty/ambiguity of task, anonymity, knowing why our reasons differ (the interprtative context of disagreement)

• norm of reciprocity
• reciprocal concessions - door in face
• that's not all technique
• foot in door technique

• positive mood - feel more charitable, prone to give into requests
• egative mood: certain types likely to increase compliance because people want to feel better (negative state relief hypothesis)

• physical proximity - leads to friendship b/c it facilitates chance encounters
• makes you more available
• you anticipate interactions
• mere exposure effect

• validates our beliefs/values
• facilitates smooth interactions - common ground
• expect similar others to like us
• similar others have qualities we like

people who believe an attractive person possesses certain desirable characteristics may act in ways that elicit those very characteristics

• immediacy
• prestige - evaluated more highly
• biology - preference to like features that imply health, symmetry

more selective!

people tend to liek those who provide them with rewards (make the feel good)

• assumption that people are motivated to maximize their own feelings of satisfaction (brings in reward theory)
• pursure interactiosn that yield most favorable differences between rewards and costs
• equity theory - also motivated to pursue fairness/equity

motivated to pursue fairness or equity, in which rewards/costs are shared equally among members

• social rejection activates parts of brain involved in thereat detection - takes resources away from regions for higher ordered reasoning
• triggers aggression

our early atachments with parents shape our relationships for our lives

model of how we view our relatioships with current partners based on childhood experiences with how available and warm our parents were

how prior relationships shape our current beliefs, feelings, interactions via people who remind us of significant others from our past

• communal: long term, individuals feel special responsibilty for other to give/receive according to need
• exchange: short, feel little responsibility for other, giving/receiving are based on concerns of equity/reciprocity - concern abotu own needs ad others contributions

high power individuals are inclined to go after their goals and make quick judments, wheras low power individuals are more liklely to contrain ehavior and attend to toehrs carefully

there components to love - passion, intimacy and committment

• three things make partnrs more committed to each other -
• rewards
• few alternatives
• investments in relationships

neuroticism, lower SES, younger

identifies specific emotions/patterns of communication that predict disatisfaction and divorce - focus on negative and postivie behaviors - 4 horsemen of acopalypse

• capitalize on teh good - share what is good in our lives
• best response is active construction (enthusiasm)
• be playful
• care and forgive
• illusions/idealizaiton in romantic relationships (see partner through lens of illusion and flattery)