PSY 150 403 Chapter 13 SLIDES

Chapter 13

Social
Psychology

PowerPoint®
Presentation
by Jim Foley

Chapter 13
Social
Psychology
How do individuals
respond to other people?

Chapter 13 Overview
Topics we can analyze interactively
 How we think in
relation to other
people
 How other people
influence not only
our thinking but our
actions:
 How we treat each
other, relate to each
other

 Conformity
 Obedience
 Group Behavior






Prejudice
Attraction
Aggression
Altruism
Conflict and
Peacemaking

Social Psychology
Sample social psychology question: Why might
students speak up in class, or hesitate to speak?

To answer this, we can study emotions,
cognitions, motivations, reinforcers, and
more:
 Personality Psychologists could study
the traits that might make one person
more likely than another to speak, and
 Social Psychologists might examine
aspects of the classroom situation that
would influence any student’s decision
about speaking.

Social Thinking
Topics to think about together
 Fundamental Attribution Error
when thinking about the
behavior of others
 Attitudes and Actions affecting
each other:
 Peripheral and Central Route
Persuasion
 Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon
 Role playing affecting attitudes
 Cognitive Dissonance: Actions
affecting beliefs

Social Thinking

Attribution: Identifying causes
Attribution: a conclusion
about the cause of an
observed behavior/event.
Attribution Theory: We explain
others’ behavior with two types of
attributions:
 Situational Attribution (factors
outside the person doing the
action, such as peer pressure), or
 Dispositional Attribution (the
person’s stable, enduring traits,
personality, ability, emotions)

With all that we have
learned about people
so far in this course,
you should make
pretty good guesses
about the nature of
other people’s
behavior, right?
We, especially those
raised in Western,
Individualist cultures,
tend to make
Fundamental
Attribution Error

Social Thinking:

Fundamental Attribution Error
See if you can find the error in
the following comment:
“I noticed the new guy tripping
and stumbling as he walked in.
How clumsy can you be? Does
he never watch where he’s
going?”
What’s the error?
Hint: Next day…
“Hey, they need to fix this rug! I
tripped on it on the way in!
Not everyone tripped? Well, not
everyone had a test that day and
their cell phone was buzzing.”

The Fundamental
Attribution Error: When
we go too far in assuming
that a person’s behavior
is caused by their
personality.
We think a behavior
demonstrates a trait.
We tend to overemphasize
__________ attribution
and underemphasize
__________ attribution.

Social Thinking:

Fundamental Attribution Error
We make this error even when
we are given the correct facts:

Williams College study: A woman was
paid and told to act friendly to some
students, unfriendly to others. The
students felt that her behavior was
part of a her disposition, even when
they were told that she was just
obeying instructions.

Social Thinking:

Self vs. Other/Actors and Observers
 When we explain our OWN behavior,
we partly reverse the fundamental
attribution error: we tend to blame
the situation for our failures
(although we take personal credit
for successes).
 This happens not just out of
selfishness: it happens whenever we
take the perspective of the actor in a
situation, which is easiest to do for
ourselves and people we know well.

Social Thinking:

Cultural differences
People in collectivist cultures (those which
emphasize group unity, allegiance, and purpose
over the wishes of the individual), do not make
the same kinds of attributions:
1. The behavior of others is attributed more
to the situation; also,
2. Credit for successes is given more to
others,
3. Blame for failures is taken on oneself.

Social Thinking

Emotional Effects of Attribution
Problematic
behavior:
someone cuts in
front of us.

How we explain
someone’s behavior
affects how we react
to it.

Social Thinking:

Political Effects of Attribution
When we see someone who is in dirty clothes is
and asking for money, what do we assume is the
cause of the person’s behavior?
1. Too lazy or incompetent to get a job?
2. Lost home due to medical bills and now
unable to get in a condition to compete
for scarce jobs?
Would your assumptions
change if the person were
drunk? Or spoke articulately?

What solutions and policies
make sense if you make the
first attributions? The second?

Social Thinking:

Attitudes and Actions
Attitude:
Feelings, ideas,
and beliefs that
affect how we
approach and
react to other
people, objects,
and events.

Attitudes, by
definition, affect
our actions;
We shall see later
that our actions
can also influence
our attitudes.

Social Thinking:

Persuasion
Two cognitive pathways to affect attitudes

Central Route
Persuasion
Going directly
through the
rational mind,
influencing
attitudes with
evidence and
logic.

“My product has been proven
more effective.”

Peripheral
Route
Persuasion
Changing attitudes
by going around
the rational mind
and appealing to
fears, desires, ass
ociations.

“People who buy my product
are happy, attractive!”

Social Thinking

Attitudes affect our actions when:
1.
2.
3.
4.

“I
1.
2.
3.
4.

External influences are minimal
The attitude is stable
The attitude is specific to the behavior
The attitude is easily recalled.

Example:

feel like [attitude] eating at McD’s, and I will [action];”
There are no nutritionists here telling me not to,
I’ve enjoyed their food for quite a while,
It’s so easy to get the food when I have a craving,
It’s easy to remember how good it is when I drive by
that big sign every day.”

Social Thinking:
Actions affect attitudes:
If attitudes direct our
actions, can it work the
other way around? How
can it happen that we can
take an action which in turn
shifts our attitude about
that action?

Through three social-cognitive mechanisms:

 The Foot in the Door Phenomenon
 The Effects of Playing a Role, and
 Cognitive Dissonance

Social Thinking:

Small Compliance Large Compliance
A political campaigner asks if you
would open the door just enough
to pass a clipboard through. [Or a
foot]
You agree to this.
Then you agree to sign a
petition.
Then you agree to make a
small contribution. By
check.

What
happened
here?

Social Thinking:

Small Compliance Large Compliance
The Foot-in-the-Door
Phenomenon: the tendency
to be more likely to agree to
a large request after
agreeing to a small one.
Affect on attitudes: People
adjust their attitudes along
with their actions, liking
the people they agreed to
help, disliking the people
they agreed to harm.

Social Thinking:

Role Playing Affects Attitudes
“No man, for any considerable
period, can wear one face to
himself, and another to the
multitude, without finally getting
bewildered as to which may be the
true [face].”
-- Nathaniel Hawthorne
“Fake it till you make it.”
--Alcoholics Anonymous slogan
When we play a role, even if we
know it is just pretending, we
eventually tend to adopt the
attitudes that go with the role, and
become the role.

 In arranged
marriages, people often
come to have a deep
love for the person they
marry.
 Actors say they “lose
themselves” in roles.
 Participants in the
Stanford Prison Study
ended up adopting the
attitudes of whatever
roles they were
randomly assigned to;
 “guards” had
demeaning views of
“prisoners,”
 “prisoners” had
rebellious dislike of
the “guards.”

Cognitive Dissonance
If Fiona agrees to do some fundraising
for her college, her attitudes about
school finances might shift to resolve
her cognitive dissonance.

20

Social Thinking:

Cognitive Dissonance
Cognitive Dissonance:
When our actions are not
in harmony with our
attitudes.

Cognitive Dissonance Theory:
the observation that we tend
to resolve this dissonance by
changing our attitudes to fit
our actions.

Origin of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
Festinger’s Study (1957):
Students were paid either large
or small amounts to express
enjoyment of a boring activity.
Then many of the students
changed their attitudes about
the activity. Which amount
shifted attitudes?

 Getting paid more: “I was
paid to say that.”
 Getting paid less: “Why
would I say it was fun? Just
for a dollar? Weird. Maybe
it wasn’t so bad, now that I
think of it.”

Social Influence
Topics we suggest you learn about
 Cultural Influences
 Conformity: Mimicry and
Norms
 Obedience: Factors and lessons
 Group situations and group
behavior:
 Social facilitation
 Social loafing
 Polarization
 Deindividuation
 Groupthink
 The power of individuals

Social Influence

Cultural Influences
 Culture, the behaviors and beliefs of a group, is shared
and passed on to others including the next generation
of that group.
 This sharing of traditions, values, and ideas is a form
of social influence that helps maintain the culture.
 Norms are the rules, often unspoken but commonly
understood, that guide behavior in a culture. Norms
are part of the culture but also part of the way social
influence works to maintain the culture.
 Cultures change over time; norms for marriage and
divorce have changed in Western culture.

Conformity
What form of social influence is
the subject of this cartoon?

Social Influence

Conformity: Mimicry and more
Conformity refers to adjusting our
behavior or thinking to fit in with a
group standard.

The power of
Conformity has
many components
and forms,
including

Automatic
Mimicry
affecting
behavior

Social
Norms
affecting
our
thinking

Normative and
Informational Social
Influence

Mimicry
It is not only
true that
birds of a
feather flock
together: it is
also true that
if we flock
together, we
might choose
to wear the
same
feathers.

Social Influence

Automatic Mimicry
Some of our mimicry of other people is not by
choice, but automatic:
 Chameleon Effect: unintentionally mirroring
the body position and mood of others around
us, leading to contagious yawning, contagious
arm folding, hand wringing, face rubbing…
 Empathetic shifts in mood that fit the mood
of the people around us
 Copying the actions of others, including forms
of violence, hopefully forms of kindness

The Chameleon Effect:
Unconscious Mimicry
In an experiment, a confederate/collaborator of the experimenter
intentionally rubbed his/her face or shook a foot; this seemed to
lead to a greater likelihood of the study participant doing the
same behavior.

Social Influence: Conformity

Responding to Social Norms
When we are with other people and perceive a social norm (a “correct”
or “normal” way to behave or think in this group), our behavior may
follow the norm rather than following our own judgment.
 Asch Conformity studies: About one third of people will
agree with obvious mistruths to go along with the group.
Think this guy will conform?
That square
has 5 sides.

WT???

That square
has 5 sides.

Conforming to Norms
Which comparison line looks the same as
the standard line?
Take turns
answering,
see if a
consensus
develops.

Social Influence: Conformity

What makes you more likely to
conform?
When…
 You are not firmly committed to one set of beliefs or
style of behavior.
 The group is medium sized and unanimous.
 You admire or are attracted to the group.
 The group tries to make you feel incompetent,
insecure, and closely watched.
 Your culture encourages respect for norms.

Two types of social influence
Normative Social
Influence:

Going along with
others in pursuit of
social approval or
belonging (and to avoid
disapproval/rejection)
Examples: The Asch
conformity studies;
clothing choices.

Informational Social
Influence:
Going along with others
because their ideas and
behavior make sense, the
evidence in our social
environment changes our
minds.
Example: Deciding which
side of the road to drive
on.

Obedience: Response to Commands
Milgram wanted to study the influence of
direct commands on behavior.
The question: Under what social conditions
are people more likely to obey commands?
The experiment: An authority figure tells
participants to administer shocks to a
“learner” (actually a confederate of the
researcher) when the learner gives
wrong answers.
Voltages increased; how high
would people go?

The Design of Milgram’s
Obedience Study
One layout of the study

Ow!
The “Learner”
(working with
researchers)

Please
continue.
(Give the
shock.)

But…
…okay.

Shock levels in volts that participants thought they were giving
Slight (15- Moderate
Strong
60)
(75-120) (135-180)

Very
strong
(195-240)

Intense
(250-300)

Extreme
intensity
(315-360)

Danger:
severe
(375-420)

XXX (435450)

Compliance in Milgram’s Study
 In surveys, most people predict that in such a
situation they would stop administering shocks when
the “learner” expressed pain.
 But in reality, even when the learner complained of a
heart condition, most people complied with the
experimenter’s directions:
 “Please continue.”
 “You must continue.”
 “The experiment requires that you continue”…

What Factors Increase
Obedience?
 When orders were given by:
 Someone with legitimate authority
 Someone associated with a
prestigious institution
 Someone standing close by.
 When the “learner”/victim is in
another room.
 When other participants obey and/or
no one disobeys (no role model for
defiance)

Other Evidence of the Power
of Obedience

The bad news: In
war, some people
at the beginning
choose not to
fight and kill, but
after that,
obedience
escalates, even in
killing innocent
people.
The good news:
Obedience can
also strengthen
heroism; soldiers
and others risk or
even sacrifice
themselves,
moreso when
under orders

Lessons from the
Conformity and
Obedience
Studies
When under
pressure to
conform or obey,
ordinary,
principled people
will say and do
things they never
would have
believed they
would do.

The real
evil may
be in the
situation.

To look a person
committing
harmful acts and
assume that the
person is cruel/evil
would be to make
the fundamental
attribution error.

Social Influence:

Group Behavior
Besides conformity and obedience, there are
other ways that our behavior changes in the
presence of others, or within a group:
Groupthink

Social Facilitation
Deindividuation

Social Loafing

Group Polarization

 Individual performance is intensified
when you are observed by others.
 Experts excel, people doing simple
activities show more speed and
endurance in front of an audience… but
novices, trying complex skills, do worse.

Social Facilitation

Social Facilitation

Why would the presence of
an audience “facilitate”
better performance for
everyone but newcomers?
Being watched, and simply
being in crowded conditions,
increases one’s autonomic
arousal, along with
increasing motivation for
those who are confident,
and anxiety for those who
are not confident.

Social Loafing

 Ever had a group project, with a group
grade, and had someone in the group
slack off?
 If so, you have experienced Social
Loafing: the tendency of people in a
group to show less effort when not held
individually accountable.

Why does social loafing happen?
• When your contribution isn’t rewarded or punished, you might
Who will know if
not care what people think.
I’m not pulling as
• People may not feel their contributions are needed, that the
hard as I can? No
one can tell how
group will be fine.
hard each of us is
• People may feel free to “cheat” when they get an equal share
pulling on the rope.
of the rewards anyway.
• Note: People in collectivist cultures don’t slack off as much in
groups even when they could. Why?

Loss of self-awareness and self-restraint.
Examples: Riots, KKK
rallies, concerts, identity-concealed
online bullying.
 Happens when people are in group
situations involving: 1) Anonymity and 2)
Arousal.

Deindividuation

Group Polarization

 When people of similar views form a
group together, discussion within the
group makes their views more extreme.
 Thus, different groups become MORE
different, more polarized, in their views.
People in these groups may
have only encountered ideas
reinforcing the views they
already held.
Liberal Blogs (blue) and
conservative blogs (red) link
mostly to other like-minded
blogs, generating this portrait
of the polarized Blogosphere.

 In pursuit of social harmony (and
avoidance of open disagreement),
groups will make decisions without
an open exchange of ideas.
 Irony: Group “think” prevents
thinking, prevents a realistic
assessment of options.

Groupthink

Social Influence

The Power of Individuals
Despite all of these forces of
social influence, individuals still
have power:
 Some people resist obeying and
conforming.
 Individuals can start social
movements and social forces,
not just get caught up in them.
 Groupthink can be prevented if
individuals speak up when a
group decision seems wrong.

Social Relations: Antisocial Relations
How antisocial behavior happens
Prejudice:
 Prevalence
 Automatic Prejudice
Social Influences:
 Social Inequalities,
 Ingroup Bias
Emotions and Prejudice:
 Scapegoat Theory
Cognitive Roots:
 Forming Categories
 Memory: vivid cases
 Just-world fallacy









Aggression:
Biological Influences
(genetic, neural,
biochemical)
Psychological and
Social-Cultural Factors:
Frustration-aggression
Reinforcement
Family Modeling
Media Models
Social Scripts

Social Relations

Prejudice
 Prejudice: An unjustified
(usually negative) attitude
toward a group (and its
members).
 Discrimination: Unjustified
behavior selectively applied
to members of a group.
 Stereotype: A generalized
belief about a group,
applied to every member of
a group.

Components of
Prejudice
Beliefs
(stereotypes)
Emotions
(hostility, envy,
fear)
Predisposition to
act (to
discriminate)

Levels of Prejudice can Change
Generation X

Generation Y

Baby Boomers

The Silent Generation

The Greatest Generation

Support
for
interracial
dating

Social Relations

Prejudice Remains
 Attitudes about gay marriage have not come
as far as attitudes about interracial marriage.
 Increased prejudice toward all Muslims and
Arabs after 9/11 has still not subsided much.
 Women are still judged and treated unfairly.
 Automatic, subtle, and institutional prejudice
still occurs even when people state that they
have no prejudice in principle (but may have
unconscious prejudiced reactions).

Automatic Prejudice
Study: People were more likely to misperceive a tool as
a gun when preceded by an African-American face,
when both were presented quickly followed by blank
screen or “visual mask.”

Not a gun

Prejudice based on Gender
People may prefer a feminine face
But this preference doesn’t
counteract gender prejudice:
 Preference for male babies,
even abortion or infanticide of
females
 Blaming women for adultery
 Seeing assertiveness or
ambition as attractive in men,
abrasive in women

Social Relations

Social Roots of Prejudice
Social Inequality, when some
groups have fewer resources and it breeds
opportunities than others:
contempt for
the people
 May result from prejudice, but better off,
disrespect for
can also make it worse…
people less
well off.
 May be used to justify people
as deserving their current
position:
“Those doing well

must have done
something right, so:
those suffering must
have done something
wrong.”

Us vs. Them:
Ingroups,
Outgroups

Even if people are randomly assigned to
groups:
 Part of our natural drive to belong to
a group leads to ingroup bias
(favoring one’s own group),
misjudging other groups, and quickly
categorizing strangers: “with me or
against me.”

Social Relations

Emotional Roots of Prejudice
 Scapegoat Theory: The observation that,
when bad things happen, prejudice offers
an outlet for anger by finding someone to
blame.
 Experiments show a link: Prejudice
increases during temporary frustration
(and decreases when experiencing loving
support)
 Link to fear: Prejudice seems absent in
people with inactive fear responses in the
amygdala.

Social Relations

Cognitive Roots of Prejudice
Forming Categories:
The Other-Race Effect
The Power of Vivid Cases:
Availability heuristic ignores
statistics
“Just World” Belief:
People must deserve what they get
Fed by hindsight bias, cognitive
dissonance

Social Relations: Cognitive Roots of Prejudice

The Other-Race Effect
We also are hypersensitive to difference, seeing mixed-race faces
as belonging to the other group:
Which faces are

Caucasians said:
Reality:
Other-race effect: We tend to see uniformity in the appearance of other
groups, and may assume other similarities such as traits;
These presumed similarities form stereotypes.

Judging Based on Vivid Cases
If we see dramatic examples of terrorism carried out by
people who are Muslim, we may form a false
association, when in fact:
9/11 hijackers

The stereotype “Muslim = terrorist” sticks in some
people’s minds even though the vast majority of
Muslims do not fit this stereotype.

Social Relations: Cognitive Roots of Prejudice

Belief that the World is Just
The Just-World Fallacy: Believing
that justice generally happens, that
people get the benefits and
punishments they deserve.
 Implication: If people are rich, privileged, they must
have earned it;
 So, if people are poor, outcast, they must not
deserve better.
Believing that justice happens… leads to blaming
the victim.

The Availability
Heuristic:
Stereotypes are built
on vivid cases rather
than statistics
Cognitive
dissonance: “My
culture and
family treats
minorities this
way, can we be
wrong?”

Thinking
Habits
Reinforcing
Prejudice
Hindsight Bias:
“they should have
known better,”
blames victims for
misfortunes.

Confirmation
Bias: we are not
likely to look for
counterexamples
to our
stereotypes.

Social Relations

Aggression
Definition: Behavior with the
intent of harming another person.
Aggression can have many forms
and purposes:
 Aggression can be physical,
verbal, relational: e.g. punching,
insulting, shooting, betraying.
 Aggression can be planned or
reactive.
 Aggression can be driven by
hostile rage or can be a coldly
calculated means to an end.

Social Relations

The Biology of Aggression
There is not one genetically universal
style or amount of aggressiveness in
human behavior
But there are biological factors which
may explain variation in levels of
aggression:
 Genetic factors (including Heredity)
 Neural factors, esp. Brain Activity
 Biochemistry, esp. hormones and
alcohol

Social Relations

Genetic Influences on Aggression
There is evidence that aggression is tied to genes, even
if we’re not sure which ones:
1. Aggression can be selectively bred in animals and
then passed on to the next generation
2. Identical twins are more similar in their levels of
aggression than fraternal twins or siblings
3. Males are more prone to aggression, and differ by a
chromosome (female XX vs. male XY)

Social Relations

Biochemistry of Aggression
The male hormone
 Testosterone levels are correlated
with irritability, assertiveness,
impulsiveness, and low tolerance
for frustration.
 Traits linked to testosterone levels,
such as facial width, also are linked
to aggressiveness.
 Violent criminal males have high
testosterone levels along with low
serotonin levels
 Reducing testosterone reduces
aggression, in both humans and
animals

Social Relations

Biochemistry of Aggression
Alcohol
Alcohol may chemically or
psychologically make the
following more likely:
 Disinhibited aggressive
behavior
 Aggressive responses to
frustration
 Violent crimes, especially
spousal abuse
 Lack of attention to
peacemaking options
 Interpreting neutral acts
as provocations

Social Relations

Neural Influences
Brain Activity and Aggression
Evidence of brain links to aggression:
 One monkey learned to subdue the aggression of
another, by turning on an electrode implanted in an
aggression-inhibiting brain area
 A woman became rude and violent after painless
stimulation of her amygdala
 Underactive frontal lobes (which inhibit impulses)
are linked to aggression, violence

Social Relations

Psychosocial Factors and Aggression
Levels of aggression are
influenced by:
 Aversive conditions and
feeling frustrated;
 Getting reinforced for
aggressive behavior;
 Having aggression modeled
at home or in the media
 Adopting social scripts for
aggression from culture and
the media.

Aversive/Unpleasant Conditions
Aggression is often a
response to frustration
and other aversive
conditions and events.
 Violence increases
during hot years, hot
days.
 Also aversive: pain,
heat, crowding, foul
odors.
Frustration-Aggression Principle:
After repeated frustrating events,
Anger can build, and find a target, and then:
Aggression can erupt, possibly against someone who
was not the initial cause of the frustration.

Reinforced/Rewarded Aggression
 Sometimes aggression
works! Bullies win
control and obedience,
Robbers gain wealth,
tacklers who injure
receivers get bonuses.
Aggression, like any
behavior, increases
in frequency and
intensity after it is
reinforced.
 Parents and AggressionReplacement Training
can guide youth by
rewarding other,
prosocial behaviors that
still meet personal
needs.

Family, Cultural
Models for
Aggression
 Parents dislike aggressive
behavior in their children,
but unfortunately: They
may have modeled that
behavior, such as yelling, as
their kids watched them
handle frustration.
 Some cultures model
aggression and violence as
a solution to personal and
societal injustice.
 Models for aggression are
also conveyed through
media, in the form of social
scripts.

Aggression in Media: Social Scripts
 Aggression portrayed in
video, music, books, and other
media, follows and teaches a
script.
 When confronted with new
situations, we may rely on
social scripts to guide our
responses. Many scripts
proscribe aggression.

Social Scripts: Culturally
constructed directions on how
to act, downloaded from
media as a “file” or “program”
in the mind.

Effects of Social Scripts

Studies: Exposure to
one aggressive story
increases other forms
of aggressive behavior.

 Watchers of TV crime see the world as
more threatening (needing a
aggressive defense?)
 Randomly assigned to watch explicit
pornography, study participants
suggested shorter sentences for rapists
and accepted the myth that victims
may have enjoyed the rape.

More Media
Effects on
Aggression
 Exposure to violence in
media, especially in
pornography, seems to
increase, rather than
release, male
aggressive impulses.
 Media can portray
minorities, women, the
poor, and others with
less power as being
weak, stupid, submissiv
e, and less human, and
thus deserving their
victimhood.

Video Games and
Aggression

 People randomly assigned to play
ultraviolent video games showed
increases in hostility
 People playing a game helping
characters, showed increased real-life
helping
 People have acted out violent acts
from video games; People playing the
most violent games tended to be the
most aggressive; but what came first,
aggressiveness or games?

The Many Origins of Aggression

Prosocial Relations
Ways that we all can get along
Altruism
Attraction
 Bystander Intervention
The Psychology of
Attraction:
 The Norms for Helping
 Proximity and
Conflicts, Peacemaking
familiarity
 Physical
Factors to address to make
attractiveness
peace:
 Averageness,
 Social Traps
similarity
 Enemy Perceptions
Romantic Love:
Peacemaking activities:
• Passionate Love
 Contact, Cooperation,
• Compassionate Love
Communication,
Conciliation

Social Relations

Understanding Attraction
What factors make two
people feel
attraction, wanting to
be together?
 Psychological factors
bringing people
together:
Proximity, Exposure/F
amiliarity, Attractiven
ess
 What can develop
next: Romantic
Love, with:
Passion, Compassion,
SelfDisclosure, Positive
Interactions, and
Support

Proximity/Exposure and Attraction
 Encounters once depended on proximity, working or living near
the other person, but the key factor here is exposure.
 The Mere Exposure Effect: Merely seeing someone’s face and
name makes them more likeable. Your are more likely to develop
attraction to someone you’ve seen a lot.
 This effect probably helped our ancestors survive:
What was familiar was more trustworthy, safe.
Implications
 In the modern age, thanks to mirrors and
photos, the face we are most familiar with is our
own; so we are now attracted to people that look
like us.
Study: Voters
preferred a
candidate
whose
picture
incorporated
the voter’s
features.

Physical
Attractiveness
People who are rated as
physically attractive:
1. Become the objects of
emotional attraction.
2. Are seen as healthy,
happy, successfully, and
socially skilled, though
not necessarily caring.
3. Are not any happier than
the average person,
4. Do not have higher selfesteem, in fact mistrust
praise as being about
their looks.

Who is
rated as
physically
attractive?
 Standards differ from culture
to culture about what facial
and body features are
desirable.
 Across cultures (suggesting
evolutionary influence):
 Men seek apparent youth
and fertility
 Women seek maturity,
masculinity, affluence
 Both like facial symmetry
and averageness
 Also attractive: Nice people,
and loved ones.

Similarity and Attraction
Opposites Attract? Not usually.
 We already have seen: We like those who share our features.
 We also enjoy being around people who have similar attitudes,
beliefs, humor, interests, intelligence, age, education, and income.
 We like those who have similar feelings, especially if they like us
back.

Romantic Love
Grows into
Compassionate
Love

Held
together by
positive
interaction,
support

Then often
has a phase of
Passionate
Love
Made closer
by Equity
and SelfDisclosure
Often starts
with attraction,
or friendship

Passionate Love
A state of strong
attraction, interest,
excitement, felt so
strongly that people are
absorbed in each other
Components of Passionate Love
 Physiological arousal
(sweating, heart pounding)
 Flattering appraisal of the
other
 Intense desire for the others’
presence

Compassionate Love
Deep, caring, affectionate
attachment/commitment

 Commitment: a plan to
stay together even when
not feeling passionate
attraction
 Attachment is now more
than just desire to be
together: a feeling that
lives are intertwined.

Keys to a Lasting Love Relationship
 Equity: Both giving and receiving, sharing responsibilities, with
a sense of partnership
 Self-Disclosure: Sharing self in conversation increases intimacy
 Positive Interactions and Support: Offering sympathy, concern,
laughs, hugs

Altruism
Unselfish regard for the welfare of
other people;
Helping and protecting others
without need for personal gain,
doing it because it is the right thing
to do, often despite personal risk
or sacrifice.
The Psychology of Altruism
Under what conditions do
people help others?
How do bystanders make a
decision about helping?
What cultural norms reinforce
the motive to help others?

Social Relations: Altruism/Helping

Bystander Intervention
When there is someone apparently
suffering or otherwise in need of
help, how do people make a
decision to help?

Attention:

Appraisal:

Social Role:

Taking Action:


Bystander Action: Social factors
Why are there sometimes crowds of
people near a suffering person and no
one is helping?
 Because of the [Multiple] Bystander
Effect: Fewer people help when
others are available.
Why does the presence of others
reduce the likelihood that any one
person will help?
1. Because of diffusion of
responsibility: The role of helper
does not fall just on one person.
2. People in a crowd follow the
example of others; which means
everyone waiting for someone else
to help first.
3. After a while, people rationalize
inaction: “if no one is helping, they
must know he’s dangerous or faking
it.”


Other factors promoting helping
Bystanders are most likely to help when:
The person we might help:
 appears to be in need, deserving of assistance.
 is a woman, and/or is similar to us in some way.
 is in a small town or rural area.
Meanwhile, upon encountering this person:
 We are feeling some guilt, and/or just saw
someone else trying to help.
 We are not in a hurry, and/or not preoccupied.
 Strongest predictor: We are in a good mood.

Utilitarianism:
seeking the
greatest good for
the greatest
number of people.
Social
responsibility:
Others depend
on us to help, to
go first; it’s the
right thing to do.

Norms/
Processes
Influencing
Helping

Reciprocity: We
help those who
have helped us...
Although someone
must go first.

Social Exchange:
We help if it
brings more
benefit (social
approval, reduced
guilt) than cost
(risk,
inconvenience).

Conflict and Peacemaking
Conflict: A perceived incompatibility in
goals, ideas, and actions between people or
groups.
What factors worsen or reduce conflict?

Social Relations: Conflict and Peacemaking

Social and Psych processes
that make conflicts likely, and worse:
 Social Traps: Situations in which pursuing selfinterest makes things worse for everyone: e.g.
an arms race, or overfishing [Flip side: these
are situations in which cooperation pays off.]
 Mirror Image Perceptions of an Enemy: Both
sides assuming the worst in the other person,
“they’ll just reject me” or “they don’t want
peace.” *Solution: take the first step in trusting+

Social Trap: The Cheater’s Game
Rules:
If you both choose
A (“compromise”),
you both win a
little; If just one
chooses B
(“cheat”), that
person wins a lot;
if both choose B,
no one wins
anything.
Challenge:
Trying to arrange
to cooperate.

Peacemaking: The 4 C’s
 Contact: exposure and
interaction  familiarity 
acceptance  connection
 Cooperation: finding shared
goals, not just focusing on the
incompatible goals
 Communication: sometimes
with mediators
 Conciliation: Gestures that
reduce tension by showing
intension to build alliances
rather than winning conflicts.
Smile. Apologize.

PSY 150 403 Chapter 13 SLIDES

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked (20)

Similar to PSY 150 403 Chapter 13 SLIDES (20)

More from kimappel (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

PSY 150 403 Chapter 13 SLIDES

Editor's Notes