PSYC 170


Terms in this set (...)

a unified being which endures through time, which is responsible for ones thoughts and actions, and which is the source of consciousness. A difficult concept to define.
Constant enduring self?
The concept that there is a constant enduring self has been challenged and there is skepticism about this. Philosophers have said that this concept can be destabilizing. Since so many parts of your life change and there are many different components of personality, a loss of self can change your view of the world. Philosophers say we may have a constant self, but different than what you think. Psychologists say that there is evidence for temporal stability in underlying dispositions. Whether or not it is true, because people believe that there is an enduring/relatively-unchanging self their psychology and behavior is affected.
Stable Psychological Self
there is evidence of underlying personality traits that are stable across contexts. Many traits are stable across the lifespan and can be used to predict outcomes across large time intervals. Most cognitive/personality traits are partly heritable.
Spontaneous Self-Description
when people are asked who they are they include demographics, physical characteristics, behaviors, interests, likes, evaluative info, interpersonal/social info, traits. Mostly information that they think makes them distinctive. When 6th graders were asked this question they mentioned things that were distinctive more often (like if they were older/younger than classmates, born somewhere different, the minority gender, different eye color/weight).
how someone defines themself. A person's beliefs, experiences, and generalizations about the self, in specific behavioral domains. Common self schemas for college kids are weight/body, intelligence, independence, extraversion/introversion, masculinity/femininity. These self-schemas come from self observation, feedback from others, social comparison, but mostly culture.
Individual Identities
traits, dispositions, internal characteristics, abilities, and capacities.
Social Identities
the social group and categories that you identify as a part of who you are (collective identities). The specific relationships you have (relational identities).
Cultural Differences in Self Concept
individual identities are more central to western views of self. Social identities are more central to interdependent eastern views of the self. Interdependent self construal's are also more common among south Americans, Africans, Mediterranean's; also women.
Stability of Self Concept Traits Study
they did a study comparing students from the US and Japan with 20 statements about oneself and those from the US said more stable traits than the Japanese. Then they re-did the study with students from Hong Kong that had eastern and western influences and some did it in English others in Chinese. They found evidence that choosing traits in English makes you draw on a western representation of self.
Social Comparison Information in Self Concept
in order to know who we are we need to compare ourselves to others (especially when there is no objective standard of evaluation which is particularly true for psychological traits). It is hard to answer how kind, extroverted, or self controlled you are without having others to compare to. Social comparisons underlie our self-concepts.
the desire to view ourselves in a favorable light. We don't want to think about our own flaws. The downside of self-enhancement is that overly self-enhancing people are seen as arrogant and narcissistic. Also, there is evidence that it can lead to over confidence. But it is also a good thing because it can help you achieve better mental health.
Social comparison
social comparison can be used to serve motivational goals. Upward social comparison: when you compare yourself to those who are better than you are
Downward Social Comparison: when you compare yourself to those who are worse than you are on a particular trait. This can be self-serving because you would rather compare yourself to someone that did worse than you did (especially if you think you did badly). This allows you to preserve your own positive self-concept. Also, when people are in threatening situations they like to compare them to people that are worse off so they can cope better.
Downward Comparison Study
they did interviews of women who were currently undergoing treatment for breast cancer and then looked to see if the description of their condition involved an upward or downward social comparison. Far more of the comparisons were downward.
Self-Serving Thoughts/Perceptions
we see ourselves as better than average on many dimensions. You are motivated to see yourself in a positive light. We take credit for our successes and distance ourselves from our failure. We see ourselves as contributing more to joint activities than our partners. We see ourselves as likely to have better outcomes than other people (and more in control).
Better than average effect study; grammar
they did a study with Cornell students looking at a grammar test. Then they had the kids estimate hoe they did relative to others that took the test and then rank their own ability. (they did the same test with logical ability instead of grammar). The actual performance was often lower/higher than people thought. Most people ranked their perceived ability at 70, but on average they were more like 50. People assume they did better than they actually did.
Better than average effect study; humor
students rated their sense of humor relative to comedians most people said their own sense was better than average. It is hard because it is subjective. Also, university professors almost all rate their teaching as better than average, which can't be true.
Correlation between self ratings and importance of trait
as the importance of the self ranked trait rises so does the average ranking people will give themselves on the traits. So important traits show more self-enhancement.
Explaining success and failure study
participants did a bogus study on social perception and then they were either given feedback that said they did well or badly. The dependent variable was what they attributed their results to. People that were told they did badly attributed it to luck but people that did well attributed it to social perceptiveness. Also, if you did badly you were more likely to say the test wasn't very accurate.
Judgments of contributions to joint efforts study
they surveyed married couples and asked what percentage each percent though they did of random tasks, but then their summed spousal contributions were always over 100%. This could be because you see your own work more than the other persons.
Future negative life events study
looked at the chances people ranked for themselves relative to other average same-sex students. People estimated themselves as way less likely to have bad things happen and way more likely to have good things happen.
people have a tendency to engage in self-defeating behavior in order to have a ready excuse if they end up performing badly or failing (or to look more impressive if you succeed). You put an obstacle in your way so that you can blame it if something goes wrong so you don't blame yourself, and you can manage others' attributions. People do this when they want to preserve an existing positive impression of themselves or when they want to amplify others' impressions of their successes.
Self-Handicapping Study
subjects were told they were in an experiment on drugs and intellect. Then they perform an initial problem set and then take a drug and take another set. The independent variable is if the questions are solvable/unsolvable so how you feel about the questions. At first all are told they did well but then after they take the drug they either take inhibiting, enhancing or control. Inhibiting is self handicapping so people that did solvable problems didn't take this but people in unsolvable took this one because they thought it was luck the first time so they wanted to be able to blame the pill the second time. When they redid the study without first telling everyone they did well less people took inhibiting because they thought they did bad so they didn't need to maintain that image.
the desire to maintain a consistent self-image (even if it is negative). We want others to see us the way we see ourselves.

Desire for Self-Verification Study: people were asked if they wanted to have a interaction partner that had unrealistically good views of you or accurate but negative views. People with a positive self-concept want the favorable but negative want unfavorable, this shows the idea of self-verification over self-enhancement.
an evaluative (good or bed) judgment of a target.
Attitudes relating to behavior
we often act in ways that are no consistent with our attitudes. There is evidence that attitudes don't predict behavior. Student attitudes towards cheating bear little relation to if they cheat, attitudes to church are modestly linked with attendance, self described racial attitude provide little cue to behaviors.
Attitudes and Behavior Study
they wrote to 251 restaurants asking if they will accept Chinese people as guests and 92% said no and one said yes. They then visited the restaurants with an Asian couple an only one place actually refused to serve them.
Power of the situation
situational factors affect the translation of an attitude into a behavior. Some situations make it easier to express or act on attitudes. Some situations actively suppress expression of certain attitudes. Attitudes are more predictive when examining aggregated rather than one-off behaviors.
You've not got mail study
shows that prejudicial attitudes can predict prejudicial behavior in certain situations. First they test attitudes towards Arabs based on agreement with negative statements about Arabs. Then the students receive a misdirected email saying that they got this scholarship but the name is either Mohammed or Peter. The dependent variable is how often they email back to correct it. As prejudice increased the rate of response decreased but throughout it was higher for Europeans.
Attitude Inconsistency
implicit and explicit attitudes can conflict but it can be difficult to see this.
Explicit Attitudes
operate at the conscious level. They are measured by traditional self-report measures.
Implicit Attitudes
operate at the unconscious level. Harder to measure because you can't use self-report.
Implicit Associations Test (IAT)
a common way to measure implicit associations. The dependent measure if the difference in response time to different pairs of stimuli. Different reaction times measure implicit associations between race and positive-negative dimension. Shows low correlation with explicit attitudes. It raises the possibility that implicit and explicit attitudes can be inconsistent. This is controversial because people ask if it actually measures attitudes and prejudices. It is ambiguous so there are alternative reasons to explain it like cultural knowledge or circumstances. Also it could be due to self referential processing (if something is like you) or caused by anxiety about appearing prejudiced.
Attitude Strength
accessibility, personal relevance, extremity, and non ambivalence. Attitudes will drive behavior if they com to mind readily (accessible), are personally relevant, are extreme, are held non-ambivalently.
Attitude Accessibility and Behavior Study
2 weeks before the study they measured attitudes towards affirmative action (gender). Then they tested behavior by having the subjects read about a lawsuit by a woman plaintiff suing a university for gender discrimination and then decide what should happen. The control group had a low correlation between attitudes and behavior, the experiential group is told to think about affirmative action and then correlation is higher.
Attitude Specificity
to get a response it is better to ask more specific questions so you can find out more about attitudes.
Attitude Specificity and Behavior birth control Study
they kept increasing the specificity of the claim and then as you do this attitude and behavior correlation increases. So specific attitudes are better predictors of behavior.
Elaboration Likelihood Model
asks how likely people are to elaborate on/think deeply about a persuasive message. There are two routes to persuasion based on two modes of processing info.
Central Processing
analytic, systematic, demanding. This is used with relevant issues that you are knowledgeable about and feel responsible. The way to change your attitude is through argument quality.
Peripheral Processing
heuristic, superficial, and undemanding. This is used with irrelevant issues, when you are distracted, or if the message is incomplete or complex. The way to change your attitude is through the source/volume of arguments and the apparent consensus.
Central route to persuasion
persuasion through the strength of arguments themselves. You use this when you have motivation and ability to think systematically and carefully about an issue. Involvement and relevance increase motivation. Need for cognition increases motivation. Accountability increases motivation. Age increases motivation and ability. IQ increases ability. Distraction decreases ability.
Persuasion Via Central route Study
persuasion concerning a new exam at a students' school. The independent variable is the strength of the argument and if the policy will take effect next year or in ten years (varying personal relevance). The dependent variable is the attitude change based on arguments. With strong arguments attitude change is more than weaker arguments with both high and low personal relevance.
Peripheral route to persuasion
persuasion through peripheral cues—features of communication that trigger acceptance without much thinking. It is impacted by features of the message source like credibility/expertise or attractiveness/fame. Peripheral cues include features of the message source like credibility/expertise, attractiveness/fame, trustworthiness; and features of the message like emotions it evokes and vividness.
Persuasion Via peripheral route Study; credibility
they did the exam study again but the source expertise changed from high school students or a special commission. Source expertise should be superficial so if it doesn't really impact you this would matter, but if it does then source doesn't matter.
Persuasion via peripheral route study; attractiveness
persuasion about product endorsement (disposable razors). The independent variable was if the endorser was famous or not and then how relevant it is. Low involvement cared more about famous people but high involvement cared about citizens.
Defenses Against Persuasion
there is no one way that works, but attitude inoculation can help. Mild exposure to a persuasive message, and the attempt to defend against it, weakens the later effect of a strong persuasive message.
Attitude Inoculation study
they ask beliefs in cultural truisms about mental illness not being contagious and brushing teeth after meals and then subjects get put into three groups. One with no attack, one with supportive argument info, and one with inoculation defense where they get a mild attack on their belief and counter argument. Then they test beliefs after an attack and the attitudes remain strongest in inoculation condition.
Social Facilitation
the mere presence of other people improves performance on a variety of tasks. Looking at if the presence helps or hinders the performance. In the presence of others there can be enhanced performance or a decrement in performance.
Triplett's Studies
when bicyclists are racing against each other they will perform better than when they are racing against a clock.
Zajonc's Mere presence theory
suggests that we can understand the influence of others on performance by considering arousal, dominant response, and task difficulty. The presence of another person or member of the same species increases arousal, which causes a strengthened dominant response, which for an easy task will create performance enhancement and for a difficult task will create performance impairment.
when humans are around other species they tend to experience physiological arousal (not excessive but present). His also occurs with other species (related to evolutionary drive of theory).
Dominant Response
when you are aroused you are most likely to perform the dominant response which is most spontaneous, automatic, and requires the least amount of effort.
Task Difficulty
if you are performing a skill that is really easy given your ability your dominant response and arousal will help so you'll do better. If it is a hard task for you then your arousal will hinder your work.
Social Facilitation in Pool Players Study
the independent variable is the presence or absence of audience and their skill level (below/above average). The dependent variable is % of shots made. Those below average did better without audience and those above average did better with audience.
Evaluation Apprehension
the thought of being evaluated causes arousal, which hinders the bad players but helps good players. It might exert social facilitation effects that go beyond just mere presence. An evaluative audience can sometimes produce greater effects than a non-evaluative audience. It can work in concert with mere presence.
Social Facilitation in cockroach study
the independent variable was the presence of other cockroaches and the complexity of the task. The dependent variable was running time. In the complex maze the ones with others present did a little better and in the simple the alone did a little better.
Evaluation Apprehension or Mere Presence Study
participants arrive at a lab and sit at a computer and then they are either told to type their own name (easy) or type a code name (hard). Some of these were alone, some with a blindfolded confederate doing another experiment, and then one with an experimenter watching. The dependent variable was how long typing took. With own name they were slowest alone. For unfamiliar it takes longest with mere presence and then attentive audience.
Group advantages
larger pool of knowledge and skills, division of labor.
Social Loafing
the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts toward a common goal than when they are individually accountable. Disadvantage of working in a group. The lack of accountability/identifiability and illusion of higher self contributions are known causes. It is less likely to occur when the task is intrinsically interesting, the groups are smaller and others in the group are liked or respected.
Social Loafing Study; pulling
people pull more when they are alone than in a group on this contraption thing. The group size varied from 1-6 and then they measured % change in average pull between conditions. As group increases average individual pull decreases. When people thought they were in a group but weren't they still decreased performance. As pseudo group's size decreased there were incidental audience members, which should have been controlled for because it could make it social facilitation.
Social Loafing Study; sound
the independent variable was group size and the activity was clapping/cheering. The dependent variable was sound per person. When alone they are louder. With blindfolds and headphones they did real and pseudo groups and the same drop in effort happened.
Social Loafing in the Wild
they did a study about the agricultural output in Russia. Plots of land that were privatized were 1% of land but 27% of output.
a psychological state that is produced by anonymity combined with an outward focus, a sensitivity to external, as opposed to internal, cues. Anonymity PLUS reduced self-awareness. It results in the reduction of normal constraints against deviant behavior. Examples: car honking, looting, lynch mobs, military atrocities against civilians, suicide baiting, aggression in war. It can also produce positive behavior during religious worship (there can be a sense of community) and you wont be aggressive. This also happens in rock concerts and protests.
De-individuation among trick-or-treaters study
the independent variable was if kids were alone or in a group and if they were identified (asked for name) or not. The dependent variable was % that stole extra candy. Way more anonymous kids did it and way more group kids did it.
De-individuation, gender, and aggression study
they play a video game to defend against bomb attack and then drop bombs in the second round. The independent variable was the participants gender and then if they are de-individuated or individuated (close and name tag/questions). The dependent variable was how many bombs they dropped. It increased aggression more in women then men when de-individuated but decreased aggression in women when individuated.
De-individuation and Social Cues
subjects indicated how much they wanted to shock an obnoxious learner confederate (in a group of 4 other subjects). They did this while wearing costumes that looked like KKK (anti-social) or a nurse (pro-social). In the individuated condition shock level subjects are identified by face and name and in de-individuated they are not identifiable. People in KKK outfits were more likely to shock when de-individuated but nurses shocked less then.
Group Decisions
groups confer to certain advantages, but the nature of group processes can lead to major problems with their decisions.
when (sometimes great) groups make dumb decisions. When people get together in a group and are involved in a cohesive in-group they might strive for unanimity which overrides their motivation to realistically appraise alternative courses of action. Many very important decisions made by very powerful very smart groups are not actually that great. Examples: bay of Pigs, McArthur's campaign in North Korea, lack of US preparation for Pearl Harbor, Nazi Invasion in Soviet Union. USSR in Afghanistan, Iraq invasion of Kuwait, Challenger Space Shuttle Disaster.
Road to Groupthink
antecedents are that the group is cohesive, isolated, had a directive leader, stressful time, and poor decision making rules. The symptoms are the illusion of invulnerability, moral certainty, stereotyped view of out-group, self censorship, direct pressure to conform, illusion of unanimity, and mind guards. These lead to defective decision making which had incomplete survey of alternatives, failure to examine risks of favored alternative, poor information search, and few contingency plans.
Preventing Groupthink
the leader can shape ground processes by encouraging everyone to contribute and encouraging the expression of dissenting ideas or remaining impartial and not indicating the solution he/she favors. They can also seek outside opinions, create subgroups, seek anonymous opinions, and allow group members to think through critical problems on their own at first.
Nominal Group Technique
identify the problem to be solved, then each member formulated ideas for solutions and writes them down, then each member presents ideas to the group for evaluation, then private ranking of solutions, then the highest ranked solution is chosen. This is a good technique because it is an efficient use of time, limits conformity pressure and self-censorship, all solutions get considered and it prevents the illusion of unanimity.
Criticism of Groupthink concept
it is based primarily on observation rather than experimentation. Observational accounts are retrospective. Imprecision in exact causal mechanisms, value is primarily heuristic.
Group Polarization
the tendency for group discussion to strengthen the initial predisposition of the group. Whatever way the group is leaning initially members tend to polarize further in that direction following discussion.
Risky Shift Study
people thought that groups would make more risky decisions. The average individual says take a risk at like 4/10 chance of successes, then when in a group what happens is consensus is more like 2/10. Risky shift is the tendency for groups to make a more risky decision. This was renamed group polarization as the theory changed.
Group Polarization Study
the independent variable was if people were told to talk about De Gaulle or Americans and then the time they make the decision (pre-discussion, group consensus, or post discussion). They measured how favorable the ranking was. They found that the group consensus was always more extreme than the pre and post discussions, but people maintain the group attitude after they leave the group.
Group Polarization and Racial attitudes study
separate groups of students who had shown high or racial prejudice were put in groups and told to discuss with like minded kids. Post discussion they had increased in severity of prejudice or decreased if that's the group they started in.
Cause of Group Polarization; persuasive arguments
exposure to more favorable arguments from one side (purely informational influence). Reading others' arguments in private with information about the group's overall position/leaning concealed, attitude change and polarization can still occur
Cause of Group Polarization; social comparison
individuals compare their position to others' and desire to be prototypical exemplars of the socially desirable position (normative influence). When people are simply told of others' positions, but without the reasons supporting them, polarization can still occur.
Group Polarization and the jury
they have done over 500 mock juries and shown that real world juries pre deliberation average verdict is different. The trend in responses on the initial ballot can predict the final outcome 90% of the time. The average initial position gets polarized.
Social influence on judicial decisions
ideological decisions made among judges are shown. Group influence is less well known and documented. Recent studies examined decisions under different court compositions to see if political affiliations of judges affect verdicts. Looked at decisions made by three person courts; RRR, RRD, RDD, DDD.
intentional action aimed at causing harm. There is a ton of aggression in the world. 14,400 wars, 5 million women abused per year and 1200 killed by a partner, humans systematically kill their own crimes. 95,000 crimes and 50 murders a day in US, high homicide by gun. The US is not the most violent place, but it is the most violent industrialized country.
Hostile Aggression
aggression stemming from feelings of anger and aimed at inflicting pain.
Instrumental Aggression
aggression as a means to some goal other than causing pain.
Cause of aggression
Freud said it comes from an unconscious drive (psychoanalytic theory); the drive to death. Darwin said it came from selection of traits.
Dispositional Cause of Aggression; Personality
there are very few reliable predictors (like Type A or self esteem), one trait that does predict is narcissism. Narcissistic people have inflated views of personal superiority, a sense of entitlement, fantasies about self-greatness, and high (but unstable) self esteem. When insulted (by anything, including loud noises) narcissists react more aggressively.
Situational Cause of Aggression; Substances
alcohol can reduce self-control and decrease inhibition. Alcohol myopia is how intoxication facilitates aggression by impairing cognitive processing. It is hard to understand social situations and see the alternatives to aggression. There is indirect evidence that says caffeine is also a source of aggression.
Situational Cause of Aggression; Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis
one of the oldest explanations for aggression. Says that being frustrated when you are in a pursuit of a goal will make you act more aggressively. There is strong support for the idea that frustration can cause aggression, but it is not the only cause, and aggression does not necessarily result.
Frustration Aggression Study; toys
young kids in a room are given nice toys and then they vary how frustrated these kids are because half get to play with the toys but the other half first have to see them and then wait a while before thy can play. They saw that the frustrated kids destroyed the toys.
Frustration Aggression study; lines
the closer you are to a goal the more frustrating it is to be denied, which means that you will behave more aggressively. In a study people were in line and then got cut. They varied how close you were to the goal to vary frustration. Either you got cut when you were 12th or 2nd. The people that were second were more aggressive.
Situational Cause of aggression; Environmental cues
the presence of an aggressive cue, in combination with provocation, can increase aggression.
Environmental cues to Aggression study
They did an experiment were the participants were evaluated by confederates when solving problems and then participants evaluated confederates. Both could shock is performance was bad. The confederate shocked the participant 7 times. Then the subject was either with an aggressive cue (rifle and revolver on the table) or a badminton racket. The dependent variable was then how many times and for how long they shocked. They shocked more with the gun in the room.
Situational Cause of Aggression; Social learning theory
people learn how to act aggressively and they learn the consequences of their aggression.
Social learning theory study
they did the Bobo doll study where half the kids watched an adult beat it up and half didn't. When allowed to play the ones that saw the aggressive behavior mimicked it.
Media violence and violent behavior
there is evidence that kids watch a lot of violent TV. The average 12 year old has seen more than 100,000 acts of violence on TV. So if people are imitating what they see this would induce violence. In the study half the kids were shown violent shows and half saw a sporting event. Then they watched how willing they were to hurt a kid by pressing either help or hurt. For both boys and girls (less so girls) watching the violent show increased willingness to hurt. There could be other explanations like childhood neglect or family income or parental education.
Video Games study
they looked at the amount of time playing video games and then aggressive delinquent behavior and the correlation was .46. They did a study with college kids assigned to play a game 4 times over a week it was either violent or not and then in a game they played with another kid they try to push a button faster. The winner gets to blast the other with noise and they measured how long and loud the noise was. The violent video game people did it much worse.

Video Games Analysis: playing games can predict increases aggression and anger and arousal but it is not known how important and how big the effects are.
Other social influence of aggression
mass shootings can serve as a source of social influence for other potential shooters. They can provide a way for people to channel their aggressive impulses.
Catharsis and Aggression Study
participants were insulted and then wrote an essay, which was criticized. They then punched a bag while thinking of the person, punched a bag while thinking about fitness, or sat quietly. Then they played a competitive reaction time task against the participant where you could blast noise if you win. The dependent variable was the sound. The catharsis condition ended up being the most aggressive showing catharsis doesn't work.
beliefs about the attributes that are characteristic of a particular group (cognitive). They can be positive or negative, accurate, inaccurate, or partially accurate.
Prejudice vs Discrimination:
P: negative attitude or affective response towards a particular group and its members (affective).
D: unfair treatment or behavior towards members of a particular group, based on their membership of that group (behavioral).
Field Study; Race Based Discrimination
New Jersey turnpike study about driving while black. Black driver make up 13.5% of motorists, 15% of speeders, and 35% of drivers stooped be police. Police say they are more likely to carry drugs, but data says this is false, it is based on racial profiling in police behavior based on a wrong theory about drug possession.
Example of Discrimination; patients in a psych hospital
two responses to violent behavior can be to seclude an individual or to restrain them and give them a drug. Restraint is used four times as often for black patients. Discrimination ends after like 30 days of being in the institution because judgment is individualized.
Field Study; Job discrimination
four college graduates applied for entry-level jobs. Half were black half were white. The applicants were very similar and had almost identical resumes and were matched in experience, education, and professional appearance. The white applicants were called back like three times as often.
Prejudice in the media
during Hurricane Katrina media said that white people that got food had found it but black people had looted.
Social influence causing prejudice
social learning and modeling is how children learn from their parents and peers. This can be done through classical conditioning (associations), operant conditioning (social reward and punishment), observational learning, or explicit instruction. Conformity pressures can be normative and informational (relevant to kids and adults).
Social Influence/Prejudice Study
observers watched a debate between white and black confederates. At the end when the black debater lost a confederate said either something racist of negative but not racist. Observers then rated the debaters' skill. With no comment and a non-racist comment they ranked skill pretty high, but when they heard a racist comment they ranked it lower.
Cultural attitudes exert social influence
prejudice used to be more acceptable; people thought whites and blacks were different species and Jews were inferior to whites. Intelligence doesn't make you immune to prejudices.
In-Group Out-Group Categorization
peoples willingness to create in groups and out groups and exclude those in the out groups. Once you are placed into a group you will hold positive attitudes about that ground and negative attitude about the out-group. This happens for trivial things. We categorize people into groups (cognitive), we identify with our in-group (motivational). We self enhance and view our in-group as superior (motivational).
In Group Study
the independent variable is if people are in the group. They do a dot estimation and then split people into under and over estimators. Then they have to allocate resources either to their group members or to the other group. People favored their groups. People want to maximize the relative in-group advantage over absolute in-group benefit.
Dispositional Causes of Prejudice
prejudicial attitudes are somewhat general. The authoritarian personality; if someone is prejudiced on race; they will also be racist in gender, and other categories.
Right Wing Authoritarianism
if people agree with statements like our country needs discipline, established authorities are usually right, nothing is wrong with nudist camps (reverse scored). It predicts the extent to which people are prejudiced.
Social Dominance Orientation
some groups of people are inferior to others. In getting what you want sometimes you need to use force against others. If certain groups stayed in their place we would have fewer issues. Group equality should be ideal (reverse scored). This can tell prejudice too.
Measurement of Explicit Prejudice; Modern Racism Scale
because it is explicit it operates at the conscious level and it best measure by self report. the more you agree with statements on the scale the more you are seen as racist. Done in an anonymous setting so people aren't uncomfortable giving their answers. There has been a decrease in explicit prejudice. The statements are the blacks are getting too demanding for equal rights, over the past years the government and news have shown more respect than blacks deserve, and it is easy to understand the anger of blacks (reverse scored).
Implicit racial stereotypes
implicit stereotypes might differ from explicit ones. The study looks at implicit beliefs/stereotypes rather than attitudes.
Implicit stereotypes study
subjects were assigned to two groups; half were subliminally primed with neutral words and half were subliminally primed with words associated with blacks. Then they have to judge and ambiguously hostile act (if someone refused to pay their rent until their apartment was repaired) as either hostile or assertive. The hostility judgments were higher following subliminal activation of black stereotypes.
IAT predicting behavior
white participants completed IAT measures and explicit attitude measures. During the session they interacted with a black and white experimenter. Interactions were recorded and watched for behaviors. The dependent variable was the difference in their behaviors. IAT correlated with explicit attitudes at .46, IAT correlated with biased behavior at .34, and explicit attitudes didn't predict biased behavior.
there is a lot of controversy as to whether the IAT measures implicit prejudicial attitudes/implicit racism. It might capture some of this but at the individual level you cant tell. Highly prejudiced individuals will show a strong IAT does not mean that individuals that show a strong IAT will be highly prejudiced. There is clearer evidence for implicit stereotypes than implicit attitudes.
blaming someone for something they are not at fault for. A member of a dominant group derogating, blaming, or aggressing against a member of a subordinate group when the dominant group member's power/status is independently threatened. As conditions improve prejudice effects go down. Independent threat creates lashing out to a random group.
Scapegoating study
participants did an intelligence test and then watched a video of a job applicant. Half were given a self-esteem threat by being told they did badly but others were not (told they did well). Also the applicant was either Jewish or Italian. They measured how the people rated the applicant and their own self-esteem after test, before video, after video and rating. If you got positive feedback there was no change in ratings, but negative feedback gave lower ratings when she was Jewish. Increase in self esteem highest for those that got negative feedback and rated Jewish woman.
Biased Decision making
people sometimes make biased decisions that reflect stereotypes or prejudice, but they can often be explained or rationalized away.

Biased Decisions study: participants were told to select the best job applicant to be a foreman at a construction job. The first candidate was a man and the second a woman that both had similar qualities (with small variations), but even when qualities were switched people chose the man.
Interactional Consequences
consequences in social interactions
Study on interactional consequences
recent studies looked at inter-racial interactions looking at attitudes and associations of the white interaction partners and how they shape interactions. White subjects did the implicit racial attitudes task and explicit racial attitude measure. White and black subjected were in a video taped interaction. Coders rated nonverbal and verbal behaviors on friendliness and then white and black participants rated each other. Showed that explicit attitude predicts verbal friendliness but not nonverbal. Implicit attitudes are vice versa.
Interpersonal biases
explicit attitudes and implicit attitudes/associations can have important and different consequences in interactions. Implicit attitudes/associations and explicit attitudes may not function in the same way. Implicit attitudes may be more important determinants of interactional dynamics because they predict what matters in interactions.
Priming race and perception study
participants judged whether a presented object was a gun or tool. They primed with black or white faces first (not quite subliminal but quick). Then they measured how long it took to identify the subject. It took much longer to guess a tool when black faces were primed than it did for a gun.
Priming race and perception study 2
they did subliminal priming of a white or black face and then they presented objects in degraded views that became more clear over 41 frames. Some were weapons and others neutral. The dependent variable was the number of frames at which they identified. People guessed crime relevant objects way faster with the black prime.
Attributional Ambiguity:
the task of interpreting social feedback can be complicated/ambiguous when a person is a member of a stigmatized group. Positive feedback from a majority group member can be genuine (I did well), alternative (in spit of prejudice), alternative two (because they feel prejudiced). Negative feedback can be seen as genuine (I did bad) or alterative (because of prejudice). Attributing negative social feedback to prejudice might have self-protective consequences (but can also reduce positive impact of good feedback).
Attributional Ambiguity Study
did a study on friendship development where black subjects filled out self-descriptions given to a white confederate for social evaluation. The independent variables were if the social evaluation was positive or negative and if the race is seen or unseen. Then they looked at black subjects' attributions for white subjects' responses and their self-esteem before and after. They thought feedback would have more of an impact when it is not potentially impacted by prejudice. So positive and negative feedback should be weighted more in the unseen condition. Both feedbacks were seen as more likely to be caused by prejudice in the seen conditions. Evidence that social feedback is discounted in seen condition.
Stereotype threat
the apprehension experienced by members of a group that their behavior might confirm a negative cultural stereotype in a particular domain. This can cause negative performance. Individuals don't have to believe the stereotype for it to shape their performance. this applies generally to social identity in many groups. Strength varies with identification with the performance domain. The threat is situational so it depends on apprehension about confirming negative stereotypes. This can be attributed to distraction and cognitive load or increasing anxiety.
Stereotype threat study
black and white participants performed a challenging verbal test. The independent variable was the salience of racial stereotypes of intellectual ability (if they were instructed that the test was diagnostic of ability or not). The dependent variable was how they did. White subjects did better when it was diagnostic than blacks, but in non-diagnostic they did about the same.
Stereotype threat study 2
black and white participants again performed a hard verbal test. The independent variable was salience of intelligence stereotypes (If they were told to indicate race before the test or not). Then they measured test performance. Black students did better with no race prime and white students did better with it.
Stereotype for white males
you don't need a history of group stigmatization or internalized feelings of intellectual inferiority. It can arise situationally as a result of social comparison with stereotypically superior groups (so in math with Asians).
White male stereotype study
white males were chosen for high performance on math SAT. Then in an experimental group they read about Asians in math and were told the study was about this, and in control they just took the test. The dependent variable was performance on 18 GRE math problems. In the stereotype threat condition they did way worse.
Reducing Stereotype threat
you can lessen the threat by calling it a challenge instead of a threat. Also you can minimize salience of it by mentioning it after the test.
Critics to stereotype threat:
they say it is overhyped and that it can't full (or modestly) explain racial differences in standardized test scores. The effects aren't big and aren't always there. But there are many studies on it so it probably is still a phenomenon.
Contact Hypothesis
putting two conflicting parties or groups in contact can reduce prejudice and hostilities. Some evidence supports this (like inter-racial housing projects) but it is difficult. This doesn't work if there is any competition between the groups.
Robbers Cave Experiment
Sherif saw a lot of violence in Turkey and he was all concerned about why there was human savagery. So in the experiment they formed groups in the first stage, either Rattlers or Eagles. They were all happy and having fun and then they put the two groups in competition with each other in the second stage with a tournament. Once placed in competition they started hating each other and having food fights. After this stage he asked the boys to list their best friends and like no one said anyone in the other group. They also gave more negative traits to the out-group than in-group. He then got rid of the competition but it didn't reduce hostilities so mere contact doesn't work. Contact is better if they are equal status and have common goals. In stage three he gave them common goals with a broken water supply and food truck, which produced a reduction in hostilities. After this they gave way more positive trait attributions and had more friends in their out-groups.

Robbers Cave Experiment Lessons: arbitrary group divisions can spiral into significant conflict. Competition between groups exacerbates conflict. Mere contact is not sufficient to reduce inter-group hostilities. Super-ordinate goals can dramatically reduce group conflict
Common Enemy study
after 9/11 Giuliani's speeches used double the number of we references. They wanted to see if reminding people of 9/11 would increase their support for Bush. The independent variable was if they were primed; they had a 9/11 conditions where they had to describe emotions about 9/11 and write down your specific memories, or a control condition that asked questions about an upcoming exam. Then they measured the ratings of agreement with a paragraph praising Bush. With the 9/11 prime but liberals and conservative supported Bush more. They concluded that the reminder of a common enemy increases support for a leader who has committed to defeat that enemy. The support for Bush could be due to other things so the evidence is just suggestive.
Prisoner's Dilemma
this is a dilemma designed to question trust and self-serving and cooperation. The dominant strategy for each individual is to confess. Shows that groups are less cooperative than lone individuals, priming can affect rates of cooperation, and framing affects rates of cooperation. Real life applications of this issue are the nuclear arms race, steroids in sports, and dubious or fraudulent scientific research practices.
Prisoner's Dilemma Study
They modeled this game in labs to study cooperation by making the outcomes about gaining and losing money. In multiple rounds of the game reputation is an issue. Cooperation needed to establish reputation even for solely self-interested actors. If you reason backwards it can lead to the lack of cooperation throughout the entire game (because you assume both sides are self-interested).
Axelrod's tournament
they invited many game theorists to submit strategies to playing many rounds of the prisoner's dilemma game. The strategies were played against each other and the winner won the most over all.
Tit-For-Tat strategy
this was the winning strategy where you cooperate on the first round, and then match the opponent on the previous round. It is simple, cooperative, forgiving, but retaliatory. You rarely ever beat the immediate opponent.
Framing and prisoner's dilemma study
they had mal subjects play the game for money and they were selected by other students' ratings of whether they would cooperate or defect. They either called the game the Wall Street or community game. When they called it the Wall Street game there was less communication. There wasn't a difference between likely cooperators or defectors.
Public goods or common dilemmas
situations in society in which individuals interests and collective interests diverge. These situations can be modeled using lab games.
Public Good Study:
put people in a group of 5 and then you each get $50. You can make $100 if you all give back your $50 anonymously. If 3 or more give it then all 5 get $100 more. So if you were one of the two that kept it you will have $150. But if less than three give the $50 than you lose it and the others keep their $50. In the basic form 51% of people cooperate. They didn't know if the reason not cooperate was from fear or greed. If fear drive it then people should be focused on getting 0. They changed it so there was no fear and if you contributed you just got the money back but it didn't increase contribution much. Then he got rid of motivation so you don't get more if you don't give and then 87% gave. Letting groups discuss increases cooperation a lot, multiple rounds decreases cooperation, higher stakes decreases cooperation, and changing the incentive structure affects cooperation.
Propinquity Effect
the finding that the more we see and interact with people the more likely they are to become our friends. This is demonstrated with neighbors in a housing project, college roommates, married couples, and classmates in police academy. Relatively minor differences in physical proximity lead to major consequences. Increased probability to chance encounters, perceptual bias due to anticipated interaction, and mere exposure.
Propinquity Study
they demonstrated propinquity with neighbors in a housing project. It was a project with servicemen. They wanted to see if physical distance impacts the likelihood of friendships. The dependent variable was friendship choices (who the subjects ranked as their friends). They found that physical distance exerted a large role of friendships. 65% of friends were within the same black and people were more likely to be friends with people on their own floors, particularly next door. Functional distance also matters (how easy it is to get there).
Propinquity alphabet study
they studied friendship choices in the Maryland state police academy and measured who people choice as friends. They chose friends that were closer to them in the alphabet because they spent time together.
Does Familiarity Breed Contempt
No. Familiarity increases liking. Mere exposure studies have tested the type of stimuli, the type or presentation, and the number of presentations. They saw that mere exposure usually produces more favorable attitudes.
Mere exposure study
they presented people with characters throughout an experiment that look like Chinese. Then people had to guess what they mean. When people had seen it before they thought positive things instead of negative. In another setting people saw fake words and the same thing happened. When he did it with random pictures of men and varied to times you saw them, the more you saw it the more you liked them.
Mere exposure classroom study
They changed the frequency of class attendance of a random visitor. They measured the attraction ratings (composite). They ranked them as interesting/boring, attractive/unattractive, intelligent/unintelligent... the more the person had visited the class the more people liked them.
Mere exposure in rats study
they studied two groups of rats for their first 52 days of life. They either played Mozart for 12 hours a day or Schoenberg. Then they moved them to a cage where they could choose which composer and then they tracked which composer they chose. The ones that were raised on Mozart chose him more and then same with Schoenberg.
Classical Conditioning
repeatedly pairing a stimulus with a benign outcome leads that stimulus to be encoded positively.
Processing/perceptual fluency
we tend to like things more when we can perceive or process them fluently, and familiarity increases processing fluency.
Beautiful is good stereotype
physically attractive people are judged to be kinder, stronger, more outgoing, more interesting, more exciting dates, more nurturing, better people. They are expected to have more prestige, happier marriages, more social success, more professional success, and more fulfilling lives.
Physical Attractiveness study
male participants read a short essay about the role of TV on society. The independent variable was if the writer was attractive, control, or unattractive and then the essay quality. The dependent variable was the evaluation. The unattractive essays were always judged worse even if the essay was good.
Attractiveness by Association Study
participants waited in a waiting room for an experiment on perception. They waited alongside a male and female confederate. The independent variable was the attractiveness of the female (attractive or not) and whether they were the girlfriend of the male or not. The dependent variable was the rating of the male on a range of personality characteristics. When they thought it was the girlfriend and they were attractive the man got way better rankings.
Disadvantages of physical attractiveness study
they had to decide on a prison sentence for a criminal defendant (female). They varied attractiveness of her into three groups and then said she had either burgled money or swindled it. The dependent variable was sentence length. The attractive woman that swindled got more time but she got less time for burglary. This shows an interaction between attractiveness and type of offense.
the effect of one independent variable on the dependent variable depends on the level of the other independent variable. Essentially a test of difference between differences. Interactions occur only between independent variables.
Attractiveness Judgments for Men and Women
men hold attractiveness things over personality and other things and women do to a smaller extent. This could be because evolutionary pressures have created different criteria for coverall attractiveness. Both sexes wanted fertile mates, but fertility declines more rapidly in women than in men, so men tend to have stronger preferences for attractive and younger partners (because they signal reproductive fitness).
Age of partner
Women want men older internationally while men want younger women. More extreme in Zambia and east extreme in US.
Situational determinants of attractiveness
people rank attractiveness of the opposite sex way higher at later hours. At 12 AM you think everyone is really hot. This could involve alcohol but also changing desires and needs.
Misperceptions of ideal attractiveness study
students identified body types with respect to their own body type, their ideal body type, the body type they thought was most attractive to the opposite sex, and the body type of the other sex they found most attractive. Men say that there is a general convergence of self/ideal/and most attractive but they think that women want someone lighter. Females have greater misperceptions. And they put themselves way above ideal and most attractive. They also guess men's ideal wrong. Female thinness is culturally promoted but it might not be as desirable to men as they think. Misperceptions of the ideal (and self in relation to it) may have behavioral consequences.
Do birds of a feather flock together?
Attraction is enhanced by similarity of demographics, personality, mood, physical attractiveness, and attitudes. This is tracked with correlational designs and experimental designs.
Do opposites attract?
No, not usually. We may be especially inclined to notice exceptional cases when they do. The bulk of research suggests that similarity matters.
Should you play hard to get?
Cognitive dissonance says the more you have to work for something the more valuable it seems (effort justification). Frustration builds drive and anticipation (which can accentuate and eventual reward). Research shows that selective people are seen more attractive than nonselective people. But, very highly selective people are disliked, very highly selective people are considered arrogant and conceited, and people most strongly like others who are hard to get for others (but easy to get for them).
Does liking beget liking?
In general yes. We like others who like us. We also prefer positive trajectories and dislike negative trajectories.
Gain loss theory study
subjects overheard a confederate report how much they liked the real subject over time. The independent variable was the pattern of social feedback from the confederate. Either it starts negative and becomes positive (gain), starts positive and stays positive (positive), starts negative and stays negative (negative), or starts positive and becomes negative (loss). The dependent variable is liking for the confederate. Liking is greatest in gain and lowest in loss; positive and negative are in the middle.
Close relationships:
this is a relatively new field in social psych (within the last 30 years). It was previously thought to be not scientific, but there are many interesting findings, and it is increasing in scientific rigor.
Importance of social relationships
an absence of normal socialization is irreparable. There are important health outcomes which are predicted by a person's social relationships. The degree of social interconnectedness predicts longevity. Divorced, unmarried, and widowed individuals suffer greater health problems. Suicide and crime rates are higher for single and divorced individuals. Social support predicts stronger cardiovascular, immune, and endocrine systems.
Social isolation as a form of torture
reports on experiences of prisoners in solitary confinement. Many experience complete mental disintegration. People feel like their minds go completely blank and they lose everything. People get stressed and feel like they are losing their minds. McCain experienced this and said it crushed his spirit and weakened you more effectively than anything else. EEG studies show there are dramatic changes in brain functioning (equivalent to head trauma). It creates chronic apathy, lethargy, depression, despair, and people can stop behaving.
Attachment theory
the child has an attachment experience with his or her first caregivers. The experience forms the basis of an internal working model of self and other in relationship. The model serves as a blueprint for adult relationships. These attachment styles are measured by self report.
Strange situation study
the child plays with their caregiver but then a stranger comes in and the caregiver leaves.
Secure attachment style: the baby is comfortable as long as the mother is present and then distressed when the mother leaves. When the mother returns the infant runs to her and holds her and then relaxes and continues to play. 60% of people are secure.
Preoccupied attachment style: the child clings tightly to the mother initially, cries when the mom leaves, and is hostile or indifferent when the mom returns. 20% are anxious.
Avoidant attachment style: play normally in the strange situation, is internally aroused when the mom leaves and returns. Shows little distress upon separation and don't cling when she comes back. 20% are avoidant.
Dismissing attachment style: when adults are avoidant.
Fearful attachment style: when adults are avoidant and anxious.
Attachment style importance
it is relatively stable among adults. Attachment styles of babies predicts the style of adults. Adult attachment style predicts life relationship tendencies. Secure attached people have an easier job starting new relationships. Avoidant styles are less committed to relationships and don't mind ending them. Anxious styles have more emotional conflict and are more likely to break up and get back together.
Attachment style criticism
attachment is continuous, not categorical. There are important attachments formed with people other than the primary caregiver. People can have different attachment styles across different relationships. There can also be different styles even within the same relationships. Later life experiences can change you personality, not just you as an infant.
Predictors of long-term relationships
up to half o fall marriages in north America end in divorce (some controversy over exactly how many). People report being generally less satisfied with marriages than they used to.
Predictors of divorce
personality matters (neuroticism, anxiety, emotional volatility predict divorce). Socio economic status (lower SES predicts divorce). Interaction dynamics between the two.
Interactional Dynamics Study
they bring couples into the lab and induce them to engage in a discussion about an issue that causes conflict. They video tape and code the interactions and look for predictors of marital breakdown. The amount and nature of criticism seem to matter. In successful couples positive interaction outnumbered negative ones. Defensiveness, stonewalling, and contempt matter. These predictors are coded rigorously, temporally precise, and entered into a mathematical model. Retrospective predictions of 79 couples achieved a 93% accuracy rate in predicting divorce from one 15 minute conversation. They later saw high rates of prediction from just here minutes of conversations. These rates are very high. His model asks more questions of the available data by coding everything to get more information. It has more objective coding procedures like facial expressions. It integrates information more objectively so you don't have theories distorting the judgment. There is evidence that these interactional problems could cause or be a symptom of a failing marriage.
Long term relationships
longer term relationships predictably show a decline in passion, but an increase in commitment and intimacy.
Shared activities study
they thought that participation in novel, arousing activities would increase relationship satisfaction. They did a field study for 10 weeks with 53 married couples. In one group they did 90 minutes per week with pleasant, familiar activities. In group two they did 90 minutes per week of novel, unfamiliar activities. The second group reported a greater increase in marital satisfaction at the end of 10 weeks.
Lab study of new activities:
they had three groups of married people do either novel tasks, mundane tasks, or no activity (control). The dependent variable was the change in reported relationship satisfaction before and after the task (they used related but different measures of relationship satisfaction to reduce suspicion). It showed an increase in relationship satisfaction for the novel tasks. This could be because of misattribution of elevated mood and arousal or because a novel activity requires cooperation which increases bonding.
Idealization and relationship satisfaction
positive illusions of a partner's virtues and faults predicted relationship satisfaction at time one and whether they are still together months later. Positive illusions are measured as significantly higher ratings of partner than the partner's own ratings of self. When people are asked to write about their partner's greatest fault, more satisfied partners are found to discount or reinterpret faults. Discounting can be saying he does this but other things are good. Reinterpretation is saying something bad but in a good way. Positive illusions can lead to better relationships because ambiguous behaviors are perceived more positively, they reduce incidences of conflict, it recues likelihood of cheating, and it can create self-fulfilling effects.
a brief psychological and physiological response that is subjectively experienced as a feeling and that prepares a person for action. Emotions are usually specific and have a target and something that provokes them. They include (but are not limited to) anger, fear, sadness, happiness, disgust, and guilt. Emotions are ubiquitous; influence our behaviors, decisions, and quality of life. Our introspective access to our emotions does not provide a full account of them. They were studied early on during psychology but then they got neglected for a while.
Emotions vs. Moods
emotions are different than moods. Moods are longer lasting, diffuse background states. Moods are also less differentiated and lack a specific target.
Emotions as a bodily experience
the theory that perception of changes in the automatic immune system constitute emotions. Idea that we are afraid because we run from the bear, not we run from the bear because we are afraid. Says that bodily changes are the emotion. Different emotions have distinct patterns of physiological arousal. This is supported by the facial feedback hypothesis which says that face muscles evoke or magnify emotions. This theory is questioned on its time course because the sympathetic nervous system responds too slowly and shuts off too slowly. It is also too undifferentiated and different emotions do not always have clearly distinct physiological patterns. You might not need feedback from physiological arousal for emotions, because quadriplegics and paraplegics still experience normal levels of emotions.
Two factor theory of emotion
the idea that emotions have two components. There is a bodily state of undifferentiated arousal and then a cognitive label which specifies/interprets the emotion.
Cognitive appraisal of physiological arousal determines emotion study
participants came into the lab to do an experiment on a drug they thought was for vision. They were actually given epinephrine (arousing) or a placebo. There was one condition which was epinephrine informed (told to expect arousal), epinephrine ignorant, or the placebo. In each condition a confederate acted either euphorically or angrily. The dependent variable was the measures of the participant's emotions. They thought that the arousal condition would mean more emotion so with epinephrine ignorant there would be more emotion than placebo. Prediction 2 was that arousal without an explanation would lead to more emotion than arousal with an explanation. So epinephrine ignorant would react more than informed. They also predicted that arousal without an explanation would be interpreted according to situational cues. Subjects' emotions will trend towards the confederate's emotion. With the angry confederate the epinephrine aware was more happy and ignorant was angry. With the happy confederate the ignorant and placebo were pretty happy but informed was irritated. This shows that arousal does play a role in amplifying emotion. The same state of arousal can lead to vastly different emotions depending on how it is interpreted. What you attribute your arousal to changes the emotion. This means that arousal is not undifferentiated because there are a few differences.
Number of Emotions
there are over 500 distinct emotion words in the English dictionary (potentially 2000).
Basic Emotions
There are 6 basic emotions. Happiness, sadness, fear, surprise, anger, disgust. These are distinctive subjective experiences, they have distinctive physiology, they have distinctive antecedent events, and they have distinctive universal signals (like facial expressions).
Expression interpretation (decoding)
there is widespread cultural agreement about decoding (also encoding). Basically no matter where you are people can understand the emotions. Cross cultural similarities in the expression of emotions exist. Facial expressions reveal subtle emotional states (which can be outside of awareness). Not everyone subscribes to this theory.
Expression (encoding)
expression encoding is pretty universal. It starts pretty early in life and everyone basically makes similar expressions.
cultural variation in when and how particular emotions change a little. Japanese and Americans display disgust in different ways when an authority person is there. Russians de-amplify displays of emotion as compared to Americans. Evidence for cultural variation in how emotions are expressed is definitely visible.
Emotion Language
some cultures have many more words for emotions. English has more than Taiwanese which has more than Chewong. Some cultures lexicalize distinct emotional concepts that we don't. Schadenfreude, Amae (pleasurable dependence in Japanese), Litost (realization of tragic life, Czech).
Facial coding scheme
refined analysis of facial displays of emotion to analyze patterns of facial muscle contractions. He analyzed patterns of facial muscle contractions to understand the displays of emotion. It allows for analysis of dynamic rather than merely static emotional expressions. It distinguished polite smiles from real smiles (Duchenne). Helps to detect micro-expressions. And can be used to help detect lies.
Emotions rational or adaptive
love or positive allusions can be adaptive. Guilt and shame (self-consciousness) can signal the need to correct behavior. Positive emotions can be socially adaptive and help with flexible thinking. Irritation, frustration, and anger can produce drive and corrective action to achieve goals and serve signaling functions to others.
Emotions as non-adaptive/distortions
irrelevant mood states can distort judgments. Some kids decide to go to more academically difficult schools if they visit on a cloudy day because this makes them seem sad which increases the appeal of studying. Positive emotions can lad to superficial processing of arguments. Emotions can lead to irrational risk aversion.
Risk Aversion study
normal negative emotions can produce undue caution when is more rational to be risky. If you are given $20 and then in a series of trials you can invest a dollar or not. If you invest you have a 50% chance of winning 2.50 or you can lose the 1 dollar. If you don't invest you just keep it. Investing every round would be the rational choice. If people are anxious or regretful they will invest less than is rational. They did this by having one group with damaged emotional centers, one with damage to other areas of brain, and one with no brain damage. The patients with emotional damage should invest more. This is what happened and they made more money.
behavior that improves another person's welfare and that arises from the unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of that other (altruistic motivation). It is when you do something nice that is intentional and with a selfless motive. You need to 1) perceive that someone else is in need and take their perspective 2) respond with empathy/sympathy 3) experience altruistic motivation to reduce the other's need or suffering and 4) intentionally help.
Psychological egoism
says that altruistic behavior is actually egoism. The reasons for this would be anticipated reciprocity, to alleviate anticipated guilt, personal distress, custom, or maximization of inclusive fitness. These explain a lot of pro-social behavior.

Egoistic motivation: the desire to increase one's own welfare.
Altruistic motivation: the desire to increase another's welfare
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
starts a chain first with perceiving that someone else needs help. Then it is the adoption of another person's perspective which Is necessary for altruism but not for egoism. Then it is an emotional response which is empathetic concern for altruism or personal distress for egoism. Then type of motive (altruism or egoism) and then satisfaction of the motive, which is either the reduction of others' distress or the reduction of your own distress.
Testing between egoism and altruism
egoistic motivation means that helping should decline if you can easily escape from the situation. For altruism help would be given regardless of ease of escape.
Altruism/Egoism study
participants listened to a taped story about someone that got in a car accident and then were told they could help her. The independent variable was if they were high empathy (think about how she felt) or low empathy (listen carefully). They also had ease of escape from her distress; in the first condition you wont see her in class but in the second you will. They ask if you will help her catch up with work. If motivation is egoistic help should be higher in difficult escape, but if it is altruistic it will not be affected. Empathy condition increased help in both conditions but easy escape low empathy helped a lot less than hard escape.
Negative state relied model:
empathy encourages helping because it raises the costs to the self of not helping. You feel worse if you do not help.
helping can make you experience empathetic joy, which makes helping rewarding. This can motivate behavior.
Rewarding for egoism study
empathy increases personal sadness. People are most interested in reducing their own sadness (selfish). So if they think that their sadness can't be reduced by helping, they won't help. They did the car crash story again but the independent variable is if they are high or low empathy and if the drug instructions are placebo or freeze mood. Thought that empathy would increase personal sadness so we should see helping in this condition but only if they think their mood change change. This is what happened.
Limits to empathy altruism
not all helping is altruistically motivated. Empathy and altruistic motives do not guarantee altruistic behavior.
Bystander non-intervention
: pluralistic ignorance is a reason why people are less likely to help when in a group. Diffusion of responsibility is that there is a lower likelihood of acting when part of a group based on the assumption that others are responsible and will act to take care of the situation.
Seizure Study
each subject is alone in a room and they can talk to other students over the intercom about normal stress issues. One student has a seizure. They vary group size. One had just the participant and the victim, one has the participant, the victim, and a confederate, and the other has a participant, the victim, and four confederates. The dependent variable is what percent of people help. This showed the diffusion of responsibility because as the group grows the less people helped.
Good Samaritan study
participants were students that arrived at a lab and then asked to report to another building to give a 3-5 minute speech. On the way there they saw someone in the alley that looked distressed. They were looking to see if they responded. They varied the disposition (by members of religiosity) and attention (content of speech; either being a good Samaritan or something else) and situation (time pressure). Time pressure was the only variable that predicted helping.
Affects on helping
deciding to help requires you to recognize the situation as an emergency. There is inaction in numbers. Small features of immediate situation strongly affect people's propensity to intervene. The current mood also affects the rate of helping. A person's propensity to act morally is not solely based on goodness of their moral character.
Altruistic personality
there are some individual characteristics that predict helping. Positive emotionality, empathy, and self-efficacy predict helping. Religious faith predicts deliberate, planned forms of helping (like giving charity). Gender interacts with situational factors in predicting helping.
Immoral behavior
will participants take the opportunity to cheat if they know they can get away with it? Participants were given the opportunity to assign themselves an another participant to a positive consequences or neutral consequences task. They were told to choose by flipping a coin. Some people just assigned but the half that flipped the coin (in private) almost all ended up in the positive consequences one. They can act like there are different ways to decide but basically they just chose. They dishonestly present themselves as having acted fairly when they didn't. They want to be moral when they really aren't. They found in later studies that sitting people in front of a mirror eliminated cheating.
People cheat to level the playing field:
participants come to the lab and get paired with another participant who they compete with in a test with 20 questions. They start with $4 and can earn more if they do better than the partner. They misreport their scored to cheat. The independent variable is the threat (if the partner could also cheat) and framing (whether they misreported their score or their partners). They then measured the cheating ratio. People will likely cheat more when their partner can cheat too. And they cheat more by changing their own score.
Moral Judgment
typically take one of a number of forms, even if content may differ widely. It is wrong/right to... it is good/bad to... it is permissible/obligatory/forbidden to... do/do not... should/should not...
Social convention
different than a moral judgment because it isn't as serious and isn't as culturally relevant or contingent on authority.
How moral judgments are made
you decide your attitudes on important things with these judgments. People think that they make them using logic. Rationalists think that you use reason.
Rationalist model
the idea that morals are decided through cognitive reasoning. They think the situation reads to reasoning and then a judgment.
Stage theory of moral development
pre-conventional morality is stages 1 and 2 (they say actions are bad/immoral if punished, but actions are moral if they further your own self-interest. Conventional morality is stages 3 and 4 and this says that actions are moral fi they meet with societal approval and if they accord with society's rules and laws to help society function smoothly (with law and order). Post-conventional morality is stages 5 and 6 and it says that actions are moral if they maximize welfare. Actions are moral if based on fundamental, abstract moral principles of justice. The process of reasoning is more important than the decision outcome with this theory. The main evidence is increasingly sophisticated moral reasoning, as children get older, that you can't skip a stage, and that stage regression is rare.
Moral Dilemma study
the Heinz stealing medicine for his dying wife dilemma. The pre-conventional morality answer is that he shouldn't steal because he will be put in prison, which is bad. The conventional morality answer is he shouldn't steal because law makes it illegal. The post conventional morality says he should steal it because saving a life is more important than property rights or that he shouldn't steal it because other people (that can pay) need to meds just as badly as his wife does.
Critique of stage theory
the relation between moral judgment and cognitive capacity is only correlational, so you don't know if reasoning causes moral decisions.
Social intuitionism
the initial affective/intuitive responses cause moral judgments. He said that reasoning is post hoc rationalization. Passion and sentiment lead to judgment, which lead to reasoning to explain why you did it.
Social intuitionism interview studies:
moral dumbfounding. They told a story about a brother and sister having sex (no risk of baby). Participants had to think aloud and give reasons for their judgments. After having done this the experimenter challenged their arguments and participants had to respond. They wanted to see if the subjects responded like scientists looking for truth or lawyers looking to justify. With the Heinz dilemma people were reasoning because they gave reasons before judgment, they kept most of their arguments after being cross-examined, and they said that they were relying on reason more than gut feeling. For the taboo story it was moral dumbfounding because the first gave their judgment and then reasons. They drop most reasons under cross examination and said that it was more about gut feeling; they also made more unsupported declarations.
Evidence for social intuitionism:
moral dumbfounding suggests that some moral judgments are not based on well thought out reasoning. Other studies show that experimental manipulations of irrelevant emotional experiences (like disgust) amplify the severity of moral judgments.
Social intuitionism disgust study:
they were looking at extraneous disgust on moral judgment. All subjects were hypnotized to feel a flash of disgust at the word take or often. Then they read about various immoral actions, which were worded to contain or not contain their words. They read 6 stories, 3 of which had the words and 3 didn't. The stories were about bribery, incest with a cousin, shoplifting, stealing library books, a man eating his dead dog, and an ambulance chasing a lawyer. The dependent variable was how they ranked moral incorrectness and disgust. When hypnotic disgust was present they ranked moral wrongness and disgust way higher than when it wasn't. Even when they read a story that wasn't immoral at all; if disgust was triggered they thought something was wrong. This shows the incidental manipulations of disgust can increase judgments of moral wrongness. This has to do with affective responses, not reasoning.
Criticism of disgust studies
some doubt how real the priming actually is. There have been failures to replicate it and analysis indicates that when all studies on the effect are combined the effect is very small. Maybe the low level of moral condemnation promoted by fart spray, gross environments, etc.. Are what you are targeting rather than core bodily disgust elevating moral judgment.
Disgust and sympathy
when disgust comes into conflict with sympathy they can pit the emotional forces against each other.
Disgust and sympathy study
the twins having sex not to be paralyzed story. This pits disgust against sympathy, but neither subjects' sympathy or disgust predicted their moral judgments. They focus on how much harm is caused by the two different courses of actions. This means that it is about judgment more than feeling.
Neuro-Scientific Evidence
fMRI techniques allow investigation of which brain areas are active during moral judgment. They said that there is correlational evidence for activity in affective and cognitive areas.
Foundations of moral judgments
looking at content vs. form. There are three main ethics: autonomy, community, divinity/purity. Each domain gives rise to different moral virtues. So harm leads to kindness, justice to fairness, in-group to loyalty, authority to respect, and purity to temperance. Honor comes from fairness, in-group, authority, and purity. Social justice comes from harm and fairness.
Ethic of autonomy
focus on individual welfare, protecting individuals from harm, individual rights, justice, freedom.
Ethic of community:
focus on in-group loyalty, respect for authority.
Ethic of divinity/purity
focus on protecting your soul from defilement.
Culture war:
culture and political ideologies create groups of virtues. Conservatives build on five foundations that make a broad morality. Liberals value harm and fairness which creates a narrow morality.
Moral Foundations Study
they did a study with liberals, neutrals, and conservatives. It asked that when you decide you are doing something right or wrong how much you consider the five foundations. If someone was harmed, if someone acted unfairly, if someone did something to betray their group, if the person was involved in the same rank or status, if someone did something disgusting. Conservatives cared about them all pretty evenly but liberals cared about harm and fairness way more.
Moral self-identity
the way in which we currently view our moral standing/self image. Moral self identity can vary just like any other psychological state, and it is a big part of our self-concept. These variations can have important psychological and behavioral consequences.
Moral self identity study
participants wrote stories about themselves in which they described themselves with different words. Positive moral words, negative moral words, or neutral words. Then they were given a chance to donate money. After using the negative words people donated way more.
the enduring behaviors, ideas, attitudes, and traditions shared by a large group of people and transmitted from one generation to another.
Aspects of Culture
power distance (acceptance of inequality/hierarchy), masculinity (difference between genders' values), uncertainty avoidance (belief in a single truth, preference for structure), individualism (degree to which individuals are integrated into groups).
focus on personal fate, personal achievement, personal control, choice, freedom, and independence from groups. US is most individualistic
focus on in-group gate, in-group achievement, less emphasis on personal control, choice, freedom, and dependence upon groups. Asian countries and Africa and Brazil are pretty collectivist.
Self Concept
a collection of beliefs about who you are. Traits/dispositions, demographics, likes/dislikes, wishes/hopes, social identities and roles, evaluations, and emotional states.
Who Am I Study
participants were bicultural (and bilingual) the independent variable was if they were answering Chinese or English and they looked at which answers were trait based vs. social identity based. In English they said a lot more traits then social identity. But in both traits were stronger.
Cultural differences in self-enhancement and achievement/failure
an individualistic self concept makes you more attentive to personal strengths and achievements, which could lead to, differences in self enhancement and response to feedback.
Study on self-enhancement and feedback
they had Japanese and Canadian participants and then they were told to either recall an event that made you proud or embarrassed. They measured subjective temporal distance of the event and recall difficulty. It was easier for Canadians with both but more embarrassing.
Reactions to success and failure
Japanese and Canadian students doing a test that was first a Remote association test and then they were given feedback either success or failure. Then they tried new tasks and looking at how long they worked on them showed persistence. When Canadians got positive feedback they did better and Japanese with positive feedback did worse. This can be explained by different views of self and abilities, incremental self (if effort can improve), entity (if you can fix it), and different cultural desires about sticking it out.
people like choice even though it can lead to negative consequences. Some are decision conflict and deferral of choice, post decisional regret, and deleterious social comparison. Because of culture people think choice is good.
Choice and Culture Study:
European or Asian American kids play a math game that is made by self, made by someone else, or made by an in-group member. The dependent variable is if they like it and if they persist. They thought European American kids would just like the personal choice one and Asian Americans would like personal choice and in-group one.
Persuasion and Culture
they made ads for the same product from two different perspectives. The independent variable is if the ad was individualistic (teat yourself) or collectivistic (share). Then the ads were shown to Americans or Koreans and they ranked favorability. Koreans liked collectivistic while Americans liked individualistic.
Fundamental Attribution Error
the tendency to emphasize dispositional as opposed to situational causes of behavior.
Study on causal attribution
participants watched cartoon displays of social events (fish swimming) and reported causal perceptions. The independent variable was if they were Americans or Chinese. Americans attributed the lone fish's movement to internal factors.
Fundamental Attribution Study:
they used Indians and Americans and varied age from 8, 11, 15, and adult. They were told to remember when an acquaintance did something bad and explain it. They looked for dispositional or situational attributions. The Indians were about situational while Americans were more dispositional. Same pattern with younger participants.
Cultures within US:
variations by region. Explored by creating an index of how people in each state live. Looked at % living alone, divorce to marriage ratio, % with no religion. Nuclear versus extended households, % voting libertarian, carpooling, % self-employed. Hawaii is the most collectivist state, so is the south in general. The western mountain states are individualistic because landscape is harsh and people live far.
South Culture of Honor:
men in the south describe a culture of honor. It involves concerns about yourself and others. You need to have strong concerns about reputations, beware of insults, and use violence if insulted. This comes from the herding economy because resources are rare so you need to be tough. This is visible because there are more argument related homicides but not felony related homicides in the south.

Hallway incident study: male students at Michigan from North or South walk down a hallway and get bumped and insulted by a confederate. Northerners say they are more amused but southerners were more angry. Southerners had an increased level in cortisone and testosterone (so stress and ready to fight).
Field study
a job applicant convicted to felony applied for jobs. If it was theft there is no difference in south and north response, but when it was a crime of honor there was warmth and understanding from the southern potential employers.
Pleasure and Pain
they studied people undergoing painful procedures and looked at the relation between the in the moment evaluations of their pain (done with a device throughout) and then their retrospective evaluations of pain when they were asked about it. They found that duration doesn't impact retrospective ranking. The main predictor is the peak moment of pain; the worst moment of pain is what you are going to remember. Also the pain at the end is a strong predictor because it conditions your memory of the entire experience. Because of this you will remember peak end pain more than you will remember more overall pain. Adding a brief moment of minimal discomfort at the end reduced overall evaluations of pain.
Peak end rule
peak and end moments of pain most strongly predict later evaluations and memories; this can have many clinical implications.
Duration Neglect:
overall duration of the experience does not predict later evaluations.
Inferences from faces predict election outcomes:
people draw inferences about personality characteristics and abilities based on facial appearance. These inferences are automatic and are linked to brain processes. They are rapid, spontaneous, non deliberative, undemanding of attention, and linked to neural systems about emotional stimuli. Inferences are not necessarily accurate but they are automatic and can feed judgments. This shouldn't impact voting. From a rational perspective the info about candidates should override initial impressions. From an ideological perspective, party affiliation should override the impression. From a voter perspective, decisions are justified in terms of the candidate's positions, not appearance.
Study about inferences:
participants are presented with faces of the winner and runner up for a senate election and told to judge their competence. Retrospective and prospective predictions of outcomes of the race are made based on the judgment of facial appearance and nothing else. They counted out anyone recognizable. They saw a moderate correlation (.44) between inferred competence and the electoral outcome. 71.6% of senate election were correctly predicted. The length of exposure also matters, if you have more time they can change their mind and deliberate more.
Male Sexual Preferences for Female Body weight:
there is variability across time/culture. There is a universal relationship between collective resource availability and ideal female body weight. In rich cultures thinner women are preferred but in poor cultures heavier women are.
Study on body weight preference
: if men feel deprived they should prefer heavier women. Heaviness is a sign of health/abundance/resources; so female weight is a cue. Men and women were made to feel deprived and then expressed weight preference.

1) Missing money: people were asked if they were carrying money right before (salient) or right after (not salient) expressing body weight preferences. Making money salient makes them want heavier women. When money is salient the men carrying money want slimmer women.
2) Hungrier men want heavier women: approached people outside of dining hall before or after eating. It doesn't change much for women, but when men are full they prefer lighter women.
3) Replicating hunger study: participants did the same study but had to report ideal weight in pounds. The difference was way more noticeable.
Virtual Dating:
online daters did a survey on the website. People prefer regular dating. You spend way more time on the site then you ever do interacting with people. It is hard to find relationships and there is too much choice so it is hard to select (not realistic), misrepresentation, initial interactions are awkward because you don't know anything about each other, and there is ambiguity so people can avoid actually telling you about themselves.
photos can lie about what they look like and pictures aren't always true. People lie to create intrigue.
at zero acquaintance when you don't know someone you will assume good things. You assume similarity which is a key predictor of liking so we are overly positive. Over the course of acquaintanceship once you meet someone your interpretation gets worse because ambiguity is resolved, dissimilarity is revealed, and liking decreases.
Initial Interactions
first meeting someone can be awkward because there are high stakes (rejection), high expectations, impression management is hard, and it can be hard to assess suitability of the partner and manage your impressions. You have a relative lack of shared background info as compared to regular dating so its hard to know what to talk about.
Virtual Dates:
online interactions before meeting someone can help. It lets people interact in environments that mirror real dates. Like a chat room with avatars where you can hear each other. You can navigate virtual environments with things to comment on. If you read on profile and then go on a virtual data and then meet face to face you can find shared interests and you can start flirting. After speed dates real dates are better and there is more liking. This could work because it allows mere exposure, is a more gradual process, virtual dates are easier, it builds a sense of anticipation, there is focus on personality, and you now have something to talk about.
there are some drugs that can improve the way you function. Ritalin can improve your ability to stay on task (but not your cognitive functioning). Provigil keeps you up, Tenormin makes you calm, and Prozac enhances moods. There is a lot of room for growth in this field.
Reason for Enhancement:
it is easier than methods like training. BUT there are concerns about safety/side effects, ethics, changing your self-identity, and provoking interest.
Self Identity and Enhancement:
psychological enhancement might threaten people's sense of self and identity. There would be more resistance to enhancing of fundamental or identity relevant traits.
Self Identity/Enhancement Study
subjects rated identity relevance/fundamentality of 19 traits. Then subjects said whether or not they would want to enhance these traits. People are more reluctant to enhance traits that are more central to their identity. The reasons not to take it were mostly that they didn't want fundamental self change (and then didn't want unexpected change or don't want to be better or don't like pills).
Manipulating threat to self:
enhancements that are viewed as changing a fundamental part of the self as a threat to a person's self identity. Therefore reducing the threat should increase willingness to take enhancement pills. The way they tested this was by manipulating drug descriptions. They altered either fundamental or not fundamental traits. And then they described the drug as enhancing or enabling. Enabling should increase enhancement of fundamental but not less fundamental. People are reluctant to change their fundamental self which may affect desirability of drugs. Perception of changes to identity are susceptible to framing.