Only $0.99/month

Social Psychology exam 3 study guide

Key Concepts:

Terms in this set (43)

Gender differences in women-women seek men who are OLDER. have MORE RESOURCES, who are more STABLE and ESTABLISHED

Gender differences in Men- Men seek Fertile, attractive, young women with a PREMIUM ON FAITHFULNESS .

Gender differences: Nature Evolutionary perspective- differences in how men and women approach relationships and select mates are based on evolution
WOMEN are limited in the number of children they can have so they pick men who will stay around and provide resources. The result is that women become more threatened by emotional infidelity.
MEN are different they can father unlimited number of children, they need mates who are healthy and able to have children. Also since there is no guaranteed percentage of getting this result men are more threatened by Sexual infidelity

Gender differences: Nurture Sociocultural perspective- gender differences due to sociocultural factors
-youth, beauty, and financial stability are never the top of peoples lists. but kind, dependable and funny are the highest on the list for both men and women
sex differences are due to social circumstances that women face. if prevented by society, women have to obtain resources and power through men.
Gender differences -(As far as societies standards go) society likes to publicly pair men and women in typical social groups.
-for example, Chris from the bachelor a 31 year old farmer married Whitney the 29 year old fertility nurse.
And Russel Simmons 35 year old hip hop mogul marrying 17 year old HS senior and aspiring model Kimora
-typically works with longterm partners
people want to maximize benefits and minimize costs
when risks out weigh the rewards people will terminate or abandon that relationship
we take the benefits and minimize the costs in order to determine how much the relationship will cost you
Between intimates, the

Close relationships: Social exchange Theory -Economic model to predict staying together or not satisfaction- reward- Costs- comparison level
-comparison level- expectation of what rewards and costs of a relationship should be
commitment=satisfaction-Clait(omparison level of Alternatives) + investments
comparison level of Alternatives: expectation of satisfaction with available alternatives
The basic premise is simple: Relationships that provide more rewards and fewer costs will be more satisfying and endure longer.
CL-WHAT YOU EXPECT TO GET FROM RELATIONSHIP. Rewards and costs do not arise in a psychological vacuum. All people bring to a relationship certain expectations about the balance sheet to which they are entitled. John Thibaut and Harold Kelley (1959) coined the term comparison level (CL) to refer to this average expected outcome in relationships.relationships. A person with a high CL expects his or her relationships to be rewarding; someone with a low CL does not. Situations that meet or exceed a person's expectations are more satisfying than those that fall short. Even a bad relationship can look pretty good to someone who has a low CL.
According to Thibaut and Kelley, a second kind of expectation is also important. They coined the term comparison level for alternatives (CLalt) to refer to people's expectations about what they would receive in an alternative situation. If the rewards available elsewhere are believed to be high, a person will be less committed to staying in the present relationship (Drigotas & Rusbult, 1992). If people perceive that they have few acceptable alternatives (a low CLalt), they will tend to remain, even in an unsatisfying relationship that fails to meet expectations (CL).
Milgram, 1963 1. Learner( confederate) and teacher(participant)
2. cover story: influence of punishment on memory increasing voltage shocks for errors
3. experimenter orders teacher to obey, learner gives scripted pain responses
DV: How high im voltage the teacher goes before refusing to continue

if participant asked to stop the experimenter stated " please continue" the experimenter tells person that they absolutely must continue each time they stop, which is influenced pressure


(BOOK EXPLANATION- look. Imagine yourself as one of the approximately 1,000 participants who found themselves in the following situation. The experience begins when you arrive at a Yale University laboratory and meet two men. One is the experimenter, a stern young man dressed in a gray lab coat and carrying a clipboard. The other is a middle-aged gentleman named Mr. Wallace, an accountant who is slightly overweight and average in appearance. You exchange quick introductions, and then the experimenter explains that you and your co-participant will take part in a study on the effects of punishment on learning. After lots have been drawn, it is determined that you will serve as the teacher and that Mr. Wallace will be the learner. So far, so good. Soon, however, the situation takes on a more ominous tone. You find out that your job is to test the learner's memory and administer electric shocks of increasing intensity whenever he makes a mistake. You are then escorted into another room, where the experimenter straps Mr. Wallace into a chair, rolls up his sleeves, attaches electrodes to his arms, and applies "electrode paste" to prevent blisters and burns. As if that isn't bad enough, you may overhear Mr. Wallace telling the experimenter that he has a heart problem. The experimenter responds by conceding that the shocks will be painful but reassures Mr. Wallace that the procedure will not cause "permanent tissue damage." In the meantime, you can personally vouch for how painful the shocks are because the experimenter stings you with one that is supposed to be mild. The experimenter then takes you back to the main room, where you are seated in front of a "shock generator," a machine with 30 switches that range from 15 volts, labeled "slight shock," to 450 volts, labeled "XXX."Your role in this experiment is straightforward. First you read a list of word pairs to Mr. Wallace through a microphone. Then you test his memory with a series of multiplechoice questions. The learner answers each question by pressing one of four switches that light up signals on the shock generator. If his answer is correct, you move on to the next question. If it is incorrect, you announce the correct answer and shock him. When you press the appropriate shock switch, a red light flashes above it, relay switches click inside the machine, and you hear a loud buzzing sound go off in the learner's room. After each wrong answer, you're told, the intensity of the shock should be increased by 15 volts. You aren't aware, of course, that the experiment is rigged and that Mr. Wallace—who is actually a confederate—is never really shocked. As far as you know, he gets zapped each time you press one of the switches. As the session proceeds, the learner makes more and more errors, leading you to work your way up the shock scale. As you reach 75, 90, and 105 volts, you hear the learner grunt in pain. At 120 volts, he begins to shout. If you're still in it at 150 volts, you can hear the learner cry out, "Experimenter! That's all.Get me out of here. My heart's starting to bother me now. I refuse to go on!" Screams of agony and protest continue. At 300 volts, he says he absolutely refuses to continue. By the time you surpass 330 volts, the learner falls silent and fails to respond—not to be heard from again. Table 7.4 lists his responses in grim detail. Somewhere along the line, you turn to the experimenter for guidance. "What should I do? Don't you think I should stop? Shouldn't we at least check on him?" You might even confront the experimenter head-on and refuse to continue. Yet in answer to your inquiries, the experimenter—firm in his tone and seemingly unaffected by the learner's distress—prods you along as follows: l Please continue (or please go on). l The experiment requires that you continue. l It is absolutely essential that you continue. l You have no other choice; you must go on. What do you do? In a situation that begins to feel more and more like a bad dream, do you follow your own conscience or obey the experimenter?)

PREDICTIONS-everyone that was surveyed said they wouldn't go up to the highest shock level if they were put in that situation but the statistics show this isn't true, 60% of random experimenters did and decided to be obedient

Milgram described this procedure to psychiatrists, college students, and middle-class adults, and he asked them to predict how they would behave. On average, these groups estimated that they would call it quits at the 135-volt level. Not a single person thought he or she would go all the way to 450 volts. When asked to predict the percentage of other people who would deliver the maximum shock, those interviewed gave similar estimates. The psychiatrists estimated that only one out of a thousand people would exhibit that kind of extreme obedience. They were wrong. In Milgram's initial study, involving 40 men from the surrounding New Haven community, participants exhibited an alarming degree of obedience, administering an average of 27 out of 30 possible shocks. In fact, 26 of the 40 participants—that's 65%— delivered the ultimate punishment of 450 volts.
Sometimes people can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of a request, regardless of its merit. Consider, for example, requests that sound reasonable but offer no real basis for compliance. Ellen Langer and her colleagues (1978) have found that words alone can sometimes trick us into submission. In their research, an experimenter approached people who were using a library copying machine and asked to cut in. Three different versions of the request were used. In one, participants were simply asked, "Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine?" In a second version, the request was justified by the added phrase "because I'm in a rush." As you would expect, more participants stepped aside when the request was justified (94%) than when it was not (60%). A third version of the request, however, suggests that the reason offered had little to do with the increase in compliance. In this case, participants heard the following: "Excuse me. I have five pages. May I use the Xerox machine because I have to make some copies?" If you read this request closely, you'll see that it really offered no reason at all. Yet 93% in this condition complied! It was as if the appearance of a reason, triggered by the word because, was all that was necessary.Indeed, Langer (1989) finds that the mind is often on "automatic pilot"—we respond mindlessly to words without fully processing the information they are supposed to convey. At least for requests that are small, "sweet little nothings" may be enough to win compliance.
reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us (Gouldner, 1960). On the negative side, this norm can be used to sanction retaliation against those who cause us harm—"an eye for an eye." On the positive side, it leads us to feel obligated to repay others for acts of kindness. Thus, whenever we receive gifts, invitations, and free samples, we usually go out of our way to return the favor.

-COMPLIANCE=DENNIS REGAN(1971) The norm of reciprocity contributes to the predictability and fairness of social interaction. However, it can also be used to exploit us. examined this possibility in the following laboratory study. Individuals were brought together with a confederate who was trained to act in a likable or unlikable manner for an experiment on "aesthetics." In one condition, the confederate did the participant an unsolicited favor. He left during a break and returned with two bottles of Coca-Cola, one for himself and the other for the participant. In a second condition, he returned from the break empty-handed. In a third condition, participants were treated to a Coke, but by the experimenter, not the confederate. The confederate then told participants in all conditions that he was selling raffle tickets at 25 cents apiece and asked if they would be willing to buy any. On average, participants bought more raffle tickets when the confederate had earlier brought them a soft drink than when he had not. The norm of reciprocity was so strong that they returned the favor even when the confederate was not otherwise a likable character. In fact, participants in this condition spent an average of 43 cents on raffle tickets. At a time when soft drinks cost less than a quarter, the confederate made a handsome quick profit on his investment!

-Consistency pressure JERRY BURGER(1997)-pressure to remain consistent
But does receiving a favor make us feel indebted forever or is there a time limit to the social obligation that is so quietly unleashed? In an experiment designed to answer this question, Jerry Burger and others (1997) used Regan's soft drink favor and had the confederate try to "cash in" with a request either immediately or one week later. The result: Compliance levels increased in the immediate condition but not after a full week had passed. People may feel compelled to reciprocate, but that feeling—at least for small acts of kindness—is relatively short-lived.

"If someone does you a favor, it's good to repay that person with a greater favor." On the receiving end, some people try more than others not to accept favors that might later set them up to be exploited. On a scale that measures reciprocation wariness, people are said to be wary if they express the suspicion, for example, that "asking for another's help gives them power over your life" (Eisenberger et al., 1987). Cultures may also differ in terms of their reciprocation wariness—with interesting consequences for social behavior. Imagine that you bump into a casual friend at the airport, stop for a drink, and the friend offers to pay for it. Would you let the friend pay? Or, suppose a sales clerk in a supermarket offered you a free sample of soup to taste. Would you accept the offer? Theorizing that the norm of reciprocity operates with particular force in collectivist cultures that foster interdependence, Hao Shen and others (2011) conducted a series of studies in which they posed these kinds of questions to Chinese college students from Hong Kong and to European American students from Canada. As you can see in l Figure 7.7, the students from China were consistently less willing to accept the favor. Additional questioning revealed that these participants were more likely to see the gift giver's motives as self-serving and to feel uncomfortably indebted by the situation.
A twostep compliance technique in which an influencer sets the stage for the real request by first getting a person to comply with a much smaller request.
is to break the ice with a small initial request that the customer can't easily refuse. Once that first commitment is elicited, the chances are increased that another, larger request will succeed.

FOR EXAMPLE, Jonathan Freedman and Scott Fraser (1966) tested the impact of this technique in a series of field experiments. In one, an experimenter pretending to be employed by a consumer organization telephoned a large number of female homemakers in Palo Alto, California, and asked if they would be willing to answer some questions about household products. Those who consented were then asked a few quick and innocuous questions and thanked for their assistance. Three days later, the experimenter called back and made a considerable, almost outrageous, request. He asked the women if they would allow a handful of men into their homes for two hours to rummage through their drawers and cupboards so they could take an inventory of their household products. The foot-in-the-door technique proved to be very effective. When the participants were confronted with only the very intrusive request, 22% consented. Yet the rate of agreement among those who had been surveyed earlier more than doubled, to 53%. This basic result has now been repeated over and over again. People are more likely to donate time, money, food, blood, the use of their home, and other resources once they have been induced to go along with a small initial request. Although the effect is not always as dramatic as that obtained by Freedman and Fraser, it does appear in a wide variety of circumstances, and it increases compliance rates, on average, by about 13% (Burger, 1999).
INFORMATIONAL INFLUENCE (After two uneventful rounds in Asch's study, the participant (seated second from the right) faces a dilemma. The answer he wants to give in the third test of visual discrimination differs from that of the first five confederates, who are all in agreement. Should he give his own answers or conform to theirs?answers. In a control group, where they made judgments in isolation, they made almost no errors. Yet Asch's participants went along with the incorrect majority 37% of the time—far more often than most of us would ever predict. Not everyone conformed, of course. About 25% refused to agree on any of the incorrect group judgments. Yet 50% went along on at least half of the critical presentations and remaining participants conformed on an occasional basis.

Some 15 years after Sherif 's demonstration, Solomon Asch (1951) constructed a very different task for testing how people's beliefs affect the beliefs of others.
visual discriminations. As an example, he asks you and the others to indicate which of three comparison lines is identical in length to a standard line. That seems easy enough. The experimenter then says that after each set of lines is shown, you and the others should take turns announcing your judgments out loud in the order of your seating position. Beginning on his left, the experimenter asks the first person for his judgment. Seeing that you are in the next-to-last position, you patiently await your turn. The opening moments pass uneventfully. The task and discriminations are clear and everyone agrees on the answers. On the third set of lines, however, the first participant selects what is quite clearly the wrong line. Huh? What happened? Did he suddenly lose his mind, his eyesight, or both? Before you have the chance to figure this one out, the next four participants choose the same wrong line. Now what? Feeling as if you have entered the twilight zone, you wonder if you misunderstood the task. And you wonder what the others will think if you have the nerve to disagree. It's your turn now. You rub your eyes and take another look. What do you see? More to the point, what do you do?
season. He noticed that cyclists who competed against others performed better than those who cycled alone against the clock. After dismissing various theories of the day (our favorite is "brain worry"), he proposed his own hypothesis: The presence of another rider releases the competitive instinct, which increases nervous energy and enhances performance.

1. The presence of others creates general physiological arousal, which energizes behavior. Based on experimental psychology research and principles of evolution, Zajonc argued that all animals, including humans, tend to become aroused when in the presence of conspecifics—that is, members of their own species. 2. Increased arousal enhances an individual's tendency to perform the dominant response. The dominant response is the reaction elicited most quickly and easily by a given stimulus. 3. The quality of an individual's performance varies according to the type of task. On an easy task (one that is simple or well learned), the dominant response is usually correct or successful. But on a difficult task (one that is complex or unfamiliar), the dominant response is often incorrect or unsuccessful.

However, if you are just learning to play the violin and you are unfamiliar with this arrangement, the presence of others is the last thing you'll want. The increase in arousal should enhance the dominant response, which in this case would be unsuccessful violin playing. When you think about it, this makes intuitive sense. If you are just learning how to perform some complicated task, such as playing the violin or riding a bike, it helps if you are not aroused. In contrast, if you are already good at the task, you may need the extra "juice" that comes from performing in front of others to help you rise to new heights and perform even better than you would if performing alone.