1. Wk1- Social Perceptions and Misperceptions
1.1. L1.1 Intro and Welcome
1.1.1. Wesleyan university between boston and new york
1.1.2. private and expensive
1.1.3. TAs
1.1.3.1. Ema Tanovic
1.1.3.2. Tawni Stoop
1.1.3.3. Donovan Suh
1.1.4. Hindshight Bias (I knew it all along effect)
1.1.5. Social Psychology defined
1.1.5.1. is the scientific study of how people think about, influence and related to one another.
1.2. L1.2 Course Logistics and Rules
1.2.1. Washing Potatoes at the same time
1.2.2. social psychology is NOT clinical psychology
1.2.3. Some benefits of Social Psychology
1.2.3.1. Self understanding
1.2.3.2. social relationships
1.2.3.3. intergroup relations
1.2.3.4. group performance
1.2.3.5. decision making
1.2.3.6. life statisfaction
1.3. L1.3 Tour of Social Psychology Network and Invitation to Join
1.3.1. this began in 1996 as a resource for students with funding from the NSF. It became a professional network in 1999.
1.3.2. Society for Personality and social psychology
1.3.3. Goals
1.3.3.1. promote peace and social justice and sustainable living through public education, research, and the advancement of psychology
1.4. L 1.4 The Psychological Construction of Reality
1.4.1. People don't always share our realities.
1.4.1.1. but perceptions are powerfully influenced by
1.4.1.1.1. What we happen to be paying attention to (salience)
1.4.1.1.2. Contextual Factors
1.4.1.1.3. Past Experience
1.4.1.1.4. Expectations
1.4.1.1.5. Motivations
1.4.2. Our experience of reality is psychologically constructed. (notice the Black 10 of diamonds are missed)
1.4.2.1. It is also a matter of motivation. We often see what we want to see, and don't see what we don't want to see. ..Case Report : Dartmouth Vs Princeton Game results.
1.4.3. Change Blindness and the changing card color trick
1.4.3.1. made while attention is focused elsewhere
1.4.3.2. phenomenon in which observers fail to detect changes in a visual stimulus.
1.4.4. Apple tree color trick
1.4.4.1. black and white with magenta will make you see green
1.4.5. Rotating Snake by A. Kitaoka
1.5. L1.5 Confirmation Bias
1.5.1. snapshot quiz. Four Card game results
1.5.1.1. which 2 cards should you flip to confirm or refute the assertion: "if a card has a vowel on one side, then it has an even number on the other side
1.5.1.2. Answer: one of the vowels A card, and one of the even number 7
1.5.2. Confirmation Bias is preference for information that is consistent with a preconception, rather than an information that challenges that.
1.5.3. Presence or absence of a disease when a symptom is present or absent
1.5.3.1. Correct Answer:
1.5.3.1.1. You need all four cells to determine whether a symptom is associated with a disease. All four cells are relevant. WE need to go out of our way to find dispproving evidence as well.
1.5.4. Applied to social psychology
1.5.4.1. when individuals and groups interact with each other, they usually have expectations. They give more weight to evidence that gives weight to their expectations
1.5.4.2. People focus on their expectations so confirmation bias serve to preserve and strengthen social expectations and sterotypes
1.5.4.2.1. specially when they aren't highly motivated to question their belief.
1.6. L1.6 Self fulfilling Prophecies
1.6.1. coined By Robert Merton, 1948
1.6.1.1. a misconception that later becomes true.
1.6.2. Robert Rosenthal Pygmalion Effect
1.6.2.1. Students marked as 'bloomers" were measured 8 months later as actually increasing their scores
1.6.2.2. but actually these students were just chosen at random.
1.6.2.3. student expectations also affect teacher performance
1.6.3. Security Dilemma
1.6.3.1. North korea perceives south Korea to be aggressive and starts an arms race
1.6.4. Behavioral confirmation
1.6.4.1. takes place when people's social expectations lead them to act in a way that causes others to confirm these expectations
1.6.4.1.1. Social type of self fulfilling prophecy
1.6.4.1.2. contest on reaction time. Noise weapon from level 1 to level 6
1.6.4.2. All cases of behavioral confirmation involve self-fulfilling prophecies, but not all self-fulfilling prophecies involve behavioral confirmation. For example, someone expecting to die young might smoke (believing that tobacco use won't matter) and end up dying young from smoking -- a self-fulfilling prophecy that didn't involve a social expectation
1.6.4.3. Noise Experiment
1.6.4.3.1. when students expected an aggressive partner, they use higher intensity noise levels 61% of the times
1.6.4.3.2. When students expected cooperative behavior, they only used higher intensity noise 28% of the times
1.6.4.3.3. Students who were expected to be competitive became more aggresive
1.6.4.3.4. effects continue even after the original student was taken out
1.7. L1.7 Thin Slices: Social Judgments in the Blink of an eye
1.7.1. balanced view of social perception
1.7.1.1. CONS: can be influeced by:
1.7.1.1.1. context effects
1.7.1.1.2. confirmation bias
1.7.1.1.3. other psychological factors
1.7.1.1.4. change blindness
1.7.1.2. PRO:it can operate with surprising efficiency
1.7.1.2.1. Nick Rule and Nalini Ambady: yearbook photographs
1.7.1.2.2. Nalini Ambady and Robert Rosenthal Harvard U
1.7.1.2.3. Thin Slices Predict Elections
1.7.2. Two Key unanswered questions
1.7.2.1. Can people make thin slice judgments that are accurate when it comes to personal characteristics and other aspects of a stranger's identity?
1.7.2.1.1. Social judgments made during the first minute of meeting a stranger are usually reliable and accurate!! (True)
1.7.2.2. If so, how fast?
1.7.2.2.1. People were able to identify sexual orientations given only a few seconds of pictures. (50ms)
1.7.3. Strengths and weaknesses
1.7.3.1. social judgments can take place very rapidly, sometimes with surprising accuracy
1.7.3.2. but they are prone to certain biases and distortions and once our judgments are formed, we tend to lock into them.
1.8. L1.8 What other people think of you
1.8.1. The human Zoo
1.8.1.1. a british program about a job interview where candidates are interviewed by a veteran HR
1.8.1.2. people make first impressions in the first 5 seconds
1.8.1.3. and it will take 8 good impressions to counter one bad impression
1.8.1.4. combined graphs of 3 candidates were already in the proper rankings in just the first few seconds
1.8.2. social impressions are made very quickly in the first few seconds of first meeting.
1.8.2.1. Thin slice research began with observations of behavior lasting five minutes or less, but later research found that social impressions are often formed in a matter of seconds, and that once formed, these impressions are frequently slow to change
1.9. Readings
1.9.1. Introducing Social Psychology
1.9.1.1. What is social psychology
1.9.1.1.1. it is the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to one another
1.9.1.1.2. Sociology studies people in groups and societies while social psychology focuses more on individuals and does more experimentation.
1.9.1.1.3. Compared with Personality Psychology, social psychology focuses less on individuals' differences and more on how individuals, in general, view and affect one another.
1.9.1.1.4. Social Psychology studies attitudes, beliefs, conformity and independence, love and hate
1.9.1.2. what are social psychology's big ideas?
1.9.1.2.1. We construct our social reality
1.9.1.2.2. Our social intuitions are powerful, sometimes perilous
1.9.1.2.3. Attitudes shape and are shaped by behavior
1.9.1.2.4. social influences shape behavior
1.9.1.2.5. dispositions shape behavior
1.9.1.2.6. social behavior is also a biological behavior
1.9.1.2.7. feelings and actions toward people are sometimes negative and sometimes positive
1.9.1.3. How do human values influence social psychology?
1.9.1.3.1. Social Psychologist' values penetrate their work in obvious ways such as their choice of research topics and the types of people who are attracted to various fields of study
1.9.1.3.2. It is also reflected in hidden assumptions when forming concepts, choosing labels and giving advice.
1.9.1.4. Is soial psychology simply common sense?
1.9.1.4.1. "i knew it all along" phenomena (hindsight bias)
1.9.1.4.2. the hindsight bias often makes people overconfident about the validity of their judgments and predictions
1.9.1.5. How do we do social psychology?
1.9.1.5.1. Forming and testing hypotheses
1.9.1.5.2. correlational research: detecting natural associations
1.9.1.5.3. Experimental Research
1.9.2. ON being Sane in Insane Places
1.9.2.1. Normal people were admitted to psychiatric hospitals and then determining whether they were discovered to be sane.
1.9.2.1.1. Eight Pseudopatients were a varied group, one was a psychology grad student, seven were older. 3 were psychologists , a pedia, a psychiatrist, a painter and a housewife.
1.9.2.1.2. They pretended to hear voices in the same sex as the pseudo patients.
1.9.2.2. Immediately after admissions, they stopped simulating their symptoms of abnormality
1.9.2.3. Despite their public show of normality, the psuedopatients were never detected.
1.9.2.3.1. however, 35 of the 118 patients voiced suspicions :"You are not crazy"
1.9.2.4. data speaks of the massive role of labeling in psychiatric assessment.
1.10. Assignment lessons
1.10.1. to randomly pick 50 out of 643 students
1.10.1.1. how many sets of numbers do you want to generate: 1
1.10.1.2. how many numbers per set: 50
1.10.1.3. Number range: 1 to 643
1.10.2. to randomly assign 40 participants to 4 conditions
1.10.2.1. how many sets of numbers do you want to generate: 1
1.10.2.2. how many numbers per set: 40
1.10.2.3. Number range 1 to 4
1.10.3. to randomly assign 40 participants in blocks of 4
1.10.3.1. How many sets of numbers do you want to generate? 10
1.10.3.2. how many numbers per set: 4
1.10.3.3. Number range 1 to 4
1.10.3.4. do you wish eact number in a set to be unique: yes
1.10.4. random sample of 100 telephone numbers
2. Wk2-Psychology of Self Presentation and Persuasion
2.1. L2.1 Attirbution theory: the whys and wherefores of behavior
2.1.1. behavior and attribution theory
2.1.2. why does it matter?
2.1.2.1. because how you explain behavior, will determine what you do about it.
2.1.2.1.1. If you fail an exam because you didn't study, then you would study more the next time.
2.1.2.1.2. If you fail an exam because the exam wasn't fair, then you might not study for the next one.
2.1.2.2. useful in the personal level
2.1.2.2.1. help avoid conflict
2.1.2.2.2. improves relationships
2.1.2.2.3. increase productivity
2.1.2.2.4. heighten job satisfaction
2.1.2.2.5. lead to self understanding
2.1.3. What is attribution theory?
2.1.3.1. Fritz Heider: Psychology of interpersonal relations (1958)
2.1.3.2. Kelly: three possible causes
2.1.3.2.1. Person: something about the person
2.1.3.2.2. entity: some enduring feature of the situation
2.1.3.2.3. time: something about the particular occasion
2.1.3.3. Kelly: three sources of information:
2.1.3.3.1. consensus: do other people respond similarly
2.1.3.3.2. distinctiveness do other situations elicit the same behavior?
2.1.3.3.3. consistency: does the same thing happen time after time.
2.1.3.3.4. suppose you were the only person who performed well on a variety of test over a range of occasions?
2.1.4. Salience: factor that affects the attribution
2.1.4.1. something that grabs your attention in some way
2.1.4.1.1. research finding: In general , Salience is disproportionately causal - that is, the more salient a stimulus is, the more likely it is to be viewed as causal
2.1.4.1.2. perceptions of causality are partly a function of where one's attention is directed.
2.1.4.2. Shelly taylor and Fiske
2.1.4.2.1. Two confederates, A and B have a conversation that is observed by 6 others.
2.1.4.2.2. 2 observers were watching A, 2 observers were watching B, while 2 others can see both A and B
2.1.4.2.3. Observers tend to rate the person in their visual field as having set the tone of the conversation and been the one who determined the type of information exchanged and caused the other person's responses.
2.1.4.3. Lassiter, GD Videotaped interrogations and confessions
2.1.4.3.1. When camera angle is focused on the suspect, people are 2x as likely to see the suspect as guilty than when the camera is focused on the interrogator.
2.1.4.3.2. the best practice may be to focus on the interrogator.
2.1.4.4. minority is viewed as more salient and become scapegoats when the economy fails.
2.1.4.4.1. a single minority is perceived as talking more than when there are more minority in a group
2.1.5. Key Point: causal attribution is not a simple matter of logical deduction, it is also partly a matter of sensory perception. The psychological construction of reality. Usually correct, but sometimes this messes up.
2.2. L2.2 Some twists and turns when Explaining behavior
2.2.1. Nisbett and Borgida Experiment
2.2.1.1. Effect of consensus?
2.2.1.1.1. Information given to some participants
2.2.1.1.2. Two key questions asked of participants
2.2.1.1.3. ..my thoughts: but then why are normative statements and Consensus (in secrets of persuasion) effective?
2.2.1.2. Results of experiment
2.2.1.2.1. Giving people consensus data did not affect the causal attribution that people made
2.2.1.2.2. Even when people knew that the majority of participants in the experiment had received a shock or failed to help, they made dispositional attributions (due to person's personality)
2.2.1.2.3. Consensus info also failed to affect judgment of how people thought they themselves would have acted if they had been in the original studies.
2.2.1.3. false uniqueness effect
2.2.1.3.1. a false belief that when it comes to our own good deeds and other desireable behaviors, we are UNIQUE. A cut above the pack.
2.2.2. Fundamental attribution error
2.2.2.1. this is the tendency for people to under estimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behavior
2.2.2.1.1. source: Lee Ross, (1977), The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings: Distortions in the attribution process.
2.2.2.1.2. this is a true error. Not a bias.
2.2.2.1.3. Jones : Essay author was roped into taking a position, even when this is disclosed, people tended to believeing what was actually in the essay.
2.2.2.2. How fundamental is the error?
2.2.2.2.1. does it occur just as often in the east as in the west?
2.2.2.2.2. actor-observer differences in Attribution
2.2.2.2.3. Michael Storms Reversing Actor-Observer Differences
2.3. L2.3 Is the Attitude bone connected to the behavior bone?
2.3.1. There is far less consistency between held attitudes and behaviors
2.3.1.1. Example: all of us care about the environment, but consistently use Styrofoam.
2.3.1.2. two classic studies
2.3.1.2.1. 1934: Richard T. Lapiere
2.3.1.2.2. 1973: Darley, John
2.3.1.3. Allan Wicker examined 46 studies and concludes
2.3.1.3.1. it is considerably more likely that attitudes will be unrelated or only slightly related to overt behaviors than that attitudes will be closely related to actions.
2.3.1.3.2. what could be the reasons?
2.3.1.4. attitudes and behaviors are inconsistent.
2.3.2. when is attitude and behavior related?
2.3.2.1. when they closely match each other (in generality/specificity)
2.3.2.2. when the attitude is strong or potent (acquired through direct experience)
2.3.2.3. when the attitude is easy to recall and has been stable over time
2.3.2.4. when people are made aware of themselves and their attitudes.
2.3.2.5. when outside influences are kept to a minimum
2.4. L2.4 Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Perception
2.4.1. story of jewish tailor being heckled by kids.
2.4.1.1. He decides to pay them 1 dollar for each kid that heckled him
2.4.1.2. on the succeeding days, he pays them less and less.. Until the kids give up in frustration. so kids stop heckling him
2.4.1.3. so they harassed the tailor for free, but refused for a penny!
2.4.2. Leon Festinger and Merrill Carlsmith
2.4.2.1. 60 Stanford students were randomly assigned three random conditions: 20 USD, 1 USD and control conditions
2.4.2.2. they were asked to do boring tasks, but to tell the next student that the tasks was exciting.
2.4.2.3. findings
2.4.2.3.1. the participants in the 1 USD condition to lie , rated the tasks as enjoyable.
2.4.2.3.2. the participants who were paid 20 USD could justify their lying, but the 1 USD couldn't.
2.4.3. Key Parts of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
2.4.3.1. The act of holding two incompatible thoughts creates a sense of internal discomfort, or dissonance
2.4.3.2. People try to reduce or avoid these feeling of dissonance whenever possible.
2.4.4. Daryl Bem: Self Perception theory
2.4.4.1. Individuals come to know their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own behavior and the circumstances in which their behavior occurs.
2.4.4.2. to the extent that internal cues were weak, ambiguous or uninterpretable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer.
2.4.4.2.1. You are observing yourself.
2.4.5. difference between dissonance and self perception
2.4.5.1. self perception focuses on social inferences and is attributional in nature
2.4.5.2. cognitive dissonance involves a natural tendency to reduce or avoid inner conflict
2.5. L2.5 Two Flavors of Dissonance: Vanilla and Earthworm
2.5.1. two flavors
2.5.1.1. Pre decision dissonance
2.5.1.1.1. dissonance influences decision
2.5.1.1.2. Sherman and Gorkin (1980) experiment where college students were assigned either one of 3 conditions
2.5.1.1.3. The Worm/Shock experiment
2.5.1.2. Post decision dissonance
2.5.1.2.1. dissonance FOLLOWS a decision that has already been made, and efforts to avoid or reduce this dissonance affect later judgement
2.5.1.2.2. 141 horse bettors.
2.5.2. How Universal is Cognitive dissonance?
2.5.2.1. yes it is universal. but the form differs from country to country.
2.5.2.1.1. west: dissonance from inconsistencies that might suggest incompetence or bad in some way.
2.5.2.1.2. East: tend to be more concerned about choices and behaviors that could lead to social rejection
2.6. L2.6 How to be persuasive
2.6.1. Bill McGuires' Matrix
2.6.1.1. Input Factors
2.6.1.1.1. source
2.6.1.1.2. message
2.6.1.1.3. channel
2.6.1.1.4. receiver
2.6.1.1.5. target
2.6.1.2. Output Factors
2.6.1.2.1. Attending/paying attention
2.6.1.2.2. liking
2.6.1.2.3. understanding
2.6.1.2.4. agreeing
2.6.1.2.5. remembering
2.6.1.2.6. deciding
2.6.1.2.7. acting
2.6.2. tests
2.6.2.1. 1. Men are more persuasive than women. (generally, because they tend to get more chances at talking. 2. Given two presentations for opposite sides, the last presentation will have an advantage in persuading the audience, specially when the time to action closely follows the last presentation. 3. Speakers who talk fast are viewed as more believable than those who talk with occasional hesitation. 4. Repeat a message at most 3 times, after that, the amount of attitude change declines as listeners get irritated with the message 5. TV ads dont have a large effect on public's voting preference except for helping with name recall and making their position known
2.6.3. three questions on persuasion.
2.6.3.1. should you discuss counter-arguments
2.6.3.1.1. Yes but under the following conditions:
2.6.3.2. message based on central or peripheral route to persuasion
2.6.3.2.1. central
2.6.3.2.2. peripheral
2.6.3.3. do fear appeals tend to be persuasive?
2.6.3.3.1. Yes, as long as you provide ways to avoid the threat.
2.7. L2.7 Secrets from the science of persuasion
2.7.1. 6 shortcuts that guide human bewhavior.
2.7.1.1. reciprocity
2.7.1.1.1. people are obliged to give back whatever they received from you.
2.7.1.2. scarcity
2.7.1.2.1. concord example., people wanted it more when there is less of it.
2.7.1.2.2. point out what is unique about our proposal and what they stand to lose if they dont take it.
2.7.1.3. authority
2.7.1.3.1. it is important to signal our authority before you make the request. Arrange for someone to do it for you.
2.7.1.3.2. impact of expert introduction led to a 20% in appointments and 15% rise in signed contracts.
2.7.1.4. consistency
2.7.1.4.1. looking for and asking for small initial commitments that can be made.
2.7.1.5. liking
2.7.1.5.1. People prefer to say YES to people that they like
2.7.1.6. consensus
2.7.1.6.1. specially when they are uncertain, people will look to the actions of others to determine their own.
2.8. L2.8 The Ins and Outs of Social Influence
2.8.1. social influence: Efforts by an individual or group on another individual or group
2.8.1.1. Petrified forest signs: "Your heritage is being vandalized every day by theft of 14 tons a year" (Normative) It was unintentionally signalling that thousands of people are doing it. When the signs were taken out, stealing actually was reduced.
2.8.2. Wide Variety of Social Influence Technics
2.8.2.1. Asking people to imagine or predict doing something
2.8.2.1.1. like voting in an upcoming elections
2.8.2.2. Telling a stranger your name before making a request
2.8.2.2.1. by 50-100% "hi my name is scott and im wondering if you can do me a small favor"
2.8.2.3. Engaging people in dialogue rather than a monologue
2.8.2.3.1. Talk with people rather than talk AT people.
2.8.2.4. even a penny will help
2.8.2.4.1. adding the clause ..."even a penny will help".. the idea is to make it affordable and hard to say no to such a simple request. Compliance jumped from 20 to 50%!
2.8.2.4.2. increases the chances that people will make a donation without significantly affecting the average dollar amount donated
2.8.3. three most famous technic
2.8.3.1. Foot in the door
2.8.3.1.1. First researched in 1960s. Premise is people are more likely to comply with a larger request after they comply with a smaller one. (Like Consistency in Secrets of persuasion)
2.8.3.1.2. Jonathan Freedman and Scott Faser
2.8.3.2. Door in the face technic
2.8.3.2.1. Work 2 hours a week as an unpaid volunteer for at least 2 years.
2.8.3.2.2. get somone to slam a door in your face with a larger request, so that they will agree to a smaller request
2.8.3.3. Low Ball Technic
2.8.3.3.1. 63 college students were randomly assigned to either a control or experimental condition
2.8.3.3.2. only technic that makes ONE request
2.9. Bonus Video:
2.9.1. Elliot Aronson, Univ of California, Santa Cruz,
2.9.1.1. two mentors
2.9.1.1.1. leon fessinger
2.9.1.1.2. adam maslow
2.9.1.2. early childhood experience of being hated as a jew
2.9.1.3. talked about the famous dissonance experiment : 1 USD or 20 USD to lie about liking a boring tasks.
2.10. Readings
2.10.1. The self in a social world
2.10.1.1. Spotlights and illusions
2.10.1.1.1. Spotlight effect means seeing ourselves at center stage, thus intuitivetly overestimating the extent to which others' attntion is aimed at us.
2.10.1.1.2. Fewer people notice than we presume
2.10.1.1.3. Because we are keenly aware of our emotions, we suffer an illusion of transparency.
2.10.1.1.4. examples
2.10.1.2. Self Concept: Who am I?
2.10.1.2.1. self schemas are mental templates by which we organize our worlds.
2.10.1.2.2. Possible selves
2.10.1.2.3. development of the social self.
2.10.1.3. What is the nature and motivating power of self esteem?
2.10.1.3.1. Self Esteem is the overall sense of self worth we use to appraise our traits and abilities.
2.10.1.3.2. self perceptions do have some influence.
2.10.1.3.3. Self Esteem and Motivation
2.10.1.3.4. Dark Side of Self Esteem
2.10.1.4. What does it mean to have 'perceived self control?
2.10.1.4.1. The self's energy
2.10.1.4.2. Self Efficacy: how competent we feel on a task.
2.10.1.4.3. Locus of control
2.10.1.4.4. Learned Helplessness Vs Self Determination
2.10.1.5. What is self serving Bias? ( a tendency to perceive oneself favorably)
2.10.1.5.1. In explaining positive and negative events
2.10.1.5.2. we all believe that we are above average
2.10.1.5.3. Unrealistic optimism
2.10.1.5.4. False consensus and uniqueness
2.10.1.6. reflections on self serving bias and self esteem
2.10.1.6.1. as adaptive stragegy
2.10.1.6.2. as maladaptive
2.10.1.7. How do people manage their self presentation?
2.10.1.7.1. self handicapping
2.10.1.7.2. self presentation
2.10.1.7.3. self monitoring
2.10.2. Two routes to attitude change
2.10.2.1. Central
2.10.2.1.1. when people are motivated to think about an issue
2.10.2.1.2. explicit and reflective
2.10.2.1.3. faster change to explicit attitudes
2.10.2.1.4. high effort , elaborate,
2.10.2.2. peripheral cues
2.10.2.2.1. implicit and automatic
2.10.2.2.2. slowly builds implicit attitudes through repeated associations between an attitude object and an emotion
2.10.2.2.3. examples:
2.10.2.2.4. low effort, use peripheral cues, rule of thumb heuristics
2.10.2.3. The elements of persuasion
2.10.2.3.1. who says it: the communicator
2.10.2.3.2. What it said: the message content
2.10.2.3.3. to whom it is said: the audience
2.10.2.3.4. what are they thinking?
2.10.3. Crafting Normative Messages to Protect the environment
2.10.3.1. Injunctive Norms: involves perceptions of which behaviors are typically approved or disapproved.
2.10.3.2. need to align injunctive and descriptive norms canone optimize the ower of normative appeals.
2.10.3.3. descriptive Norms: involves perceptions of which behaviors are typically performed
2.10.3.3.1. when used to mobilze action against a problem, might backfire as it conveys the message that others are doing it.
3. Wk3-Obedience,Conformity and Deindividuation
3.1. L3.1 Obedience to Authority
3.1.1. 1960s, decades when people began to question authority
3.1.1.1. Unknown doctor called via telephone to ask you to administer 2x the maximum daily dosage of an unknown medication (Astroten)
3.1.1.1.1. 21 out of 22 Nurses obeyed the doctor!
3.1.1.1.2. asked to predict what they would do?
3.1.1.2. White college students were asked to select job applicants from a pool of candidates for a marketing position.
3.1.1.2.1. 50% were asked to discriminate against minority groups
3.1.1.3. 40 minute video of Stanley milgram's experiment
3.1.1.3.1. observation by Lee Ross
3.2. L3.1 Obedience by Stanley Milgram
3.2.1. Stanley Milgram secretly videotaped 14 of the experimenters. May 1962 at Yale University.
3.2.1.1. When a wrong answer is given, the subject should flip a switch to administer a shock
3.2.1.2. the person in the labcoat (authority figure) will tell the subject to keep increasing the shock.
3.2.1.3. before they left the lab, they had a reconciliation meeting
3.2.1.4. effect of psychological distance on the source
3.2.1.4.1. as the physical distance between the 'victim' and the subject was reduced, so did the obedience to the orders.
3.2.1.4.2. as the lab experimentor was moved away from the scene, (as in when the orders were given by telephone), the level of obedience also dropped.
3.2.1.5. the experiment was conducted in Yale. This may have an effect (larger institutional context). So the site was moved to Bridgeport where no connection was made to Yale.
3.2.1.5.1. Level of obedience, although somewhat reduced was not significantly lower.
3.2.1.6. In examining the effects of group forces, in a related experiment, there were a group of actors (for peer pressure)
3.2.1.6.1. In one condition, the actors broke off and the 90% of the naive subjects also did so.
3.2.1.6.2. in one condition, the actors all followed the orders obediently, this strengthened the experimentors power only slightly
3.2.1.6.3. in another condition, the actors all followed the orders and the naive subject was asked to perform a subsidiary act. Only 3 out of 40 broke off.
3.2.1.7. The results are disturbing.Human nature can not be counted upon to insulate men from brutality and inhuman treatment in the face of malevolent authority.
3.3. L3.2 Obedience to Authority Part 2
3.3.1. discussions
3.3.1.1. context of milgrams studies
3.3.1.1.1. took place in 1960s
3.3.1.1.2. holocaust in germany
3.3.1.1.3. the most common stopping point was 150v.
3.3.1.2. ethical issues related to the experiments
3.3.1.2.1. informed consent
3.3.1.2.2. was the knowledge gained worth the price that milgram's participants suffered.
3.3.1.3. contemporary research on obedience
3.3.1.3.1. jerry burger: Would People still obey? 2009 with similar results.
3.3.1.3.2. there is no decline in obedience levels
3.3.1.3.3. Excerpts from ABC News
3.3.1.3.4. Stanley Milgram Quote: "...ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, and without any particular hostility on their part, can become agents in a terribly destructive process"
3.3.1.4. resources for learning more
3.3.1.4.1. wikipedia
3.3.1.4.2. stanleymigram.com
3.3.1.5. funny example
3.3.1.5.1. excerpt from the Human Zoo
3.4. Bonus Video: Stanley Milgram and Electric Shock Generator
3.5. Bonus Video: What was Stanley Milgram Like?
3.5.1. takooshian and Zimbardo
3.5.1.1. milgram asked the students to grade each other
3.5.1.2. courage, courage, courage= great researcher
3.5.1.3. Bronx Tale: is it better to be feared or loved?
3.6. L3.3 Group Pressure and Conformity P1
3.6.1. conformity is a change in behavior or belief as a result of social pressure
3.6.2. NBC video "Follow the Leader"
3.6.2.1. Solomon Ash
3.6.2.2. Pitting individuality against the pull of group pressure.
3.6.3. Solomon Asch's conformity experiments
3.6.3.1. Participants gave incorrect answers in the direction of the majority on 32% of critical trials.
3.6.3.2. 75% conformed to at least one trial
3.6.3.3. 33% conformed on half or more of the critical trials
3.6.3.4. Varying the number of confederates that gave wrong answers had the following effects
3.6.3.4.1. 1 confederate= zero effect
3.6.3.4.2. 2 confederate= 14% conformity
3.6.3.4.3. 3 confederate=32% conformity
3.6.3.4.4. more than 3 had diminishing effects
3.6.3.5. varying effect if there is no majority of answers
3.6.3.5.1. conformity fell to 25% of previous levels
3.6.3.5.2. unanimous majority of 3 had more power than a majority of eight with one dissenter
3.6.3.5.3. even when the lines differed by as much as 7 inches, some participants continued to yield to the majority
3.6.3.6. Led the groundwork for Milgram's experiments later.
3.7. L3.4 Group Pressure and Conformity P2
3.7.1. The prevailing view was that the level of conformity that Solomon Asch found were fairly high considering:
3.7.1.1. the participants were not members of a cohesive group
3.7.1.1.1. they didn't have to face their friends afterwards. Or even to interact with members of the group, once the studies were over.
3.7.1.2. there weren't penalties for guessing incorrectly
3.7.1.3. the correct answers were embarrassingly obvious
3.7.1.4. ...until 1976 Lee Ross, Gunter Bierbrauer, and Susan Hoffman's "The role of Attribution processes in conformity and dissent" argued the opposite.
3.7.1.4.1. The Asch experiment created a unique situation in which "the assault on the potential dissenter's judgment reaches an intensity virtually unparalleled outside the laboratory"
3.7.1.4.2. even Asch later remarked " it was frightening to have one's perceptions appear strange".
3.7.2. Bond and Smith studies in 17 countries
3.7.2.1. women tend to conform somewhat more than do men.
3.7.2.1.1. this gender gap has not changed over the years.
3.7.2.2. overall, conformity levels have steadily declined since the 1950s
3.7.2.3. conformity increases as the majority size grows from 2 to 13 people
3.7.2.4. conformity is more likely when majority is made up of the in-group members than outgroup members
3.7.2.5. The role of culture: huge difference: collectivist countries have higher conformity rates than individualist countries
3.7.2.5.1. Bond and Smith found that Culture had the most impact among the factors studied
3.7.3. influence of minority on the majority
3.7.3.1. a consistent minority was able to sway the majority as long as they were consistent.
3.7.3.1.1. study by Serge Moscovici
3.7.3.2. individuals count! Minority perspectives have an effect, while not immediately, but more often than it might seem.
3.8. L3.5 Dark side of Deinviduation
3.8.1. April 15, 1964 in Albany NY, the NY Times reported that as the crowd grew, the crowd shouted JUMP.
3.8.1.1. why would the people in the crowd behave this way?
3.8.2. Fessengers: Deindividuation occurs when individuals are not seen or paid attention to as individuals. The members do not feel that they stand out as individuals and there is a reduction of inner restraints against doing various things.
3.8.2.1. positive side: uninhibited dancing, singing, performing
3.8.2.2. negative: lynchings, gang rapes, riots, stealing
3.8.3. Zimbardo, P.G. 1970 dynamics of Deindividuation, conditions where this will arise
3.8.3.1. anonymity
3.8.3.2. diffused responsibility
3.8.3.2.1. According to Professor Zimbardo, the chances of deindividuation rise when responsibility is diffused and people aren't held personally accountable for their behavior
3.8.3.3. group size and group activity
3.8.3.3.1. most agree that larger groups either induce or facilitate stronger anti normative behavior
3.8.3.3.2. lynchings become more vicious as the size of the mob grew.
3.8.3.4. physical and mental arousal
3.8.3.5. altered time perspective
3.8.3.5.1. present is emphasized while past and future seem distant
3.8.3.6. sensory input overload
3.8.3.7. Physical involvenment
3.8.3.8. Altered states of consciousness
3.8.3.8.1. from alcohol, drugs, even sleep patterns
3.8.4. One of the main lessons of the Stanford Prison Experiment: "good people can be induced, seduced and initiatated into behaving in evil ways. Situations matter. "
3.8.4.1. we need to guard ourselves against situational factors that can lead to behave in destructive ways.
3.8.4.2. Study looked at 60 cases in which an African American was killed by a lynch mob in the United States (1899 to 1946)
3.8.4.3. Lynchings tended to become more vicious as the size of the mob grew.
3.8.5. Zhong, C.B., Lake, Gino : A good lamp is the best police
3.8.5.1. even the feeling of anonymity might be enough to deindividuate people.
3.8.5.1.1. participants in a dimly lighted room cheated more than those in a well lit room
3.8.5.1.2. participants wearing sunglasses behaved more selfishly than participants wearing clear glasses.
3.9. Assigned Video: Quite Rage: Stanford Prison Experiment
3.9.1. www.prisonexp.org
3.9.2. Stanford students were randomly assigned to be either wardens or prisoners. The situation quickly devolved into dehumanizing situation.
3.9.3. Stanford Country Prison
3.9.3.1. Mother of 1037
3.10. L3.6 Dark side of deindividuation Part 2
3.10.1. what is amazing is how closely the Stanford Prison experiment parallels true situations of prison abuse and human rights abuses (aka abu ghuraib)
3.10.1.1. Quite Rage DVD sales increased.
3.10.1.2. Prison guards were asked to watch it
3.10.2. failure
3.10.2.1. Lack of informed consent in the Stanford prison experiment
3.10.2.2. did not inform them of the right to withdraw from the research once participation has begun.
3.10.3. Book by Prof Zimbardo: The Lucifer effect: How Good people turn evil.
3.10.4. Main lessons:
3.10.4.1. Good people can be induced, seduced and initiated into behaving in evil ways.
3.10.4.2. The Stanford Prison Experiment teaches that situations matter. Social situations can have more profound effects on the behavior and mental functioning of individuals, groups and national leaders than we might believe possible.
3.10.4.3. When people are absorbed in a role, the situations can spin out of control
3.10.4.3.1. The main point of Milgram's research wasn't that 65% of people in the baseline condition delivered the highest shock. It was that under certain circumstances, people will obey a strangers' commands to harm others.
3.10.4.3.2. The main point of Asch research wasn't that people will conform on 32% of all critical trials, it was that under certain circumstances, People will go along with the group, even if it means contradicting the evidence of their senses.
3.10.4.3.3. The main point of Stanford Prison experiment wasn't that guards will become abusive. It's that we need to guard ourselves against SITUATIONAL factors that can lead us to behave destructively.
3.11. Readings
3.11.1. R3.1 Social Beliefs and Judgments
3.11.1.1. Introduction
3.11.1.1.1. Motivated reasoning transcends political parties
3.11.1.1.2. Partisanship pre disposes perceptions
3.11.1.1.3. 2/3 of what we see is behind our eyes.
3.11.1.2. How do we perceive our social worlds?
3.11.1.2.1. we respond not to reality as it is, but to reality as we construe it.
3.11.1.2.2. Choosing to suffer as a consequence of expecting to suffer
3.11.1.3. How do we judge our social worlds?
3.11.1.3.1. intuitive judgments
3.11.1.3.2. overconfidence- the tendency to be more confident than correct- to overstate the accuracy of one's belief.
3.11.1.3.3. confirmation bias
3.11.1.3.4. Heuristics: Mental Shortcuts
3.11.1.3.5. Counter Factual Thinking
3.11.1.3.6. Illusory Thinking
3.11.1.3.7. Moods and Judgments: our moods infuse our judgments
3.11.1.4. How do we explain our social worlds?
3.11.1.4.1. attribution theory
3.11.1.5. How do our expectations of our social worlds matter?
3.11.1.5.1. teacher's expectations and student performance
3.11.1.5.2. getting from others what we expect
3.11.1.6. What can we conclude about social beliefs and judgments?
3.11.1.7. Reflecting on illusory thinking
3.11.2. Reading 3.2 Replicating Milgram
3.11.2.1. The key to obedience had little to do with the authority figure's manner or style. People follow an authority figure's commands when that person's authority is seen as legitimate. Moreover, our culture socializes individuals to obey certain authority figures, such as police officers, teachers, and parents.
3.11.2.2. Responsibility Not assigned or diffused - participants placed responsibility for their own actions on the experiment, taking a 'just following orders" position in explaining why they continued the shocks.
3.11.2.3. Conclusions
3.11.2.3.1. same level of obedience
3.11.2.3.2. seeing one person refuse has no bearing on obedience in the modeled refusal condition
3.11.2.3.3. women complied 65% a rate similar to men
3.11.3. R3.3 How nice people get corrupted
3.11.3.1. Asch's studies of conformity
3.11.3.2. Milgram's Obedience Experiments
3.11.3.2.1. emotional distance of the victim
3.11.3.2.2. closeness and legitimacy of the authority
4. Wk4- Group Behavior: The good, bad and Ugly
4.1. L4.1 Group Dynamics and the Abilene Paradox
4.1.1. 00:40 refers to psychological processes and behaviors that occur
4.1.1.1. Intra group: within a group
4.1.1.2. Inter group: between groups
4.1.2. 0:58 Groupthink: quality of decision making suffers when a cohesive group becomes insulated from dissenting viewpoints, especially when the group leader promotes a particular solution or course of action.
4.1.2.1. Popularized by Irving L. Janis,: Crucial Decisions: Leadership in policymaking and crisis management
4.1.2.2. 2:50 Japanese method is to have the lowest ranking level staff speak first and then go up the hierarchy so that the employees are not contradicting their boss. -- to solicit a wide range of opinions
4.1.2.3. Individual vs group problem solving
4.1.2.3.1. groups typically outperform individuals when solving different problem
4.1.2.3.2. Alex Osborne: Popularized 'Brainstorming'
4.1.2.3.3. Why Group members don't share information
4.1.2.4. some groups are united in one direction, but their actions are opposed to their goals: the Abilene paradox.
4.2. L4.1a The Abilene Paradox
4.2.1. Group dynamics don't have to involve a conflict in order for there to be a problem.
4.2.1.1. Little town of coleman texas, IN law house. engaging in dominoes.
4.2.1.1.1. what to do about super? Go to Abilene to have supper.
4.2.1.1.2. No one wanted to go to Abilene, but thought all the other wanted to, and so they went along.
4.2.1.2. 5:00 Abilene Paradox: when groups of people take actions in contradictions to what they as individuals really want, and end up defeating the very purpose they want to achieve.
4.2.1.2.1. 11:34 Action Anxiety:Shakespear hamlet. Gives us the reason for inaction.
4.2.1.2.2. 15:01 Fear of Separation
4.2.1.2.3. 16:15 Confusion of fantasy and reality
4.2.1.2.4. 16:40 Assignment of Blame
4.2.1.2.5. 18:40 Blaming the leader.
4.2.1.2.6. How to avoid the Abilene Paradox.
4.2.2. Video by Peter Jordan, Director and producer of The Abilene Paradox.
4.2.2.1. based on the book by Jerry B. Harvey, PH.D.
4.3. L4.2 How Categorical thinking Gives Rise to Prejudice
4.3.1. Involves judgments of "us' and 'them'
4.3.2. 0:45 Gordon W Allport: The nature of prejudice (1954)
4.3.2.1. 1:07 The human mind must think with the aid of categories..Once formed, categories are the basis for normal pre judgment. We cannot possibly avoid this process. Orderly living depends upon it.
4.3.3. Apple Eating and becoming part of Prof Scott as he bites into the apple. Where we are to determine the time it became part of prof Scott?
4.3.3.1. there is no single time that clearly demarcates the process of when the apple became part of Prof Scott. However society finds it useful to categorize the apple and prof scott as separate.
4.3.3.2. the trick to using categories is to avoid confusing USEFUL categories from being equal to REALITY
4.3.4. Use of categories/labels are useful linguistic devices. But And this are at best only a rough approximation.
4.3.5. when it comes to social categories, we sometimes forget that these categories are psychologically and socially constructed
4.4. L4.2a Race: The Power of an Illusion
4.4.1. courtesy of California Newsreel
4.4.2. We notice skin: darker or lighter, hair: blond, curly or straight, eyes. And we attach significance to them.
4.4.3. there is only 1% genetic difference among human beings. there is a lot more genetic difference among penguins, flies etc.
4.4.3.1. we are among the most similar of all species!
4.4.3.2. 85% of all the variation among human beings is between any two individuals within a local population.
4.4.3.3. Under the skin, we are all the same
4.4.4. Race is a social, political construction
4.5. L4.3 Middle Sexes" Redefining He and She
4.5.1. The child Noah example.
4.5.1.1. male by appearance but with female chromosomes.
4.5.2. the transgender's male boyfriend gets murdered
4.5.2.1. the boyfriend's fellow soldiers found out that his girlfriend was a transgender. They murdered him.
4.5.3. 17:40 Biology loves variation. Society hates it.
4.6. L4.3a The Minimal Group: From Dots to Discrimination in 60 seconds
4.6.1. Categorical thinking can give rise to problems when people see sharp divisions between themselves and others.
4.6.1.1. Ingroup: refers to a group that you are a member of
4.6.1.2. Outgroup refers to a group that you are NOT a member of.
4.6.2. Focusing on Groups often
4.6.2.1. 1:06 changes how we see the individuals or elements within the groups.
4.6.2.1.1. 1:50 Henri Tajfel and A.L. Wilkes (1963)
4.6.2.1.2. 4:15 David Wilder: People often assume similarities within groups and difference between groups to a greater degree and across a broader range of characteristics than is warranted by objective evidence.
4.6.2.2. 1:16 leads us to see one group as better or worse than another.
4.6.2.2.1. Minimal Group paradigm
4.7. L4.4 When Intergroup biases Don't Feel like biases
4.7.1. Why intergroup biases persist
4.7.1.1. 01:50 attached to slow moving institutions and systems such as culture, law and economics
4.7.1.2. 2:10 intergroup biases don't always feel like they're biases
4.7.1.2.1. Outgroup homogeneity bias
4.7.1.2.2. positive stereotypes and benevolent forms of biases
4.7.1.2.3. Ingroup favoritism and affinity
4.7.2. how to reduce ingroup biases
4.7.2.1. get people to think about a shared interest "soccer" instead of just a team. (soccer fan)
4.7.2.1.1. REsults: People helped the jogger 80%, 70% and 22% for conditions where the jogger wore the home team, rival team and no team t shirt
4.7.3. intergroup biases toward other species.
4.7.3.1. 18:55 do we see members of another species as more alike from one to the next than they really are?
4.7.3.2. 19:01 Do humans show species-based ingroup bias?
4.7.3.2.1. do you think of meat as coming from something or someone?
4.7.3.2.2. do you associate dairy products with a lactating animal?
4.7.3.3. 19:15 Does it make sense to talk about prejudice toward animals?
4.7.3.3.1. does prejudice exists only among humans?
4.7.3.4. what can we learn from how we think about animals?
4.7.3.5. p511 of Plous, S. (2003) Is there such a thing as prejudice toward animals?
4.7.3.5.1. mulatto (half breed) shares its etymology with mule?
4.7.3.5.2. 'Race' from terms for animal breeding
4.7.3.5.3. 'Husband' shares a common origin with animal husbandry
4.7.3.5.4. rape was originally a property crime?
4.8. Readings:
4.8.1. Doing together what we would not do alone
4.8.1.1. p2 Deindividuation
4.8.1.1.1. Groups can arouse people, and social loafing experiments show that groups can diffuse responsibility.
4.8.1.1.2. p3. unrestrained behaviors are provoked by the power of groups.
4.8.1.2. p3 Group Size
4.8.1.2.1. p4 Leon Mann (1981) found that when the crowd was small and exposed by daylight, people usually did not try to bait the person with cries of 'jump!" but when a large crowd or the cover of night gave people anonymity, the crowd usually did bait and jeer.
4.8.1.2.2. p4 Brian Mullen reported a similar effect associated with lynch mobs: the biger the mob, the more its members lose self awareness and become willing to commit atrocities, such as burning, lacerating, or dismembering the victims. People's attention is focused on the situation, not on themselves. And because 'everyone' is doing it, all can attribute their behavior to the situation rather than to the their own choices.
4.8.1.3. p4 Physical Anonymity
4.8.1.3.1. p5. Philip Zimbardo's deindividuation research, anonymous women (in ku lkux klan like hoods) delivered more shock to helpless victims than did identifiable women.
4.8.1.3.2. p5. patricia Ellison, John Govern (1995) experiment on car honking when waiting for red light. Compared with drivers of convertibles and 4x5s with the car tops down, those who were relatively anonymous (with their tops up), honked 33% sooner, twice as often and for nearly twice as long.
4.8.1.3.3. p5 Ed Diener (1976) Trick or treating children alone or in groups. Observers noted that children in groups were more than twice as likely to take extra candy as solo children. Also, children who had been asked their names and where they lived were less than half as likely to take more than one candy.
4.8.1.3.4. p6 Robert Watson (1973) scrutinized anthropological files and found that cultures with depersonalized warriros were also the cultures that brutalized their enemies.
4.8.1.4. p7 Arousing and Distracting Activities
4.8.1.4.1. Group shouting, chanting, clapping or dancing serve both to hype people up and to reduce self consciousness.
4.8.1.5. p7 Diminished self awareness
4.8.1.5.1. Group activities that diminish self consciousness tend to disconnect behavior from attitudes.
4.8.1.5.2. unself conscious, deindividuated people are less restrained, less self regulated, more likely to act without thinking about their own values and more responsive to the situation.
4.8.1.5.3. Self awareness is the opposite of dedividuation.
4.8.2. How groups intensify decisions
4.8.2.1. p2 Risky Shift
4.8.2.1.1. Group decisions were usually riskier
4.8.2.1.2. during group discussions, opinions converged. However, the point toward which they converged was usually a lower (riskier) number than their initial average
4.8.2.1.3. this group phenomenon was not a consistent shift toward increased risk
4.8.2.1.4. p4 Group Polarization
4.8.2.2. p11 Group Think
4.8.2.2.1. p12 Symptoms of Groupthink
4.8.2.2.2. preventing groupthink
4.8.3. Why many hands make diminished responsibility
4.8.3.1. p2 Many hands make light work
4.8.3.1.1. contrary to presumption that in unity there is strength, collective effort of tug of war teams was but half the sum of the individual efforts.
4.8.3.1.2. groups may be less motivated when performing additive tasks.
4.8.3.2. p3 Social Loafing
4.8.3.2.1. Conined by Latene, Williams and Harkins
4.8.3.2.2. they observed that the noise produced by six people shouting or clapping as loud as you can was less than 3 times that produced by one person alone.
4.8.3.2.3. when they believed others were also either shouting or clapping, they produced one third less noise than when they thought themselves alone.
4.8.3.2.4. p4 John Sweeney 1973- students pumped exercise bikes more energetically when they knew they were being individually monitored than when they thought their output was being pooled with that of other riders.
4.8.3.2.5. groups decreased evaluation apprehension....being evaluated only when they acted alone.
4.8.3.2.6. so when being observed, this increases evaluation concerns, social facilitation occurs.
4.8.3.2.7. when in a crowd, it decreases evaluation concerns, and social loafing occurs
4.8.3.2.8. p6 There is less social loafing in collectivist cultures
4.8.3.2.9. however, social loafing is less
4.8.4. Psychology of Prejudice, Stereotyping and Discrimination
4.8.4.1. p6 Simpson's Paradox well known in statistics. nondiscriminatory conditions at the departmental level can result in hiring differences at the organization level.
4.8.4.2. John Duckitt 1992 Prejudice was first based on american and European race theories that attempted to prove White superiority.
4.8.4.3. p7 theodor Adorno concluded that the key to prejudice lies in authoritarian personality. These are rigid thinkers who obeyed authority, saw the world as black and white, and enforced strict adherence to social rules and hierarchies. They were more likely than others to harbor prejudices against low status groups.
4.8.4.3.1. Later research questioned the proper measuring of authoritarianism , in that it did not account for culture and regional differences
4.8.4.3.2. psychoanalytic assumptions lacked research support.
4.8.4.3.3. but adorno was right in at least 3 respects
4.8.4.4. p8 Relationship between Prejudice and categorical thinking. Gordon Allport 1954
4.8.4.5. p9 Assimilation and Contrast
4.8.4.5.1. assimilation = minimizing differences within categories
4.8.4.5.2. contrast= exaggerating differences between categories
4.8.4.6. p11 Outgroup Homogeneity
4.8.4.6.1. a close cousin of assimilation
4.8.4.6.2. people tend to see outgroup members as more alike than ingroup members. As a result, outgrop members are at risk of being seen as interchangeable or expendable, and they are more likely to be sterotyped.
4.8.4.6.3. People usually have less contact with outgroup members than ingroup members,
4.8.4.6.4. also people tend to organize and recall information about ingroups in terms of persons rather than as abstract characteristics.
4.8.4.7. p12 Ingroup Bias
4.8.4.7.1. more a function of favoritism toward one's own group than negative feelings toward other groups.
4.8.4.7.2. p13 Marilyn Brewer (1999) "ultimately, many forms of discrimination and bias may develop not because outgroups are hated, but because positive emotions such as admiration, sympathy and trust are reserved for the ingroup"
4.8.4.7.3. p13 Racial segregation among schools is psychologically damaging to children.
4.8.4.8. p14 Minimal Groups, Social Identity, Role of Self Esteem
4.8.4.8.1. Henri Tajfel (1970) discovered that groups formed on the basis of almost any distinction are prone to ingroup bias.
4.8.4.8.2. p16 People are likely to express prejudice when thy experience a drop in self esteem.
4.8.4.9. p16 Causal Attributions
4.8.4.9.1. both a symptom and a source of prejudice.
4.8.4.9.2. dispositional (lazy, lack of ability) increases prejudice
4.8.4.9.3. situational (job layoffs etc), decreases prejudice
4.8.4.9.4. three uncharitable attributions for behavior of outgroup members
4.8.4.10. p18 Subtle forms of Prejudice
4.8.4.10.1. forms
4.8.4.11. p21 Stereotyping
4.8.4.11.1. two types
4.8.4.11.2. consequences of stereotyping
4.8.4.11.3. stereotyping among children
4.8.4.11.4. stererotypes in Media
4.8.4.11.5. stereotypes from direct experience
4.8.4.11.6. p30 Self Perpetuating Stereotypes
4.8.4.11.7. reducing stereotypes
4.8.4.12. p32 Discrimination
4.8.4.12.1. difficulty of detecting it at the individual level
4.8.4.12.2. more likely to detect discrimination against the group, than against themselves personally.
4.8.4.12.3. Ways to reduce discrimination
5. Wk5 Conflict Peacemaking and Intervention
5.1. Lecture 5.1 Bystander Intervention
5.1.1. Bystanders are more likely to help when there are fewer of them- Based on research about tragedy on March 1964-Kitty Genovese
5.1.1.1. 37 who saw murder didn't call the police
5.1.1.2. Led to research on bystander effect in emergency situations by Darley and Latane
5.1.1.2.1. People are less likely to intervene when other bystanders are present
5.1.2. Dateline NBC video on fender bender that led to road rage on Delita .
5.1.2.1. brutal crime was witnessed, but many who did see the events didnt do anything.
5.1.2.2. 4 construction workers as a mugging took place
5.1.2.3. riders stood by as a driver was beaten
5.1.2.4. there is INACTION in numbers. The more people there, the less likely anyone is to help.
5.1.2.5. Lab experiment where a 'lab technician' falls. 80% will help if they are the only ones in the room vs 20% when people are in groups
5.1.2.5.1. People take their cues from those around them.
5.1.2.5.2. diffusion of responsibility
5.1.2.5.3. we fear making a fool of ourselves
5.1.3. Urban university lab experiment when smoke was piped in
5.1.3.1. when students were alone, 75% reported the smoke and 50% of them did so within 2 minutes (quick response)
5.1.3.2. When students were (17:15) with confederates, only 10% reported the smoke.
5.1.3.2.1. their perceptions of the situation as an emergency was altered by the number of bystanders present.
5.1.4. Yes, the bystander effect has withstood the test of time.
5.1.4.1. Peter Fischer (19:00) published a meta analysis of more than 100 independent assessments of the bystander effect.
5.1.4.2. clear support that passive bystanders in critical situations reduced helping responses.
5.1.5. What types of personalities would more likely help?
5.1.5.1. Bibb Latane and John Darley (21:25) found that 'characteristics of the immediate situation may have a more important influence on what the bystander does than [the individual's ] personality or life history.
5.1.5.2. People who score high in masculinity are less likely to help in emergency situations (22:13)
5.1.5.2.1. this is because of fear of doing something foolish or embarrassed when they do something wrong.
5.1.5.3. Femininity does not seem to be significantly related to bystander intervention (22:28)
5.1.5.4. Research on sex differences shows mixed results
5.1.5.4.1. Some studies show that men are more likely to help women or help in dangerous situations, and women are more likely to help children (22:44)
5.2. Lecture 5.2 Triggers of Aggression
5.2.1. aggression is physical or verbal behavior intended to cause harm
5.2.1.1. Hostile aggression- springs from anger or hostility
5.2.1.2. Instrumental aggression also aims to harm but as a means to an end.
5.2.2. Yes, exposure to TV violence causes aggression 1:54
5.2.2.1. 1972 US surgeon general warned of a causal relations between viewing violence on TV and aggressive behavior
5.2.2.2. 1982, US National Institute of mental health supported this conclusion
5.2.2.3. 1985, American Psychological association passed a resolution informing broadcasters of this
5.2.2.4. Well over 1000 studies point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior
5.2.2.5. 2007, meta analysis examined 24 research reports in which children or adults were exposed to media violence, and the amount of aggression was later recorded or rated.
5.2.2.5.1. Christensen, PN and Wood,
5.2.2.5.2. 4 out of 5 showed increased aggression
5.2.2.6. 2010 study found a significant increase in aggressive thoughts when kids watched a violent TV commercial for action figure toys
5.2.2.6.1. Brocato, E.D., Gentile, D.A., Laczniak, R.N.
5.2.2.7. Albert Bandura 1961 , bobo Dolls and children imitating adult behavior
5.2.2.7.1. an adult model beat up a bobo doll with a mallet. Children were then shown good toys but were not allowed to play with them. In frustration, those that saw the adult behavior imitated them.
5.2.2.7.2. Positive use of imitation used in Mexico to start learning, and for people to get married in Tanzania
5.2.2.8. Catharsis (venting your anger) doesnt reduce agreession. It increases hostile feelings.
5.2.2.8.1. aggression begets aggression
5.2.2.9. Flipside: Positive Media Effects
5.2.2.9.1. Mexico: 1 m people enrolled in a program to learn to read after watching a TV drama promoting literacy
5.2.2.9.2. Tanzania: TV Dramas led married people to discuss the need to control family size and to adopt family planning methods.
5.2.2.10. impact of mass media violence on us homicides
5.2.2.10.1. 12.46% increase in homicide rates after heavyweight prize fights
5.2.2.10.2. More publicized a fight, the larger the increase in murder afterwards.
5.2.2.10.3. when a black boxer lost the fight, more black men were murdered, the same with white boxers. A pattern that suggested that aggression was being imitated.
5.2.3. Pornography also led to sexual aggression
5.2.4. Aggressive Song lyrics led to 50% higher levels of aggression towards female confederate vs male confederate, or female confederate when the songs hadnt been aggressive.
5.2.4.1. Fischer
5.2.5. 25 minutes of playing violent video games resulted in people with physiological evidence of desensitization when shown a video of real life violence.
5.2.5.1. carnagey, N.L., Anderson, C.A. and bushman, B.J. 2007
5.2.5.2. the more desensitization there was, the more aggression occurred later.
5.2.5.3. US army uses violent video game to recruit soldiers
5.2.6. Other Triggers
5.2.6.1. biological factors (genetics, testoterone
5.2.6.2. alcohol use
5.2.6.3. exposure to violent words and images
5.2.6.3.1. gun is a priming for violence/behave aggressively towards others
5.2.6.4. culture: machismo etc
5.2.6.5. Physical pain or discomfort
5.3. Lecture 5.3 Countering Terrorism: Is Psychology Mightier than the Sword?
5.3.1. psychology research on terrorism rose starting 2001
5.3.2. Questions
5.3.2.1. What is Terrorism
5.3.2.1.1. first used to refer to political violence in France.
5.3.2.1.2. Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetuated againsts non combatants by sub national groups or clandestine agents to influence an audience.
5.3.2.1.3. Understand the difference between: Arab, Arab World and Muslim
5.3.2.2. What types of people become terrorists
5.3.2.2.1. are they lunactics?
5.3.2.2.2. is there such a thing as a terrorist personality?
5.3.2.3. What causes terrorism to happen?
5.3.2.3.1. What is not a cause.
5.3.2.3.2. Possible Cause?
5.3.2.4. How can terrorism be reduced?
5.3.2.4.1. Is the Global War on Terror working?
5.3.2.5. What can be done?
5.3.2.5.1. In the Long Run: Education and socialization are critical so that the next generation doesn't see other groups as the enemy and violence as the solution
5.3.2.5.2. In The short term.
5.4. Lecture 5.4 Halting the Lions of War by Taking the 3rd side
5.4.1. Dr William Ury Video TedTalk excerpt. He cofounded Harvard U program on negotiation.
5.4.1.1. story of 3 sons dividing the 17 camels and the wise old woman who gave them the 18th camel.
5.4.1.2. bushmen hiding all poison arrows, sit in a circle and talk until issues have been resolved.
5.4.1.3. there is always 2 sides to a conflict: side 1 and side 2
5.4.1.4. we are the 3rd side. Remind the parties what is really at stake. "Let's stop fighting and start talking"
5.4.1.4.1. when we are angry, we will make the best speech that we will later regret!
5.4.1.4.2. the role of the 3rd side is to get the parties go to the 'balcony'
5.4.1.5. "when spider webs unite, they can halt even a lion"
5.4.2. Principled Negotiation
5.4.2.1. separate the problem from the people
5.4.2.2. focus on underlying interests rather than positions
5.4.2.3. generate a variety of options before deciding what to do.
5.4.2.4. Insist that the result be based on some objective standard.
5.4.3. Wangari Maathai, PHD, founded the GreenBelt movement.
5.4.3.1. started a tree planting campaign: forestry, bee keeping etc.
5.4.3.2. You don't need a diploma to plant a tree.
5.4.3.3. The story of the Hummingbird and the forest fire. All the animals came out and tried to flee. Except the hummingbird, who did what it could. by getting water to the fire. "you are too little" said the other animals. But the hummingbird replied" "I will do the best I can"
5.4.4. The power of participation: Be active, and don't be a passive bystander
5.4.4.1. Whatever you do will be insignificant, but it is important that you do it -- Gandhi.
5.5. Lecture 5.5 Israel an Iran a Love story?
5.5.1. Some ways to take the 3rd side
5.5.1.1. Mediation: a 3rd party works to resolve a conflict by facilitating communication and offering suggestions.
5.5.1.2. Arbitration: 3rd party studies both sides of a conflict and imposes a settlement
5.5.1.2.1. Binding arbitration: 2 sides agree in advance to accept whatever solution the arbitrator decides.
5.5.1.2.2. Final Offer Arbitration: each side submits its best offer and the arbitrator chooses which one will be accepted.
5.5.1.3. sometimes, it means listening, being present, offering encouragement...
5.5.2. role of facebook/social media to take the 3rd side example by Israeli Graphic designer and soldier: Ronny Edry.
5.6. Lecture 5.6 Day of Compassion
5.6.1. means :to suffer with
5.6.2. questions about compassion
5.6.2.1. who tends to be most compassionate and why?
5.6.2.2. is compassion something that can be taught?
5.6.2.3. Is compassion different at the individual and group level?
5.6.2.4. How does compassion vary across cultures
5.6.2.5. How does compassion vary across generations?
5.6.2.6. What are the factors that increase or decrease compassion?
5.6.3. Psychological studies show that people with only 2 weeks of compassion training showed brain scans changes in responses to images of suffering and stress.
5.6.4. Emma Seppala (assoc director Ceenter for compassion and Altruism Research)
5.6.4.1. Dalai Lama was a contributor to CCARE
5.6.4.2. Video: changing minds only through compassion not force. Find ways and means to solve that through dialogue (3:10)
5.6.4.3. to carry meaningful dialogue, first it is necessary to respect the other who have a different view (3:19)
5.6.4.4. plus genuine sense of concern of the other's well being (4:50)
5.6.5. watch this
5.7. readings
5.7.1. When do People Help?
5.7.1.1. Kitty Genovese case
5.7.1.1.1. was stabbed and was seen by people in the neighoorhood. One neighbor shouted at the man to leave the lady alone. She escaped, but was followed by the assailant 10 minutes later, Raped and stabbed. And died.
5.7.1.2. Eleanor Bradly tripped and broke her leg.
5.7.1.2.1. For 40 minutes she pleaded for help, but no one helped.
5.7.1.2.2. Finally a cab driver helped her to a doctor.
5.7.1.3. Michelle De Jesus fell into subway train
5.7.1.3.1. saved by Everett Sanderson who jumped in and was pulled up by bystanders
5.7.1.4. Garden of Righteous Among the Nation in Israel Hill.
5.7.1.4.1. Jane Haining, church of Scotland missionary who helped 400 mostly jewish girls
5.7.1.5. p3 Altruism is selfishness in reverse. An altruistic person is concerned and helpful even when no benefits are offered or expected in return.
5.7.1.5.1. Parable of the Good Samaritan
5.7.1.5.2. What motivates altruism?
5.7.1.6. Who is likely to help?
5.7.1.6.1. Helping increases among people who are (p5)
5.7.1.6.2. Circumstances that enhance helpfulness (p5)
5.7.1.7. bystander effect
5.7.1.7.1. as more bystanders are present, any given bystander is less likely to notice the incident and less likely to assume responsibility for taking action
5.7.1.7.2. noticing the incident (p7)
5.7.1.7.3. Arthur Beaman 1978 (p10) revealed that once people understand why the presence of bystanders inhibits helping, they become more likely to help in group situations.
5.7.2. Nature and Nuture of Aggression
5.7.2.1. Worldwide 3b USD per day is spent on arms and armies. 110 million people killed in the last century
5.7.2.2. theories on aggression
5.7.2.2.1. Jean Jacques Rousseau (p4) Noble Savage
5.7.2.2.2. Freud (p4) aggression sprang from self destructive impulse.
5.7.2.2.3. Lorenz, saw aggression as adaptive rathen than self destructive
5.7.2.3. Nueral Influences
5.7.2.3.1. spots in the brain for increasing hostility and decreasing them.
5.7.2.4. genetic influences (p5)
5.7.2.4.1. breeding of fighting cocks and aggressive mice by kirsti lagerspetz 1979
5.7.2.4.2. a person's temperament observed in infancy, usually endures - larsen & diener, 1987
5.7.2.5. Blood Chemistry
5.7.2.5.1. Alcohol unleashes aggression when people are provoked. (p6)
5.7.2.5.2. Testosterone
5.7.2.5.3. Low serotonin increases their response to aversive events and their willingness to deliver supposed electric shocks or to retaliate against unfairness
5.7.2.6. Psychological influences
5.7.2.6.1. frustration creates a motive to aggress. Fear of punishment or disapproval for aggressing against the source of frustration may cause the aggressive drive to be displaced against some other target or even redirected against oneself.
5.7.2.7. Learning of aggresion
5.7.2.7.1. rewards of aggression
5.7.2.7.2. observational learning of aggression
5.7.2.8. Environmental Influences
5.7.2.8.1. Painful incidents
5.7.2.8.2. heat
5.7.2.8.3. attacks
5.7.2.8.4. crowding
5.7.2.9. Reducing Aggression
5.7.2.9.1. Catharsis? (doesnt work)
5.7.2.9.2. social learning approach
5.7.3. Heat and Violence
5.7.3.1. hot temperatures can increase aggressive motives and behaviors.
5.7.4. Causes of Conflict
5.7.4.1. Prisoner's Dilemma
5.7.4.1.1. both prisoners realise that they could mutually profit if they cooperated, but lacking communication and mistrusting each other, they often became locked in to NOT cooperating.
5.7.4.2. tragedy of the commons
5.7.4.2.1. grassy pasture shared by cows, if over grazed, the grass will not be able to replenish itself.
5.7.4.2.2. motives change from making money, to minimizing losses, to saving face...much like vietnam war.
5.7.4.2.3. zero sum games
5.7.4.3. resolving conflicts
5.7.4.3.1. Regulation
5.7.4.3.2. small is beautiful
5.7.4.3.3. communication
5.7.4.3.4. changing the payoffs
5.7.4.3.5. appeals to altruistic norms.
5.7.4.4. competition
5.7.4.4.1. summer camp experiment where the participants got caught up in intergroup participation.
5.7.4.5. Perceived injustice
5.7.4.6. misperception
5.7.4.6.1. self serving bias
5.7.4.6.2. self justify inclines people to deny the wrong of their evil acts.
5.7.4.6.3. fundamental attribution error
5.7.4.6.4. ingroup bias
5.7.4.6.5. mirror image perception
5.7.4.6.6. shifting perceptions
5.7.5. How social science can reduce terrorism
5.7.5.1. compared with the general public, terrorists do not exhibit unusually high rates of clinical psychopathology, irrationality, or personality disorders.
5.7.5.2. Many terrorist report that acts of violence committed by police officers, soldiers, or others are what led them to join a terrorist group.
5.7.5.3. Intense anger over injustice.
5.7.5.4. Military responses to terrorism tend to be ineffective or temporarily to increase terrorist activity.
5.7.5.4.1. military action unwittingly reinforce terrorist' view of their enemies as aggressive, make it easier for them to recruit new members and strengthen alliances among terrorist organizations.
5.7.5.5. what can be done?
5.7.5.5.1. increase self protection
5.7.5.5.2. encourage citizens to be vigilant
5.7.5.5.3. improve training and informatin sharing among intelligence organizations, law enforcement and branches of government
5.7.6. the psychology of climate change communication
6. Wk6- A Happy End to the Course
6.1. Lecture 6.1 Is empathy a magic bullet?
6.1.1. two general types
6.1.1.1. Affective Empathy: Feelings
6.1.1.1.1. feeling the emotions that someone else feels. Also called Emotional Matching
6.1.1.1.2. "shared emotional response"
6.1.1.2. Cognitive Empathy:Thinking
6.1.1.2.1. imagining how someone else thinks or feels, or imagining what you would think or feel if you were in that person's position
6.1.1.2.2. perspective taking
6.1.1.3. thinking and feeling usually goes together. so some psychologies talk about empathy as one general trait with both affective and cognitive components.
6.1.2. Brain Imaging Study
6.1.2.1. a 2010 racial ingroup and outgroup suffering.
6.1.2.2. affective empathy was common across the board,
6.1.2.3. but cognitive empathy was only for those in the same in group
6.1.3. what happens when people lack empathy
6.1.3.1. associated with prejudice, aggression, bullying, child molestation and abusive parenting
6.1.3.2. Empathy scores predicted 80% of the abusive mothers.
6.1.3.3. empathy scores predicted child abuse even better than life stress.
6.1.4. two brief excerpts of commencement speeches
6.1.4.1. barack Obama 2006 for grad students in Northwestern university
6.1.4.1.1. 'we should talk more about the empathy deficit" the ability to put ourselves in somebody else's shoes.
6.1.4.2. barack Obama 2008 Wesleyan univeristy
6.1.5. Some correlations of Empathy
6.1.5.1. People with high empathy tend to be less prejudiced and aggressive, also report higher levels of relationship satisfaction
6.1.5.2. More likely to intervene in bystander emergency situations
6.1.5.3. People high in cognitive empathy tend to reach better negotiated outcomes
6.1.6. How to increase empathy
6.1.6.1. Meditation
6.1.6.2. take other persons point of view
6.1.6.3. age of outrospection: animated video
6.2. Lecture 6.2 How to Buy Happiness
6.2.1. At a party given by a billionaire, Joseph Heller is told that their host had made more money in a single day than Heller had earned from his wildly popular novel " Catch22". Heller responds: "But I have something he will never have....enough" --John Bogle, Founder of the Vanguard group and author of Enough: True measures of Money, Business and Life.
6.2.2. Over 1000 of articles have been published in the Psych database but 60% have been published in just the last ten years.
6.2.3. activities ranked for happiness
6.2.3.1. Exercise (most happy), Preparing food, shopping/errands, watching TV(least happy)
6.2.4. Even if people chase youth and beauty to achieve happiness, Physically beautiful people do not report increased life satisfaction. older people reported more happiness.
6.2.5. Necessity may be the mother of invention, but interdependence is the mother of affection- Eric Wiener
6.2.5.1. People living in tropical paradise are not happier, but people living in Iceland, scandanavia and neighbors are...these people depend on each other more.
6.2.5.2. central importance of social bonds.
6.2.6. Michael Norton TedTalk on Spending money on oneself vs spending on others.
6.2.6.1. Video on Tedtalk: How to buy happiness
6.2.6.1.1. Money can't buy happiness...you are not spending it right!
6.2.6.1.2. experiment on spending by students find that spending on other people resulted in more happiness.Whether 5$ or 20$
6.2.6.1.3. Positive correlation between spending on others (green) and happiness.
6.2.6.1.4. Sales team in Belgium experiment
6.2.6.1.5. Dodgeball team experiment
6.2.6.1.6. donorschoose.org
6.3. Dan Gilbert: This emotional Life: assigned video
6.3.1. Hey believes that thoughts are the cause of all misfortunes. That by thinking the wrong way, we give ourselves cancers, target of terrorist, car crash etc.
6.3.2. Hey's "Inner Ding".
6.3.3. What causes human happiness?
6.3.3.1. Happiness research from scale of 1 to 10, they also look at brain waves.
6.3.3.2. Happy people have better health, better sex lives etc.
6.3.3.3. studies show that married people are wealthier, and happier than others.
6.3.3.4. Parents with children are no happier than those without children and are often LESS happier.
6.3.3.5. People with more money are happier.
6.3.3.6. People were asked if they would choose food over water when they were camping out. Those that were asked AFTER exercising would choose Water (50% more likely to say water). Because when they are thirsty now, they imagine being thirsty later. Our thoughts are shaped by how we feel now. (present focus bias)
6.3.3.7. Hedonic adaptation. Human beings are sp good at adapting to positive changes in our lives.
6.3.3.7.1. Art poster experiment. Choice are either exchangeable or permanent. People who knew they couldn't exchange their posters liked them more.
6.3.3.7.2. set point of happiness that we return to : Ed Diener
6.3.4. Martin Seligman: Univ of Penn, Positive Psychology
6.3.4.1. what made life worth living?
6.3.5. Meditation-Richard davidson
6.3.5.1. Dalai Lama invited him to Tibet to study monk's meditation.
6.3.5.2. Advanced meditation show that the mind is intensely focused. Their brains begin to change. The monks showed considerably more activity in the left cerebral cortex . (positive emotions)
6.3.6. Social relationships are a key to happiness
6.3.6.1. when we are connected to others. New evidence suggest that happiness is contagious.
6.3.6.2. 15K Frimingham Mass heart study --. behaviors related to heart disease. --Nicholas Christakis (physician and sociologist)
6.3.6.2.1. happiness is contagious
6.3.6.3. Life is a journey through time, and happiness is what happens when we make that journey together.
6.4. Lecture 6.3 Romantic Attraction and Close Relationships
6.4.1. Important factors?
6.4.1.1. Kind or generous?
6.4.1.2. Smart or Skilled?
6.4.1.3. Fun to be with?
6.4.1.4. Physically attractive?
6.4.1.5. Shares your values and attitudes?
6.4.1.6. Likes to do the same things you do?
6.4.1.7. Or NONE OF THE ABOVE?
6.4.1.7.1. Proximity: social closeness!
6.4.2. The power of proximity- Study by Leon Festinger, 1950
6.4.2.1. Studied friendship formation in a new housing project for married students.
6.4.2.2. Sheer distance between houses
6.4.2.2.1. Friendships developed more frequently between next door neighbors and less frequently between people whose houses were separated by another house and so on. As the distance between houses increased, the number of friendships fell off so rapidly that it was rare to find a friendship between persons who lived in houses that were separated by more than four or five other houses.
6.4.2.3. Direction in which a house faced.
6.4.2.3.1. turning of houses to the street had the considerable effect of decreasing the friendships of people living in them. (as opposed to courtyard view)
6.4.2.3.2. People who lived near stairwells, and mailboxes have more active social lives and more popular.
6.4.3. Do Birds of a feather flock together?
6.4.3.1. People tend to be more attracted to others who are similar to them in:
6.4.3.1.1. age and education
6.4.3.1.2. Race and ethnicity
6.4.3.1.3. personality and attitudes
6.4.3.1.4. Economic Status
6.4.3.1.5. Physical characteristics such as wrist size, and blood type.
6.4.3.2. the idea that opposites attract has received relatively little research support.
6.4.3.2.1. also known as the complementary hypothesis
6.4.4. Questions on Physical Attractiveness
6.4.4.1. It matters for both male and females more than judgments of character and the perception of common interests..
6.4.4.2. Physically attractive persons are seen as more intelligent.
6.4.4.2.1. beautiful people are perceived as being 'good' people.
6.4.4.3. Men tend to be faster at falling in love, and slower at falling out of love.
6.4.5. what are accurate predictors of relationships
6.4.5.1. people are less accurate than their dorm mates and parents at predicting their relationships.
6.4.5.2. It is very hard to make generalization about the predictors of relationship success or relationship satisfaction, because relationships vary a lot over time, within cultures. So must be very careful in over generalizing.
6.4.5.3. similarity among married couples report happiness over time
6.4.5.4. same demographics are more accurate predictors for same sex couples.
6.4.5.5. household happiness is tied to help with dishes. (shared household chores)
6.4.5.6. couples that fight with each other is not a good predictor. A good predictor is the overall ratio of positive to negative (5:1) interaction- Dr John Gottlieb.
6.5. Lecture 6.4 Concluding Remarks : Where to go from here.
6.5.1. Some main course themes
6.5.1.1. psychological construction of reality
6.5.1.2. speed that social impressions are formed
6.5.1.3. complex link between attitudes and behavior
6.5.1.4. power of the situation, which sometimes goes unappreciated
6.5.1.5. the value of empathy as an antidote to many of the problems we face.
6.5.2. review your answers in the snapshot quiz. You should review where you got your wrong answers.
6.5.3. wife: Allison and daughter: Fijare
6.5.4. Where do you go from here?
6.5.4.1. david myers text book. Choose over 200 books on the social psych network.
6.5.4.2. rewatch the videos
6.5.4.3. join professional organizations.
6.5.4.3.1. Society for personality and social psychology (6K members)
6.5.4.3.2. Psi Chi
6.5.4.3.3. Australasian Social Psychologist
6.5.4.3.4. Society for the Psychological study of social issues
6.6. readings
6.6.1. Who like whom?
6.6.1.1. Reward Theory: We like those who reward us, or whom we associate with rewards.
6.6.1.2. Factors
6.6.1.2.1. Proximity
6.6.1.2.2. Implicit Egotism
6.6.1.2.3. Physical Attractiveness
6.6.1.2.4. Similarities vs Complementarity
6.6.1.2.5. Self esteem and attraction
6.6.1.2.6. Our need to belong