Interpersonal processesWhen does social context influence behavior?Group influences on behaviorSocial facilitation: Presence of others strengthens dominant responseOften leads to enhanced performanceSocial loafing: Tendency for people to work less hard in a group than when working aloneLack of motivation from individual responsibilityDeindividuation in groups: Loss of individuality and self-awarenessFail to attend to personal standardsPeople are especially likely to become deindividuated when:They are aroused; they are anonymous; there is diffusion of responsibilityZimbardo prison experimentGroup decision makingRisky shift: Group decisions often riskier than if made by separate individualsGroup polarization: Process whereby group members conform to initial attitudes of other members who already agreeAgreement supersedes actual decisionCan explain both risky shift and excessive caution, depending on group dynamicsConformitySocial norms: Expected standards of conduct indicating appropriate behavior in a given situationConformity: Altering one’s behavior or opinions to match those of othersSherif’s autokinetic effect studyAsch’s line judgment studyCompliance: Agreeing to others’ requestsEspecially likely when people fail to pay attention and respond without fully considering their optionsStrategies for inducing complianceFoot-in-the-door effectDoor-in-the-face effectLow-balling strategyMilgram’s obedience to authority experimentCover story: a learning experiment“Teacher” (the real subject) administers shock to “learner” (a confederate)Shock level increases to dangerous levelsLearner objects, becomes hysterical, and eventually goes silentAuthority figure (an experimenter) instructs subject to continueObedience determined by whether or not the subject refused to continueResults (large proportion of subjects obey)Despite obeying, many subjects were very distressedFactors leading to less obediencePhysically seeing or touching learnerAuthority figure not immediately presentObserving other people refusing to obeyMales and females were equally obedientObedience increased when the subject did not directly flip the switch to administer the shockWhen do people harm or help others?Biological factors in aggressionAggression: Any behavior or action that involves the intention to harm someone elseThe amygdalaStimulating the amygdala leads to attack behaviorsRemoval of the amygdala leads to passive behaviorsFrontal lobe damage associated with aggressive behaviorsProbably due to lack of inhibitionSerotonin may be important for control of aggressionIn mice, low levels of serotonin are associated with aggressive behaviorsDrugs enhancing serotonin reduce aggressionNew Zealand study: Low levels of serotonin associated with violence, but not criminalitySuicide is also associated with low levels of serotoninNegative affect and aggressionFrustration-aggression hypothesisThe extent to which people feel frustrated predicts the likelihood that they will act aggressivelyRoad rage is an exampleCognitive-neoassociationistic modelFrustration leads to aggression because it elicits negative affectNegative affect primes cognitive knowledge associated with aggressionLearned and cultural factors in aggressionViolence rates can change within a country and they can change over timeMurder rates vary greatly among countriesCultures of honorExpectation that men must protect their reputations through physical aggressionLeads some cultures to be more violentNisbett’s “Asshole” studyInfluences on helping behaviorProsocial behavior: Tendency to help othersAltruism: Providing help when it is needed, without apparent rewardInclusive fitness: Adaptive benefits of passing along genes rather than individual survivalKin selection: Individuals are more altruistic to those with whom they share genesReciprocal helpingExplanation of helping toward non-relativesIndividuals help because that individual may return the favor at a later timeBystander apathyBystander intervention effect: Failure to offer help by those who observe someone in needLatané and Darley studiesSmoke filled room study: Demonstrates social referencingThe epileptic seizure study: Demonstrates diffusion of responsibilityThe Good Samaritan study: Demonstrates failure to noticeRelationshipsFactors influencing affiliative choiceProximity: Frequency with which individuals come into contactIncreases the likelihood that people will become friendsMay have its effect because of familiarity (mere exposure effect)Similarity: People with similar attitudes, values, interests, backgrounds, and personalities tend to like each otherThe matching principle: The most successful romantic couples tend to be physically similarSocially constructive characteristics tend to be seen as admirableThe what is beautiful is good stereotypePeople tend to attribute positive qualities to those who are physically attractiveEven mothers treat physically attractive children more affectionately and play with them moreSex differences in mating strategiesSexual strategies theory: Evolutionary theory of David BussMen and women look for different qualities in a relationshipWomen’s basic strategyIntensive care to a relatively small number of offspringLeads to relatively high selectivity for matesValue commitment and ability to provideMen’s basic strategyLess investment required, so less selectiveValue attractiveness, fertility, sexual faithfulnessLove and human relationshipsSternberg’s triangular theory3 components: passion, intimacy, romance. Describes seven basic types of loveAttributional styles in couplesUnhappy couplesAttribute good outcomes to situations and bad outcomes to each otherMake distress-maintaining attributionsView each other in negative waysHappy couplesAttribute good outcomes to each other and bad outcomes to the situationMake partner-enhancing attributionsConstructive responses to conflictsPsych 301, 9/29/3Interpersonal processesWhen does social context influence behavior?Group influences on behaviorSocial facilitation: Presence of others strengthens dominant responseOften leads to enhanced performanceSocial loafing: Tendency for people to work less hard in a group than when working aloneLack of motivation from individual responsibilityDeindividuation in groups: Loss of individuality and self-awareness Fail to attend to personal standardsPeople are especially likely to become deindividuated when: They are aroused; they are anonymous; there is diffusion of
View Full Document
Unlocking...