Class Notes (836,031)
Canada (509,587)
Psychology (3,518)
PSY321H1 (13)
Lecture 9

lecture 9.docx

6 Pages
76 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY321H1
Professor
Simone Walker
Semester
Winter

Description
LECTURE 9 Culture & Social Behaviour Single culture studies- within culture agreement tend to form agressions of others in similar ways. Ex.American and Chinese Ss; judgements of personality traits associated with photographs of faces. People with older looking faces- wordly, wise, high levels within culture agreement in contrast to younger faces. When cultures see other faces- cross cultural agreement when inferring faces. Ex/American vs Chinese: were similar to each other. In addition separate studies looked at predictive validity whether or not people are able to predict real world implication or real world behaviours found high levels of agreement. Can predict when candidate could win a vote based on face impression from photos. Seen as naïve. Predict real world outcomes whther this candidate will win a election. Candidates being more comptent based on person perception were likely to win election. Form perception and predictive validity separate. Even though process of person perception is universal, culture influences this. American and Japanese political candidates. Rated how competent each candidate would be. Found high levels of agreement. So rating inferred regarding phtos of candidates were similar acorss American and Japanese cultures. Participants asked to whether or not the candidate would win an election. Data collected if they actually did win. Found participates good at predicting which candidate would win based on traits inferred. Ex/ more competent than others were likely to win. Cultural difference: Japanese more predicitive of japanses candidates Suggest process of person perception is universal, similar across cultures when inferences of others, better at same culture and need more knowledge to make accurate statements from people in other cultures. Rate each face in terms of trustworthiness. Varied in smiling. Ie/eye in intense smiling Americans- rated with mouth. Japanese rated with eyes smiling more intensely Culture influences impressions formed of others. Consistent with cultural display rules. Indivs engage in masking is a display rule which display an expression on face inconsistent with inside feeling. Cultures who mask their emotion- they tend to pay attention to eyes because more difficult to control eyes and how they are actually feeling Culture where do not engage in masking- will look at mouth which provides info about subjective traits. Japanese- maksing emotion in different social context, looking at eyes will show trustiworthiness American- maksing not the norm more attention to mouth to determine trustworthiness Better at own race because more contact ie/ family members, friends, live in close proximity to own race Over time high level of familiarity to faces of our own race so better at recognizing own race then other races. Ex/ study showed that when particpants asked to recognize faces in other and own races, must make judgemental. Must closely examine faces because must do something with that info later. Bias disappears, has to do with orienting strategies. Or self-schemas. Schemas- mental framework that organizes info. Schemas regarding ourself ie what we are like- values, morals, beliefs, preferences and behaviors. Regarding past, biographical memories. Perhaps not race but self schemas that influence how people recognize faces in own races and other races. Support for different cultures actually perceive and classify faces in different ways.At perceptual level differences across cultures that lead to bias. All support for these except intergroup contact. Interpersonal attraction several determinants 1. Physical attractiveness- we are attractive to people we perceive to be beautiful. Universal in terms of what is physically attractive? i) evolutionary-some similarities or ii) upto the person. Universal characteristic people agree on is complexion. Perceive skin free from blemishes is physically attractive. Indicator of health. Maximize reproductive fitness. Better offspring likely to be healthy. Evolutionary explanation: not indicator of health but developmental stability in ideal conditions. Ie. In womb, early life experiences in environment free from pollution. All produce deviations from bilateral symmetry. Likely to have offspring from genetic mutations, survive, reproduce and pass on genes to bilaterally symmetrical faces. Show a face and rate attractiveness. Second face is rated. Create a composite face which is average of two. Rate average more than other two -we tend to be more attractive to features with average sizes and configurations. Because average size is indicator of genetic health, abnormality. Healthy offspring. Also be familiarity- idea of prototype face that repsents average type of all human face configuartions. Research found closer to a prototype we are faster at processing that info regarding that stimulus. We tend to like stimuli that are easy and quick to process. Perception fluency. Average faces easier to process, effortlessly, tend to like average faces. Makes us feel good. Heuristics used ex. Experts are always right, what is beautiful is good -are kinder, intelligent, socially skilled, and competent. This is bias. Physically attractive people are more socially skilled then less attractive because we are attracted to physically attacted people which gives them opportunities to interact that allows them to develop their skills. We interact with them more frequently and reward them ie/ children elicit good response to adults increasing the likelihood that child will develop good skills. -pervasice- earn more than less physically attractive people, likely to be hired regardless of experience being the same. This bias- is typically found in north American. Shown hard to replicate in non northAmerican cultures. Differences in north American is the meaning of attractiveness Propqunity- physical proximity. Consistent finding attracted to people we interact with. -liked classmates who were in the same row, side by side were friends compared to students who sat far apart. -powerful determinant of attraction. -recruited new people to police academy. Arrived on first day of recruiting, seating and sleeping arrangements would be determined alphabetically. These assignments would be for the whole duration of training. Side by side friends would be friends and greater likely to like each other. Evidence of propinquity in chickens -accessibility universal: evidence across all cultures that we like people more if we come in frequent contact with these people -propinquity effect explanation: mere exposure. Easier to process stimuli and transfer that liking to that stimli. Easier to process because exposed more. Repeated exposure, repeated contact increases our attraction to that person.a -other determinant: similarity is a powerful determinant. Little evidence to support that opposites attract. -for cads-similarity attraction effect. Were more likely to say they like stranger and interact in future who were similar to them. In japanses no effect on similarity affect regardless of talking about traits, behaviour, personality. High levels of agreement of characteristics of a potential mate. Evolutionary explanation for high level of agreement- universal set of traits. Evolutionary there are differences in reproductive capacities due to biological differences. Good health: physical attractiveness and youth Male investment- low and reproductive cost. Culture and Love Is it universal? Triangular theory: passion, intimacy and committed. Decision to stay with a partner in s-t or long-term and put in time and effort to make relationship last. Different combinations leading to different types of love. Ie/infactuation-passion only, brief, empty- commitment, burnt out marriage, no thoughts shared. Western culture: romantic love. Is it universal? Reviewed ethnographies (rich description of cultures). Found 89% clear evidence of romatic love. Remaining no evidence. However, researchers interpreted these findings that romantic love doesn’t exist in 100% but methodological flaws in ethnogrpahies that explained why no evidence was found. When use pre existing info, no control of the quality because you didn’t collect it so flaws in data. Concluded that romantic love is universal. Culture difference in meaning and importance of romantic love to long term relationship. Study: recruited sample ofAmerican French and Japanese participants.Asked questions about current status, concern, arguments etc. Private self mor ethan japenese. Japanses andAmerican more arguments compared to French. Similar study: recruited americans, Japanese and germans. Found americans and germans likely to say that romantic love is key ingredient to successful marriage, moreso then japanse. Suggest cultural difference how highly romantic love is valued. Necessary for romantic relationship. No strong ties to extended families or few ties, that more value is placed on romantic love. Because having large extended family or strong ties to family allows extended family to exert influence on your relat
More Less

Related notes for PSY321H1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


OR

By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.


Submit