Social Psych Lec Notes.docx

66 Pages
106 Views

Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSY100H1
Professor
Michael Inzlicht

This preview shows pages 1,2,3,4. Sign up to view the full 66 pages of the document.
Description
Social Psych Lec Notes Lecture 5 Stanford Prison Experiment Video • Phillp Zambardo = lead psychologist + acted as “superintendent” in the prison • Scheduled to run for 2 weeks in basement of psych dept but had to end in 6 days • Guards couldn’t hurt them but could bore, frustrate, humiliate them and make them feel powerless, no privacy, etc. nd • There was a bit of a rebellion on the 2 day by barricading their doors to stop the guards from getting in to count them • The guards then took their beds and forced them to strip and threw one of the 3 leader of rebellion into the “hole” = solitary confinement • There were 9 guards and 9 prisoners and the guards knew that since only 3 of the prisoners could lead the rebellion, they needed to do something o They decided to use psych tactics like making a privileged cell for prisoners not involved in rebellion. But the prisoners went against this too and tried to keep solidarity. • guards started to use even harsher methods (making going to the toilet a privilege and giving them a bucket in their room that they wouldn’t empty for many hours) • one of the prisoners wanted to leave and feigned physical problems but they wouldn’t let him and offered him a deal where maybe they would if he became a snitch • he later “faked” psych problems which became all too real and they had to let him out • on visiting day, they groomed and made the prisoners look really good and happy so that the parents wouldn’t want their sons released • rumor after visiting day that the prisoners were planning escape • prisoner 862 whom they had let out was going to come back with friends to help with escape • but he never actually showed with the friends at all • after this the guards escalated amounts of punishments (i.e. many pushups, more humiliation, clean out toilet bowls with bare hands, polish guards’ shoes) • a priest came to speak to prisoners to assess closeness of the experiment to real prisons he had been to o many of the prisoners referred to themselves by their number, not name o priest confirmed realness • 819 broke down crying and they took him away for a little bit • While this happened, the guards, during the next count, made the prisoners chant that 819 did a bad thing • Counts had changed a lot since first day, incredible amounts of conformity • 819 was released because he couldn’t take it • A new standby prisoner was brought in to replace him, 416 • He went on hunger strike but the other prisoners just treated 416 as a troublemaker and didn’t join • Prisoners had displayed 3 ways of coping: o Passively : breaking down o Being a model prisoner (following guard’s order readily) o Acting out to guards • 3 types of guards: o Sadistic o Tough but fair o Those that felt bad • The guards at one point put 416 in the hole and threatened to cancel visiting hours for all if 416 didn’t obey (didn’t eat his sausages) • “John Wayne” = nickname for one of the tough, cruel guards • “Sarge” = the obedient prisoner • Prisoners were given a choice to either keep their blankets or leave 416 in the hole for another day • This was when they ended experiment because it was too cruel • Parents, prisoners, guards all accepted the authority impression of the prison and not as an exp’t • Their prison expert acted as a parole officer during the parole board meeting. And only realized afterwards that the same thing he did to prisoners was what parole officers did to him. • Priest offered legal counsel rather than spiritual counsel • Guards were surprised afterwards that they had the potential to be so cruel without regret/guilt at the time. Only felt that way after when they reflected. • One of the more sadistic guards made it his own little experiment to see how much he could do before someone would say anything (and no one really did object) • No long terms negative effects in the prisoners (many follow-ups were done) • Shyness = self-imposed psychological prison. The leader of this exp’t set up first shyness clinic and lots of research on shyness. Paige­Gould’s portion of Lec 5  • Cohesiveness = extent to which a group is perceived to be closeknit/similar o in the mind of group members, cohesiveness promotes liking and in group favoritism o in mind of outgroup, people think a cohesive group is more similar than they actually are (i.e. we stereotype them) • social group: o have social norms o have social roles o vary in level of cohesiveness • social facilitation: tendency for performance to be improved (compared to baseline when we’re alone) when doing a well-learned task, in front of others • social loafing: tendency for performance to be worse on simple/well-learned tasks and better on complex tasks if they are in a group and not being individually evaluated • an extreme of evaluation apprehension is socio-evaluative threat = (i.e. if one has speech anxiety) = one knows that they’ll be evaluated and body responds with stress hormone, cortisol which impairs learning and memory, and therefore you’ll do worse bc you worried • basically the 3 components are evaluation, arousal, task complexity Group Decision Making • group polarization = tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of members o can be shift to greater OR lesser risk o has both informational and normative explanations o this is just the mild form of how groups affect decisions • groupthink = (Janis came up with it) o mode of thinking when members strive for unanimity instead of being motivated to realistically appraise alternative courses of action o this is the extreme form of group polarization o Challenger Disaster = Challenger exploded while it was going up into space  Realized it was actually extremely avoidable esp since NASA has a policy that any launch should be cancelled if there is a safety risk  But when engineers mentioned this to higher ups, they didn’t listen o Characteristics of groupthink: • To prevent group think: o Assign a Devil’s Advocate (important that they’re assigned and not just a natural dissenter) o Leader remains impartial o Seeking feedback from people outside the group o Create random subgroups within the group as a whole from the very beginning (this creates little groups of dissent, diversity o Anonymous opinions (i.e. via ballots) • a lot of work on groupthink has been related to juries o 97% of juries end with the decision that was the initial vote (predeliberation error) o Cascade effect = judgments of initial speaker shape successors (from not saying what they really think) more than any other combination of factors • We require juries to come to a unanimous decision because (though it does amplify risk of group think since group is extra cohesive) otherwise (i.e. in France), there is a much larger amount of guilty verdicts • Just-world hypothesis always applies to defendent = we associate them with crime and guilt • 6 person juries convict more often and 12 person juries acquit or are ‘hung’ (can’t come up with unanimous decision) more often o We have 12 person juries in north am Deindividuation • State in which a person loses sense of him/herself as individual o Occurs in crowds, when physically anonymous, group chanting/stomping o People act more extremely than otherwise would o Classic example = people are more likely to egg suicide attempts on at night o And also trampling someone in a crowd o Brandon Vedas = guy who was encouraged to commit suicide on the internet • Destructive cult = social group centred around devotion to a person/ideal/thing that employs unethical techniques of manipulaton or control o Ex. Order of Solar Temple (Quebecois, Swiss, French cult, many high status members, hierarchical structure, beliefs = mix of Christianity and New Age thinking, new incarnation of Jesus + Sun God, they would all go on a death voyage together to free them from troubles of world. Mass murders and mass suicides occurred later on. o Defining characteristics of Destructive Cults: (2 sets of ethics = those who know general rules and those who know ‘everything’) Obedience/Milgram Film • Many of the teachers showed nervous laughter/smiling that was not related to sadism • Victim was always an accomplice of experiment. Random draw was rigged. • 50% of subjects obeyed fully and went all the way • Obedience is significantly reduced with how physically close learner and teacher are • Also the closer the teacher and experimenter are, the more obedient • As well doing the exp’t at Yale vs a rundown building was not significantly different Lecture 6: Emotion and Morality Emotion • Spans many fields other than social psych • Emotion: a brief (within about 4 mins) physiological and psychological response to an event/stimulus that is felt subjectively and prepares a person for action (action tendency) o Some things that are NOT emotions are moods = general state with an affective/emotional component (lasts a longer time and you usually don’t know what caused your mood unlike with a stimulus and mood  Moods are diffuse (don’t need to have an illiciting cause and don’t need a target), no call for action, they persist over time o Sentiment: i.e. giving someone your condolences. Does have an affective component but it’s more defuse than an emotion and can still last a long time! o Personality traits: i.e. “he’s an angry person” (he tends to feel that emotion a lot but he is not the emotion). o But, “he got angry” = describing an emotion o Arousal = a state of heightened physiology (i.e. sleepiness = lack of arousal) is not strictly an emotion either. But it is related: if that arousal is in response to a specific stimulus, it could be an emotion) Classes of Emotions • 6 basic types, and everything else is a combo of the basic emotions (called complex emotions) o Fear, anger, sadness, disgust, happiness, surprise o Paul Eckman = guy in Lie To Me who’s done a lot of research on emotion, including finding these 6 basic emotions o • Complex emotion = blend of basic emotions. There are 2 important subtypes: o Positive emotions = emotions with a positive valence (i.e. the basic emotion of happiness). Some complex ones are gratitude, contentment, amusement, desire, love (controversy).  Gratitude = one of the most studied positive emotions. Has profound effects in life satisfaction, happier relationships, etc.  Amusement = linked to humour = one of the most-looked for traits in a mate cross-culturally and it generally makes us like people more when they’re funny  Desire = sexual or otherwise  Some argue love is not an emotion because of how long it lasts (not the rise and fall of a basic emotion) and therefore say it’s a sentiment but some say, everytime you think of someone you love, that is the new stimulus and that love is just so strong that it has a very strong, steady response. o Self-Conscious Emotions = complex emotions elicited by self  Most studied examples = pride, shame, guilt, embarrassment • Pride = positive • Shame = negative = you wish you didn’t do something = self- oriented • Shame is slightly different from guilt = negative = where you also regret but guilt is more other-oriented. i.e. you feel bad about what you did to someone else • Embarrassment = sometimes positive or negative Measuring Emotions • We typically measure through self-report (which is actually fairly accurate), facial emg, and facial action coding system (facs) • Facial action muscles: • Disgust = scrunch up your levator labii = scrunching up nose • Negative affect (confused, angry, sad) related to currogator supercilli = brow furrowing • Orbicularis oculi = circular muscles going around the eye = very important in differentiating a real or fake smile in combination with the zygomaticus major o Classical conditioning to associate smiles with happiness • Frontalis musles = also lift brows • A real, natural display of emotion is symmetrical! Asymmetrical = takes effort • Duchenne did a lot of research on smiles and other emotions o Fake vs. genuine = Duchenne smile = is there activity of orbicularis oculi at same time? o American’s give the fake smile more than any other culture • EMG = Electromyography o Captures subtle facial movements o Best use for situations where facial movement is not visually detectable o Is an obtrusive measurement technique (the act of measuring itself may interfere) • Facial Action Coding System: o Codes overt facial expressions o Numbers all facial muscle actions o Classifies emotions as patterns of muscle actions that occur together o This is for ones that you can see, say with an HD camera o People need to be FACS trained to actually do this (quite expensive to qualify self) Components of Emotion • More complex def’n of emotion: a universal, fxn’l reaction to an external stimulus, temporarily integrating physio, cog, phenomenological, behv, channels to facilitate a fitness- enhancing, enviro-shaping response to a current situation • Components: o Temporal (short-lived) o Physio = everyone agrees this is an important aspect of emotion  Peripheral nervous system = everything apart from brain + spinal cord = • Sympathetic + parasympathetic nervous system o Heart rate, skinconductance, pre-ejection period (when your heart takes a bit of time to actually push blood out of left ventricle. When goal-motivated, your heart puts out blood more quickly), finger temperature (colder when you’re aroused) o These all indicate degree of arousal  Central nervous system = spinal cord + brain: • limbic system o amygdala: fear + anger o hippocampus: laughter • frontal/neo cortex = everything else o responsible for pattern-matching  physio profiles help us understand arousal, intensity, and possible circuits • BUT emotions cannot be identified by just examining physio  James-Lange Theory of Emotion (from William James = father of psych and, Lange who just verified his theory later) • Specific bodily (physio) response tells us what emotion we are feeling • The bodily response is specific • • • Ex. First you see the bear, then your body reacts before you think about it since bear is inherently frightening (in example question, answer is “because bears are scary!” this was the correct). • (you sweat, heart rate increases), THEN you have the emotional response and know you’re afraid  Feedback to the System • Levenson = told participants to pose their face in certain ways (directed action facial task) and then asked them what expression they’re demonstrating without a mirror • he then found reliable physio responses as a response to emotion • but the opposite, physio  emotion has not been found as clearly! o Cog  Cognitive appraisal = meaning that you ascribe to an event and how it affects our emotional response to it • I.e. did someone mean to punch you to hurt you or were they joking o Hurt  anger or joking  amusement o Stimulus still the same, just diff interpretation  Several key appraisals: • Self-relevance = how relevant is an event to you (i.e. was your next door neighbour murdered or someone murdered in South Africa effects whether or not you really feel fear) • Goal congruence = how much does event coincide with your own goals (i.e. frustration if they don’t) • Blame and responsibility = did someone mean to do something or was it an accident. Also, did they take responsibility and apologize? • Certainty = how sure you are of the appraisal of the event (i.e. are you sure you’re right? Only when you’re sure does your emotion take place.) • Coping ability = how much you’re able to cope with the situation  Two-Factor Theory: this is the opponent of the James-Lange theory • 1: Physiological arousal is generalized, not specific • 2: We apply a label to the arousal based on cognitive appraisal • • • Classic Experiment: by Schacter and Singer o Gave people either a stimulant pill or placebo o Had them complete a survey with very personal questions o An actor among participants gets angry at the questionnaire o What does the participant do? o Aroused participants expressed greater anger than even actor o But the placebo participants didn’t get angry • Two Factor Theory of Love: o Builds on Schacter and Singer model o Argues that arousal is important in interpersonal relationships o Argue that romantic relationship is: unexplained arousal + attributing it to someone o Bridge Study by Dutton + Aron o Real life way of using this: go on a date to a theme park and go on the scariest rides possible and other person will be very aroused and may attribute that to you! o In short, James-Lange is primarily physio and says specific emotions are real and distinct. But, 2 factor theory says specific emotions are an illusion of appraisal  James-Lange probably has more evidence but there is still significant evidence to 2-Factory Theory o Behv (emotion’s purpose is to tell us how to act):  Behaviour channels are methods through which emotion can be conveyed: • Facial display = most emotion research focuses on this since it’s how we convey a lot of our emotion • Body posture • Vocal tone • Touch = people can actually reliably sense emotion from touch • Action = emotions have action tendencies, mostly approach/avoidance o i.e. anger  approach (you may aggress towards them, think about them more). happiness  approach  when anger becomes avoidance, it’s more emotion reg o fear  avoid. disgust  avoid (disgust = prototypical avoidance emotion) o this is the fxn’l part of emotion  Darwin = The Expression of Emotion in Man and Animal = emotions are adaptations because they help us survive, reproduce, raise young  expression evolved before language • continuity between species • universality within species  A lot of research in universality of emotion has been done in Papa New Guinea because they’ve been fairly isolated • Standard method = match to the 6 basic faces • Dashiel method = tell someone a story, like imagine your son died, what expression would you make out of the 6 basic • Posed method = tell someone a story, make them pose that expression  Happiness is very universally recognized  Surprise is least consistently recognized (confused with fear/happiness)  Dashiel method generally gets higher consistency  Generally universal, but some culture display rules (contexts when you should make certain emotions vs. others. i.e. some cultures, you’re supposed to be happy at a funeral) • Influenced by situational context, relational context, and intensity  Also, some cultures have expressions we don’t have like in Japan, they like feeling obligated to someone “amae”  Germany: shadenfreude = pleasure derived from misfortune of others  Bedouin: hasham = pleasant feeling of humility Morality Moralization • Transformation of preferences to values o Cultural level:  Ex. Cigarette smoking in Canada (country has a moral view) o Individual level:  Ex. Vegetarianism in Canada (individual choice, moral component) Moral Reasoning • Heinz Dilemma: Heinz stole medicine he couldn’t afford to save his wife o They ask you was Heniz’ action moral or not and why? o Then they would classify you into: • Kohlberg’s stages of moral development: 3 broad stages with 2 substages: o Pre-conventional = based on rewards and punishment (used by kids)  1. Obedience and punishment orientation = will others reward or punish me  2. Self-interest orientation = around 7 years old: how will it effect me (i.e. they may punish me for stealing me but I’ll be happy, therefore it’s in my self-interest, to save my wife o Conventional = where most people are in adulthood = based on societal expectations  3. Interpersonal accord and conformity = you just want to keep the peace and do what people tell you  4. Authority and social-order maintaining = based on authority and need to maintain social-order (system justification) o Post-conventional = Kohlberg says a lot of people don’t even get here. This is with your own personal sense of what is right or wrong  5. Social Contract (shared humanity, i.e. druggist wasn’t respecting fact that humans lives are important, so it’s fine to steal from him)  6. Universal Ethical Principles (on a case by case basis, you come up with what is write. This is your own set of ethical guidelines). Can begin from age 10 and grows to about 40% of people according to a study. • Chicken dilemma: a man goes to a supermarket once a week and buys a dead chicken. Has sex with it then cooks it and eats it. • Flag dilemma: a woman is cleaning her closet and doesn’t want it anymore and cuts it up and uses it to clean her bathroom • Family’s dog dilemma: killed by car in front of house. Heard that dog meat was delicious so they cooked and ate it for dinner • Incest dilemma: birth control + condom, brought them closer, but they decided never to do it again • They structure these dilemmas so you can’t make utilitarian arguments Moral Emotions • Feelings as information  we use our feelings to make a decision o Emotions are in a way, heuristics o Reduces complexity + rapid decision making (Ex. I feel good, I must like this) o Schwarz + Clore:  Ask participants: How satisfied are you with your life?  People use their current feelings as information  Ex. I feel happy  I have high life satisfaction (even though life satisfaction generally shouldn’t fluctuate)  They also tested weather attributions especially if they actually asked them “how’s the weather?” • People were more satisfied on sunny day rather than overcast if no mention of weather • But, if people were explicitly asked, they didn’t misattribute because they realized why they were feeling that way and generally stated they were more satisfied with their life • Moral emotions o Moral violations illicit certain specific emotions o Moral triad:  Disgust: elicited by violations of divinity, purity, cleanliness • Ex. incest  Anger: elicited by violations of autonomy + freedom (individual rights), causing personal harm • Ex. Husband beats wife  Contempt: elicited by violations of community/hierarchy rules • Ex. Disrespecting an older person, disrespecting a superior • Social intuitionist model o 2 steps of moral reasoning  1. Make moral judgement based on emotional rxn  2. Try to come up with an acceptable justification for our gut rxn Revisiting Logical Morality • Some people question whether it’s really social intuitionist model or does cognition/logic play a role. • Trolley/Train Problem: o A runaway train hurdles down tracks towards 5 people who will be killed if it’s on present course who won’t be able to get out of the way o On another set of tracks, there’s only one person o Your standing next to a lever, do you switch the track to divert it? o Many people say yes • Variation: o A large man is standing next to you, if they were in the way of the train, the train wouldn’t make it to hit the 5 people. Do you push the large man? o Many people say no! Because it’s much more personal and directive vs a lever which is more removed • Crying Baby Dilemma: o It’s wartime and soldiers are killing everyone over 2 years of age, therefore they won’t kill your baby. You’re hiding in a basement, enemy soldiers don’t know you’re there. Your baby is crying loudly and they’ll find you. The only way to stop your baby is to kill it. Do you do this? o Almost everyone says no, even though it’ll kill everyone else in the basement • Dual-Process Theory of Moral Judgement: o 2 types of reasoning processes:  Utilitarian = cost vs. effect = fewer people just go this way • Heightened activity in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex if they go this way  Emotional = most people go this way  When both utilitarian + emotional arguments are strong, there is conflict: heightened activity in anterior cingulated cortex  For people who ultimately choose utilitarian, DPFC activity > ACC activity  About 10-20% of people systematically make utilitarian judgements Lecture 7: Initial Attraction and Close Relationships Reasons We Like Other People: • Proximity: o = most important factor by far o = actual distance o Propinquity Effect: (propinquity and proximity mean same thing) = more we see + interact with another person, more likely we are to be their friend • Familiarity: o Mere-exposure: more exposure you get to a neutral object, more you like it o Only works if the object is not already something you don’t like it (if you dislike it, you’ll just hate it even more) o = more general than proximity, doesn’t have to be people o Familiarity in fact is how we explain proximity (familiarity  proximity) o MIT dorm study by Festinger: more than any other factor, location of your apartment predicted who you’d befriend  Apartments at base of stairs had more friends than any other o We also tend to prefer our face in a mirror to a photograph. But friends like photographs of us more than our mirror image. o Proximity/familiarity promotes attraction because:  Availability/accessibility  Mere exposure  Suggests similarity • Similarity: o Competes with complementarity = opposites attract o For the most part similarity wins though because:  Validates our own values, beliefs, personality (if someone else does it and agres, it must be good) o But for romantic relationships, some degree of complementarity is good though:  i.e. for dominance vs. submissiveness, helps to have 1 of each in a relationship • Reciprocity: we like people who like us o we pay attention to subtle cues:  Eye contact  Leaning in  Attentive listening (attention = the biggest piece of social capital we have to give other people)  Mimicry o This is less true for people with low self-esteem/negative self-concept/depressed o “playing hard to get” fails in general according to research, unless it’s just done for a little bit at the very beginning • Attractiveness: o In a blind date setting, attractiveness is the single most important factor o This was independent of the rater’s attractiveness (i.e., even if you scored as the ugliest person there, you as the ugly person still want the most attractive person) o General features Western men find attractive in women:  Large eyes, strong cheekbones, large chin, big smile o General features Western women find attractive in men:  Large eyes, small nose, prominent cheekbones, narrow cheeks, high eyebrows, large pupils (even ancient roman civilizations liked this!), big smile o And we all just tend to like baby-faced people (large eyes, rounder face, round nose)  We view them as being more trustworthy, persuasive, and they evoke liking + caregiving behv’s o Symmetry is also quite important (Denzel Washington is a prototype example) o These features are important because:  Good health  facial symmetry  Sexual maturity  cheekbones  Dominance  square jaw  Submission + getting nurturing  baby-faced features o We also find composite faces (=morphed, merged face of several faces) more attractive o Individual face that went into a composite face = less attractive than the composite face o More faces that go into it, more attractive we perceive it  These faces = more familiar, prototypical, symmetrical o However, there does seem to be an element where beauty is not just purely average. i.e. very beautiful images composited together vs. unattractive images composited together (obviously very beautiful composite wins) o Some people have made the argument that’s why we like multiracial people o There is something hard-wired to liking attractive people  Even babies, look longer at attractive faces more than less attractive  Also, fair amount of cross-cultural consistency on attractiveness but it does depend on what is prototypical in that culture (i.e. Asia has more round faces, prefers round more. West has more narrow faces, prefer those more) o Beauty promotes attraction because:  Beautiful-is-good schema (Dion) = we have a bias to perceive them as being “good” people • (good = what we define as good in our culture) • Socially competent, extraverted, popular, more sexual, happier, more friendly o Indeed, attractive people are more of these things but greatly because of self-fulfilling prophecy • The beautiful-is-good stereotypes across cultures: • • i.e. individualistic culture values individual traits more and vice versa (in other words, we associate them with what our culture thinks is good) o matching hypothesis: we seek partners and have most stable relationships with partners of similar attractiveness to us  evidence = couples from blind date were more likely to actually continue dating if they were well-matched in terms of attractiveness  UCLA dating study: • Brought in couples • Got other people to rate each partner’s attractiveness • Checked which couples stayed together and how satisfied they were about their relationship • Scarcity: o if potential mates are not plentiful, we may shift our standards of attractiveness o closing-time studies  highly-criticized  attractiveness ratings of same image/person increased as it got closer to closing time (this only held true for opposite sex, that they would actually find romantically-attractive)  this conclusion held true even with alcohol intake being controlled • Misattribution of Arousal = the bridge study Close Relationships Evolutionary Perspective • Evolutionary fitness: potential to pass on genes successfully to procreate o Ability for you to survive to mating years o And also ability to maximize number of offspring that also survive to mating years • Reproductive investment of sex o The one that invests more time, resources, risk invested in having each child is typically “choosier” o In seahorses, male seahorses actually are the ones to give birth o The sex with the least reproductive costs:  Wants more partners  Will be in competition for mates more often  Displays greater physical variation (i.e. male birds are more colorful) • Polygamy: o Polygyny: several females mate with one male  =90% of mammals o Polyandry = several males mate with one male  Ex. Hyenas o Usually among polygamists we see sexual dimorphism: pronounced difference in size/body structure of the sexes • Monogamy o Sexes are close to indistinguishable based on physical characteristics o Humans are typically monogamous (along with the 5% of mammals that are also monogamous) because:  There is a co-occurence of dopamine + oxytocin in the nucleus accumbens • Oxytocin = neuropeptide + attachment hormone. Stimulated when we feel a bond (“social pair-bond”) to. • So we become attached/addicted to those we love  This co-occurence only really occurs in monogamous mammals  And no polygamist mammals show this • Homosexuality o Homosexuality is widely displayed across various species o Rates increased when there is a disproportionate amount of females and males o Is a “reproductive partnership”, they’ll adopt children of those whose parents have died • It is unclear whether humans are polygamous/monogamous o There is sexual dimorphism o But, the choosy and nonchoosy sexes are physically differentiated and equally variable (i.e. really attractive vs. not attractive) o Across human cultures, 85% of “traditional cultures” allow for some form of polygamy o But, co-occurence of oxytocin + dopamine in human brain o Also, nearly all men and women say they hope to settle down with 1 partner at the end of their life • One theory is that human sexual behaviours vary through lifetime (i.e. young adults tend towards polygamy but by around mid-20s onward, tend towards monogamy). Making this a superior strategy in evolutionary terms. Need to Belong • = a basic, motivational need • Humans have more of a need to belong than other mammals • Some argue this is our most important motivational need • Sociometer theory = self-esteem tells you much you feel like you fit in • human survival tactics typically require multiple people • also, human children are helpless for several years • need to belong typically focuses on social isolation or comparison of socially isolated to non • those with more close friends are healthier, happier, more satisfied with life • in almost every culture, long-term isolation is a form of torture • social ostracism/rejection is an unofficial way to enforce social rules • isolation tactics are viewed in other primates as well • Harlow’s Rhesus Monkeys: = the cloth monkey mother experiment o Freud thought that mothers were just mainly liked for food, the fact that they provide for us etc. o Harlow thought that social caring + affection was also a factor so her gave monkeys everything they need but just changed whether they were fed with a wire-mother or cloth-mother and monkey’s significantly preferred being near the cloth mother even when they were not being fed by that mother. o Exploration is high when cloth mother is present (i.e. a safe environment is evolutionary adaptive) = healthy attachment o Harlow also socially isolated several monkeys for 3 months (they had food, everything else, contact comfort = blankets, but just no social contact)  Showed extremely negative maladaptive coping skills • Self-mutilation (pulled out own hair, bit self) • Huddled alone, rocking  Later when they were made parents, they were poor parents, even abusive o Harlow also showed that the negative impact could be reduced with monkey therapy (therapist monkey = a well-adjusted, non socially-isolated monkey.) o They put therapist monkey into the cage with the poorly-adjusted monkey and then they were mostly better (except when under stress) and it took 6 months for them to be mostly better though some improvement began in 2 weeks Attachment Theory • Describes how infants become: o Emotionally attached to caregivers o Emotionally distressed at loss of caregiver • Functional purposes of attachment: o Comfort child when fearful o Builds expectations for future relationships o Provides “secure base” for exploration • In non-humans we call this “imprinting” which is sort of lower-level attachment o With imprinting there is an important sensitivity period for imprinting (i.e. if you’re around while something hatches, they will think you’re their mother) • Among humans, infants enter world predisposed to need to attach to a caregiver: o Find social interaction intrinsically rewarding o Instinctive fear of unknown/unfamiliar others • Adult attachment similar to infant attachment: o Prefer proximity, with distress upon separation o Turn to partner for support when stressed, in danger o Derive security from partner, enabling exploration of and engagement with the rest of the world • Secure Attachment (56%): o I find it relatively easy to get close to others and am comfortable depending on them and having them depend on me. I don’t often worry about being abandoned or about someone getting too close to me. o Believe in true, enduring love o Trust, friendship, positive emotions o Believe others are trustworthy o Believe they are likeable o Have memories of their caregivers being dependable, responsive, caring • Anxious-Ambivalent Attachment (19%): o I find that others are reluctant to get as close as I would like. I often worry that my partner doesn’t really love me or won’t want to stay with me. I want to merge completely with another person, and this desire sometimes scares people away. o Preoccupied with struggling to merge with someone else o Fall in love frequently + easily o Difficulty finding true love though o Have self-doubts o Inconsistent parenting style in caregiver (mix of positive and negative experiences) • Avoidant Attachment Style o I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to others; I find it difficult to trust them completely, difficult to allow myself to depend on them. I am nervous when anyone gets too close, and often, love partners want me to be more intimate than I feel comfortable being. o Fear of closeness o Lack of trust o Doubtful of existence/durability of romantic love o Feel like they don’t need love partner in order to be happy o View self as independent, self-reliant o Have memories of cold, rejecting caregivers • These 3 styles was the old way of dividing up adult attachment styles • But in late 90s, started to realize it was more dimensional than categories • Dimensions: o Attachment avoidance o Attachment anxiety o • ABCs of Close Relationships: o Cognition:  Self-Expansion Theory = experience of closeness is an associative overlap of our self-concept with our concept of a close other • Aka Inclusion-of-Other-in-Self (IOS) • Info about close others are closely associated with self-related info • Ex. Longer reaction times to say “not me” to a trait that describes your spouse but not you (implicit personality test) • Make more situational attributions for self and close others, but dispositional attributions for non-close others o FAE only applies to non-close others , in other words  Interdependence Theory (called investment model in our textbook): • Commitment: A mental state characterized by a pluralistic, collective representation of the self-in-relationship • 3 components of commitment: o Satisfaction=product of perceived rewards, costs, comparison lvl o Quality of Alternatives o Resource Investment (i.e. time, emotional cost, etc.) • Commitment = more satisfaction + lower quality of alternatives + more resource investment • When commitment is high, there is more spontaneous use of pluralistic pronouns o Affect:  Theories of Love • Companionate Love: Feelings of intimacy and affection we feel when we care deeply for a person, but without sexual arousal or passion o Valued in ALL cultures o Friends or lovers • Passionate Love: feelings of intense longing for a person, usually accompanied by physiological arousal o Most cultures value it but not all o Positive illusions: when you idealize a partner  View them more positively than they view themselves  also more positively than objective viewers see them o Behaviour:  Equity/Equality Theory: close relationships = transactions in which partner exchanges goods and services • Relationship satisfactions predicted by equity • However, relationship quality is predicted by the way you evaluate equity • There are 2 equity orientations: o Exchange: tit-for-tat, interactions are governed by equity concerns. Typically observed among new acquaintances  i.e. social contact of giving gifts  people are upset when one is putting in more o Communal: giving in response to partner’s needs regardless of whether they are paid back. Typically observed in high quality close relationships.  Based on needs, not literal equivalent exchange  Co-operative Dilemmas in Close Relationships • What to do when one partner behaves destructively: o Attributions for partner’s behv  Better to make positive/non-dispositional attributions • Transformation of motivation in long-term relationships • If you have long-term goals for the relationships, you’ll respond to deconstructive behaviour constructively • If you have short-term goals, you’ll behave deconstructively (match each other’s behaviours, anger for anger) o Escalation occurs • Which couples do well? o Married after age 20, similar age o Grew up in 2-parent homes o Dated for a long time, but did not live together o Same level of education, especially if high o Good income o Religious, and of same religious affiliation (+ being more religious) o Sense of equity o Sex often, arguments rarely o Sharing novel experiences • Why do relationships fail? o Low Equity in Relationship o Lack of Positive Illusions (particularly negative o illusions) o Low interdependence o Boredom - Lack of exploration/novel activities • Top causes of conflict: o Sex = # 1 reason o Money o Kids  Marital satisfaction dives with first child  Slowly returns to pre-child levels by empty nest (18 years later) • In 15-min conversations, the “4 horsemen of the apocalypse”: o 1. Criticism (e.g., listing personal flaws, attacking) o 2. Defensiveness (e.g., denying, excusing, or counter-criticizing) o 3. Contempt (e.g., rolling eyes, sarcasm, insulting) o 4. Stonewalling (e.g., non-response to communicative attempts) worst thing! • Friends tend to use passive strategies to end the relationship (avoidance or withdrawal) • Romantic relationships typically dissolve by direct confrontation • Rejection: o Neurological experience of physical pain in:  ACC = Anterior Cingulate Cortex = associated with “distress signal” during physical pain  rvPFC = Right Ventrical Prefrontal Cortex = associated with regulation and inhibition of felt pain o Experiment with Tylenol vs. placebo actually did report less hurt feelings on days when they experienced social rejection/exclusion Lecture 8:  Culture, Social Power, and Hierarchy Culture • Culture: an ever-changing, constructive stimulus which shapes the ways individuals perceive and contribute to the world o Ever-changing = dynamic with time, etc. o Culture can be affected by members o And culture affects the members • Nationality = country you were born in • Ethnicity = your cultural heritage • Identification = shared identity of group members very important moderator of how much you’re affected by the other two/culture in general • Meaning system: symbols, language, experiences shared by members of culture o Language shapes a lot of our cognition • Also: metaphysics aspect to culture = beliefs about world, universe, existence (creation story of a culture) 4 Key Ways We Describe Cultures • 1. Individualism vs. collectivism o Individualism: north America: + Western Europe  Greater emphasis on competition  Personal achievement even at expense of others o Collectivism: Asia + Latin America  Emphasis on social cohesion/cooperation  focus on social roles, collective responsibilities even at expense of individual o many focus on it as a dichotomy but Japan for example, typically thought of as collectivist, also scores among highest on individualism o so they don’t have to be opposites • 2. Political Culture o Constrains beh’v + cultural expression o Sometimes govn’t change can extinguish a culture
More Less
Unlock Document

Only pages 1,2,3,4 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Unlock Document
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version

Unlock Document

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