Group Decision making

• Brainstorming- group members encouraged to produce as many ideas as possible in uninhibited way
• Cons
• Group < Individual Decision in Brainstorming due to Production blocking
• Production blocking - failure to express ideas due to norm that only 1 talks at a time
• forget own idea when listening
• don't listen to others and blurt own idea that's unheard
• Pros
• People like it
• Creates Cohesion
• Group Polarization - group induced exaggeration of preexisting tendency  
• Group Discussion shifts Group's Normal view-------------> Extreme View 
• Strongest : Important decision
• All agree on preexisting tendency
• How Group Polarization Works
• Social Comparison- want to feel/look good when comparing selves to others
• characterize own view in the extreme = self looks good
• form of Normative influence 
• Mutual Persuasion
• different ways of thinking make view look better
• Groupthink
• Groupthink- group members share such strong motivations to come to a consensus that they lose the ability to think independently 
• Conditions that lead to Groupthink
• Highly Cohesive = group
• Isolated from Contrary opinions
• Ruled by Dominant Leader who is not open to disagreement
• Symptoms of Groupthink
• Invulnerable thinking
• moral high ground, can do no wrong
• Close-mindedness and Collective Rationalization
• Group = Only Feasible position
• Increased Pressure towards Unanimity 
• Self-censorship
• Active discouragement of dissenting statements
• Social Facilitation- Others Present = perform Simple tasks Better
• Difficult tasks = Worse when others present
• example: push-ups
• Social Loafing- Efforts Pooled = Less Effort
• Solution : Individuate people (cameras, coaches, recognition, etc.)
• Deindividuation- Loosening of Constraints = in Group or under Anonymity 
• Example: Mardi Gras ; Celebrate Victory
• Conditions Promoting Deindividuation 
• Anonymity
•  enabler to do things wouldn't do otherwise
• Attention Away from Self
• group situations enable crazy stuff because puts attention away from self
• Johnson and Downing (1979)
• Told task recommend increase or decrease in shock level for confederate
• Two Clothing conditions what Subject wore:
• KKK robe
• Nurse outfit
• Deindividuation conditions:
• Deindividuation = Hood over Face in both clothing conditions
• Control
• Results:
• KKK condition no hood = +.75
• KKK condition hood = +.97
• Nurse condition no hood = -.30
• Nurse condition hood = - 1.6
• Gergen (1973)
• 4 male and 4 female subjects in room for 1 hour
• No rules in room; Won't see others after experiment
• 2 Conditions:
• Control (Lights on)
• Individuation (Lights off)
• Results:
• Touching others: 
• Control = 0%
• Deindividuation = 90%
• Hugging/Kissing :
• Control = 0%
• Deindividuation = 50%

Social Influence (Relationship Problems end)

• Relationship after 1st year on average = deteriorating
• Gottman's "Big 3" Predictors of Relationship Problems
• Verbal contempt- hostility and answering negative emotion with negative emotion
• [normal] "You are insufferable! [normal---> respond angrily]
• Defensiveness- inability to agree with other on anything
• "Yes.. but"
• Stonewalling by husbands- detaches emotionally from other in argument
• anger and no response
• Markman's couple communication skills (just the Gist; don't memorize)
• General
• Relate first then resolve
• Eye contact; smile and nod responsively
• Monitro your own attempts to change too
• Speaker skills
• Express your side as uncritically as possible
• Short statements
• Gripes specific and behavioral
• Polite
• Declarative sentences
• Listener skills
• Edit out typical response; really listen to what other is saying
• don't confuse understanding with agreement
• understanding only happens when wife feels understood
• Clark and Hatfield (1989)
• Experimenter says "I've noticed you around campus, you're very attractive"
• Asks one of three questions
• Will you go out with me tonight?
• Will you go to apartment with me tonight?
• Will you go to bed with me tonight?
• Results (opposite for men and women)
• Male- highest = bed
• Female - highest = go out

Social Influences

• 3 types of Social Influences
• Most Direct = Obedience: A change in behavior due to Commands of others. 
• Middle= Compliance: Yielding to Direct explicit Appeal meant to produce Certain behavior or agreement to particular point of view (influence)
• Most Indirect = Conformity: Brought about by a Desire to follow the beliefs/standards of others
• Milgram's Obedience study
• Study effect of Punishment on Learning
• Heard responses via intercom: ow----owww----heart problem said-------agonizing scream------silence
• Used prompts to keep subject going; 1 level higher per mistake
• Results:
• Prior estimation study:
• Self estimates = 135 volts; none expected >300
• Other estimates = slightly higher than self
• Actual study:
• Only 25% = 300 volts; 63% = 450 volts
• Take home message: People will most likely obey orders that they would not even think of doing normally
• Martin (1976)
• ID people who possess rare ability to hear ultra high frequencies
• Noise apparatus: dial 0-10
• Teahcer = experimenter--told subjects to move dial to next level. hear sound, indicate it (no sound given).
•  No Prods given
• Question: How far do students follow pre-given order
• Results:
• 95%= Level 6; 54% further  = Level 10
• Take home message: Blind obedience = powerful
• Compliance strategies
• Foot-in-the door technique
• Door-in-the-face technique
• That's not all technique
• Lowballing
• Bait and Switch
• Labeling
• Foot-in the door technique - small request, then larger request
• Critical = Yes to first, small request
• Larger 1st = Larger 2nd
• Larger 1st = Less likely Yes
• Freedman and Fraser (1966)
• Asked sign petition for safe driving
• Weeks later, different experimenter asked same people to put huge billboard in their yards (large request). Control = just large request
• Results:
• Agreed to prior small request = 55%
• Not solicited for prior small request = 17%
• Door-in-the-face technique - refusal of larger request, then small request
• Cialdini (1975)
• Asked willing to spend 2 hrs/week over 2 years as "big brothers/sisters" None agreed
• Followed with 2nd request: willing 2 hrs Once taking kids to zoo
• Results:
• Preceding large request = 50%
• No preceding large request = 16%
• That's not all technique: offered deal, then offers an addition
• "buy this and get.."
• Lowballing- initial agreement reached, then adds cost (negative piece of info)
• "I forgot to tell you, you need $ for ___ for the car"
• Identity process - My car; 300 for air conditioner = minor annoyance
• Additional Cost doesn't have much effect compared to Total cost
• Cialdini (1978)
• Two conditions:
• Control - told experiment began 7 AM
• Lowball- agreed to participate for experiment, then says see you at 7 AM
• Results:
• Control = 31% ( less than 1/4 of these showed up)
• Lowball = 56% ( over 1/2 of these showed up)
• Bait and Switch- initial commitment, then product not available, then more costly offer
• Joule (1989)
• participate in interesting study; paid $6
• arrive, told experiment cancelled; told volunteer uninteresting experiment w/ no $
• baseline- tell them before they arrive
• Results:
• Baseline = 15%
• Bait and Switch = 47%
• Labeling - label assigned, Request Consistent with the Label
• ex: profile of someone = voter ; they show up when invited to voting booth
• Exposure to Compliance techniques ------> Resistance to their effectiveness
• Two types of Influence in Conformity
• Informational influence- accepting evidence of reality provided by others from desire to be right
• assume others' interpretations of ambiguous situations are correct and follow suit
• Sherif (1936)
• Autokinetic effect
• Sealed in dark room and asked estimate how much stationary light moved
• Next day returned and said Aloud estimate with 2 others
• Repeated 3rd and 4th day- Group estimation
• Question: Do group members' estimates converge when said aloud?
• Results:
• Convergence
• 1st day - scattered answers
• 2nd day - much convergence
• 3rd day - more convergence
• 4th day - complete agreement
• Publicly and Privately Conforming
• Individually = all at group's converged result
• Normative influence- desire to fulfill others' expectations (often for acceptance)
• situation is not ambiguous; know the answer
• do what others are doing to be accepted/not stand out
• Asch (1955)
• Given unambiguous Line matching/comparison task said right answer aloud
• Two conditions:
• Control condition: answered solo
• Group condition: trial confederates said wrong answer
• Results:
• Control condition= < 1%
• Group condition = 35%
• 75% subjects = incorrect answer at least once
• Factors influencing when people conform
• Group Size
• 1 other person-----> 5 or 6 others much more influence; > 6 doesn't change much
• Cohesiveness of group
• Unanimity of group
• all or nothing
• Status of group members
• higher status, more conformity
• Prior commitment
• changing response after public stating belief rare
• Resisting Conformity
• Reactance - desire to protect/restore one's sense of freedom when one feels it's threatened
• Opposite done of what's told/conformed to do
• Reactance triggered, Conformity fails
• Desire for Uniqueness
• Uncomfortable if Too Similar to everyone else
• e.g. identical twins
• Minority Influence - contrary to what the majority does
• feels rejected by the majority group
• can be "trampled" by majority
• Factors that Affect Minority Influence
• Consistency
• deviation from consistent matter = no more influence
• Confidence
• more likely to have listeners
• Flexible and Open-minded, Not Rigid
• not viewed as close-minded or rigid-----> majority group shuts them down
• Not Too Deviant from the Majority
• someone A Little Ahead of the Curve ; Future Oriented
• Too Deviant = "that's person's out of his mind"
• Originally held Majority view
• most credible; "must see something in other side"
• ear of the majority group member
• Research on Majority and Minority Influence- Sum
• Majority Influence = Public acceptance, Normative
• don't want to face social rejection
• don't deviate from social norms
• Minority Influence = Private acceptance, Informational
• join minority group because you think they know something you and everyone else doesn't
• " I know the truth now; Everyone else are suckers"

4/16-4/18: Attraction

• Factors leading to Attraction
• Proximity
• Reciprocal liking
• Similarity
• Physical attractiveness
• Proximity- people become friends with people that's near their location
• Festinger (1950)
• studied friendship formation in housing complex
• randomly assigned to apartments
• asked to name 3 closest friends in complex
• Results
• 41% next door neighbors = close friends
• 22% two doors down = close friends
• 10% opposite ends of hall = close friends
• Next to 1st floor stairwell = more close friends on 2nd floor
• How = More Contact over time, Like them More (Dislike More)
• Reciprocal liking-  liked by someone, like them (like for like)
• Curtis and Miller (1986)
• "Get acquainted" conversation with confederate
• Allowed to overhear confederate express dislike or liking of subject
• Another, videotaped, conversation
• Results 1(low liking) to 7 (high liking):
• Overheard Dislike = 3.8
• Overheard Like = 5.6
• Similarity- similarities between people lead to liking; birds of a feather flock together
• Similarity-attraction paradigm
• measure attitudes/personality
• form judgment of target person based on limited info: Manipulation- degree info provided is similar to subject's
• similar condition - target person like you
• dissimilar condition- target person opposite of you
• Results 
• more Similarity------> more Attraction
• Reason: Similar person----->Validates our Reasoning
• Two adages: true or false?
• "Opposites attract" - False
• Similarity------>Relationship/Attraction
• "We are attracted to those whose characteristics complement our own" - False
• Similar characteristics >>>complementary
• Physical attractiveness- applies to everyone, every relationship kind, all ages  
• Attraction and physical attractiveness
• Babies reaction to attractive/unattractive masks
• attractive>>>>unattractive
• Mothers of attractive/unattractive
• more playful and attentive with attractive babies
• Blind date 
• physical attractiveness = strongest predictor of liking and wanting another date
• Matching Hypothesis - we're attracted to similarly attractive others
• Research
• Same sex friends
• roommate similar attractiveness---->likely to get along
• Dating
• similar in physical attractiveness-----> date and keep dating
• similar-----> more public affection
• Marriage
• similar in physical attractiveness-----> marry and stay marriage
• Gender Difference in Attraction
• Men: primarily Beauty, also Youth
• Women- Handsomeness, also Wealth, Status, and Older
• Physical Attractiveness Stereotype: physical beauty-----> other positive characteristics
• Perceived to be: more sociable, dominant, sexually warm, mentally healthy, intelligent, socially skilled
• Only truth = Physical attractiveness------>socially skilled
• self-fulfilling prophecy: treated better, easy to respond well
• Downside of Physically Attractive
• more Undesired Sexual Advances
• more Resentment
• people your own gender resent you
• Difficulty Interpreting Positive Feedback "Sucking up stereotype"
• who's sucking up and who's truthful
• Used to advantage- Backfires
• Thornton and Moore (1993)
• Rate own attractiveness
• Two conditions
• model photographs in room
• control
• Question: Do pictures of beautiful people affect ratings
• Results:
• Man: self-rating drops a bit
• Woman: self-rating drops more strongly
• Major (1984)
• Attractive/unattractive subjects write essays
• Told would be evaluated by member of opposite sex
• Two conditions
• Seen 
• Unseen
• Received positive feedback, Rate own work
• Results (1-7): Attractive factor in "sucking up" stereotype; Unattractive does opposite "must like me even in spite of my appearance"
• Attractive seen- 4.1
• Attractive unseen- 5.1
• Unattractive seen - 4.4
• Unattractive unseen - 3.2
• Sigall and Ostrove (1975)
• Mock jurors sentence defendant
• Three defendant conditions:
• Attractive defendant
• Unattractive defendant
• Control
• Two crime conditions
• Burglary
• Swindle (face-to-face use of beauty)
• Results:
• Swindle
• Attractive = 5.45 years
• Unattractive = 4.35 years
• Control = 4.35 years
• Burglary
• Attractive = 2.80 years
• Unattractive = 5.20 years
• Control = 5.10 years
• What do we find attractive in a Face?
• Particular Facial Features
• Both men and women = "Babyface" (Large eyes, Small nose)
• Innocence appearance
• Warmth and nurturing appearance
• Men = Prominent Cheekbones, Large Chin
• Women = High Cheekbones, Narrow Cheeks, Small Chin
• Symmetry
• Average
• Mere Exposure effect - easier on the eyes
• No Extremes of anything even desirable features
• What do we find attractive in a Body?
• Males 
• average weight 
• shoulder:hip ratio forming a "V"
• Females  
• around average weight 
• waist 1/3 of hips
• Evolutionary Perspective on Attraction
• Male preference: healthy, fertile-looking female (pass along quality genes)
• Female preference : strong, dominant-looking male (protect and provide resources)
• Attachment Styles
• Percentage breakdown
• Secure= 56%
• Anxious-ambivalent = 21%
• Avoidant = 23%
• Secure
• Caregivers: warmly responsive to their needs
• showed positive emotions in interactions
• Encourage, not force, exploration
• lets them explore by self and support when needed
• As Adults: trusting of others
• other person will continue provide love and support
• Beliefs about self, others, romantic relationships[Optimistic]
• Self = I'm Likeable
• Others = Goodhearted
• Romantic Relationships = Can Last
• Anxious-ambivalent
• Caregivers: Inconsistent
• preoccupied to notice child's needs
• Overbearing and Intrusive
• Discourage exploration
• As Adults: Fear of Abandonment
• Unfulfilled needs feeling
• Beliefs about self, others, romantic relationships
• Self = doubts, feel i'm hard-to-get-to-know
• Others = few willing to do what it takes to get to know me
• Romantic Relationship= easily fall in/out of love
• Avoidant
• Caregivers: Consistently Distant
• Physically there, Emotionally away
• Force exploration
• As Adults: Protective Detachment
• don't want to get involved with others to protect self
• Beliefs about self, others, relationships
• Self = hard-to-get-to-know
• Others = hard to find someone to love
• Romantic Relationship = Rarely last
• Correlates of Attachment styles
• Secure
• more positive emotions during relationship
• longer relationship
• more adaptiveness 
• least loneliness
• Anxious-ambivalent
• more negative/unstable emotions
• spill all on first date
• shorter duration of relationship
• Avoidant
• more negative emotions (anger, boredom)
• rare believe true love
• greater loneliness
• more distance
• Passionate vs Compassionate Love
• Passionate love- Intense longing for union
• physical/sexual matters
• physiological arousal "butterflies in stomach"
• typically 1st step; can lead into compassionate love
• Compassionate love - Affection and Intimacy feeling
• sometimes, friends----->love connection
• deep connection, deeper than physical
• not as intense/emotionally based
• key to lasting relationship 

4/9-4/11: Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Stereotype -- Cognitive Representation
Prejudice -- Attitude (affective evaluation)
Discrimination-- Action

• Stereotype: cognitive representation that associates a social group with a specific attribute(s) in an oversimplified way
• Don't Agree with Book's definition: Stereotype = belief   
• Prejudice : unjustified negative attitude toward anyone of a particular social group
• Cognitive Sources of Stereotypes
• Social categorization- classifying persons into groups
• Grouping occurs automatically and naturally (heuristic thinking)
• Snap judgments happens inevitably 
• Does harm to social relationships= problem ; Undermine inevitability = solution 
• groups = gender, race, occupation etc.
• In-group/Out-group categorization - Identification, or lack of, with a group 
• In group = group you're in; Out group = group you're not in
• Us vs Them judgment
• Social priming makes one group more usable in particular situations
• Us/Them Biases
• Outgroup homogeneity bias - People of one outgroup are more similar than your ingroup
• "They're all alike" "They all look alike"
• Ingroup-outgroup bias - hold less favorable views of outgroups than ingroups
• Minimal Group Procedure
• Assigned to group on trivial criteria
• blue-eyed people, tails people etc.
• Rate both groups' personality
• Result: Bias toward fellow group members
• Social Identity theory
• All have basic need to maintain/enhance self-esteem (SE)
• Self-esteem influenced by Personal and Social IDs
• Personal - individual accomplishments
• Social -  social group's accomplishments
• Motivated evaluate ingroups more positively than outgroups
• Social Identity research
• Ingroup bias experience----> increased SE
• positive time with ingroup, more SE
• SE threat------> increased ingroup bias
• fail at something, want group to succeed even more to increase SE
• Lower status groups show more ingroup bias
• low SE, more ingroup biasing 
• Birging
• BIRG - Basking In Reflected Glory
• football game study - football game won, much more university colors worn
• Allport and Postman (1947)
• Picture of Black man near White man holding razor shown to white subjects
• Telephone game played; 6th subject desrcibes scene
• Results: Over half the sessions Black man holding the razor
• Racial Bias (Ingroup-outgroup Bias)
• Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1997)
• Scrambled sentence task
• Two conditions: 
• Elderly stereotype - grey, wise, wrinkle, bingo
• Control- thirsty, clean, private
• Timed as walking down hall 
• Elderly stereotype primed = take longer to walk
• Trivial Stereotype findings
• NBA fouls - more called against black players
• Baseball - mixed race pitcher/umpire more likely to call ball
• Stereotype threat - self-confirming fear of validating stereotype
• How it works
• Stereotyped group knows stereotype
• In potential confirming situation, members become anxious
• Anxiety interferes with optimal functioning ends up confirming stereotype
• Stereotype + Anxiety = Stereotyped Behavior
• Like Self-fulfilling prophecy
• Spencer and Steele (1997)
• Woman/men (equal math ability) told given math test
• 2 conditions
• Stereotype threat - noted woman usually underperform
• Control -  noted both groups similar 
• Results:
• Stereotype condition: M = 27  W = 7
• Control condition: M = 18   W= 17
• Steele and Aronson (1995)
• Whites/Blacks told take SAT-like test
• 2 Conditions:
• Stereotype threat - report race 
• Control - no race report
• Results out of 20
• Stereotype Condition: Black = 7.3 White = 9.8
• Control: Black = 9.1 White = 7.3
• Princeton Trilogy [Optimistic position: Stereotypes Changing] (African American traits)
• Superstitious: from 84% to 13%
• Lazy : from 75% to 26%
• Ignorant: from 38% to 11%
• Duncan, 1976 [Pessimistic position: Stereotypes Same]
• Two men conversing, mild spat, one lightly pushes the other
• Conditions: White pushing Black ; Black pushing White
• Question: Is the push playful or violent
• Results(% thought Violent): White = 13% Black = 73%
• Take home message: Duncan thought that people are subconsciously prejudiced as shown in responses
• Devine's  (1989) Dissociation Model
• Stereotypes and Beliefs = different cognitive structures
• Stereotypes = well-known associations that you may/may not believe
• Beliefs = endorsements which you strongly support
• Black stereotype can be Automatically activated
• Stereotype Socialized frequently, becomes part of natural cognitive process
• Behavior for low and high prejudice based on this unless checked (for low prejudice)
• Aware of process -----> Behavior Consistent with Prejudice
• Time and Motivation needed for Awareness and Change
• High prejudice = Stereotypes and Beliefs Overlap
• Prejudice reduction = Long, difficult process
• Adopting Non-prejudice belief
• Aware of Stereotype Activation
• Guilt of prejudice-behavior drives you to not let this happen
• Devine and Elliot, 1995
• Check adjectives (princeton trilogy) representing Black stereotype
• Check adjectives you believe
• Prejudice level measured
• Results:
• Low Prejudice- Stereotypes = prejudiced; Beliefs = Non-prejudiced 
• High Prejudice- Stereotypes = prejudiced; Beliefs = prejudiced
• Message: Stereotype Discrepant from Belief
• Devine (1989)
• Prejudice level measured
• Shown brief flashes- 2 conditions
• Stereotype activation flash
• Control flash
• Rate ambiguous person's hostility
• Results (0-10):
• Stereotype activated = 7.52
• Control = 6.87
• No difference for high/low prejudice = Both affected by Stereotype Activation
• Beliefs don't matter; Activate stereotype, behavior will be accordingly
• Chen and Bargh (1997 [Actual Behavior]
• Brief flashes, asked left/right
• 2 Conditions
• Black face subliminally shown
• White face subliminally shown
• Played verbal game against same-race person; hostility coded
• Results (1-7 scale):
• Black face- 3.1
• White face- 2.7
• Self-Perpetuating Nature of Stereotypes
• Subtyping- reacting to people who deviate from a stereotype via creating a sub-stereotype group that's an exception to the stereotype
• keeps stereotype intact
• make a group exceptional to stereotype
• "I'm not prejudiced; Some of my best friends are black"
• Illusory Correlations- overestimating strength of relationship of two unusual events
• Majority groups Few Interactions w/ Minority groups (distinctive event)
• Distinctive Events = Negative events
• Overestimate Co-occurrence of Distinctive Events
• Ultimate Attribution Error- tendency to attribute Behavior of Minority member     Negative = Disposition; Positive  = Situation 
• Stereotype Suppression Effects- Stop Suppression--->Stereotype Rebounds
• intentional avoidance of topic---->stop avoidance------> think about topic
• Macrae study (1994)
• Photo of skinhead shown; write paragraph about day in person's life
• 2 Conditions
• Suppression - told don't use stereotypes
• Control - no instructions
• Meet skinhead; Sit near skinhead; Measure distance
• Results 1-9 writing task; 1-7 distance
• writing task
• suppression = 5.58
• control = 6.83
• distance
• suppression = 5.25
• control = 4.41

Exam 2 Review Session

• * Skim Bolded Material for Ones Not in Lecture
• Instrumental Conditioning = Operant Conditioning
• Embodied Cognition- mind and body deeply intertwined
• thinking causes bodily movement
• bodily states influences thinking
• relates to self-perception
• Self-perception- infer internal states from own behavior
• Confirmatory Bias- people seek info to back up preexisting bias
• Self-fulfilling Prophesy- treat someone the way you think they are, elicit the perceived behavior
• Cognitive Appraisal- make self think decisions were rational
• Dispositional Inference Bias - associate seen behavior to a person's personality that's actually due to a situation
• Fundamental Attribution Error- people act a certain way because that's the way they are, situation not taken into account
• Actor Observer Bias-  What you do is part of your personality, What I do is due to my situation 
• Conjunction Error- assume combo of two events is more likely than two independent events
• Aggression cue- associated with aggression; enhances aggression
• Direct Provocation - eye for an eye, retaliate aggression
• Ways to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance, know all 5
• Change Attitude (easiest)
• tell self that smoking is good
• Change Behavior (hardest)
• stop smoking entirely
• Add Cognitions
• add reasons to justify decisions
• smoking makes me feel good etc.
• Alter Importance
• right now, relaxing more important than potential lung cancer
• Reduced Perceived Choice
• convince self didn't freely choose behavior
• "I have no other choice"
• Central vs Peripheral Route
• Central
• straightforward to the facts approach
• depends on: compelling argument
• Peripheral
• quicker approach
• depends on: compelling peripheral cues
• nice
• emotional
• flashy
• weaker
• less resistant counterargument
• less predictive of actual behavior
• Recipient Double Bind vs Helper Double Bind
• Recipient Double Bind:
• want help to benefit from it
• but know will have to help them later
• affect how people see them inferiority 
• Helper Double Bind
• want to help b/c feel guilty otherwise
• don't want to convey message of superiority
• Impression Management
• want to appear consistent, reduces dissonance
• attitudes don't change
• appearance
• Catharsis vs Displacement
• Catharsis- purge anger
• Displacement- displace anger onto someone 
• Straightness Heuristic- make things tidier/simpler than are
• e.g. San Francisco or Reno, NV which is farther? Think San Francisco b/c in California but really Reno
• When Attitudes are Predictors of Behavior
• Absence of Situational Constraint
• Same Level of Specificity
• Potency of Attitude
• Attitude Formed via Direct Experience
• Attitude Assessed Shortly Before Behavior
• Low Self Monitors
• Attitude at Same Level of Specificity
• More Specific the Event, More Predictor the Attitude
• Mere Exposure - more exposure = like thing more ; doesn't work with something disliked
• Inoculation - continued exposure develops immunity to present argument [Resistance to Persuasion]
• same argument heard over and over, develop effective counterargument 

4/2: Anti-social Behavior

• Aggression: behavior intended to hurt someone against the person's will
• "against person's will" added to original definition
• Two Categories
• Emotional(hostile) vs Instrumental
• two Types
• Direct vs Indirect
• how it's Expressed
• Can be Combined
• Direct Emotional: angry, throws chair at boss
• Indirect Emotional: under cover of night, deflates boss's tires
• Direct Instrumental: robber shoots guard attempting thwart robbery
• Indirect Instrumental: spin slanderous rumor to take someone out of picture
• Emotional aggression: aggression used because mad and wants to hit someone
• most typical form of aggression; malice
• Instrumental aggression: aggression used as means to an end
• no malice; done under obligation mostly
• Direct Aggression: face-to-face aggression experience
• Indirect Aggression: intended to hurt someone behind their back
• Causes of Aggression
• Biology
• Instinct
• predisposition
• Genes
• inheritable
• Neurochemcials- testosterone and serotonin
• former - positive related    latter- negative related
• CON: Not defined specifically enough
• Basic Learning Processes
• Instrumental learning: rewarded for being aggressive
• Observational learning: see someone get rewarded, imitate aggressiveness
• Frustration
• Frustration-aggression hypothesis- aggression always result of frustration
• Frustration - blocking of goal-directed behavior
• Displacement - redirection of aggression
• away from source of frustration, towards acceptable place
• Specific Situational Determinants of Aggression
• Aggression Cues- something associated with aggression
• more likely to aggress if see a gun
• Berkowitz and LePage (1967)
• Grade essays via Shocks
• Conditions:
•  Anger: Other subject said you should get high, 7, number of shocks  
• No Anger: Other subject said you should get only 1 shock
• Assigning shock to other subject. two conditions
• Gun on table = Aggression cue
• Badminton on table
• Critical Question: Angered person give more shocks when Gun is in room?
• Results: Anger, gun: 6.0 Anger, badminton: 4.8
• Message: Anger + Aggression Cue = More/Lead to Aggression
• Heat
• People Lose Cool when it's Hot
• Summer = season with MOST Crime
• Alcohol
• 75%  Crimes involved Alcohol 
• Direct Provocation
• Reciprocation; Eye-for-eye
• Proportionate response encouraged implicit in social culture
• Viewing Violence in TV and Movies
• Violent material
• huge effect
• Non-violent, sexually explicit material
• small effect
• Violent and sexually explicit material
• big effect
• Liebert and Baron (1972)
• watch tv show, play with others ; conditions: violent/nonviolent show
• result: violent show begat violence
• Eron and Huesmann (1984)
• data on amt of violent tv watched at age 8 and 9, aggressiveness rated, collected data on criminal activity 10 years later
• critical question: does tv violence lead to more aggressiveness down the road?
• results: Showed Increase in aggression Relative to kids who didn't watch as much tv
• Zillman and Bryant (1984)
• 36 movies over 6 weeks ; 2 conditions: porn movies, standard movies
• Weeks later, sentence rape defendant in mock trial
• Results: Males/females watched porn: lighter sentence and less support for women ; Males: report more negative attitudes toward women
• How Viewing Violence Promotes Violence
• Imitation
• "that's how you do it" 
• copycat killings
• Disinhibition
• "if they can do it, so can I"
• weakens one's inhibitions toward violence
• possibly related to desensitization
• Desensitization
• "yawn, another brutal beating"
• seen frequently, less concerned reaction
• Attitude Change
• "it's not really that bad"
• violence seems real, attitude toward violence becomes more positive
• Ways to Reduce Aggression
• Catharsis- discharging aggressive energy that continually builds up within
• once aggressive out, no longer there
• does not work, sets in place behavioral actions for later

Exam 2 Instructions

* What to know for exams: 75% exam: Lectures 10%: Overlap from Book 15%: Just Book
Book: Questions on Bolded Concepts that's not in class. Definition and Knowledge of the terms
Dates  Names Know what people: Found, Tested, Content of what's tested

Hoyt Auditorium

Same format

3/26-3/28: Pro-social Behavior ; Altruism

Altruism

• Altruism- desire to increase another person's welfare without self-interest  
• helping someone for no reward/self-gain
• Bystander effect- person less likely to provide help in emergency when others are present
• Darley Latane (1968) [bystander effect experiment]
• student seemed to seizure, heard via intercom- who helped
• conditions: 1 bystander/ 2 bystanders/3 bystanders; results:
• 1 = 85%
• 2 = 62%
• 3 = 31%
• Diffusion of Responsibility - responsibility shared among those present [impediment to step 1]
• when responsibility is shared, people feel less obligated; more people, less obligation
• Emergency 5 Step Model * print full version of bb Important
• Step 1- Notice something is happening
• Impediment = personal distractions
• Darley and Bateson (1973) [step 1 of 5 step Emergency model experiment]
• talk on Good Samaritan
• encountered person outside who needed help
• 3 conditions :  Ahead/On time/Behind
• Ahead schedule: 63
• On time : 45
• Behind schedule: 10
• most of time in this situation most didn't know there was an emergency
• Step 2- Interpret event as an emergency
• Impediments:
• Ambiguity
• is she/he in trouble or just sick?
• Relationship between attacker and victim
• they'll have to solve their own family quarrels
• Pluralistic ignorance
• no one else seems worried
• Latane and Darley [Step 2 experiment]
• Fire in room; who helps put it out
• Alone = 75%
• 2 Passive cofederates = 10%
• 3 naive subjects = 38%
• Pluralistic Ignorance- assume nothing is wrong because others seem unconcerned 
• Step 3 - Take responsibility for providing help
• Impediment: Diffusion of Responsibility -  assumption that others will help, so one isn't individually responsible
• someone else must have done/will do something
• Step 4 - Know how to help
• Impediment: Lack of Competence
• not trained to handle this
• Step 5 - Provide help
• Impediment:
• Audience Inhibition
• I'll look like a fool
• Costs Exceed Rewards
• what if I make it worse/ he sues me/ it costs me too much time
• Other Predictors of when we help
• Mood
• people who found money in pay phone more willing to help others pick up dropped folder
• more likely help - good mood
• Rewarded for prior help
• increased likelihood of helping rather than neutral/punishing reaction
• Modeling
• see someone helping another- more likely you'll help someone
• Deservingness of requester
• person deserves help- you'll more likely help
• Place we live
• live in rural area - more likely to help than urban area
• too much going on in urban areas
• are some cities more helpful than others?
• Levine (1994)
• 6 types of helping behavior in 36 US cities(rochester #1)
• hypothesis - depends on values and residential mobility 
• Explanations for Helping Behavior
• Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
• Mood Management Hypothesis
• Social and Personal Norms
• Our Genes
• Empathy-Altruism hypothesis: feel Empathy------Help even if no personal gain
• Altruism vs. Egoism
• Altruism - without regard to self-interest
• Egoism- helping out of a consideration of one's own self-interest
• Mood Management hypothesis - help to Reduce own Negative Emotion [Form of Egoism]
• can be used to increase positive emotion but mostly used to reduce negative
• Batson (1981) 
• completed questionnaire, watched Elaine supposedly get random shocks
• Two Empathy conditions: High/Low Empathy
• High -told subject that Elaine is a lot like you
• Low - told subject that Elaine is not like you
• Two Escape conditions: Easy/Difficult Escape
• Easy- Leave
• Difficult- Switch places with her; Watch her
• Results
• High empathy group - Most helped her
• Low empathy group - Most left her
• Mood Management Group's Interpretation of Baston experiment
• Subjects felt sadness when saw Elaine shocked; helped to rid sadness
• Empathy-Altruism's Interpretation of Baston
• Two selves merge upon seeing similarity thus subject feels what she feels
• Norm- general standard for appropriate behavior
• 3 Norms Influencing Helping Behavior
• Norm of Social Responsibility-  responsibility help those who depend on you or has a reasonable request
• socially shared
• e.g. help old lady cross street
• Norm of Reciprocity- people help those who have helped them
• socially shared
• "scratch my back, i'll scratch yours"
• Personal Norms - personal obligation to help certain people based on our value system
• basis is what you've growed up learning - manners, honor, Christianity, etc
• unique to yourself
• Genes
• Kinship selection- help those who share our genes
• Predictions
• greater genetic similarity, more help
• help relatives rather than strangers
• more help from gene similar others in life threatening situations
• more help of young, healthy genetically similar others
• they can pass on their genes to next generation
• Threat-to-self-esteem model
• Self-supportive- recipient feels appreciated and cared for
• Self-threatening- recipient does not feel appreciated or cared for when:
• help conveys Inferiority or Dependency
• help Deviated from Socialized Values
• too much help imbalances social reciprocity which causes discomfort
• help does Not Increase Probability of Future Success or Decrease Need for Future Assistance 
• help doesn't fix situation, "band-aid solution"
• Double binds in helping behavior
• Recipient's Double Bind- Direct Benefit; Questions about Own Character or Ability
• Helper's Double Bind- Avoid Negative Message of Inferiority; Guilt if doesn't help

3/19-3/21: Cognitive Dissonance and other Theories

 *( Psychological Science Essay 1 page assignment: go to library resources-----journals-----type psychological science)
When do Attitudes Predict Behavior? (6 Answers)

• Absence of Situational Constraints
• Same Level of Specificity
• attitude and behavior on same level = high predictor
• not same level   = lower predictor
•  Attitude is Potent 
• Formed via Direct Experience
• direct experience will lead to one behaving much more accordingly
• Attitudes Assessed Right Before Behavior
• They're stronger than otherwise; likely to predict accurately
• ex: voters will have stronger attitudes the day before election than month ago
• For Low Self-Monitors
• introspects self, ponders what self would do based on what they want

Cognitive Dissonance theory

• Consistency in Cognitions of People is Desired
• cognitions = thoughts, wants, behaviors
• provides comfort
• Perceived Inconsistency in Cognitions----Dissonance
• produces discomfort
• ex: cognition about smoking
• A = it's good
• B= causes cancer
• Cognition A and B Conflict
• Reduce Dissonance via various means
• Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)
• Experimenter asks subject who did dull peg turning task to set expectation for next subject
• Conditions: A) Control: tell truth B) Insufficient justification: $1 to tell lie C) Sufficient justification: $20 to tell lie
• At end asked how much did they enjoy the task
• Question: Did the Conditions change the subject's attitude?
• Result: Group A = Very much disliked task ; Group B = Greatly Favored ; Group C = Indifferent
• Take Home Message: Group B members had Dissonance because they sold out for an Insufficient Justification - changed attitude for comfort as result of prior behavior

Dissonance-based phenomenon

• Counterattitudinal behavior
• Change attitude = make it more consistent with behavior
• example:
• write an essay that you did not want to write but someone convinced you'
• chose to write freely
• change attitude toward writing
• Decision justification
• Justify your decision by not acknowledging pros of other choice
• example:
• pick one from two choices you like
• classify positive and negative of the one you did not choose
• suddenly, your choice becomes less favorable
• as result, dissonance sets in
• purposely forget the positives of the one you didn't choose for justification
• Effort justification
• Reduce Dissonance to justify the effort spent in the activity
• study example:
• people join discussion group about sex
• put effort to go to the group and spend time there
• turned out to be boring talk about beetle sex
• result: tell friends that discussion was awesome
• Other ways to reduce dissonance
• change attitude
• add cognitions: 
• alter importance
• reduce perceived choice
• change behavior
• Alternatives to Dissonance Theory
• Self-perception theory
• self-perceive from behavior your attitude
• attitude change is rational and emotionless
• Bem (1965)
• subjects read and Festinger and Carlsmith experiment and guessed results
• reasoning: if predict results then inferred attitudes from behavior
• results: most successfully guessed results
• does not work for imbedded attitudes ; does work for unimportant ones
• Impression Management theory
• People want to APPEAR consistent rather than be consistent
• what looks like attitude change isn't
• ex: Subjects from Festinger and Carlsmith experiment in $1 grouo
• Self-affirmation theory
• Do ANYTHING to restore positive view of self( need not be related to the inconsitency)
• maintain general, positive view of oneself; win battle not war
• give an opportunity to feel better about themselves unrelated from the inconsistency and they'll take it
• Summary of Theories
• Is the attitude change motivated by a desire to reduce discomfort?
• Cognitive Dissonance = Yes
• Self-Perception = No
• emotionlessly infer attitude
• Impression Management
• Self-affirmation
• Does a person's private attitude really change?
• Cognitive Dissonance = Yes
• Self-Perception = Yes
• create attitude
• Impression Management = No 
• act like you have a different attitude than the one you have
• Self- Affirmation = Yes
• Must the change be directly related to the attitude-discrepant behavior?
• Cognitive Dissonance =Yes
• Self-Perception = Yes
• Impression Management = Yes 
• Self-Affirmation= No
• if you can do something irrelevant to inconsistency to make yourself feel good (money to charity etc.) than that suffices
• Theories' Relevance Today
• Cognitive Dissonance = highly regarded
• Self- Perception = somewhat relevant
• Impression Managemnet = not great alternative
• Self-Affirmation = real challenge to Cognitive Dissonance
• Elaboration Likelihood Model: theory stating that there's two ways that people can change their attitude and they differ in the way you elaborate and think about the persuasive appeal
• Central Route
• logical, rational, careful and straightforward; make up mind based on weight of evidence
• reason-based
• Peripheral Route
• people don't think carefully but influenced by cues that are often irrelevant but have importance in attitude change
• emotion-based
• What determines Central vs Peripheral Route in ELM?
• Motivation: Yes for Central
• Ability: (time/attention): Yes for Central
• Central: 
• NEEDS BOTH MOTIVATION and ABILITY
• Compelling factor = Argument
• Info, the facts
• Peripheral: 
• Lack of Motivation and/or Ability
• Compelling factor = Cues
• Accentuate the Perks, say its cool parts
• Peripherally vs Centrally-based attitudes
• Peripherally-based
• Weaker Foundation
• More Easily Changed
• Less Predictive of Actual Behavior
• Source characteristics
• Credibility
• expert
• trustworthy
• best is the one that argues against self-interest
• ex: people don't know they're being taped/not being paid to say
• Likeability
• physical attractiveness
• fame
• similarity
• breeds attraction, relatable 
• Message Characteristics
• Amount of Info ---more = better
• better argument, more persuasive
• better for central = info aspect
• better for peripheral = heuristic of there must be something to do this
• backfire- too much, lose audience
• Repetition---- more = better
• breeds familiarity
• backfire- bombardment breeds boredom; mainly con to peripheral
• solution - repetition with variation
• 1 vs 2 sided ---- depends
• key- audience initial perspective
• no knowledge
• 1 side
• because want focus on info, no getting lost
• knowledge
• 2 side
• argue against opposing side
• Reason vs Emotion------ depends
• well-educated and interested audience
• rational argument works best - central
• not well-informed, uninterested
• appeal to their emotion- peripheral
• Positive and Negative emotion----- positive = better
• no limits on positivity 
• negativity used sparingly based on topic, work or doesn't
• Resistance to Persuasion
• Reactance: negative reaction to perceived threat to one's personal freedom which increases resistance to persuasion leads, to attitude change in opposite direction
• negative reaction to perceived threat-----opposite attitude
• e.g. someone tells you can't __, you do ___
• Inoculation- develop counter arguments to attacks and will be less likely to change your mind
• exposure to some persuasive appeals over time then,
• develop immunity to persuasive appeals
• Forewarning- told ahead of time that someone will try to persuade you, less likely to be convinced
• guard is up, ready to counterattack 
• Selective Avoidance- selectively avoid info that challenges personal beliefs 
• e.g. republican won't listen to democrat speeches

3/7: Attitudes

Attitude Formation

• Attitudes formed by
• Cognitive appraisal 
• Observational learning
• Self-Perception
• conscious
• behavior in situation = attitude
• Physical Movement
• certain types can induce negative attitudes and others can induce positive
• unconscious process, unaware that it's influencing attitude
• Self-Perception Theory - we infer our internal states from our behavior
• presume behavior is consistent with attitude
• reflect behavior in situation to be mirror image of attitude
• self-perception processes necessary when stimulus is too ambiguous 
• Physical Movement
• Strack's pen experiment
• lip condition(frown) = 4.3 hand condition(neutral) = 4.7 teeth condition(smile) = 5.1 
• act in a certain way and it can carry over into attitude
• Wells and Petty (1980) earphone experiment
• up and down bob head condition emulated agreement and rated earphones more positively
• agreeing mood leads to more positive outlook
• Cacioppo (1993) meaningless word/symbol  experiment
• subjects pressing up rated more favorably
• push toward us what we like
• Embodied Condition - brain and body are deeply intertwined; reciprocal influence
• Thinking evokes bodily states (1)
• brain's thoughts orders body to move
• Bodily states influence thinking (2)
• movement adjusts thought behavior
• Genes---Basic Traits------Attitudes
• genes influence basic traits that play a role in determining attitude

Attitudes as Predictors of Behavior

• LaPiere (1934)
• experiment: traveled with Chinese couple during time of prejudice against Asians.  only refuse service once out of 250 hotels/restaurants;wrote letter to each place to ascertain consistency with encountered behavior
• results: good consistency 92% No
• Wicker came up with personality coefficient as true result
• WHEN are attitudes predictors of behavior?
• Absence of Situational Constraints
• Same Level of Specificity (behavior and attitude) 
• When Attitude is Potent
• Attitude is formed through Direct Experience
• Attitude is assessed Shortly Before Behavior
• For Low Self- Monitors

3/5: Unconscious Biases and Attitude

Accessibility and Priming

• Accessibility - easily retrieved info more  likely to be used
• form impressions, make decisions, guide behavior, social judgment
• toolbox metaphor example: use the tools on top e.g. hammer
• Higgins, Rholes, and Jones (1977) [Accessibility and Priming]
• Memory task- lists of words: priming certain traits e.g. adventurous, reckless
• second experiment- read donald paragraph, about an adventure, and rate on positive characteristics
• affected by priming? answer: yes
• Results: adventurous prime condition = rate more positive
• Bargh,, Chen, and Burrow (1996) [Accessibility and Priming]
• scrambled sentence task; primed condition:polite, rude, or neutral; does subject when done interrupt experimenter's conversation within 10 minutes
• Results- Yes, Priming influences people's behavior. Percent of subjects who interrupted:
• polite 17%
• neutral 38%
• rudeness 69%
• Murphy and Zajnoc (1993) [unseen priming]
• shown Chinese ideographs for 2 seconds ; prior to each one, happy face, angry face, or polygon for 4 milliseconds; rate each on 1-5 scale
• can priming that can't be seen with naked eye influence your behavior?
• Results: YES
• happy - 3.4
• polygon - 3.1
• angry - 2.7
• Holland, Hendriks, and Aarts (2005) [ Conditional Priming]
• complete filler questions in either no smell condition or citrus scent condition(the prime); go to another lab room to eat a biscuit; how clean do people keep the table (rated via hidden camera)
• Results: times you cleaned the crumbs from table
• Citrus scent condition- 3.54
• Control condition - 1.00
• Priming
• What it Cannot do
• implant a thought or action that person would not have done anyway
• What it Can do
• activate the easiest accessibility tool

Attitude

• Attitude- evaluative reaction that are favorable/unfavorable judgments to any stimulus
• Attitude Formation: The Factors
• Mere Exposure
• Basic Learning Processes
• Cognitive Appraisal
• Self Perception
• Physical Movement
• Genetics
• Mere exposure effect- more exposure leads to more positive feelings
• Zajonc (1968)
• 10 Chinese ideographs 2 seconds at time; presented different frequencies; subjects guessed whether they're good or bad meanings
• Results: more times, like more
• Images example: Answer Why = Familiarity
• Self likes Reverse image because used to it
• Others like Straight on image because used to it
• Minority Experiment example [Classical Conditioning]
• Prejudiced parent becomes emotionally upset seeing a minority
• Child then becomes upset because parent is upset
• After repeated encounters, child becomes upset seeing a minority without parent being present
• Observational Conditioning
• witness reward from an act, does the act

2/27-2/29: Social Psychology- Biases and Heuristics (chapter 3 Myers)

Social Cognition

• Social Cognition- applying cognitive psychology  to social world
• how we process info on the social world; involves other people
• what factors of the situation affect an average person's behavior

Assumptions about Social Cognition

• Motivated to Make Sense
• via seeing patterns in the social world
• World loaded with Info
• far more info than you can process; everything = info
• accustomed to process info in specific way
• Limited Capacity
• brains have limits that incoming info cannot be fully processed
• Cognitive Miser
• greatly oversimplify info and process as much as needed
• assumption and empirically based

3 types of Simplification Strategies

• Dispositional Inference Biases
• Confirmatory Biases
• Cognitive Heuristics

Dispositional inference biases

• Dispositional inference- behavior seen as caused by persons' personality
• one instance of a person leads you to define that behavior by their personality
• person's sad but you don't know that they failed an exam but you think that that's their personality
• first pass
• Fundamental attribution error- bias toward person-based inferences

Jones and Harris (1967)

• Had to write pro/anti Castro essays
• Received free/forced choice manipulation
• free to write pro- group A
• free to write anti- group B
• forced to write pro- group C
• forced to write anti- group D
• Rated debater's actual attitude toward Castro
• Results: Anti  0-100  Pro
• Group A  = 58
• Group B = 22
• Group C = 42
• Group D = 22
• Take-home lesson
• Actor- observer bias

• Actor-observer bias: behavior of others due to personality; my behavior due to situation
• situation affects your behavior but everyone else's behavior is their personality
• represented in language
• Confirmatory Bias: interpret, seek, and create info that verifies existing beliefs
• Interpret
• Seek
• Create

• Darley and Gross (1983)
• Experiment associated with Confirmatory bias
• girl from background (told rich/ told poor) does task on video
• Results: 
• high expectation/no watch =  grade 4.2
• low expectation/no watch = 3.9
• high expectation/ watch = 4.8
• low expectation/ watch = 3.5
• Take home lesson
• Expectation drives people's perception
• Synder and Swan (1978) 
• interviewer/interviewee roles
• select list of possible questions
• before selection, subjects told the other was extrovert/introvert
• Results:
• Extravert: chose extravert-oriented questions ( how do you liven up party?)
• Intravert condition: chose introvert- oriented questions (have you felt left out?)
• Self-fulfilling prophesy: inaccurate expectation leads to expectation-consistent behavior
• you think person's going to act in specific way, you behave in a way that would make them respond that way
• Synder, Tanke, and Bersheid (1977) [self-fulfilling prophesy]
• phone conversation with woman
• shown pic of attractive/unattractive partner
• pics not of subjects
• Females' responses coded for openness and warmth
• Result
• 'attractive' - more open and warm response 

Cognitive Heuristic

• Cognitive heuristic - mental shortcut
• makes impressions and judgments
• Outline
• Anchoring and adjustment heuristic
• Representativeness heuristic
• Availability heuristic
• Straightness heuristic
• Anchoring and Adjustment heuristic- anchor/begin from rough estimate, then adjust
• setting the bar = anchor; working up or down from bar = adjustment
• anchor = often ourselves
• ex: roommate offers blind date with girl who looks like jessica alba
• anchor = jessica alba adjustment = girl's looks
• disappointment with her not comparing then leads to self-fulfilling prophecy
• ex: roommate says ellen is smart
• anchor = my own intelligence  adjustment = her actual intelligence
• Representative heuristic- likelihood judgments are based on matching a stereotype
• Conjunction error- combo of two events are thought to be more likely than two independent events
• in reality it is the same probability
• ex: outgoing extravert with love of books
• probability of wanting to become engineering major
• probability of wanting to become engineering major then switching to journalism
• this one seems to have bigger chance even though it really does not
• Gambler's Fallacy- thinking that something is due after not being there when in reality the same probability for the same hand exists every time
• Hot Hand phenomena- "on a roll" basket after basket ; doesn't exist
• ex: HH not present on stats of NBA players
• Availability heuristic- likelihood estimates based on how quickly instances come to mind
• pops to mind quicker = more common
• instance thought about more, perceived to be prevalent
• False Consensus effect- overestimate others' agreeing to our opinions
• Straightness heuristic- tendency to "tidy up" untidy realities to achieve "prettier picture"
• want to make world simpler/more straightforward than is
• Unconscious bias
• people are generally unaware of their biases

Review Session: Exam One

• Criticisms of the Big 5
• merely descriptive
• doesn't explain behaviors
• Traits/Types
• HOW are people different
• Type
• either one or the other
• friendly or not
• Trait
• varying dimensions
• little/extremely/just friendly
• Needs/Motives
• WHY people are different
• Nomothetic Approach (Cattell)
• set of traits that apply to everyone in same way
• Idiographic Approach (Allport)
• look at individual in depth and applies to just you uniquely
• uses
• Cardinal traits
• Central traits
• Secondary traits
• BIS/BAS Distinction
• BIS
• anxiety and impulsivity proneness
• avoidance approach
• brake
• BAS
• gas pedal
• reward approach
• dopamine plays important part in behavior
• Aggregation
• look at behavior in variety of situations
• Galen's 4 Temperament Humors
• Choleric
• Sanguine
• Melancholic
• Phlegmatic
• Implicit motive
• unconscious
• measure
• TAT projection
• Murray
• Self-attributed motive
• aware of it conscious of it
• Personology
• idiographic method of studying people
• Dynamic Interactionism
• Proactive
• choose situation
• Evocative
• presence unintentionally alters situation
• people just act differently when you're there
• Manipulation
• intentionally change situation
• act certain way
• Cattell
• bottom-up
• starts with evidence and work material and work to theory
• criticism
• overuse of factor analysis
• published too much
• Eysenck
• top-down
• start with theory and work forward
• Gray
• eysenck's introversion, extroversion
• Introversion = High BIS Low BAS
• Extroversion = High BAS Low BIS
• eysenck's stability, instability
• Instability = High BIS and BAS
• Stability = Low BIS and BAS
• Objective/Subjective Reality
• objective- how things really are = Alpha Press
• subjective- how you perceive them to be = Beta Press
• Neuroticism
• Amgydala = emotion center of brain
• Body Consciousness
• motive theory
• high = correlation between implicit and self attributed motives
• 3 Camps response to Mischel
• Defend Traits
• Situationism
• Dynamic Interactionism
• Aggregation
• used by Defend Traits group
• multiple choice exam
• one wrong question doesn't reflect your understanding of the material
• Factor Analysis
• statistical method of taking traits and condensing them into smaller groups
• used by
• Cattell
• Family Method vs Twin Method
• family- looked at family tree
• genetic link
• twins- MZ twins compared to DZ twins

Study Guide Exam 1

• Type Theorists
• Hippocrates
• Galen
• Sheldon
• Trait Theorists
• Allport
• Cattell
• Eysenck
• Need/Motive Theorists
• Murray
• Zuckerman
• McClellan
• Gray
• Mischel  
• Theories, Approaches, and Needs
• Hippocrates' four humors

• Galen's humor theory of temperament 

• Sheldon's Somatotypes

• 3 Kinds of Traits- Allport
• Cardinal
• Central
• Secondary

• Nomothetic approach
• applies to everyone
• same dimensions for everyone

• Idiographic approach
• applies to you uniquely
• dimensions can overlap

• 16 Dimensions aka 16PF- Cattell

• Big 2: Extraversion and Stability - Eysenck

• The Big Five Trait theory (O.C.E.A.N.)
• Criticisms and Limitations of the Big 5 model

•  Personology- idiographic Murray

• Viscerogenic needs- Murray
• biological

• Psychogenic Needs- Murray
• psychological

• Press
• Alpha
• Beta

• Motive
• Implicit
• Self-Attributed

• Biological theories
• Phrenology

• Eyesenck's  argument:
• consistency over time
• same pattern-different culture
• genetics

• I-E: (ARAS)
• Optimal Cortical Arousal
• stimulus difference between intro/extroverts

• S-I: visceral brain
• Emotion Generator
• comprised of hippocampus, amygdala , and other sections
• I- low threshold of activation in visceral brain
• S- high threshold

• S-I results magnifies I-E

• Gray's two dimensions of personality- BIS and BAS
• Anxiety Proneness 
• BIS
• Impulsivity
• BAS

• Eyesenk's dimensions stated in terms of BIS and BAS
• Extrovert- high BAS/ low BIS
• Introvert- high BIS/ low BAS
• Unstable- high BAS/BIS
• Stable- low BAS/ BIS

• Gray on psychopathology
• strong BIS/weak BAS- phobias
• strong BAS/ weak BIS- antisocial behavior

• Behavioral Genetics methods
• Family method
• Twin method
• Combo of Twin and Adoption method
• Environment Sharing method

• Mischel's Critique

• Response Groups to Mischel's Critique
• Defend Traits
• Situationism
• Dynamic Interactionism

• Hippocrates
• laid groundwork for 1st theory of personality
• Hippocrates' four humors
• Blood
• Black bile
• Yellow bile
• Phlegm
• Believed an excess of one of these humors would elicit a specific disease

• Galen
• Galen's humor theory of temperament
• Sanguine (excess blood): forceful, direct, courageous
• Melancholic (excess black bile): brooding, moody, withdrawn
• Choleric (excess yellow bile): irritable, bitter, resentful
• Phlegmatic  (excess phlegm): weak, fragile, indecisive
• temperament theory tends to have a ring of truth but oversimplistic

• Sheldon
• Sheldon's Somatotypes
• Endomorphy: plumb; 7,1,1 (max); relaxed, easygoing, lovers of creature comfort
• Mesomorhpy: muscular; 1,7,1(max); bold, assertive, action-oriented
• Ectomorphy: frail; 1,1,7(max); inhibited, restrained, apprehensive 
• low-high scale of 1-7 for all three types
• Gordon Allport

• his definition of Trait
• a neuropsychic structure having the capacity to render many stimuli functionally equivalent, and to initiate and guide equivalent (meaningfully consistent) forms of adaptive and expressive behavior

• 3 Kinds of Traits
• Cardinal
• single disposition that dominates everything a person does including personality
•  single descriptive adjective for person
• uncommon
• Central
• best descriptor of personality
• sample of 3-10 traits for one person
• 18,000 characteristics in all
• multiple adjectives for person
• would show up in letter of recommendation
• Secondary
• influences behavior only in certain limited settings
• situation specific tendencies
• ex: concert preference, conference behavior
• would probably not show up in letter of recommendation
• Rayman Cattell 

• Trait as "building block"
• Search for basic traits
• Sought "periodic table"
• Used factor analysis
• Disposition favored
• Cattell = Mr. Nomothetic 
• Multiple Data Sources 
• L data, Q- data, T- data
• 16 Dimensions 
• • Reserved vs Outgoing
  • Less Intelligent vs More Intelligent
  • Emotional vs Stable
  • Humble vs Assertive
  • Sober vs Happy-go-lucky
  • Expedient vs Conscientious
  • Shy vs Venturesome
  • Tough-minded vs Tender-minded
  • Trusting vs Suspicious
  • Practical vs Imaginative
  • Forthright vs Shrewd
  • Placid vs Apprehensive
  • Conservative vs Experimenting
  • Group-tied vs Self-sufficient
  • Casual vs Controlled
  • Relaxed vs Tense

• Eysenck's two basic dimensions
• Introversion- Extroversion
• Stability- Instability

• Meta Trait level
• 5 categories
• Sociability
• Impulsiveness
• Activity
• Liveliness
• Excitability

• Eysenck versus Cattell
• What are the foundational elements of personality?
• Eysenck: "top-down"
• started with Galen's idea and worked his way down with the data
• Cattell: "bottom-up"

• Basic Traits
• Eysenck: two
• wanted simplest possible model, went for meta-traits
• narrowed Cattell's model
• Cattell: sixteen

• The Big Five(and facets) - Trait theory (O.C.E.A.N.)
• Extraversion
• Sociable- Retiring
• Fun loving- Sober
• Affectionate- Reserved
• Friendly- Aloof
• Spontaneous- Inhibited
• Talkative - Quiet
• Neuroticism
• Worrying- Calm
• Nervous- At ease
• High-strung - Relaxed
• Insecure- Secure
• Self-Pitying - Self-satisfied
• Vulnerable- Hardy
• Openness to Experience
• Original- Conventional
• Imaginative- Down to earth
• Creative- Uncreative
• Broad interests- Narrow interests
• Complex- Simple
• Curious - Incurious
• Agreeableness
• Good natured- Irritable
• Soft hearted- Ruthless
• Courteous - Rude
• Forgiving - Vengeful
• Sympathetic - Callous
• Agreeable - Disagreeable
• Conscientiousness
• Conscientious - Negligent
• Careful- Careless
• Reliable- Undependable
• Well-organized - Disorganized
• Self-disciplined - Weak-willed
• Persevering - Quitting 
• Sources of Evidence for the Big 5
• Factor analyses of trait terms in language
• Factor analyses of self-report data
• created questionnaires result in the Big 5
• Factor analyses of observer judgments
• Are the Big 5 linked to behavior?
• Yes, based on:
• Agreement between self ratings and observers(e.g. informant) ratings
• 1 = high +,+  0= no correlation -1= low +,-
• Studies of "behavioral residue"
• check organization of office, bedroom, dorm room etc.
• Criticisms and Limitations of the Big 5 model
• "The Big Five, plus or minus two"
• 5 traits is the norm but people are shown to have less or more
• Openness
• what exactly is it, the source?
• Over reliance on factor analysis
• Focus on traits or meta traits?
• Henry Murray 
• • Introduced Personology
  • definition- scientific study of a whole person from an idiographic perspective
  • psychodynamic 
• Introduced elaborate new set of terms 
• Need

• Components
• Grounded in the brain
• organizes the way you think, feel
• Causal
• causes you to act in a certain way
• Tension-reduction
• influences you to rid/meet some tension until it's satisfied
• Two Types of Needs
• Viscerogenic needs
• biological needs
• involve physical satisfactions
• list; see BB for highlighted ones
• Psychogenic Needs
• Psychological desires
• involve mental or emotional satisfactions
• most important
• largely unconscious
• no access to them; you just feel them when they arise
• all possess all 27, but some stronger 

• Press
• definition- tendency in the environment to facilitate or obstruct the expression of a need
• ex: presence of friends in the library = press for affiliation
• Two types
• Alpha Press- objective reality
• what's happened
• Beta Press- subjective interpretation

• Rationale behind the TAT- by Murray 
• McClelland
• Driving Motives
• picked the following three driving emotions
• Achievement, Affiliation, Power
• Personology- study of total personality of individuals
• Motive
• Implicit
• unconscious
• measured with TAT
• Self-Attributed
• conscious

• Eyesenck:  argument for relation between biology and individual differences
• Consistency over time
• has to be something stable in a person to maintain personality
• biology is the only stable thing
• Same Pattern - Different Cultures
• same pattern of traits keeps showing up across cultures
• cross-culture similarities would not be possible unless there was some biological catalyst
• Genetics
• some personality differences and similarities, ex/introvert, are genetically grounded
• Eyesenck's estimate of bio-portion of personality: 2/3

• Stimulus
• Introverts- stimulus shy
• already have a high level of arousal; too much stimulation shoots them over the Optimal
• Extroverts- stimulus hungry
• already have low level of arousal; needs much stimulation to reach optimal level

• I-E: ascending reticular activating system (ARAS)
• connects the spinal cord to the area of brain which regulates general arousal

• Typical Level
• Higher for Introverts than Extroverts
• Optimal Cortical Arousal
• everyone craves this set point

• Gray's two dimensions of personality
• Anxiety Proneness and Impulsivity
• grounded in Brain
• Anxiety Proneness
• Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS)
• septo-hippocampal system
• activated by
• punishment stimuli
• absence of desired reward
• fear stimuli
• novel stimuli
• BIS activation
• Behavioral effects
• don't engage quickly in novel situations
• Cognitive effects
• looking for ,to avoid, problems in environment
• Affective effects
• feels fear 
• Impulsivity: BAS
• dopaminergic pathways
• dopamine
• activated by
• reward stimuli
• escape
• BAS activation
• Behavioral effects
• looking forward to approach something/someone to obtain rewards
• Affecive effects
• feel hope
• combination of Anxiety proneness and Impulsivity leads to real variable
• score on one does not affect score on the other

• Eyesenk's dimensions stated in terms of BIS and BAS (*bold= high score)
• I-E
• Extrovert- high BAS/ low BIS
• high to approach and low to avoid
• Introvert- high BIS/ low BAS
• high to avoid and low to approach
• S-I
• Unstable- high BAS/low BIS
• high in approach and avoidance
• Stable- low BAS/ low BIS
• low in approach and avoidance

• Gray on psychopathology
• strong BIS/weak BAS- phobias
• strong BAS/ weak BIS- antisocial behavior

• Behavioral Genetics methods

• Family Method
• Weakness
• does not take nurture into account at all, making it unreliable
• Twin Method
• Weakness
• environment is not the same for identical and nonidentical twins
• Combination of Twin and Adoption Methods
• (weakness)- De-identification: when you are really similar to another, you try to differentiate yourself

• 40% differences = Genetics

• Environmental Variation (siblings primarily)
• Shared Environment
• House, Class, etc.
• increasing similarities
• personality variance 5%

• Nonshared Environment
• An Accident, Birth Order, Different Relationships etc.
• increasing differences
• personality variance 35%

• MZ Twins
• NOT AFFECTED EITHER WAY
• Correlation between nonshared and shared is 0

• Mischel's Critique (1968)
• Proposals on Personality
• Traits do NOT exist
•  more apparent than real
• comprised of Nature and Nurture
• Wrote book Personality and Assessment

• If traits-----consistency

• situation wouldn't matter

• anxious people would be anxious everywhere, all the time

• Little Consistency
• More apparent than real

• Biases create consistency
• Perceptual Bias- expectations of what we think we'll see from others' behavior creates 'consistency' in their behavior
• person tells you a girl is quiet, you talk a lot and she doesn't

• Sampling Bias - people are constricted by societal setting
• ex: librarian = quiet introvert

• 3 Camps in Response to Mischel
• Defend Traits
• Situationism
• Dynamic Interactionism

• Defend Traits
• +.30 still important
• predictions in which small correlations matter e.g. medicine,elections
• experimental drug example ( higher chance of living but may cause death)

• Aggregation- needed for high correlations between traits and behaviors
• diary study
• people reported on own behavior for two weeks
• good predictor
• multiple choice exams
• number of choices allows aggregating to bring whole answer together

• Phenotype/Genotype Distinction -outward behavior different, underlying purpose same
• phenotype= outward behavior
• genotype = inward behavior, underlying purpose
• Brownie example: politeness = genotype accept/decline= phenotype scenario one: full but want to show you like it scenario two: hungry but last one left so decline

• Some People are Consistent, Others are Not
• High-self Monitors- conform to situation

• Low-self Monitors- be true to self

• Situationism
• situation = primary cause of behavior
• situation produces behavior not anything internal
• Dynamic Interactionism
• change/select/manipulate environment in consistent way
• situations have effect because personality affected situation
• 3 types
• Proactive- select self into situation intentionally for best comfort
• choose environment: job to work in, party to go to 

• Evocative- change situation by presence unintentionally 
• evoke trait-relevant behavior from people in environment by mere presence

• Manipulation- self manipulates situation intentionally
• ex: walk into quiet roommate's apartment and turn up music and lights manipulating situation

• • The Big Five(and facets) - Trait theory (O.C.E.A.N.)
  • Extraversion
  • Sociable- Retiring
  • Fun loving- Sober
  • Affectionate- Reserved
  • Friendly- Aloof
  • Spontaneous- Inhibited
  • Talkative - Quiet
  • Neuroticism
  • Worrying- Calm
  • Nervous- At ease
  • High-strung - Relaxed
  • Insecure- Secure
  • Self-Pitying - Self-satisfied
  • Vulnerable- Hardy
  • Openness to Experience
  • Original- Conventional
  • Imaginative- Down to earth
  • Creative- Uncreative
  • Broad interests- Narrow interests
  • Complex- Simple
  • Curious - Incurious
  • Agreeableness
  • Good natured- Irritable
  • Soft hearted- Ruthless
  • Courteous - Rude
  • Forgiving - Vengeful
  • Sympathetic - Callous
  • Agreeable - Disagreeable
  • Conscientiousness
  • Conscientious - Negligent
  • Careful- Careless
  • Reliable- Undependable
  • Well-organized - Disorganized
  • Self-disciplined - Weak-willed
  • Persevering - Quitting 
• Big 2
• Introversion- Extroversion
• Stability- Instability
• Implicit motive
• unconscious need
• more stable and consistent
• Self-attributed motive
• conscious need
• immediate responses to socially constructed situations

• Body Consciousness
• High score
• indicates correlation between knowing implicit and self-attributed motives
• you can self-report the implicit, non-conscious, motives accurately
• 
  

• Need/Motive: Strength and Weakness
• Strength
• addresses WHY
• deeper explanations
• Weakness
• not very comprehensive
• much room for additional research
• Exam notes
• 20/21 MC 3 points
• 10/11 Fill in the Blanks 2 points
• 8/9 Short Answers 2.5 points
• Lectures
• ANYTHING GOES
• Textbook
• Definitions at end of chapter AND Context it's used in
• Names are Important
• NOT ON EXAM
• Dates
• Freud material in Chapter 8
• Location
• @Classroom @ class time