Social Psychology Lecture Notes PDF

LECTURE ONE Definitions of Social Psychology ​ Social Psychology is the scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in social contexts, and how they are influenced by and influence others. ​ It involves the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. ​ Focuses on...

LECTURE ONE Definitions of Social Psychology ​ Social Psychology is the scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in social contexts, and how they are influenced by and influence others. ​ It involves the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others. ​ Focuses on individual behavior in social settings. Core Values of Social Psychology as a Science ​ Accuracy – Precise, errorfree data. ​ Objectivity – Free from bias. ​ Skepticism – Verify claims before accepting. ​ Openmindedness – Willing to change views with new evidence. Factors Influencing Social Behavior & Thought 1. Others' behavior/characteristics 2. Cognitive processes (memories, beliefs, judgments) 3. Environmental factors (e.g., weather, noise) 4. Cultural context (social norms, traditions) 5. Biological factors (genetics, hormones) Motives Driving Human Behavior 1. To form social connections 2. To understand ourselves and others 3. To gain/maintain status 4. To protect ourselves/loved ones 5. To attract/keep romantic partners PersonSituation Interactions 1.People act differently in different situations. 2.Situations highlight different motives. 3.People: -​ Can choose, change, and be changed by situations. -​ Can be selected by situations. -​ Have different responses to the same scenario. ❌Timeline of Social Psychology Development 1859 – Darwin: Origin of Species 1897 – Tripplett: First experiment (social facilitation) 1908 – First Social Psych textbooks (McDougall & Ross) 1930s–1950s – Foundational theories: -​ Asch: Conformity  -​ Festinger: Social Comparison & Cognitive Dissonance -​ Heider: Attribution Theory -​ Milgram: Obedience 1970 – Zimbardo: Stanford Prison Experiment 1980s – Rise of cognitive approaches 1990s – Stronger ethical standards 2000s–Now – Social Neuroscience, applied psychology grows ❌Contemporary Areas in Social Psychology Positive Psychology – Social support and wellbeing Interpersonal Relationships – Development and breakup Legal Psychology – Witness credibility, jury decisions Social Influence – Persuasion, especially online Prejudice & Race Relations – Stereotypes, profiling, justice Social Neuroscience – Brain activity & social behavior Group Dynamics & Identity – Race, gender, nationality Prosocial Behavior – Altruism, sustainability Major Theoretical Perspectives 1. SocioCultural Perspective (Ross) -​ Influence of culture and social norms 2. Evolutionary Perspective (McDougall) -​ Behaviors that helped humans survive/reproduce 3. Social Learning Perspective (Allport, Hull) -​ Behavior shaped by rewards, punishments, imitation 4. SocioCognitive Perspective -​ How people think about, remember, and interpret social information. ❌Research Methods in Social Psychology: Systematic Observation ​ Naturalistic observation ​ Survey method Correlation ​ The correlational method looks at relationship between two variables ​ Direction and strength of correlation tells us about relationship The Experimental Method ​ Systematically change independent variable to see its effect on dependent variable ​ Random assignment and control other variables Ethics of social psych research ​ Deception ​ Ethical issues- harm, misleading information ​ Guidelines and best practice- no coercion, informed consent and debriefing LECTURE 2 Definition of the Self - The Self is the cognitive and affective representation of one’s identity. - Combines thoughts, feelings, and behaviors to form a sense of who we are. - Organizes social thinking and energizes behavior. Functions of the Self 1. Behavioural: - Self-presentation & self-expression: Shaping how others perceive us. - Goal setting & self-regulation: Planning and managing behavior over time. 2. Cognitive: - Self-concept: Mental representation of oneself. - Self-schemas: Organize info about the self. - Memory & attention: Focused on self-related info. - Social comparison: Evaluate self in relation to others. 3. Affective: - Emotional responses: Based on how events relate to self. - Self-esteem: Emotional evaluation of self-worth. - Emotional regulation: Managing feelings linked to self-perception. Theoretical Perspectives - William James: Duality of self – the “Me” (known) and the “I” (knower). - Charles Cooley: “Looking-glass self” – we form self-concepts through others’ opinions. - George Herbert Mead: Self forms through social interaction (I = spontaneous, Me = socialized self). Origins of the Self 1. Introspection: Reflecting inward; often inaccurate. 2. Self-Perception: Understanding self through observing our actions (“I am what I do”). 3. Feedback from Others: Reflecting how people respond to us. 4. Social Comparison: - Upward comparison: Compared to those better – can motivate or lower esteem. - Downward comparison: Compare to those worse – boosts esteem. 5. Socialization: Learning norms and roles through culture and society. Biases in Self-Understanding - Fundamental Attribution Error: Others’ behavior = internal causes. - Actor-Observer Bias: Our behavior = situational causes. - Self-Serving Bias: Success = internal, failure = external. - Above Average Effect: We think we’re better than most. - Positive Illusions: Overly favorable self-views. Self Over Time - Autobiographical Memory: Compare past vs present selves for growth. - Possible Selves: Imagined future selves (desired or feared) guide motivation. Social Identity Theory - Personal Identity: Unique traits (e.g., "I am creative"). - Social Identity: Group memberships (e.g., "I’m Trinbagonian"). - Personal vs Social Identity Continuum: Salient identity depends on context. - Intragroup comparison (individual level), Intergroup comparison (group level). ❌Self-Esteem - Emotional evaluation of the self. - High self-esteem: Linked to confidence, but also potential for aggression. - Low self-esteem: Associated with depression, poor outcomes. - Explicit Self-Esteem: Conscious self-evaluation. - Implicit Self-Esteem: Unconscious attitudes about the self. - Measured by: Rosenberg’s Self-Esteem Scale (explicit) or IAT (implicit). Self-Concept Made up of: - Self-esteem - Social identity & roles - Self-image (how you see yourself) - Self-perception (how you evaluate your abilities) Independent self-concept = Individualistic cultures Interdependent self-concept = Collectivist cultures Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins) - Actual Self: Who you are now. - Ideal Self: Who you want to be. - Ought Self: Who you think you should be (duties, responsibilities). ❌ Self-Presentation Strategies 1. Ingratiation: Make others like you. 2. Intimidation: Appears dangerous to gain control. 3. Self-promotion: Highlight your strengths. 4. Exemplification: Portray moral integrity. 5. Supplication: Appear needy to gain help. 6. Self-verification: Make others agree with your self-view. 7. Self-deprecation: Downplay self to show humility or admire others. LECTURE 3 Attitudes: Definitions 1.Evaluations of any aspect of the social world. 2. Associations between an attitude object and evaluations of it. 3. Predispositions to respond positively or negatively (Penrod, 1986). 4. Can be: - Explicit: conscious, controllable, reportable. - Implicit: unconscious associations. Attitude Formation 1. Classical Conditioning - Learning by association. - E.g. Pairing a product with positive images in ads. - Can happen subliminally.  2. Instrumental Conditioning (Operant) - Behavior is rewarded or punished. - Positive reinforcement = add reward. - Negative reinforcement = remove something bad. - Explains how social approval influences attitudes. 3. Observational Learning - Learning by watching others. - Parents, peers, and media are key influences. - Explains trends, e.g. attitudes toward fashion. 4. Social Comparison (Festinger, 1954) - We evaluate our attitudes by comparing ourselves with others. - We align with those we feel similar to. 5. Genetics - Twin studies show a small genetic component. - Some attitudes (e.g., toward music) are more heritable. - Personality traits influence attitude development. ABC Components of Attitudes (Allport, 1935) 1. Affective: Emotions (e.g. fear, anger, love). 2. Behavioral: Intentions/actions toward objects. 3. Cognitive: Thoughts/beliefs. Functions of Attitudes 1. Knowledge – Organizes understanding of the world. 2. Affective – Influences emotional responses. 3. Behavioral – Guides actions and decisions. 4. Value Expressive – Expresses identity and values. 5. Social Adjustment – Helps fit into groups. 6. Instrumental – Gains rewards or avoids punishments. 7. Self-Esteem – Enhances self-worth. 8. Ego-Defensive – Protects from uncomfortable truths. 9. Impression Motivation – Shapes how others perceive us. Attitudes & Behaviour When Do Attitudes Influence Behaviour? - Social Context: Norms, expectations, public/private actions. - Attitude Strength: Strong = accessible = better predictors. - Vested Interest: Relevance = stronger impact. - Personal Experience: Direct experience = stronger link. - Attitude Certainty: Clarity + correctness = stronger influence. - Specificity: Specific attitudes = better behavior predictors. When They Don’t - Situational pressures, availability of other attitudes, or pluralistic ignorance. - DeFleur & Westie (1958): Attitudes ≠ actions due to social pressure. Models Explaining Behaviour Theory of Planned Behaviour - Behaviour = result of rational thought. - Influenced by: - Attitudes - Subjective norms - Perceived behavioural control - Stronger intention = stronger likelihood of behaviour. Attitude-to-Behaviour Process Model - Explains spontaneous/impulsive behaviour. - Situation activates attitude → response is automatic. Attitude Change - Resistant but changeable through: - Learning - Persuasion - Cognitive dissonance Persuasion (Yale Model) 1. Source: Credible, similar, attractive, high-status. 2. Message: Clarity, balance (1- vs. 2-sided), fear appeals. 3. Audience: Intelligence, age, self-esteem, distractibility. Sleeper Effect: - Over time, the source is forgotten but the message remembered. Persuasion Processing 1. Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) - Central Route: Deep thinking → strong, lasting change. - Peripheral Route: Cues like status → weaker change. 2. Heuristic-Systematic Model - Similar to ELM (systematic vs. shortcut-based processing). Resisting Persuasion - Selective Avoidance/Exposure: Avoid challenges, seek agreement. - Forewarning: Expecting persuasion = better resistance. - Counterarguing: Mentally rebutting arguments. - Inoculation: Exposure to weak attacks strengthens beliefs. - Psychological Reactance: Resist threats to freedom. - Can cause a boomerang effect. - Ego Depletion: Tired minds = more easily persuaded. Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger, 1957) - Discomfort from inconsistency between attitudes/behaviors. - We reduce dissonance by: - Changing attitude or behavior. - Justifying with new info. - Trivializing conflict. - Self-affirmation helps restore self-worth. - Minor counterattitudinal behavior increases dissonance. Measuring Attitudes Direct Methods - Likert Scale: Agreement levels (1–5 or 1–7). - Thurstone Scale: Judges rate how favorable statements are. Indirect Methods - IAT (Implicit Association Test): Reaction time reveals biases. - Physiological: - GSR: Skin conductance = emotional arousal. - Pupil Dilation: Arousal or interest. - EMG: Facial muscle response = emotion detection. LECTURE 4 Definition of Social Cognition -​ Social cognition is how people think about the social world—how they select, interpret, and use information to make judgments. (Sanderson & Safdar, 2012) Four Core Processes of Social Cognition 1. Attention – Focusing on specific features of the environment or self. Attention is limited and selective. 2. Interpretation – Assigning meaning to events. Many situations are open to multiple interpretations. 3. Judgment – Using information to form impressions/decisions. Often based on limited data (best guesses). 4. Memory – Storing/retrieving info. Memory affects what we attend to and how we interpret events. Cognitive Shortcuts - We can’t process all information → use schemas and heuristics. Schemas Mental frameworks based on experience and culture that: - Help us interpret, organize, and process social info - Can guide behavior but also cause errors or stereotypes Types of Schemas: - Situational – Typical sequence of events (e.g., dining at a restaurant) - Person – Based on personality traits - Occupation – Expected behaviors in job roles - Social roles – Behavioral expectations for roles (e.g., teacher, student) - Social groups – Beliefs/stereotypes about groups Effects of Schemas: - Influence attention, encoding, and retrieval - Priming: Recent exposure activates related schemas (e.g., “bread” → “butter”) Downsides: - Distortion of reality - Stereotyping - Perseverance effect: Resistance to change - Self-fulfilling prophecy: Behave in ways that confirm our expectations Modes of Social Thought 1. Automatic Processing - Fast, unconscious, effortless (amygdala) - Helpful in routine or overwhelming situations 2. Controlled Processing - Slow, conscious, effortful (prefrontal cortex) - Used for complex decisions or unfamiliar tasks Heuristics (Mental Shortcuts) Used when: - There's too much info (information overload) - Time is limited - Decisions must be made quickly Types: 1. Representativeness - Judging based on resemblance to a stereotype - Ignores base rates (how common something is) - E.g., assumes a math-loving person is more likely an engineer than a lawyer 2. Availability - Judging based on how easily info comes to mind - Overestimates rare but vivid events (e.g., plane crashes) 3. Anchoring and Adjustment - Start with an anchor (initial value) and adjust from it - Adjustments often too small - E.g., high asking price for a car influences sale price 4. Status Quo Bias - Preference for the current state of things - E.g., liking a mayor more just because they already hold office Sources of Error in Social Cognition 1. Negativity Bias – Focus more on negative info 2. Optimistic Bias – Overlook risks, expect good outcomes 3. Overconfidence Barrier – Too much faith in our own judgments 4. Planning Fallacy – Underestimating time needed for tasks 5. Counterfactual Thinking – “What if…” thoughts about alternate outcomes 6. Thought Suppression – Trying not to think about something makes it more prominent 7. Magical Thinking – Irrational but emotionally compelling beliefs Affect and Cognition (Emotion & Thought Interaction) How Mood Influences Thought: - Mood affects perception, decision-making, and memory - Mood-congruent memory: We recall info that matches our current mood - Mood-dependent memory: Recall is better when the mood matches the mood during learning How Thought Influences Emotion: - Schemas shape emotional reactions - Two-factor theory of emotion: Emotion = physical arousal + cognitive interpretation - Affective forecasting: Predicting future emotions (often inaccurately) - Rumination/worry: Prolongs negative feelings - Emotion regulation: Conscious efforts (e.g., distraction, shopping, alcohol) Social Neuroscience Evidence - Two distinct brain systems: 1. Logical system – Rational, long-term thinking (prefrontal cortex) 2. Emotional system – Impulsive, seeks immediate reward (amygdala) - Both systems interact in decision-making and problem solving LECTURE 5 Social Influence Efforts by individuals to change others’ attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, or behaviors. Conformity Definition: Changing behavior or attitudes to align with social norms. Asch (1950s): - 76% conformed at least once. - 37% average conformity rate. - Conformity drops with a dissenter or private responses. Factors that Increase Conformity: - Cohesiveness: Stronger group bonds = more conformity. - Group Size: Larger group = more pressure. - Status: Lower-status individuals conform more. - Unanimity: Everyone agreeing increases pressure. - Descriptive Norms: What people typically do. - Injunctive Norms: What people should do. - Normative Focus Theory: Norms influence more when they’re personally relevant. Why People Conform: - Normative Influence: Desire to be liked. - Informational Influence: Desire to be right. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment: - Roles and environment led to extreme, unethical behavior. - Situation > Personality. Why Some Resist Conformity: - Value independence. - Have power/status. - Presence of dissenters. - Strong self-esteem or convictions. Compliance Changing behavior due to a direct request. Compliance Principles: 1. Friendship/Liking 2. Commitment/Consistency 3. Scarcity 4. Reciprocity 5. Social Validation 6. Authority Techniques: | Principle | Technique | Description | | Liking | Ingratiation | Make them like you. | | Incidental Similarity | Highlight similarities. | | Consistency | Foot-in-the-door | Start small, then escalate. | | | Lowball | Make the offer worse after acceptance. | | Reciprocity | Door-in-the-face | Start big, then go small. | | | That’s-not-all | Add perks before they decide. | | Scarcity | Playing hard to get / Deadline | Emphasize limited availability. | | Sales/Dissonance | Four walls technique | Get a person to commit mentally, then offer items. | Obedience Following direct commands from an authority figure. Milgram’s Study: - 65% gave maximum 450V shocks. - Factors: authority figure, Yale setting, gradual escalation, no time to reflect. Why Destructive Obedience Happens: - Authority takes responsibility. - Obedience is a strong social norm. - Foot-in-the-door technique. - No time for deep thinking. Resisting Obedience: - Increase personal responsibility. - Question authority. - Provide models of disobedience. - Raise awareness about influence. Unintentional Social Influence - Emotional Contagion: We "catch" others' feelings. - Symbolic Social Influence: People we think about influence our actions (even when absent). - Modeling: We imitate others when unsure how to act. LECTURE 6 STEREOTYPES Definition:​ Generalized beliefs about traits of social groups (cognitive part of attitudes). ​ Can be positive/negative, accurate/inaccurate. ​ Influence how we process information. Why We Use Them: ​ Mental shortcuts (schemas) when we lack full info. ​ Save cognitive effort, fulfill motivations. ​ Out-group homogeneity: “they’re all alike.” ​ In-group differentiation: “we’re all unique.” Activation Types: ​ Automatic: Triggered by cues, unconscious.  ​ Motivated: Activated to meet goals/needs.​ Influenced by exposure, info available, and personal goals. Operation: ​ Shape attention, memory, and interpretation. ​ Inconsistent info is often rejected or placed in subtypes (exceptions to the rule). Survival Mechanisms: ​ Selective memory/attention (remember stereotype-consistent info). ​ Illusory correlations: Perceive links where none exist (e.g., minorities & crime). ​ Attribution biases (e.g., fundamental attribution error). ​ Subtyping/contrast effect: Preserve stereotypes despite conflicting evidence. ​ Confirmation bias/self-fulfilling prophecy. Gender Stereotypes: ​ Women: warm but not competent. ​ Men: competent but aggressive. ​ Reflect and reinforce power/status differences. Change?​ Possible through shifting group relations, social norms, or group membership. Stereotype Threat:​ Fear of confirming a stereotype can reduce performance (e.g., women in STEM tests). DISCRIMINATION Definition:​ Negative behavior toward people based on group membership. ​ Forms: Racism, sexism, ageism, heterosexism, etc. ​ Can be systemic and learned early via socialization. ​ Whether it's shown depends on social norms. PREJUDICE Definition:​ Negative attitudes toward members of social groups (affective component). ​ Shapes how info about those groups is processed. ​ Can be driven by unrelated (incidental) feelings. Why It Persists:  ​ Boosts self-esteem. ​ Saves mental effort. ​ Can operate outside awareness. Types: ​ Implicit: Unconscious, automatic. ​ Explicit: Conscious, deliberate. Origins: 1.​ Perceived Threat: ○​ To self/group identity or resources. ○​ Realistic Conflict Theory: competition = prejudice. 2.​ Social Categorization: ○​ Us vs. them thinking. ○​ Ultimate Attribution Error: In-group = good, out-group = bad. ○​ Social Identity Theory: We boost in-group to raise self-esteem. REDUCING PREJUDICE 1.​ Learning not to hate: ○​ Through direct/vicarious experiences. ○​ Parents play a key role. 2.​ Contact Hypothesis: ○​ Positive, cooperative contact reduces prejudice. ○​ Increases familiarity, reduces anxiety. 3.​ Re-categorization: ○​ Viewing others as part of a shared group. 4.​ Social Influence: ○​ Group norms affect individual prejudice levels. 5.​ Collective Guilt Responses: ○​ People may reduce guilt by blaming others or denying responsibility. IMPACT OF OTHERS’ PREJUDICE ​ Exposure to prejudiced attitudes increases conformity to those views. ​ Can activate stereotypes and influence behavior, especially in prejudiced individuals. MEASURING RACIAL ATTITUDES ​ Modern Racism: Subtle; denies discrimination exists or blames minorities. ​ Explicit Measures: ○​ Bogus Pipeline: Fake lie detector increases honesty.  ​ Implicit Measures: ○​ Bona Fide Pipeline: Uses reaction times after race-based priming. LECTURE 7 What is a Group? A group is a collection of two or more people who: ​ Are seen as a coherent unit ​ Share a common identity ​ Have shared goals ​ Are engaged in similar activities ​ See themselves as similar and distinct from outsiders Characteristics of Groups ​ Roles: Expected behaviors for certain positions (e.g., leader, follower); often internalized into self-concept. ​ Status: Rank or position in a group based on qualifications. ​ Norms: Rules that guide behavior (e.g., collectivism vs. individualism). ​ Entitativity: Perception of a group as a unified whole (high or low). ​ Cohesiveness: Forces that bind members and make them want to stay. Why Join Groups? ​ Evolutionary basis (survival, affiliation) ​ Cope with stress, threats ​ Achieve goals ​ Division of labor ​ Cultural identity ​ Self-knowledge & self-enhancement (boosts self-esteem) Costs of Group Membership ​ Time, energy, effort ​ Initiation rituals ​ Loss of individuality ​ Psychological or material price Reasons People Leave Groups ​ Group no longer reflects their values ​ Costs outweigh benefits ​ Growth or ideological shift ​ Perception of harm caused by the group Social Facilitation ​ Presence of others affects performance ○​ Triplett (1897): Cyclists perform better in groups ○​ Zajonc (1965): Drive theory → presence → arousal → dominant response ​ If correct → performance improves ​ If incorrect → performance worsens ​ Cottrell (1968): Evaluation apprehension theory ​ Baron (1986): Distraction-conflict theory Social Loafing ​ Reduced effort in group tasks ○​ Ringlemann (1913): Less effort in group rope-pulling ○​ Latané et al. (1979): Effort decreases as group size increases ​ Why it happens: ○​ Anonymity ○​ Diffusion of responsibility ○​ Lack of perceived importance ​ How to reduce: ○​ Make individual contributions identifiable ○​ Increase task value & group commitment Group Dynamics Deindividuation ​ Loss of self-awareness in groups → conformity to group norms ​ Can lead to antisocial behavior (Zimbardo, Postmes & Spears) Cooperation vs Social Dilemmas ​ Cooperation: Group members work together → better results ​ Social dilemmas: Selfish choices help individual but hurt group Conflict  ​ Causes: beliefs, poor communication, scarcity, different goals ​ Resolution: ○​ Bargaining ○​ Superordinate goals ○​ Logrolling (mutual concessions) Fairness in Groups ​ Procedural justice: Fair processes ​ Distributive justice: Fair outcome based on input ​ Transactional justice: Fair communication about rewards ​ Influenced by mood and status Decision Making ​ Decision rules: Majority wins, unanimity, truth wins, first shift ​ Groupthink (Janis, 1982): Excessive cohesion leads to poor decisions ○​ Avoided by: Devil’s advocate, authentic dissent, diversity ​ Group Polarization: Discussion leads to more extreme positions Culture & Groups ​ Collectivist cultures: Harmony, group > individual (Asia, Africa) ​ Individualist cultures: Autonomy, competition (West) ​ Social loafing not universal: ○​ In some cultures (e.g., China, Japan), social striving occurs LECTURE 8 Factors Affecting Attraction 1. Need for Affiliation ​ Definition: Innate motive to seek and maintain social relationships. ​ Evidence: ○​ Babies prefer faces (Rowe, 1996). ○​ Solitary confinement – prisoners sought human connection (Baumeister & Bushman, 2008). ​ Individual Differences:  ○​ Schizoid personality: avoids relationships. ○​ Dependent personality: cannot be alone. ○​ Attachment styles: ​ Dismissive-avoidant: denies need for closeness. ​ Situational Factors: ○​ Fearful or uncertain situations increase affiliation. ○​ Social Comparison Theory (Festinger): others help us make sense of crises. 2. Proximity ​ Definition: Physical closeness increases attraction. ​ Why?: Repeated exposure → familiarity → liking. ​ Key Studies: ○​ Zajonc (1968): Repeated Exposure Effect. ○​ Festinger et al. (1950): 65% of apartment friendships were in the same building. ○​ Moreland & Beach (1992): More exposure in lectures → more liking. ​ Online vs. In-Person: ○​ Online attraction is based on communication quality. ○​ In-person often influenced by physical appearance. 3. Similarity ​ Similarity-Dissimilarity Effect: We like people similar to us. ​ Why?: ○​ Comfort and validation. ○​ Less effort to adjust. ​ Byrne & Nelson (1965): Proportion of similarity predicts liking. ​ Rosenbaum (1986): Repulsion Hypothesis – dissimilarity decreases attraction. ​ Similar Traits: ○​ Opinions, appearance (Goffman, 1952), personality, attachment style, background, social skills. 4. Reciprocity ​ Definition: We like those who like us. ​ Enhanced when: ○​ It’s unexpected or a change from dislike. ○​ Flattery (if not obvious), mimicry. ​ Influences: ○​ Self-esteem: Low self-esteem may prefer those who once rejected them. ○​ Self-disclosure: Mutual sharing builds trust. ○​ Social skills: Convey liking and openness. 5. Physical Attractiveness ​ Cultural variations but also some agreement: ○​ Symmetry ○​ Typicality (average faces) ○​ Infant preference for attractive faces ​ Facial Features: ○​ Women: large eyes, small nose, big smile ○​ Men: strong jaw, cheekbones, big smile ​ Body Preferences: ○​ Waist-to-hip ratio (7:10 for women). ○​ Status and wealth for men. ○​ Varies across cultures. ​ Stereotype: “What is beautiful is good” ​ Matching Hypothesis: People end up with partners of similar attractiveness. 6. Affect (Emotions) ​ Direct Influence: We like people who make us feel good. ​ Indirect Influence: Mood carries over to people present. ​ Reinforcement-Affect Model (Byrne & Clore, 1974): ○​ We associate positive feelings with people who reward us. 7. Culture ​ Cross-cultural agreement on attractive faces (Cunningham et al., 1990). ​ Body preferences vary: ○​ Heavier women are seen as attractive in famine-prone societies. ○​ African American culture: preference for heavier bodies, large buttocks. ​ Colorism: Lighter skin historically preferred (Belgrave & Allison, 2010). Theories Related to Attraction 1. Balance Theory (Heider, 1965) ​ Harmony between our attitudes and those of people we like = attraction. 2. Social Comparison Theory (Festinger, 1954) ​ We like those who validate our views and status, especially in uncertainty. 3. Social Exchange Theory (Homans, 1961) ​ Relationships are based on rewards vs. costs. 4. Equity Theory ​ Satisfaction occurs when input-to-outcome ratios are equal in both partners. Types of Close Relationships 1. Family ​ Forms basis of attachment style, trust, and self-worth. ​ Early relationships shape later ones. 2. Attachment Styles (Bowlby & Ainsworth) Style Caregiver Type Self-esteem Trus Relationship Pattern t Secure Sensitive, High High Stable, close nurturing Fearful-Avoidant Unreliable Low Low Ambivalent, difficult Preoccupied-Anxio Anxious Low High Clingy, anxious us Dismissive-Avoida Distant, aloof Apparent Low Denial of need nt High Reactive Varies Varies Varie Poor or excessive Attachment s closeness 3. Friendships ​ Close friendships = time + variety of situations + mutual support. ​ Women value intimacy and disclosure more. ​ Similarity (especially perceived similarity) enhances friendship (Selfhout et al., 2009). 4. Romantic Love Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Component Description Intimacy Emotional closeness  Passion Physical attraction, desire Commitment Decision to stay in relationship Combinations: ​ Consummate Love: All three. ​ Romantic Love: Intimacy + Passion. ​ Companionate Love: Intimacy + Commitment. ​ Fatuous Love: Passion + Commitment. ​ Infatuation: Passion only. ​ Liking: Intimacy only. ​ Empty Love: Commitment only. LECTURE 9 What is Aggression? ​ Aggression: Behaviour intended to harm someone who wants to avoid harm. ​ Violence: Aggression with the intent of causing extreme physical harm. Types of Aggression ​ Instrumental: Goal-oriented aggression (e.g., robbery). ​ Hostile: Driven by anger, intended to hurt. ​ Direct: Face-to-face (e.g., physical fight). ​ Indirect: Behind-the-scenes (e.g., gossip, exclusion). Theories of Aggression 1. Evolutionary Psychology ​ Aggression helped early humans survive and reproduce. ​ Males evolved to be more aggressive—especially toward rivals. 2. Biological Theories  ​ Freud: Thanatos (death instinct). ​ Lorenz: Aggression is innate and builds up until released (hydraulic model). 3. Drive Theories ​ Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis (Dollard, 1939): All aggression comes from frustration. ​ Revised (Berkowitz, 1965): Frustration leads to aggression only if it causes negative emotions. 4. Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1997) ​ Aggression is learned via observation (e.g., Bobo Doll Study). ​ Influences: Media, video games, violent porn (e.g., Linz et al., 1988). 5. General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) ​ Inputs (personal + situational) → Internal state (affect, arousal, cognition) → Appraisal → Aggression. Situational Factors ​ Provocation: Intentional harm (teasing, criticism) often leads to retaliation. ​ Emotion: Arousal from one situation intensifies emotions in another (Excitation Transfer Theory). ​ Exclusion: Rejection increases perception of hostility and aggression. Individual Factors Cognition ​ Hostile attribution bias: Misinterpreting neutral actions as hostile. ​ Scripts: Aggressive behavior learned from experience/media. Personality Traits ​ TASS Model: Trait aggression emerges in the right situation. ​ Narcissism: Aggression triggered by wounded ego (narcissistic rage). ​ Antisocial Personality: Impulsivity, lack of empathy/remorse. ​ Type A Personality: Prone to competitiveness and aggression. ​ Herostratos Syndrome: Aggression for fame or notoriety. Other Factors ​ Gender: ○​ Men: More direct physical aggression. ○​ Women: More indirect aggression (e.g., exclusion). ​ Weapons Effect: Presence of weapons increases aggressive thoughts/actions. ​ Alcohol & Drugs: Disinhibition, impaired judgment, aggressive associations. ​ Childhood Trauma: Early abuse/neglect disrupts emotion regulation, models aggressive behavior. Aggression in Relationships ​ Domestic Violence: High in ages 18–24; linked to control, alcohol, low self-esteem, family history. ​ Bullying: Power imbalance, intentional harm. ​ Workplace Aggression: Often subtle (e.g., incivility, obstruction); triggered by unfairness or job stress. Controlling Aggression ​ Catharsis: Venting anger ≠ long-term reduction in aggression (myth). ​ Punishment: Effective only if prompt, certain, strong, and perceived as fair. ​ Self-Regulation: ○​ Limit exposure to aggression. ○​ Teach assertiveness, empathy, and forgiveness. ○​ Therapy to explore aggression triggers. LECTURE 10 What is Prosocial Behaviour? ​ Definition: Voluntary actions intended to help or benefit others (Eisenberg & Mussen, 1989). ​ Includes: Helping, sharing, donating, volunteering, comforting, etc. Altruism ​ Definition (Berkowitz): Helping others without expecting rewards.  ​ Key point: ○​ All altruism is prosocial. ○​ Not all prosocial behaviour is altruistic. Empathy and Prosocial Behaviour ​ Empathy: Ability to share and understand another’s emotions. ○​ Components: ​ Empathic accuracy (understanding others’ emotions) ​ Emotional empathy ​ Empathic concern (compassion for others) ​ Development: ○​ Genetics/Evolution ○​ Parenting (secure attachment, modeling kindness) ○​ Social models (media, peers, community) Theories of Prosocial Behaviour 1.​ Social Learning Theory ○​ Helping is learned through observation, imitation, and rewards. ○​ Norms: Promote cooperation, social harmony, and are reinforced across generations. 2.​ Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis (Batson & Oleson, 1991) ○​ We help out of genuine concern for others. 3.​ Empathic Joy Hypothesis (Smith et al., 1989) ○​ Helping brings joy if the helper gets feedback it worked. 4.​ Negative State Relief Model (Cialdini et al., 1981) ○​ Helping reduces our own discomfort or sadness. 5.​ Competitive Altruism (Roberts, 1998) ○​ Helping boosts status and reputation. 6.​ Kin Selection Theory ○​ We're more likely to help family to pass on shared genes. 7.​ Reciprocal Altruism (Trivers) ○​ We help expecting future help in return. 8.​ Defensive Helping (Sturner & Snyder, 2010) ○​ Helping outgroup members to protect ingroup status (not based on empathy). Why People Fail to Help Famous Case: Kitty Genovese (1964) ​ 38 witnesses to her murder did not help. ​ Sparked interest in the bystander effect. Key Concepts ​ Diffusion of Responsibility (Latané & Darley, 1968) ○​ More people = less personal responsibility felt. ​ Arousal/Cost-Reward Model (Piliavin et al., 1981) ○​ Weighing emotional arousal vs. costs/rewards of helping or not helping. ​ Pluralistic Ignorance ○​ No one helps because everyone assumes the situation is not an emergency. Decision-Making Process to Help (Latané & Darley, 1970) 1.​ Notice the event 2.​ Interpret as emergency 3.​ Accept responsibility 4.​ Know how to help 5.​ Decide to help Factors That Increase Prosocial Behaviour ​ High emotional arousal ​ Clear need for help ​ Close relationship or similarity to victim ​ Victim seen as not responsible ​ Altruistic personality (empathy, fairness, social responsibility) ​ Past experiences of victimization ​ Training in helping ​ Exposure to prosocial models ​ Awe (reduces self-focus) ​ Lower social class background Factors That Decrease Prosocial Behaviour ​ Many bystanders → bystander effect ​ High cost/low reward → cost-reward model ​ Ambiguity → pluralistic ignorance  ​ Social exclusion → lowers empathy ​ Egotism, anonymity, time pressure Do People Want to Be Helped? ​ Some may feel incompetent or ashamed. ​ Help can hurt self-esteem or make people feel dependent. ​ People internalizing change do better than those who attribute it to others’ help. Mood and Helping ​ Positive mood: Often leads to helping (unless situation is ambiguous). ​ Negative mood: Less helping unless helping can improve the mood. Culture and Prosocial Behaviour ​ Ingroup bias: More likely to help ingroup members. ​ Collectivist cultures: (e.g., Kenya, Mexico) → More cooperative/helpful. ​ Individualist cultures: (e.g., US, UK) → Help based on self-interest or close relations. ​ Rural vs Urban: ○​ Rural: More helpful (community-minded, trust strangers). ○​ Urban: Overload reduces awareness/helping (Urban Overload Hypothesis).