Attitudes - Psyc221 Flashcards T1 PDF

**Attitudes:** - **Functions** - **Sources** - **Behavior** **What is an attitude?** - An attitude is an object evaluation link that\'s stored in memory / an object evaluation association. - E.g., watermelon - strongly linked with a positive attitude. - When an evaluative...

**Attitudes:** - **Functions** - **Sources** - **Behavior** **What is an attitude?** - An attitude is an object evaluation link that\'s stored in memory / an object evaluation association. - E.g., watermelon - strongly linked with a positive attitude. - When an evaluative summary of an object occurs, a linkage is made - it becomes part of the mental representation for that object. - Attitudes can be about relatively unimportant or important things. - They can be mild or extreme. **Functions of Attitudes:** We form attitudes because they are useful. How are they useful? - **Object Appraisal:** - Sometimes referred to as the knowledge function. - Helps us organize and structure our experience, our world. - Orients us to the important features of an object. - Provides efficiency by having pre-existing evaluations (e.g., already knowing if you like something). - **Instrumental / Utilitarian:** - Attitudes ideally orient us towards maximizing benefits and minimizing costs. - Knowing our feelings towards something helps us avoid negative outcomes. - **Value Expressive:** - Attitudes express who we are. - They affirm significant relationships with others (e.g., concert attendees sharing a music preference). Think about the functions in terms of the primary motivational processor/principles: - Object/knowledge function is about mastery. - Identity is about connectedness. - Valuing \"me and mine.\" **Sources of Attitudes:** - **Cognitively-Based:** - Consideration of relevant facts. - Effortful evaluation of good/bad qualities of an object. - E.g., buying a new car based on beliefs about its qualities. - Fulfills the object appraisal function. - **Affectively-Based:** - Based on emotional reactions to an object. - Could be a sensory/aesthetic reaction, based on religious/moral beliefs, or simple conditioning. - E.g., negative emotional reaction to nuclear power due to fears of meltdowns. - **Behaviorally-Based:** - Based on observations of our behaviors. - Most likely when the initial attitude is weak or novel. - E.g., inferring a positive attitude towards healthy eating from recent changes in grocery purchases. - **Biology:** - Some attitudes may have a heritable component. - Studies with identical and fraternal twins show stronger attitude correlations among identical twins. - E.g., liking jazz might be indirectly influenced by genetic predisposition. **Putting it all together:** - If most beliefs/feelings about an attitude object are positive, it results in a positive attitude, and vice versa for negative attitudes. **Attitude Ambivalence:** - What happens when attitudes are mixed? - Referred to as attitudinal ambivalence (not the same as indifference). - E.g., donating blood - knowing it\'s good but fearing needles. - Ambi = both, Valent = combining form, meaning both positive and negative. - **Cognitive (mixed beliefs):** - E.g., a friend who is generous but rude. - **Affective (torn feelings):** - E.g., love/hate relationship. - **Affective - Cognitive (heart vs. mind):** - E.g., blood donation - cognitively knowing it\'s good but affectively fearing it. **Do Attitudes Guide Behavior?** - **Wicker (1969, 1971):** - Meta-analysis showed weak correlation (\~.3) between attitudes and behavior, suggesting limited predictive power. - Shifted focus to conditions under which attitudes predict behavior. - **LaPiere (1934):** - Study showed discrepancy between stated attitudes (discriminatory) and actual behavior (serving Chinese customers). - **Fishbein & Ajzen (1974):** - General-Specific (.15) vs. General-General (.71). - Matching specificity of attitudes and behaviors increases predictive correlation. **When do Attitudes Guide Behavior?** - **Qualities of the Behavior:** - Specific attitudes predict specific behaviors; general attitudes predict general behaviors. - **Qualities of the Situation:** - Time pressure can affect whether attitudes predict behavior (e.g., Bechtold, Naccarato, and Zanna, 1986). - **Qualities of the Attitude:** - Attitude strength (not extremity) and accessibility. - Strong, accessible attitudes persist, resist change, impact information processing, and guide behavior. **Theory of Reasoned Action (Ajzen and Fishbein):** - **Behavioral Intention:** - Composed of attitudes toward the behavior and subjective norms regarding the behavior. - Beliefs about the behavior\'s outcomes and evaluations of those outcomes influence intention. - E.g., attitude towards taking the birth control pill (specific) rather than birth control in general (general). **Persuasion: The Effectiveness of Persuasive Communications** **Who: The Source** 1. **Credible Speakers** - More persuasive due to their expertise. - Trusted because they have knowledge about the topic. - Even if experts occasionally err, their recommendations are generally reliable. 2. **Attractive Speakers** - Attractiveness can be physical or personality-based. - Well-liked individuals are more persuasive. **What: The Nature of the Communication** 1. **Perceived Intent** - If the audience suspects manipulation, persuasion is less effective. - Authentic-seeming endorsements (e.g., \"not a paid actor\") are more convincing. 2. **One vs. Two-Sided Arguments** - One-sided arguments are effective with a supportive audience. - Two-sided arguments are more persuasive when addressing a mixed audience, as they appear fair-minded. 3. **Order of Presentation** - In sequential presentations, the first speaker sets the stage and can create a lasting impression. - With delayed decisions, the last speaker is more memorable and persuasive. **To Whom: The Audience** 1. **Distracted Audiences** - More easily persuaded when distracted by music, noise, or excitement. 2. **Age** - Younger individuals (18-25) are more persuadable due to less life experience and more openness. 3. **Individual Differences** - **Self-Monitoring**: High self-monitors are more easily persuaded as they adapt their behavior to fit situations. - **Need for Cognition**: Individuals who enjoy thinking are more persuaded by strong arguments and less by weak ones. - **Intelligence**: Complex arguments can be persuasive to those with higher intelligence, but too complex for others. **Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM)** - **Central Route** - Involves effortful thought and requires attention, comprehension, elaboration, and acceptance of the argument. - Quality of the argument is crucial. - **Peripheral Route** - Uses heuristics or shortcuts (e.g., attractiveness, expertise) and does not involve deep processing. - Effective when the issue is unimportant or when motivation/ability to process is low. **Peripheral Route Cues** 1. **Expertise** - Expert opinions are persuasive due to perceived knowledge. 2. **Attractiveness** - Attractive individuals draw attention and are more persuasive. 3. **Speed of Delivery** - Rapid delivery implies confidence and persuasiveness. 4. **Familiarity** - Familiar items are liked and trusted. 5. **Message Length** - Longer messages can be more persuasive due to perceived thoroughness. 6. **Scientific Objectivity** - Scientific-looking evidence can persuade those not critically evaluating the message. **Mood and Persuasion** - **Positive Mood** - Positive moods lead to easier persuasion through peripheral routes. - **Fear Appeals** - Effective when moderate fear is evoked and a clear, effective solution is provided. **Subliminal Advertising** - Generally ineffective as people need to be aware of the message for it to be processed and persuasive. **Goal of Persuasion** - To change behavior, either by influencing cognitive (central route) or affective (peripheral route) pathways. - Advertising often uses peripheral cues as they are easier and quicker to employ effectively. **Superficial Processing: Persuasion Shortcuts** 1. **Affective Information** - Associating liked objects (e.g., puppies) with new ones to transfer positive feelings. 2. **Attractiveness Heuristic** - Persuasive when attractive individuals endorse products. 3. **Familiarity Heuristic** - Familiar individuals or products are more likely to be trusted and liked. 4. **Expertise Heuristic** - Expertise increases trust in the message, regardless of the actual content. 5. **Message Length Heuristic** - Longer messages perceived as more persuasive when not evaluated critically. **Social Influence and Persuasion Principles** **Social Norms** - **Definition:** Unwritten rules governing behavior within a society or group. - **Influence:** Guide behavior by establishing expectations; can be manipulated to achieve certain outcomes. **Fixed-Action Patterns** - **Definition:** Automatic, repetitive behaviors triggered by specific stimuli. - **Example:** The word \"sale\" can trigger a buying response due to its association with discounts. **Reciprocity** - **Definition:** Obligation to return favors or kindness. - **Study:** Regan's experiment showed that people who received a small favor (like a soda) were more likely to buy raffle tickets later. **Reciprocal Concessions (Rejection-then-Retreat Technique)** - **Definition:** Making a large request first (likely to be refused), then a smaller request which is more likely to be accepted. - **Study:** Cialdini's study demonstrated increased agreement to a smaller request after refusing a larger one. **Commitment and Consistency** - **Definition:** Pressure to act consistently with a previously made commitment. - **Foot-in-the-Door Technique:** Small request followed by a larger request increases likelihood of agreement. - **Study:** Freedman and Fraser's study showed higher likelihood of agreeing to a large request after agreeing to a small one. **Social Proof** - **Definition:** Tendency to follow others\' actions in ambiguous situations. - **Study:** Cialdini's littering experiment showed increased likelihood of littering when others were littering, and less when the environment was clean. **Liking** - **Definition:** Higher likelihood of complying with requests from people we like or find familiar. - **Example:** Salespeople use names and friendly behavior to increase compliance. **Authority** - **Definition:** Greater likelihood of obeying requests from perceived authorities. - **Study:** Hofling's experiment showed that nurses followed dangerous orders from a supposed doctor due to authority pressure. **Scarcity** - **Definition:** Items or opportunities appear more valuable when they are scarce. - **Example:** Limited edition products or time-limited offers often increase perceived value. **Social Influence** - **Definition:** Impact of others\' behaviors and expectations on an individual's actions. - **Norm-Based Persuasion:** Uses social norms to influence behavior. **Compliance and Conformity: Understanding Social Norms** **Convergence / Consensus = Social Norm** - **Definition**: A generally accepted way of thinking, feeling, or behaving that people in a group agree on and endorse as right and proper. - **Variability**: Social norms can range from trivial to profound. For example, thanking a bus driver is a trivial norm, whereas societal acceptance of nuclear power plants\' risks can be profound. - **Contextual Influence**: Norms can exist at various levels, from societal to subgroup contexts, and influence behavior and attitudes within those settings. **Relation to Attitudes** - **Attitude**: An individual\'s evaluation (e.g., a parent loves their child). - **Norm**: A group\'s evaluation (e.g., the belief that parents should love their children). - **Conflict**: Individual attitudes can sometimes conflict with group norms (e.g., a woman expressing dislike for pregnancy may face social disapproval). **The Formation of Social Norms** **Asch\'s Conformity Experiments (1951, 1955)** - **Study Setup**: Participants judged line lengths with confederates giving incorrect answers. - **Findings**: 75% conformed at least once; 50% conformed on half of the trials. - **Implications**: Demonstrates the power of group influence on individual conformity. **Types of Conformity** - **Public Conformity (Compliance)**: Surface-level agreement due to external pressure, without internal acceptance. - **Private Conformity**: Internal acceptance of norms as reflecting personal values. **Expecting Consensus** **False-Consensus Effect (Ross et al., 1977)** - **Study Setup**: Participants estimated how many others would agree to wear a sandwich board. - **Findings**: Participants overestimated the extent to which others shared their choice. - **Implications**: People believe their views are more common than they are, which reduces uncertainty. **Functions of Conformity to Norms** **Informational Influence** - **Reality Insurance**: Consensus is often seen as an indicator of correctness. - **Asch\'s Study on Consensus Formation**: Compliance rates increased with the number of confederates agreeing on an incorrect answer. **Normative Influence** - **Connectedness**: Norms help individuals feel connected and valued within their group. - **Social Rewards**: Conformity to group norms leads to positive social rewards, especially in value-laden tasks. **Two Reasons for Compliance** 1. **Consensus Implies Correctness**: People conform because they believe the group is right. 2. **Group Belongingness**: People conform to remain part of the group. **Challenges with Perceived Consensus** **Misleading Consensus** - **Perceived Consensus**: Statements like \"a lot of people are saying\" create an illusion of widespread agreement. - **Actual Consensus**: True consensus requires independent agreement, not just vocal agreement from a few. **Consensus Without Independence** - **Contamination**: Lack of independent thought within a group leads to biased consensus. - **Homogeneity**: Groups with similar backgrounds are less likely to provide independent viewpoints. **Minority Influence and Dissent** **Value of Dissent** - **Minority Influence**: Effective when offering an alternative consensus, negotiating similarities and differences, and promoting systematic thinking. - **Systematic Thinking**: Exposure to consistent minority viewpoints fosters divergent thinking and creativity. **Dissent Aftermath** - **Prislin and Christensen (2005)**: Transitioning from minority to majority doesn\'t significantly change group identification. However, moving from majority to minority can lead to negative reactions and increased vocal opposition. **Group Membership: Concepts and Functions** **What is a Group?** **Perceived Entitativity (Campbell):** - **Definition**: The degree to which an aggregate of individuals is perceived as a coherent group or unit. - **Gestalt Principles**: - **Similarity**: More similar individuals are more likely to be seen as a group. - **Proximity**: Individuals close together are more likely to be seen as a group, but less so if they lack similarity. - **Common Fate**: Individuals perceived as having a shared goal or outcome are more likely to be seen as a group. - **Campbell\'s Argument**: - Presented photos of individuals (headshots) that were either similar or not, close together or further apart. - Found that people perceive meaningful groupings based on clusters and patterns. **Lickel et al. (2000)**: - **Types of Groups**: - **Loose Associations**: Not actually groups (e.g., people standing at a bus stop). - **Intimacy Groups**: Families, friends, street gangs. - **Task-Oriented Groups**: Coworkers, study groups, sports teams. - **Social Categories**: Race, ethnicity, religion, gender. - **Group Importance and Interaction**: - **Intimacy Groups**: Rated as the most important and have the most interaction. - **Task-Oriented Groups**: Formed for specific purposes, relatively short in duration, permeable. - **Social Categories**: Large, long-lasting, and provide a sense of identity. **Functions of Groups** **Evolutionary Perspective**: - **Safety**: Safety in numbers. - **Resource Sharing**: Sharing resources and achieving collective goals. - **Accomplishment**: Achieving things that cannot be accomplished alone. **Correll and Park (2005) - \"Ingroup as Social Resource\"**: 1. **Why the Individual Cares About the Ingroup**: - **Material Benefits**: Achieving things collectively. - **Evolutionary Benefits**: Providing safety and resources. - **Psychological Benefits**: Sense of self-worth, correctness, acceptance, distinctiveness, and symbolic immortality. 2. **Determinants of Ingroup\'s Psychological Utility**: - **Perceived Value**: - **Merit**: Positive characteristics and beliefs about the group. - **Power**: Group\'s control over its fate and others. - **Reputation**: Evaluation of the group, can be positive or negative. - **Consensus**: Agreement within the group, important for directing behavior. - **Belonging**: Sense of acceptance within the group. - **Level of Identification**: Stronger identification enhances need fulfillment. - **Perceived Entitativity**: Perception of the group as real and legitimate. **Johnson et al. (2006)**: - **Different Types of Groups Serve Different Needs**: - **Affiliative Needs**: Acceptance, connection, belonging (fulfilled by intimacy groups). - **Achievement Needs**: Mastery and accomplishment (fulfilled by task-oriented groups). - **Identity Needs**: Sense of self and group identity (fulfilled by social categories). **Crawford and Salaman (2012)**: - **The Stronger the Identification with an Entitative Group, the Greater the Need Fulfillment**. **Effects of Groups on the Individual** **Social Facilitation**: - **Triplett\'s Research (1898)**: - Found that cyclists performed better when in the presence of others. - Children winding fishing line on a reel performed better when others were present. - **Mechanism**: - Presence of others increases arousal, which facilitates dominant (well-learned) responses and inhibits non-dominant (complex) responses. **Cockroach Study**: - Simple maze performance was faster with the presence of other cockroaches. - Complex maze performance took longer with the presence of other cockroaches. **Rosenberg and Bartis et al. (1988)**: - Evaluative presence enhances performance in easy tasks but hinders it in complex tasks. **Schmitt et al. (1986)**: - Presence of others increases errors in complex tasks. **Zanbaka et al. (2007)**: - Presence of a CGI person, whether real or virtual, showed facilitation effects. **Blascovich et al. (1999)**: - **Challenge vs. Threat**: - Well-learned tasks: Presence of others seen as a challenge (increased heart rate, decreased vascular resistance). - Complex tasks: Presence of others seen as a threat (increased vascular resistance). **Group Performance: Are Two (or More) Heads Better Than One?** **Conjunctive Tasks** - **Definition**: The performance of the group is determined by the weakest individual. - **Example**: Relay race. - **Outcome**: Groups usually perform worse than individuals because the group\'s success is limited by the least capable member. **Disjunctive Tasks** - **Definition**: The outcome for the group is determined by the strongest group member. - **Example**: Coming up with ideas for a creative advertising campaign. - **Outcome**: Groups usually perform better than individuals, as the best ideas are often utilized. **Additive Tasks** - **Definition**: Individual performances are summed for the final product. - **Example**: Group project where each member contributes uniquely. - **Outcome**: Groups tend to underperform due to social loafing. **Social Loafing** **Definition** - A decrease in individual effort when working in a group. **Studies** - **Williams (1981)**: Individuals shouted louder alone or when they thought they were being recorded individually than when shouting with a group. - **Latane et al. (1979)**: Found similar results demonstrating decreased effort in group settings. **Solutions** - **Evaluable Individual Performance**: Ensuring individual contributions can be assessed. - **Social Identity and Cohesiveness**: Building a strong group identity. - **Collective Effort Model (CEM)**: Karau and Williams (1993) suggest that social loafing depends on members\' expectations and valuation of the outcome. **Leadership** **Definition** - The process by which one or more group members are permitted to influence and motivate others to help attain group goals. - Leaders are granted power to influence the group to achieve goals. **Types of Leader Behaviors** 1. **Decision Making and Task Performance**: Focused on achieving shared goals. 2. **Enhancing Cohesion/Liking**: Negotiating conflicts and fostering a positive social environment. **Leadership Roles** - Often two leaders: one for tasks and one for cohesion. - Historically, these roles were seen as separate, such as a principal and deputy principal. **Competence Judgments** **Study** - **Ballew and Todorov (2007)**: Photos of political candidates showed that perceived competence predicted election winners about 70% of the time. **Traits of a Competent Face** - Decreased face roundness. - Closeness of eyes and brows. - Greater jaw angularity. - Masculine features associated with social dominance and status. **Selection of Leaders** **Factors Influencing Leader Selection** - **Talking the Most**: Quantity over quality. - **Physical Traits**: Tall, older, and often male. - **Stereotypes**: Men are perceived as more competent and assertive, reinforcing their selection as leaders. **Gender and Leadership** - **Stereotypes**: Men are more likely to be chosen due to perceived competence and assertiveness. - **Perceptions**: Assertive women are viewed differently than assertive men. - **Real-World Performance**: Women often hold groups together better and may be slightly better at task completion, but men are still perceived as better leaders. **Leadership Traits** - Intelligence. - Assertiveness. - Trustworthiness. - Confidence. - Empathy. - Communication. **Effectiveness of Leaders** **Person or Situation?** - No single personality trait predicts success universally. - **Person x Situation Interaction**: - Dominance in conflict situations. - Trustworthiness in cooperative situations. - Competence in knowledge-based tasks. - Attractiveness/health in physical challenges. **Leadership Styles and Communication** **Authoritarian (Autocratic)** - Leader dictates what to do and how to do it. - Effective when time is short, group members are motivated, and the leader has all the information. **Paternalistic** - Focuses on the needs of individual group members. - Decisions made in the best interest of the group. **Participatory** - Leader has the final say but bases decisions on majority view. - Changes tend to be slow. **Delegative** - Decisions are left to the group. - Leader is a figurehead or peripheral to the process. - Can lead to a lack of focus but works well with creative groups. **Interpersonal Attraction** **Objectives:** - Apply psychological theories to testing the question \'what makes people attractive?\' - Describe the biological and psychological characteristics associated with higher attractiveness. **What is Attraction and Why are We Attracted to People?** **Definition**: Attraction is the tendency to positively evaluate another person, including affective, behavioral, and cognitive components such as the desire and motivation to initiate contact and intimacy. **Theories of Attraction**: 1. **Balance Theory** (Aronson & Cope, 1968): - Attraction occurs as part of the motivation to seek balance of thoughts, feelings, and experiences. - Factors: Proximity, familiarity, similarity. 2. **Reward Theory of Attraction** (Lott & Lott, 1974): - Attraction results under conditions where an individual experiences reward in the presence of another person, regardless of the relationship between the person and the rewarding event. 3. **Evolutionary Perspective** (Buss): - Attraction is driven by evolved biological mechanisms for species survival. - Functions: Protection, reproduction, gaining resources, caring for young, avoiding social exclusion. **Who Are We Attracted To?** **Physical Attractiveness**: - The strongest predictor of attraction. - Consistent across time, age, and cultures. **Understanding Physical Attractiveness: Faces**: 1. **Averageness**: - Our brains prefer faces that are easy to process, indicating health and lack of abnormalities. 2. **Symmetry**: - Symmetrical faces are perceived as more attractive due to processing ease and health indicators. 3. **Sexual Dimorphism**: - Features indicating high levels of sex hormones (testosterone in men, estrogen in women) are found attractive. - Controversial due to potential over-masculinity/over-femininity. **Biological Signals**: - **Sexual Maturity**: Adult faces are more attractive than child faces. - **Health**: Healthy-looking faces are more attractive. - **Reproductive Success**: No direct evidence linking attractiveness to reproductive success. **Understanding Physical Attractiveness: Bodies**: 1. **Female Bodies**: - Waist-to-Hip Ratio (WHR): Lower WHR is more attractive (ideal around 0.70). - Breast size has minimal effect on attractiveness ratings. - **Dixson et al., 2011**: Men fixate on breasts but WHR determines attractiveness ratings. 2. **Male Bodies**: - WHR and Chest-to-Waist Ratio (CWR): Lower WHR (around 0.90) and higher CWR are more attractive. - **Dixson et al., 2014**: Mesomorphic (muscular) bodies are rated most attractive; visual fixations on shoulders and waist. **Psychological Attractiveness** **Traits**: 1. **Warmth/Trustworthiness**: Loyalty, kindness, love. 2. **Attractiveness/Vitality**: Sexiness, fun, sense of humor. 3. **Status/Resources**: Potential for money, education, career. **Evolutionary Perspective** (Buss, 1989): - Attraction to physical characteristics signals reproductive maturity and health. - Attraction to psychological characteristics signals the stability and wellbeing of the relationship and family. **Influence of Social Perception**: - Attractive faces receive more attention, reinforcing their perceived attractiveness. **Summary** - **Initial Attraction**: Driven by physical traits indicating health and reproductive fitness. - **Developed Attraction**: Enhanced by psychological traits indicating relationship stability and resource availability. - **Evolutionary Basis**: Biological and psychological mechanisms promoting species survival are built into our brains, influencing attraction patterns. **Romantic Attachment** **Attachment Theory (Bowlby, 1969)** - We are born with a \"working model\" that stores knowledge about relationships. - This model guides our behavior when we: - Want proximity with others. - Want to avoid separation from others. - Use others as a secure base to explore environments. - **Attachment styles:** - **Secure attachment** (Ainsworth et al., 1978) - Baby was upset when the parent left, but okay when they came back. - **Anxious attachment** - Crying as soon as the parent left, and when they came back. - Hurt by the leaving. - **Avoidant attachment** - Parent left, baby noticed they left, and they masked distress. - Our adult relationships are based on the same principles for understanding interpersonal relationships and regulating stress. - Stress/distress/challenge \--\> individual's support-seeking response \--\> attachment figure\'s response (\"responsiveness\") \--\> individual\'s schema (\"attachment style\"). **Attachment Dimensions in Adulthood (Brennan, Clark, and Shaver, 1998)** - Attachment style differences are high vs. low levels of two dimensions (not differences in categories): - **Anxiety** - \"I often worry that my romantic partners don\'t really love me.\" - \"My partners are often reluctant to get as close as I would like.\" - \"I think about how my romantic partners could suddenly end our relationship.\" - **Avoidance** - \"I am not very comfortable having to depend on romantic partners.\" - \"I find it difficult to trust my partners completely.\" - \"I am uncomfortable having my partner depend on me.\" - Dimensional model: - We are higher or lower in attachment anxiety and avoidance. - Security is both low in attachment anxiety and avoidance at the same time. - Most people are secure. - Built on how you think other people can support you and how you think you can support yourself. - **Attachment patterns of Harry, Ron, and Hermione:** - **Harry:** Positive model of the self, negative of others - low in anxiety, high in avoidance. - **Ron:** Negative model of the self, positive of others - high in anxiety, low in avoidance. - **Hermione:** Positive model of the self, positive of others - low in anxiety, low in avoidance. **What Does Our Attachment System Do?** - Attachment system in our heads: - It is not the same thing as personality. - You are not constantly those beliefs. - Attachment in relevant context activates the attachment system: - You have a strategy in your head of how to get support, but you only need it when you are trying. - The attachment system is activated in contexts of: - **Individual threat:** Feeling sick, tired, afraid, overwhelmed (e.g., in a haunted house). - **Relationship threat:** An attractive alternative, conflict (e.g., an attractive waiter or a disagreement about the future). - **Relationship-bonding:** Needing/giving support (e.g., relationship milestones). - Guides the individual\'s perception and response: - The beliefs that we have in our head change the things we see, feel, and do. - If you are high in attachment anxiety, you might misinterpret your partner\'s actions as unfaithfulness. - The attachment system guides thoughts, feelings, and behaviors towards the context/threat, self, and the other person (\"the attachment figure\"). - From this response, you get the romantic partner\'s response. - Responsiveness (or lack of it) is incorporated into attachment knowledge. **Examples of Attachment-Relevant Situations:** - **Low in both attachment anxiety and avoidance:** - Someone wants a hug \--\> response is to ask for a hug \--\> partner responds by giving a hug. - **High in attachment anxiety:** - Someone wants a hug \--\> heightened displays of emotion or just hugging without asking \--\> partner\'s response varies \--\> feeds into belief of self-worth. - **High in attachment avoidance:** - Someone wants a hug \--\> waits for partner to notice \--\> partner does not notice \--\> reinforces belief of self-reliance. **Research on the Attachment System in Action:** - **Simpson, Rholes, Nelligan, 1992; Rholes, Simpson, Orina, 1999:** - Take one person away, stress out one partner, then observe how the couple interacts once they are back in the room with the partner. - Measure support seeking and reaction to support provision. - Analyze links between attachment and these behaviors. - Example: bring a couple into a lab, stress out one partner, and observe their interactions. **Can Attachment Style Change?** - **Updating the attachment system:** - People can become more secure over time with responsive partners. - People can consciously work towards being less anxious and less avoidant over time. - The attachment system is adaptive and responds to the environment. **Extending the Attachment System:** - **Kaupapa Māori concepts of attachment:** - Expand understanding of relationships more broadly. - Attachment models deal with various types of relationships - family, friends, and even lineage. - You have attachments to places and environments. **Summary:** - The attachment system is our cognitive infrastructure for learning how to connect with others. - Differences between people\'s attachment styles fall along two dimensions - avoidance and anxiety. - In times of distress (e.g., stress, fear, sickness), people\'s attachment systems are activated, prompting characteristic patterns of affect, cognition, and behavior. - We update our attachment style with new experiences (often self-reinforcing, but it can change). **Interpersonal Support** **The Importance of Relationships** - **Close Relationships**: - **Definition**: Enduring connections involving strong, frequent, and diverse interconnections. - **Enduring**: Long-lasting. - **Strong**: Emotional and evaluative, making them feel important. - **Frequent**: Can include texts, emails, phone calls. - **Diverse**: Interacting in various contexts. - **Interconnections**: Deep understanding of each other. - **Significance**: - Viewed as a priority. - Considered the most meaningful part of life. - Central to happiness. **Impact of Social Relationships on Health** - **Meta-Analytic Review**: - Analysis of 148 studies with 308,849 participants. - Findings: Social connections are protective against cardiovascular disease, poor health, depression, anxiety, and suicide. - People with close relationships were 20% more likely to survive; with strong social support, 90% more likely. - **Dunedin Study**: - Longitudinal study tracking 1037 people from age 5 to 26. - Findings: Social problems in childhood predicted poor adult health outcomes (blood pressure, cholesterol, BMI). - Controlled for socioeconomic status, health behaviors, and IQ. **Social Support and Health** - **Perceptions of Relationships**: - Close relationships are seen as: - A priority. - The most meaningful part of life. - Central to happiness. - **Health Benefits**: - Reduce stress and detrimental health behaviors. - Promote physical and mental health. - Increase survival rates. **Mechanisms of Social Support** - **Theories on Benefits**: 1. Reduces the negative effects of stress and life events. 2. Engages people in mutual goal development and achievement (Feeney & Collins, 2015; Fitzsimons, Finkel, & vanDellen, 2015). - **Types of Support Behaviors**: 1. **Action-Facilitating Support**: - **Informational**: Advice, suggestions, planning. - **Tangible**: Offers of help or alternative assistance. 2. **Nurturant Support**: - **Esteem**: Compliments, encouragement, praise. - **Emotional**: Empathy, expressions of love, affection, care. 3. **Negative Support**: - Blame, minimizing, invalidation, controlling behaviors. **Effectiveness of Support** - **Dyadic View**: - Partners often provide support without it being requested. - **Study by Cutina, Shaffer, Wesner, and Gardner (2007)**: - Method: Recorded romantic couples discussing personal distress. - Assessments: - **Support Requested**: Asking for advice vs. disclosing emotions. - **Support Provided**: Emotional, informational, or negative. - Outcome: Support recipient rated partner\'s responsiveness. - **Key Findings**: - Effectiveness of support is context-dependent. - Influenced by: - Type of support requested. - Context of the interaction. - Characteristics of the support recipient (e.g., attachment anxiety). **Summary** - Close relationships significantly influence physical and psychological health through social support. - The effectiveness of support behaviors hinges on responsiveness and contextual factors. - Understanding the context and characteristics of the support recipient is crucial for effective support. This comprehensive overview demonstrates the profound impact close relationships and social support have on health and well-being. Effective support hinges on responsiveness and contextual appropriateness, emphasizing the importance of understanding the recipient\'s needs and circumstances. Top of Form **Understanding Aggression in New Zealand** **Defining Aggression** - **Intent and Harm:** Aggression involves the intention to cause physical or psychological harm to another person. - **Examples:** Kicking, threats, yelling, swearing. - **Non-Aggression:** Actions without intent to harm, such as accidental harm or consensual harm (e.g., sports, BDSM). - **Context:** Theories discussed pertain to non-consensual aggression. **Close Relationships and Aggression** - **Intimate Partner Aggression (IPA) in NZ:** - **Prevalence:** - Women \~40%, Non-Binary \~45%, Men \~30% have experienced IPA. - Yearly: Women \~3%, Non-Binary \~3%, Men \~1.5%. - Accounts for approx. half of all violence in NZ each year. - Family violence constitutes about 1/3 of all violence. - **High Reporting Rates:** NZ\'s high rates partly due to comprehensive data collection and relatively strong legal protections (e.g., protection orders, family violence act revisions). - **Lack of Government Intervention Programs:** - NZ lacks specific government treatment or intervention programs for aggression towards partners or family members. **Theories on Aggression** 1. **Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis** - **Origin:** Dollard et al. (1939), Miller (1941), Berkowitz (1989). - **Concept:** Frustration due to goal interference leads to aggression towards the source or a surrogate. - **Example:** Being cut off in traffic leads to aggression towards the driver or someone else. - **Strengths/Weaknesses:** Does not account for individual differences in tolerance levels and reactions to frustration. 2. **Excitation Transfer Hypothesis** - **Origin:** Zillman (1971, 1979). - **Concept:** Heightened physiological arousal from any source increases the likelihood of aggression. - **Example:** Stress from work transferred to aggression towards a driver who cuts you off. - **Strengths/Weaknesses:** Incorporates individual variability in arousal response but assumes all arousal leads to aggression, which is not always accurate. 3. **Person x Situation Models** - **Examples:** General Aggression Model (Bushman & Anderson, 2002), I3 model (Finkel & Slotter, 2009). - **Concept:** Aggression results from the interplay of person characteristics, inhibition reduction, and instigating characteristics. - **Components:** - **Person Characteristics:** Traits like high trait anger, low empathy, psychopathy. - **Inhibition Reduction:** Factors like alcohol use, contextual norms that reduce inhibition. - **Instigating Characteristics:** Situational factors like goal frustration and physiological arousal. - **Example:** High jealousy and low emotional control predict high aggression, regardless of alcohol use. - **Strengths:** Aligns with people\'s experiences of violence and incorporates both personal and situational factors. **Reducing Aggression** **Intervention Targets** - **Instigating Characteristics:** Difficult to eliminate (e.g., traffic frustrations). - Strategies include avoiding specific situations if aggression is context-specific. - **Inhibition Reduction:** Short-term strategies (e.g., reducing alcohol consumption) are less effective. - **Person Characteristics:** Most effective but intensive and slow (e.g., improving emotional regulation and reducing trait anger). **Effective Interventions** - **Attachment Security in Relationships:** - **Couples Therapy:** Programs like Creating Healthy Relationships focus on building healthy dynamics. - Contrasts with the normative response of separation or incarceration. - Aligns with restorative justice principles, promoting reconciliation and understanding. - **Challenges:** - Severe cases of domestic violence pose a significant challenge. - Couples therapy is usually limited to low levels of violence, with no clear solutions for highly violent individuals. **Conclusion** - **Understanding Aggression:** Aggression in NZ is influenced by various factors, including close relationships, societal norms, and individual traits. - **Theories:** Different models offer insights into the causes of aggression, though each has its limitations. - **Interventions:** Effective strategies focus on modifying person characteristics and promoting healthy relationship dynamics, but challenges remain, particularly for severe cases of domestic violence. - **Prosocial Behavior** - **Definition:** - Behaviors intended to help others rather than oneself. - **Altruism**: Helping at a cost to oneself with no expectation of gain. - **Classic Theories on Helping** - **Latane and Darley's Model**: - **Stages of Helping:** - **Attend to the Situation**: Recognize that something is happening. - **Categorize the Situation as Needing Help**: Determine if help is needed. - **Take Responsibility**: Decide that you are the one who should help. - **Decide on a Strategy**: Determine how to help. - **Bystander Apathy**: Refers to failures at the **Take Responsibility** stage. In the famous case where 38 witnesses failed to intervene, the responsibility was diffused among many. - **Cost-Reward Model**: - **Process**: - Psychological response to a situation. - **Categorize Physiological Response**: Distress or empathetic concern. - **Calculate Costs of Helping or Not Helping**: Weighing benefits against costs. - **Bystander Apathy**: This model fails at **Categorize Physiological Response** if distress is misinterpreted or empathy is lacking. - **Empirical Evidence**: - **Smoky Room Study** (Latane & Darley): People are less likely to report smoke in a room if there are others present, illustrating the impact of diffusion of responsibility and lower distress in the presence of others. - **Power and Influence** - **Definitions**: - **Influence**: Changing others' thoughts or behaviors temporarily. - **Power**: Capacity to influence others over time, usually derived from control over valuable resources. - **Theories on Power** - **Agentic-Communal Model**: - **High Power**: Leads to a self-focused, agentic orientation (e.g., pursuing goals). - **Low Power**: Leads to a communal orientation (e.g., focusing on others\' needs). - **Experiments**: Demonstrate that high-power individuals prioritize personal goals, while low-power individuals focus more on helping others. - **Approach-Inhibition Model**: - **High Power**: Promotes approach behaviors (seeking rewards, taking risks). - **Low Power**: Promotes inhibition (avoiding risks, withdrawing). - **Experiments**: High-power individuals are more likely to take advantage of opportunities, while low-power individuals are more cautious and less likely to take risks. - **Integration**: - Both models can be integrated, as high power generally leads to approach behaviors and self-focus, while low power leads to inhibition and other-focus. These models can complement each other in understanding how power affects behavior. - **Application to Relationships** - **Dyadic Model of Power**: - **Two Low Power Individuals**: Both inhibit behaviors to avoid conflict. - **Two High Power Individuals**: Both pursue their goals while also supporting each other\'s needs. - **One High Power, One Low Power**: The high-power individual pursues their goals, while the low-power individual supports the high-power partner\'s needs and inhibits their own goals. - **Helping in Relationships**: - Power dynamics significantly affect helping behaviors. Those with higher power might focus on their own needs, while those with lower power may prioritize supporting their partner's needs. - **Summary**: - Theories on prosocial behavior and power highlight the complexity of how we act in social situations. Power influences whether individuals are more self-focused or other-focused and can affect the likelihood of helping or inhibiting behaviors. In close relationships, these dynamics shape how individuals support each other or suppress their needs based on their relative power. - **Considerations**: - The impact of power on prosocial behavior depends on both individual characteristics and the nature of the relationship. Understanding these dynamics can help in designing interventions for aggression and improving relational support systems. Bottom of Form