NOT QUITE SOCIOLOGY
•SOCIAL PSYCH LOOKS AT THE BEHAVIOR OF INDIVIDUALS IN
SOCIAL SITUATIONS – HOW WE THINK ABOUT, INFLUENCE, AND
RELATE TO OTHERS
•SOCIOLOGY LOOKS AT THE BEHAVIOR OF GROUPS AND CULTURES
AS THEY RELATE TO EACH OTHER AND THEMSELVES
ATTRIBUTION THEORY
•FRITZ HEIDER NOTICED THAT PEOPLE ATTRIBUTE OTHERS’
ACTIONS TO EITHER THEIR PERSONALITY (INTERNAL
DISPOSITION) OR THEIR SURROUNDINGS (EXTERNAL SITUATION)
FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR
•MOST PEOPLE OVERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF PERSONALITY
AND UNDERESTIMATE THE IMPORTANCE OF SITUATIONS WHEN
JUDGING OTHERS
•MOST PEOPLE ATTRIBUTE THEIR SUCCESSES TO THEIR OWN
PERSONALITIES AND THEIR FAILURES TO SITUATIONS
•THE FUNDAMENTAL ATTRIBUTION ERROR OCCURS MORE
STRONGLY IN WESTERN COUNTRIES, ABOUT RECENT BEHAVIOR,
AND ABOUT STRANGERS
RESEARCH
•WHEN PEOPLE WERE TOLD THAT A WOMAN’S ACTIONS WERE PURELY
SITUATIONAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE EXPERIMENT, THEY STILL
ATTRIBUTED HER WARM OR COLD BEHAVIOR SOLELY TO HER
PERSONALITY
•PEOPLE EXHIBIT THE ERROR LESS STRONGLY WHEN THEY WATCH A
FILM FROM ANOTHER PERSON’S PERSPECTIVE
PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
• WHY IS SOMEONE SNAPPING AT YOU? ARE THE AGGRESSIVE? DID YOU DO
SOMETHING? ARE THEY HUNGRY?
• WHAT IS TO BLAME FOR POVERTY? LAZINESS? LOW MINIMUM WAGE?
• WHY ARE STUDENTS FAILING THE NEW STATE TESTS? BECAUSE TEACHERS
DON’T KNOW WHAT THEY’RE DOING? BECAUSE THE TESTS ARE INVALID?
BECAUSE STUDENTS DON’T STUDY?
ATTITUDES
WHAT COMES FIRST, THINKING OR DOING?
ATTITUDES INFLUENCE ACTIONS
•PEOPLE OFTEN ACT IN SUPPORT OF IDEAS THEY LIKE
•ATTITUDES INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR MOST WHEN THE IDEA IS STABLE,
SPECIFIC, MEMORABLE, AND SOCIAL INFLUENCES ARE FEW
•THEREFORE, PERSUADING SOMEONE TO CHANGE THEIR IDEAS CAN
CAUSE THEM TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR
PERSUASION
•CENTRAL ROUTE PERSUASION HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE ARE
ENCOURAGED TO DIRECTLY ANALYZE AND THINK THROUGH AN
ISSUE
•IS LONG-LASTING AND MORE LIKELY TO INFLUENCE BEHAVIOR
•PERIPHERAL ROUTE PERSUASION HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE MAKE
QUICK JUDGMENTS BASED ON INCIDENTAL CUES
ACTIONS INFLUENCE ATTITUDES
•WHEN PEOPLE BEGIN A NEW SOCIAL ROLE (COLLEGE STUDENT,
SPOUSE, BUSINESSMAN) THEY OFTEN FEEL LIKE THEY ARE ACTING
•EVENTUALLY, THEIR ATTITUDES USUALLY SHIFT TO FIT THEIR
ROLES
•PHILIP ZIMBARDO AND THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT
FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR PHENOMENON
•MOST PEOPLE WILL AGREE TO SMALL DEMANDS, AND ONCE THEY
HAVE, ARE MORE LIKELY TO AGREE TO LARGER DEMANDS
•CHINESE USED THIS TO BRAINWASH AMERICANS DURING THE
KOREAN WAR: PRISONERS WROTE A SERIES OF ESSAYS THAT WERE
PROGRESSIVELY MORE ANTI-AMERICAN UNTIL THEY BELIEVED THEM
COGNITIVE DISSONANCE THEORY
•LEON FESTINGER SAYS THAT WHEN PEOPLE’S ACTIONS DON’T AGREE
WITH THEIR ATTITUDES, THEY WILL EXPERIENCE TENSION AND
CHANGE THEIR ATTITUDES TO MATCH WHAT THEY DID
•MORE LIKELY TO HAPPEN IF WE FEEL RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR ACTIONS
•PEOPLE MAY REVISE THEIR MEMORIES OF EVENTS TO AVOID
DISSONANCE
EXAMPLES OF COGNITIVE DISSONANCE
•HAZING MAY INCREASE SOME PEOPLE’S OPINIONS OF
SORORITIES/FRATERNITIES BECAUSE “THE GROUP MUST BE
WORTH IT”
•PEOPLE CHANGED THEIR INITIAL REASONS FOR SUPPORTING THE
WAR IN IRAQ WHEN NO WMDS WERE FOUND
THE ASCH LINE TEST
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND PERCEPTION
TEST 1
•WHICH LINE IS THE SAME
LENGTH AS THE RED LINE?
A
B
C
TEST 2
•WHICH LINE IS THE SAME
LENGTH AS THE RED LINE?
A
B
C
TEST 3
•WHICH LINE IS THE SAME
LENGTH AS THE RED LINE?
A
B
C
CONFORMITY
CHAMELEON EFFECT
•WE USE OUR MIRROR NEURONS TO MIMIC OTHER PEOPLE’S
POSTURE, BEHAVIOR, AND MOODS
•TIED TO ABILITY FOR EMPATHY
•PEOPLE MIMIC MORE WHEN THEY WANT TO FIT IN
•MIMICKERS ARE LIKED MORE THAN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT MIMIC
ASCH’S LINE TEST
•WHEN 5-6 CONFEDERATES OF THE RESEARCHER REPORTED THE
OBVIOUSLY WRONG ANSWER, 1/3 OF PARTICIPANTS WENT
AGAINST THEIR BELIEFS TO CONFORM TO THE GROUP
THINGS THAT INCREASE CONFORMITY
• THE PERSON FEELS INSECURE
• THE GROUP HAS AT LEAST 3
MEMBERS
PRIOR COMMITMENT TO A
RESPONSE
• OTHERS IN THE GROUP WATCH THE
PERSON MAKE THE DECISION
• THE GROUP IS UNANIMOUS
• THE PERSON ADMIRES THE GROUP’S • THE PERSON IS FROM A CULTURE
STATUS
• THE PERSON HAS NOT MADE A
THAT EMPHASIZES FOLLOWING
SOCIAL NORMS
FOLLOWING SOCIAL NORMS
•NORMS ARE (GENERALLY UNWRITTEN) SOCIAL RULES
•EX: FACE THE DOOR OF AN ELEVATOR
•NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE HAPPENS WHEN PEOPLE WANT TO
FIT IN TO GAIN APPROVAL OR AVOID REJECTION
INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE
•SOMETIMES GROUPS PROVIDE USEFUL INFORMATION AND IT
MAKES SENSE TO DO WHAT EVERYONE ELSE IS DOING
•WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO CONFORM IF THE TASK SEEMS
IMPORTANT AND WE ARE NOT SURE OF OURSELVES
OBEDIENCE
STANLEY MILGRAM’S STUDIES
•MILGRAM HAD RESEARCH PARTICIPANTS ACT AS “TEACHERS”
WHO ADMINISTERED ELECTRIC SHOCKS TO “LEARNERS”
(ACTUALLY RESEARCH PARTNERS) WHO GAVE WRONG ANSWERS
•TEACHERS WERE INSTRUCTED TO INCREASE THE SHOCK EACH
TIME DESPITE PROTESTS FROM THE LEARNER
RESULTS
•63% OF PARTICIPANTS OBEYED AND WENT UP TO THE HIGHEST
SWITCH MARKED “XXX DANGER,” DESPITE APPEARING TO FEEL
DISTRESS
OBEDIENCE WAS HIGHEST WHEN…
•THE PERSON GIVING ORDERS •THE VICTIM WAS
WAS NEARBY AND APPEARED
TO HAVE AUTHORITY
•THE AUTHORITY FIGURE
REPRESENTED A PRESTIGIOUS
INSTITUTION
DEPERSONALIZED OR
SEPARATED FROM THE TEACHER
•THE TEACHER DID NOT
WITNESS ANYONE ELSE
DISOBEYING
•MOST PEOPLE WHO PARTICIPATE IN GROUP EVIL (I.E., THE
HOLOCAUST) ARE NOT BARBARIC, THEY ARE FOLLOWING ORDERS
•AUTHORITY FIGURES USING THE FOOT-IN-THE-DOOR EFFECT ARE
MOST SUCCESSFUL AT GAINING COMPLIANCE
PREJUDICE
PREJUDICE VS. DISCRIMINATION
•PREJUDICE IS AN ATTITUDE THAT COMES WITH BELIEFS
(STEREOTYPES), EMOTIONS (USUALLY HOSTILITY, FEAR, OR
ENVY) AND PREDISPOSITIONS TOWARD ACTION
•DISCRIMINATION IS BEHAVIOR
PREJUDICE CAN BE…
•OVERT – AS IN KKK
•SUBTLE – MOST THINK INTERRACIAL MARRIAGE IS FINE,
FEW WANT TO DO IT
•IMPLICIT – PEOPLE MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF IT AND
MAY NOT WANT TO BE PREJUDICED AT ALL
PREJUDICE CAN BE BASED ON….
•RACE
•ETHNICITY
•AGE
•GENDER
•SEXUAL ORIENTATION
•SOCIOECONOMIC CLASS
•RELIGION
•ATTRACTIVENESS
•WEIGHT
WHY DOES PREJUDICE EXIST?
SOCIAL THEORY
•INEQUALITY BETWEEN GROUPS CAUSES BOTH THE “HAVES” TO
RATIONALIZE THEIR SITUATION
•OFTEN USE STEREOTYPES TO JUSTIFY KEEPING THE “HAVE-NOTS”
DOWN
INGROUPS AND OUTGROUPS
•OUR SOCIAL IDENTITY COMES FROM BELONGING TO GROUPS, SO
WE SPLIT PEOPLE INTO
•OUR INGROUP – “US,” PEOPLE WHO HAVE THINGS IN COMMON
WITH US
•AND OUR OUTGROUP – “THEM,” PEOPLE WHO ARE SOMEHOW
DIFFERENT
•INGROUP BIAS IS SHOWING FAVORITISM TO MEMBERS
OF YOUR OWN GROUP
•WE OFTEN DISLIKE OUTGROUPS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO
OURSELVES THE MOST - THINK ENGLISH VS. SCOTTISH
EMOTIONAL REASONS FOR PREJUDICE
•FEAR (AS IN AFTER 9/11)
•ANGER – “SCAPEGOAT THEORY” SAYS PEOPLE MORE WILLINGLY
DIRECT THEIR ANGER AT AN OUTGROUP TARGET
•SCAPEGOAT EFFECT IS INTENSIFIED WHEN PEOPLE ARE
FRUSTRATED ECONOMICALLY OR SOCIALLY
COGNITIVE REASONS FOR PREJUDICE
• CATEGORIZATION – GROUPING THINGS IN CATEGORIES SIMPLIFIES LIFE
• WE OFTEN PERCEIVE OUTGROUPS AS BEING MORE HOMOGENOUS THAN
THEY REALLY ARE (OTHER-RACE EFFECT, AKA OWN-RACE BIAS)
• THIS APPLIES TO OUTGROUP MEMBERS’ PERCEIVED PERSONALITIES,
ATTITUDES, EXPERIENCES, AND EVEN APPEARANCE - LEADS TO
STEREOTYPES
CAN YOU TELL THE PENGUINS APART?
NO? THAT’S THE OTHER-RACE EFFECT
•VIVID CASES – ONE EXTREME EXAMPLE CAN INFLUENCE
OUR PERCEPTION OF AN ENTIRE GROUP
•EX: YOUR CRAZY GRANDPA MAKES YOU THINK ALL OLD
PEOPLE ARE CRAZY
•JUST-WORLD PHENOMENON – WE LIKE TO THINK THAT THE
WORLD REALLY IS JUST AND PEOPLE GET WHAT THEY DESERVE
(EX: DISNEY MOVIES)
•LEADS TO BLAMING THE VICTIM - RAPE VICTIMS OR AIDS
PATIENTS DESERVED THEIR FATE FOR BEING PROMISCUOUS
GROUP INFLUENCE
SOCIAL FACILITATION
•WE TEND TO DO BETTER ON EASY OR WELL-LEARNED TASKS WHEN
WE HAVE AN AUDIENCE OR COMPETITION
•HOME TEAMS W0N ROUGHLY 70% OF BASKETBALL GAMES IN THE
1970S
•RUNNERS RUN FASTER WHEN THEY RUN WITH SOMEONE ELSE
•WE DO WORSE THAN NORMAL ON DIFFICULT TASKS WHEN WE
ARE IN THE PRESENCE OF A GROUP
•HAVING OBSERVERS CAUSES STRESS + AROUSAL , SO THE
YERKS-DODSON LAW APPLIES
•WE ALSO EXPERIENCE EMOTIONAL RESPONSES MORE INTENSELY
IN THE PRESENCE OF OTHERS: PEOPLE LAUGH MORE AT COMEDY
SHOWS WHEN THEY ARE IN A FULL ROOM THAN IN AN EMPTY ONE
SOCIAL LOAFING
•WHEN WORKING WITH OTHERS TOWARDS A COMMON GOAL,
PEOPLE TEND TO DO LESS THAN THEY WOULD HAVE IF THEY WERE
WORKING ALONE
•GROUP MEMBERS FEEL LESS RESPONSIBILITY AND THINK THEIR
CONTRIBUTION IS NOT NEEDED
DEINDIVIDUATION
•SOMETIMES, BEING IN A GROUP ALLOWS PEOPLE TO FEEL LESS
RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY
PROMOTING AROUSAL
•FEELING ANONYMOUS ALLOWS PEOPLE TO DO THINGS THEY
WOULD NOT NORMALLY DO
•EXAMPLES:
•TRIBAL WARRIORS ACHIEVE DEINDIVIDUATION BY PAINTING
THEIR FACES
•THE KKK WORE HOODS
• HENRY IS A WRITER WHO IS SAID TO HAVE CONSIDERABLE TALENT BUT WHO SO FAR HAS BEEN
EARNING A COMFORTABLE LIVING WRITING CHEAP WESTERNS. RECENTLY HE HAS COME UP WITH
THE IDEA FOR A POTENTIALLY SIGNIFICANT NOVEL. IF IT COULD BE WRITTEN AND ACCEPTED, IT
MIGHT HAVE CONSIDERABLE LITERARY IMPACT AND BE A BIG BOOST TO HIS CAREER. ON THE
OTHER HAND, IF HE IS NOT ABLE TO WORK OUT HIS IDEA OR THE NOVEL IS A FLOP, HE WILL HAVE
EXPENDED CONSIDERABLE TIME AND ENERGY WITH NOTHING TO SHOW FOR IT.
• IMAGINE YOU ARE ADVISING HENRY. WRITE THE LOWEST PROBABILITY THAT YOU WOULD
CONSIDER ACCEPTABLE FOR HENRY TO ATTEMPT TO WRITE THE NOVEL. HENRY SHOULD ATTEMPT
TO WRITE THE NOVEL IF THE CHANCES OF IT BEING A SUCCESS ARE AT LEAST:
• 1 IN 10 - 2 IN 10 – 3 IN 10 – 4 IN 10 – 5 IN 10 – 6 IN 10 – 7 IN 10 – 8 IN 10 – 9 IN 10 – HENRY
SHOULD WRITE IT ONLY IF HE IS CERTAIN OF SUCCESS (10 IN 10)
• ROGER, A MARRIED MAN WITH TWO CHILDREN OF SCHOOL AGE, HAS A SECURE JOB THAT PAYS
ABOUT $60,000 A YEAR. ROGER’S WIFE IS NOT ABLE TO WORK. ROGER CAN EASILY AFFORD
NECESSITIES, BUT FEW LUXURIES. EXCEPT FOR A LIFE INSURANCE POLICY HE HAS NO SAVINGS.
ROGER HAS HEARD FROM RELIABLE SOURCES THAT THE STOCK OF A RELATIVELY UNKNOWN
COMPANY X MIGHT TRIPLE ITS VALUE IF A NEW PRODUCT CURRENTLY IN PRODUCTION IS
FAVORABLY RECEIVED BY THE BUYING PUBLIC. IF THE PRODUCT IS REJECTED, THE STOCK MIGHT
LOSE CONSIDERABLE VALUE . ROGER IS THINKING OF INVESTING HIS LIFE INSURANCE MONEY IN
THIS COMPANY.
• IMAGINE YOU ARE ADVISING ROGER. WRITE THE LOWEST PROBABILITY YOU WOULD CONSIDER
ACCEPTABLE FOR ROGER TO INVEST IN COMPANY X. ROGER SHOULD INVEST IN COMPANY X IF THE
CHANCES THAT THE STOCK WILL TRIPLE IN VALUE ARE AT LEAST
• 1 IN 10 – 2 IN 10 – 3 IN 10 – 4 IN 10 – 5 IN 10 – 6 IN 10 – 7 IN 10 – 8 IN 10 – 9 IN 10 – ROGER SHOULD
INVEST ONLY IF IT IS CERTAIN (10 IN 10)
GROUP POLARIZATION
•A GROUP THAT STARTS OFF WITH A MILD OPINION OFTEN
STRENGTHENS THAT OPINION WHEN THEY DISCUSS IT
•PREJUDICED GROUPS BECOME MORE PREJUDICED. NERDS
BECOME NERDIER. LIBERALS BECOME MORE LIBERAL.
GROUPTHINK
•WHEN PEOPLE IN A GROUP VALUE GETTING ALONG WHILE MAKING
DECISIONS, THEY MAY SELF-CENSOR DISSENTING VIEWS OR EXPRESS
SUPPORT THAT THEY DON’T FEEL
•THIS CAN LEAD GROUPS TO MAKE TERRIBLE DECISIONS BECAUSE
EVERYONE THINKS THAT EVERYONE ELSE LIKES THE IDEA
•EXAMPLE: BAY OF PIGS
GROUPTHINK IS PROMOTED BY:
•OVERCONFIDENCE
•GROUP POLARIZATION
•CONFORMITY
•SELECTIVE INFORMATION PROCESSING
GROUPTHINK CAN BE PREVENTED BY:
•ASSIGNING GROUP MEMBERS TO FIND POTENTIAL PROBLEMS
WITH AN IDEA
•GETTING OUTSIDE EXPERT ADVICE
•DIVERSITY
•LEADERS WHO WELCOME DISSENT
CONFLICT AND PEACEMAKING
SOCIAL TRAPS
•SITUATIONS IN WHICH IF EVERYONE ACTS IN THEIR OWN BEST
INTEREST, THE SOCIALLY OPTIMAL OUTCOME WILL NOT OCCUR
•EXAMPLE: PRISONER’S DILEMMA, TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
PRISONER’S DILEMMA
• YOU AND A FELLOW CRIMINAL HAVE BEEN ARRESTED BUT THE POLICE ONLY
HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE TO IMPRISON YOU FOR A MINOR CHARGE FOR 1 YEAR.
• IF YOUR CO-CRIMINAL BETRAYS YOU, YOU WILL BE CHARGED WITH A FELONY
AND IMPRISONED FOR 3 YEARS
• IF YOU BETRAY YOUR PARTNER IN CRIME TO THE POLICE, THEY WILL TAKE A
YEAR OFF OF YOUR SENTENCE (0 YEARS OR 2 YEARS, DEPENDING ON YOUR
FRIEND’S CHOICE)
TRAGEDY OF THE COMMONS
•USED TO EXPLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES SUCH AS
OVERFISHING
•IF EVERYONE TAKES ALL THE FISH THEY WANT, THERE WILL BE NO
FISH LEFT: COLLECTIVELY, OUR ACTIONS MATTER
ENDING SOCIAL TRAPS
•WE ARE MORE LIKELY TO COOPERATE AND GET OUT OF SOCIAL
TRAPS WHEN WE AGREE ON REGULATIONS, COMMUNICATE GOALS
AND ACTIONS, AND MAKE PEOPLE AWARE OF THEIR
RESPONSIBILITIES
MIRROR-IMAGE PERCEPTIONS
•BOTH SIDES IN A CONFLICT TEND TO SEE EACH OTHER AS EVIL
•CAN LEAD TO SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECIES
•EXAMPLE: YOU THINK YOUR TEACHER HATES YOU SO YOU ARE
STANDOFFISH TOWARDS HER. SHE THINKS YOU DON’T LIKE HER
AND IS COLD TOWARDS YOU.
•PEOPLE ARE LIKELY TO SEE THEMSELVES AS VICTIMS WHO ARE
JUSTLY RETALIATING, EVEN THOUGH THEY OFTEN HIT BACK
HARDER THAN THEY WERE HIT
PEACEMAKING: CONTACT
•HAVING FACE-TO-FACE CONTACT WITH AN OUTGROUP MEMBER
IS EFFECTIVE FOR REDUCING PREJUDICE AND HOSTILITY
TOWARDS THEM
•INDIRECT CONTACT (THROUGH MEDIA OR A FRIEND OF A FRIEND)
ALSO HELPS
COOPERATION
•GIVING COMPETING GROUPS A SUPERORDINATE GOAL (A SHARED
GOAL THAT IS BIGGER THAN THEIR DIFFERENCES) ENCOURAGES
PEOPLE TO COOPERATE AND BECOME MORE FRIENDLY
•COOPERATIVE GROUPS REPLACE FORMER INGROUPS AND
OUTGROUPS FOR PEOPLE INVOLVED
EXAMPLES OF COOPERATION
•MUZAFER SHERIF CREATED COMPETITION BETWEEN TWO
GROUPS AT BOY SCOUT CAMP AND THEN HAD THEM TAKE ON
GROUP TASKS THAT REQUIRED THE WHOLE GROUP. BY THE END
OF THE WEEK THEY WERE FRIENDS AGAIN
•PATRIOTISM SKYROCKETED AFTER 9/11
COMMUNICATION
•CAN HELP MOVE US FROM VIEWING CONFLICTS AS WINLOSE TO WIN-WIN
•PROMOTES COMPROMISE
AGGRESSION
CAUSES OF AGGRESSION
•GENETICS (SUPPORTED BY TWIN STUDIES)
•NEUROLOGY – DAMAGE TO LIMBIC SYSTEM, SPECIFICALLY THE
AMYGDALA
•HORMONES – HIGHER LEVELS OF TESTOSTERONE ARE POSITIVELY
CORRELATED WITH AGGRESSION AND AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIOR
INCREASES TESTOSTERONE
MORE CAUSES OF AGGRESSION
•ALCOHOL INCREASES AGGRESSIVE RESPONSES BY INCREASING
THE LIKELIHOOD OF PERCEIVING A BENIGN ACTION AS HOSTILE
•BEING FRUSTRATED BY NOT BEING ABLE TO REACH A GOAL
INCREASES AGGRESSION – FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION
PRINCIPLE
MORE CAUSES OF AGGRESSION
•HEAT IS POSITIVELY CORRELATED WITH AGGRESSION
•AGGRESSION MAY BE LEARNED IF IT IS POSITIVELY REINFORCED
•BEING OSTRACIZED OR REJECTED PROMOTES AGGRESSION
•LACK OF FATHER CARE
•MODELING OF AGGRESSION BY PARENTS WHO USE HARSH AND
FREQUENT PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT AND FREQUENTLY REWARD
TEMPER TANTRUMS
•MEDIA MODELING OF VIOLENCE
ATTRACTION
•MERE EXPOSURE EFFECT – WORKS ON PEOPLE AND OTHER
THINGS SUCH AS MUSIC, STORIES, FOOD, PLACES, ETC.
ROMANCE
•PASSIONATE LOVE INVOLVES PHYSICAL AROUSAL
•PEOPLE WHO ARE PHYSICALLY AROUSED FOR ANY REASON ARE MORE
LIKELY TO ATTRIBUTE SOME OF THAT FEELING TO LOVE AND TO FEEL
LOVE MORE STRONGLY
•GENERALLY DOES NOT LAST FOREVER, WHICH IS WHY SOME
SOCIETIES PREFER ARRANGED MARRIAGES
•COMPANIONATE LOVE – MATURE, DEEP, AFFECTIONATE ATTACHMENT
THAT IS LONG-LASTING
•COMPANIONATE LOVE IS ENCOURAGED BY
•EQUITY BETWEEN PARTNERS, IN CHORES AND RESPECT
•SELF-DISCLOSURE – SHARING INTIMATE DETAILS ABOUT ONESELF
ALTRUISM
SELFLESS CONCERN FOR THE WELFARE OF OTHERS
BYSTANDER EFFECT
•WE ONLY HELP OTHERS IF WE NOTICE THAT THEY ARE IN TROUBLE,
INTERPRET IT AS AN EMERGENCY, AND ASSUME RESPONSIBILITY FOR
IT
•BEING AROUND OTHERS MAKES EACH OF THOSE STEPS MORE
DIFFICULT; THEREFORE, PEOPLE ARE LESS LIKELY TO HELP WHEN
OTHERS ARE AROUND
WE ARE MOST LIKELY TO HELP WHEN
•THE PERSON NEEDS AND
DESERVES HELP
•THE PERSON IS SIMILAR TO US
•WE HAVE JUST WATCHED
SOMEONE ELSE BEING HELPFUL
•WE ARE NOT IN A HURRY
•WE ARE FEELING GUILTY
•WE ARE FOCUSED ON OTHERS
AND NOT DISTRACTED
•WE ARE IN A GOOD MOOD
WHY DO WE HELP OTHERS?
•SOCIAL EXCHANGE THEORY: WE COMPARE THE COSTS OF
HELPING TO THE BENEFITS (DOING GOOD IS INTRINSICALLY
REWARDING)
•RECIPROCITY THEORY – IF SOMEONE HELPS US THEN WE SHOULD
HELP THEM
•SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY NORM – WE SHOULD HELP THOSE WHO
CANNOT TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES (CHILDREN, ELDERLY, ETC.)