social psychology. not quite sociology social psych looks at the behavior of individuals in social...

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY

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?

ATTITUDESWHAT 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 TESTSOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY AND PERCEPTION

TEST 1

•WHICH LINE IS THE SAME

LENGTH AS THE RED LINE?

A BC

TEST 2

•WHICH LINE IS THE SAME

LENGTH AS THE RED LINE?

A BC

TEST 3

•WHICH LINE IS THE SAME

LENGTH AS THE RED LINE?

A BC

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

•THE GROUP IS UNANIMOUS

•THE PERSON ADMIRES THE GROUP’S STATUS

•THE PERSON HAS NOT MADE A PRIOR

COMMITMENT TO A RESPONSE

•OTHERS IN THE GROUP WATCH THE PERSON MAKE THE DECISION

•THE PERSON IS FROM A CULTURE 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 WAS NEARBY AND APPEARED TO HAVE AUTHORITY

•THE AUTHORITY FIGURE REPRESENTED A PRESTIGIOUS INSTITUTION

•THE VICTIM WAS 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 WIN-LOSE 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

ALTRUISMSELFLESS 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.)