Term
| 5 Factors that Predict Initial Attraction |
|
Definition
1. Proximity
2. Similarity
3. Physical Attractiveness
4. Reciprocal Liking
5. Barriers |
|
|
Term
Proximity
(Initial Attraction Predictor) |
|
Definition
more likely to date someone who is next door than a few blocks away.
Physical distance-physically how close to other person
Functional distance-how functionally close to other person (close to mailbox, more likely to see them) |
|
|
Term
Similarity
(Initial Attraction Predictor) |
|
Definition
more likely to see someone if similar in interests & experiences, demographics, attitudes & opinions & personality, and level of physical attractiveness.
Like others who are similar b/c of social validation (they make us think we are right, which feels good) |
|
|
Term
Physical Attractiveness
(Initial Attraction Predictor) |
|
Definition
we like attractive people.
there are universal things that make someone physically attractive |
|
|
Term
Reciprocal Liking
(Initial Attraction Predictor) |
|
Definition
liking others who like us.
we prefer relationships that are psychologically balanced |
|
|
Term
Barriers
(Initial Attraction Predictor) |
|
Definition
the "hard to get" effect.
prefer people who are moderately selective instead of nonselective or overly selective |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends and romantic partners.
if initially dislike person, proximity can increase disliking.
if initially like or feel neutral about person, proximity increases liking |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
more often we see some stimulus, the more we come to like that stimulus (unless over exposed).
more exposures->higher fluency (the ease w/ which our brain processes something)->more liking |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
we tend to associate physical attractiveness w/ other desirable qualities.
attractive people are judged to be smart, happy, well-adjusted, socially-skilled, confident and assertive |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| people are more likely to become romantically involved w/ others who are roughly equivalent in their level of physical attractiveness |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
when a valued freedom is threatened, we assert ourselves by "over-desiring" the hard-to-obtain object.
explains why secret relationships can be so thrilling (can increase liking even more) |
|
|
Term
| How could self-fulfilling prophecies relate to attraction? |
|
Definition
| attractiveness is socially important for men just as it is for women |
|
|
Term
| What is a balanced relationship? |
|
Definition
both you and other person like each other.
all feelings are the same or positive |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
economic model of relationships.
Satisfaction->will be highest when the relationship is more rewarding than it is costly, and it is more rewarding than we expected this type of relationship to be.
Commitment->will be highest when our satisfaction and our investment level are high, and when we do not believe there is a better alternative relationship or situation for us |
|
|
Term
| Social Exchange Theory...the way people feel about a relationship depends on: |
|
Definition
1. their perceptions of the rewards and costs of the relationship
2. the kind of relationship they think they deserve
3. their chances for having a better relationship with someone else (or alone)
4. Investment in the relationship |
|
|
Term
| Social Exchange Theory...Key Elements |
|
Definition
1. Rewards (+)- pos., gratifying aspects of the relationship. (predicts satisfaction)
2. Costs (-)- things we don't like about our partner (predicts satisfaction)
3. Comparison Level (-)- our average expectation about the rewards and costs we are likely to experience (predicts satisfaction)
4. Comparison Level for Alternatives (-)- our expectations about the rewards and costs we wold likely experience in an alternate relationship. (predicts commitment)
5. Investment (+)- what we have out into a relationship that we can't recover if the relationship ends. (predicts commitment)) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
most satisfied when ratios are similar for each member of the relationship (you get what you give).
your benefits/your contributions=your partner's benefits/contributions |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
what is give into a relationship you should also give in.
usually b/w strangers and casual acquaintances |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
you care more about the person's needs than equity concerns.
governed by responsiveness to each others' needs over time.
usually b/w close friends, family members, and romantic partners. |
|
|
Term
| Dissociation Model (Automatic & Controlled Components) |
|
Definition
Automatic process: Stereotype Activation
-universal stereotypes for different groups are automatically activated whenever a cue is present, regardless of personal prejudice level (ex. italians-like soccer, emotional, mafia connections, love pasta)
Controlled process: Stereotype Application
-once a stereotype is activated, people can control the application of the stereotype. can still sometimes be applied b/c of motivation and ability |
|
|
Term
| Dissociation Model Research Conclusions |
|
Definition
Study 1. we all have stereotypes, but only some people are prejudiced (endorse stereotypes)
Study 2. Thinking about some of the content of a stereotype can automatically trigger thoughts about the stereotype in general, which can be automatically applied to targets
Study 3. If motivated and able to control prejudice, people are able to do so |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the more you try not to think about something, the more you think about it |
|
|
Term
| Stereotype Suppression Study (Macrae, et al.) |
|
Definition
1. showed participants picture of Ian, a skinhead
2. told participants to write about a day in the life of Ian
a. 1/2 given no add'l instructions
b. 1/2 told to suppress stereotypic content
Results: control participants wrote very stereotypical stories, suppress participants did not |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| any act performed w/ the goal of benefiting another person |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| helping out of the desire to benefit another person w/ no benefit to oneself (ex. giving blood, toys for tots) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| helping another person to ultimately benefit oneself |
|
|
Term
| Evolutionary Explanations of Why People Help |
|
Definition
1. Kin Selection
2. Reciprocal Helping
3. Learning Social Norms
4. Ingroup Bias |
|
|
Term
| Kin Selection (Evolutionary Explanation of why people help) |
|
Definition
idea that behaviors that help a genetic relative are favored by natural selection.
Helping relatives before strangers better ensures the survival of our own genes.
ex. people are more likely to search for family members in a fire than for friends |
|
|
Term
| Reciprocal Helping (Evolutionary Explanation of why people help) |
|
Definition
we help others b/c we believe that doing so will help increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future.
Norm is so strong that some believe it may genetically based. |
|
|
Term
| Learning Social Norms (Evolutionary Explanation of why people help) |
|
Definition
people are generally predisposed to learn social norms.
Learning social norms gives people a survival advantage. |
|
|
Term
| Ingroup Bias (Evolutionary Explanation of why people help) |
|
Definition
we prefer to help others in our ingroup.
In early days, your group was probably composed mainly of family members |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the idea that much of what we do stems from the desire to maximize our rewards and minimize our costs.
argues that altruism doesn't exist. people help when the benefits outweigh the costs |
|
|
Term
| Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis |
|
Definition
| the idea that when we feel empathy for a person, we will attempt to help that person for purely altruistic reasons, regardless of what we have to gain. |
|
|
Term
(Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis)
If empathy is high... |
|
Definition
| cost to self should not matter, empathy alone should trigger helping behavior |
|
|
Term
(Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis)
If empathy is low... |
|
Definition
| cost to self should mater, should only help when cost to self is low |
|
|
Term
| 5-Step Model (Latane and Darley) that predicts when people will help |
|
Definition
1. Notice the event
2. Interpret the event as an emergency
3. Assume responsibility
4. Know the appropriate form of assistance
5. Implement decision |
|
|
Term
1. Notice the Event-Problem
(Latane and Darley 5-Step Model) |
|
Definition
Not noticing the event.
will you stop and help if you are late, on time, or early to an event? |
|
|
Term
2. Interpret the Event as an Emergency-Problem
(Latane and Darley 5-Step Model) |
|
Definition
Not thinking it's an emergency.
when unsure of what's going on, use other people to help us define reality. (we freeze up. others looking around, assume this means nothing is wrong).
Pluralistic Ignorance-phenomenon by which bystanders assume that nothing is wrong in an emergency b/c no one else looks concerned |
|
|
Term
3. Assume Responsibility-Problem
(Latane and Darley 5-Step Model) |
|
Definition
Not Assuming Responsibility.
Diffusion of Responsibility-as the # of bystanders increases, each bystander's individual sense of responsibility decreases.
may thing others have already helped or about to help. |
|
|
Term
4. Know the Appropriate Form of Assistance-Problem
(Latane and Darley 5-Step Model) |
|
Definition
Not knowing what to do.
if you see someone collapse, give CPR?..call for help?
Bystanders who feel they have special skills to aid in an emergency are more likely to directly help |
|
|
Term
5. Implement Decision-Problem
(Latane and Darley 5-Step Model) |
|
Definition
Deciding not to help.
Costs may outweigh the benefits of helping.
Possible danger to self.
Legal concerns (do more harm than good since not qualified).
Audience inhibition (helping may make you look foolish in front of other people). |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the greater the # of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help.
Stage 3: Assume Responsibility, 5-Step Model |
|
|
Term
| Diffusion of Responsibility |
|
Definition
as the # of bystanders increases, each bystander's individual sense of responsibility decreases.
Stage 3: Assume Responsibility, 5-Step Model |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
phenomenon by which bystanders assume that nothing is wrong in an emergency b/c no one else looks concerned.
Stage 2: Interpret the Event as an Emergency, 5-Step Model |
|
|
