Automaticity is when our mind processes or does something without needing higher level thought processes.

Affect and emotion are both somewhat automatic reactions that occur in response to something specific. We generally cannot control them and our brain does it automatically.

• They are money, good jobs, happy marriages, etc.
• There is a small influence. People with more money WILL be happier, but by very little.
• Children. Children make people unhappy. Because they are little, evil, sticky, messy, spoiled spawns of Satan. Never have kids.

What is the hedonic treadmill?

An example?

This theory claims that people will remain at the same level of happiness no matter what happens to them (regardless of objective factors).

I got a pay raise at work and am super happy, but after my first paycheck I'll go back to normal.

• You can hide/repress your anger (very bad), vent anger (through verbal expression or violent action), or you can get rid of anger (by any means necessary; deep breaths to relieve arousal, cognitive changes, behavioral changes).
• Venting is not very successful at all.
• Ridding oneself is the best (exercise helps a lot)

• The only times emotions change behavior are when the person wants to escape it (such as sadness). Sadness does not cause sad behavior, it instead causes people to partake in something that they think will help them escape (helping people to make themselves feel better).

I just wanna say I don't really agree with this.... I think happiness would definitely directly cause you to act "happier" and more friendly/socialable/open ot people around you, and sadness does the opposite.

• Since affect is a very quick, automatic response, this claims that people look to their affect to define whether or not something is good or bad. "How do I feel about it?"
• This is the ability to accurately predict your emotional response to an event (getting first prize, getting fired, married, etc.)

• This theory operates on the beneficial effects of a positive mindset
• When one feels joy/happiness, the feel the urge to become more creative and broaden their mind set, in turn building physical, intellectual and social resources

• Arousal is good and can help us benefit, but too much is bad.
• Ex: Nervousness for a test is good, the physical arousal can motivate us to study and get to work. But too much is detrimental and will make you perform badly.

• Single: measures attitude toward a specific object (old instead of young vs. old)
• Personalized: measures whether associations are truly automatic attitudes (instead of pairing things with good and bad, paired with "I like" and "I don't like"
• Regular: not sure what it is, but it's the best fuck yeah regular

• This thoery claims that people will come to like something from merely being exposed to it a lot.
• This is not true when you initially dislike something. If you dislike something and are repeatedly exposed to it, you'll hate it more. Same with threatening stimuli

• The theory that the more people relfect on their attitudes, the more extreme they become.
• The more they think about something, the more extreme they become and they're more likely to believe "they were right all along."

• Remember P-O-X
• The idea that relationships among one person, the other person, and an attitude object (where the fuck did the x come from?) are balanced or unbalanced.
• Ex: you like your professor (+), but you hate exams (-) but they like them (+).
• Multiply the signs together. If +, balanced. If -, unbalanced.

• Theory is that conflicting thoughts cause psychological discomfort (I don't like wheat bread but I just bought it and ate it... wtf man? or I dislike social psych but I'm in this class..)
• Festinger found that attitudes change easier than behaviors
• Led to effort justification: people who gave up more/performed a bad task for small rewards will work harder to convince themselves it was worth it

• People want to maintain a good reputation
• Ex: if you write something that goes against your beliefs but you keep it private, not bad. If you write something that goes against your beliefs and it's seen, you'll change your attitude to match it.

• Men = yes! Attitudes of sexual behaviors accurately represent what they do. If they like the idea of homosexuality, they're probably done what what in the butt. If they believe in condoms, they probably always use a condom.
• Women = no! If they like the idea of lezzing out, doesn't mean they've done it a lot. If they believe in condoms, still probably don't use them often.

• Depends. The automatic system believes anything it hears. However the deliberate system can override this, but this requires time and effort. Since most people are lazy and stupid, yes we're naive.
• BP is once beliefs are formed, they are resistant to change, despite any evidence put up against them.

• Normative: going along with the crowd to be liked and accepted (they say doing a wheelie on my motorcycle is cool so I'm gonna do it yo).
• Informational: going along with a crowd because you think they know more than you do; people first (think of Asch's line test)

Normative is stronger

• Once people make a commitment, they feel pressure (from themselves AND others) to behave consistently with it
• Ex: I'm gonna start running four days a week AT LEAST and I told all my friends my goal. Fuck now I gotta actually do it so I don't look like a loser

• Rare items/events/opportunities are more valuable
• If one of these pops up, you're going for it dude.

• With an strong argument, influencers use the pique technique: they capture the attention through a novel request (spare change vs. 17 cents). With a strong argument, it's easier to capture attention
• With a weak argument, influencers want to distract people with the disrupt then reframe technique: rephrasing the request in backwards way (300 pennies vs. 3 dollars) and then following with embelishment (it's a bargain) manages to distract a person and make it seem great

Define source, message and target factors in persuasion?

What types of sources are the most persuasive?

• Source: the individual who delivers the message (credible and powerful speakers yield more power, along with expertise (practical intelligence), virtuous character and good will)
• Message: presenting cold hard facts or appealing to emotions; can vary this depending on target/person; can use humor or fear to gain trust; stealing thunder (revealing incriminating evidence disproving other things first); providing once side vs. two sides of the argument; repitition
• Target: who they're talking to

Yes, the can actually work. Fear can increase arousal, attention and comprehension, which in turn can result in an attitude change. This will then reduce the fear.

If anything, it result in increased awareness of the risk. 

• The need for cognition depends on the person and is the need they have to want to "think things through" and put in depth thinking into arguments.
• If a person has a high need for cognition, they will be better persuaded by well thought out, extensive arguements. If they have a low need for cognition, they will like quick, shallow agruments.

Resisting social influence. 

• Like medicine, exposing people to enough counterarguments makes them build up a defense. Research: exposing middle schoolers to counterarguments against smoking leads to a more likely chance of them not doing it.
• Forewarning: knowing that an argument/message is coming allows time to defend agains it. Research: high schoolers and not driving. No warning, they were more persuaded. The longer the warning, the worse reception they had of the message.

• It reduces the urge to ask for help because you know you will be in debt
• In increases the urge to help others because you know they will then owe you a favor

• People are forced to choose between a cooperative act an antagonistic act.
• Each one gets you different point.
• To get the most points, you just did whatever the person before you did.
• When both people wanted to cooperate, both succeeded and did very well. However one antagonistic/aggressive person could throw it all off, and it would be an unbalanced tradeoff and often both would end up being antagonistic

• Forgiveness: ceasing to feel angry or seek retaliation against someone who has wronged you
• Benefits: heal relationship
• Downside: might make the person feel okay with wronging you again
• Effects: the wronger will no longer have guilt and the forgiver will be mentally/physically healthier
• Level at which they hurt you can affect forgiveness, along with weakness of relationship

I hate babies.

But no. When adults dropped something, human babies would crawl/stumble over, pick it up and try to give it back. Chimps were all like fuck that you dropped it you pick it up dumbass.

• Genders always help each other out, but in different ways. Guys try to get each other layed and women try to protect each other from getting white girl wasted and hooking up with guys.

• It is the belief that life is essentially fair, and that people get what they deserve and deserve what they get.
• This increases helping because people think that if they help people they will sooner or later get something in return.