Social Psych   Dr.  Laugel   

Ch 8  Close relationships   
concept of interdependence, mutual influence; chimps get excited at reunions too
family is first set of interpers relationships; early attachments, role in later life
styles of attachments:  
-- secure leads to high self-esteem, c/w ccommitted relationships thru life
-- fearful-avoidant, avoid close relationsships
--preoccupied attachment style:  -ve self  image + high interpers. trust; clingy but expect rejection
--dismissing attachment style:   high selff-esteem but low interpersonal trust; feel deserve best but
 expect worst   from relationships
(therefore shy away from close ipr's
in the family, adolescents pretty much enjoy their  families.   
sib relationships:  grow apart in adolescence, reconnect in middle age often  
friendships:  close friendships have fun together etc; refer to "we did ...", not just "he and I"  
culture:  Japanese notion of close friendship incl  reciprocity, easy to be with, humble other;  
western style more spontaneity and activity is preferred than Japanese
Gender:  females more emotionally supportive, self-disclosure than males 
differences in topics discussed  (males:  talk about women, drinking, being 
trapped in relationships, sports)

loneliness:   failure to regulate relationship quantity (fewer than desired)
is unpleasant, leads to pessimism, stress, dissatisfaction etc; worse health and life expectancy
why lonely?    genetics(twin studies); attachment styles (expect rejection), 
lack of social skills (maybe  lack of early sibling relationships)  
to reduce:  learn social skills; be interested in others etc

externally-induced loneliness  moving, social rejection from prejudice etc; the 
belief that one is disliked by the group induces low feelings etc  (social rejection)

Romantic relationships:   principles apply equally to hetero and homosexuals
remember why relationships begin to begin with, even without romance:  
 arousal, need for affiliation, proximity, being attractive, similarity, mutual liking etc
co-workers:  many opportunites for interx, etc  
the "three schema " approach to romantic relationships:   
self, partner, relationship  (each party has these three schemas)
role of illusions (women do this more than men until the relationships get strong)
genders want different things:   males want youth, attractiveness; 
females want to status, resources; both want kindness, faithfulness, personality, intel
Love:  c/w increases in self-efficacy; love is more than 
close friendship, more than simple sexual interest 
(Diamond:  sexuality diff than romance; might be diff cns events, women, more oxytocin, 
more widespread activation in brain during sexual beh; women might closely associate 
relationship and sex than males do)
sex  gonadal steroid mediation; commitment and romance,
 more c/w opiates, other peptides, catecholamines in brain
social psychologists can study love using observation of dating couples in bars, restaurants etc, 
and questionnaires
Passionate/companionate love (two types of love)  (passionate very emotional) 
unrequited love, more common with conflicted attachment style; happens more to men than 
women early in adol or early adulthood
Hatfield and Walster:  love, three components:   culture, appropriate other, arousal
origin of love:  Freud; evolution, to raise offspring;  lust and interpers commitment; genetics, cns effects
suspension of comparison etc
love styles:  possessive, game-playing, logical (partner is sensibly chosen), selfless
Sternberg's triangle model:  intimacy, passion, commitment are the three 
components, can mix to provide different types of love
consummate love, all three are present for Sternberg
attractiveness matters too

love and sex:  variability among different individuals ;  decrease in recent decades due to disease, 
pregnancies in teenagers, feel forced into it.  

Marriage:  successful or not;  Galton:  similarity of married couples; degree of similarity is pretty impt (based
on research).    half end in divorce   is better to be married for happiness but for women marriage quality is 
more impt than for men (for men, more just married/not married)
Gay marriage:   favored by younger people; for this reason it will become more widely accepted with time,
but is not yet widely accepted.    As young people begin to vote more, etc etc.  
three impt factors:  similarity, personality, sex 
personality factors:  narcissism, attachment styles  (secure best, then dismissive; preocupied and fearful-avoidant
styles worst bet for lasting marriage.   
expressions of anxiety, fear, anger reduce chances for succes .  Keep these  things to yourself; as love fades 
naturally,etc., the relationship may be more vulnerable when these things happen.  Be politic. 
sex: men see as more impt than women do; fades over first few yrs

other factors affecting marriage outcomes:  
role of careers; passionate love fades, companionate takes over;  companionate love impt 
for both men and women
dual-careers, very difficult, not clear  how to deal with 
higher on companionate love, children are less stressful and destructive on a marriage 
 (children can interfere with sexuality, decrease marital satisfaction)  
changes in family :  single parents more common these days  

relationship  dissolution:   principle of least interest
cost/benefit analysis    communal behavior:   cost for one partner is a benefit for the other; this orientation is good

problems:  partner's negative traits become less tolerable; good reason to be aware of dissimilarities at outset
jealousy: gender  dif's :   male, c/w cuckolding; female, c/w emotion
conflict is inevitable in marriage.  Incidentally, living together before marrying doesn't affect marriage
dealing with problems:    four patterns   avoidance (change subj etc), direct negative interactions, indirect
negative interactions, constructive (leads to best conflict resolution)
Causes of +ve affect are good/causes of -ve affect are bad.    Decrease -ve affect, really good  idea in marriage
active responses to discord, can lead to dissolution;  possive, wait and hope
how to fix a deteriorating relationship:    determine that each others' needs can be met, be committed, and 
lack of alternatives (eg other lovers)  
effects of divorce on children; still divorce might better than children living with jealousy, anger, criticism 
floating all over the house

Ch 9  Social Influence
from mild (conformity) to severe  (obedience), and in between
Conformity:  follow the group;  
norms:    injunctive (shoulds), sometimes specified on signs, etc, or implicit (shouldn't spit, litter)
Asch's conformity research ; 76% conformed at least once in line-length estimates
moderators:  ally, secret ballot, public vs private acceptance 
cohesiveness, more conformity; grp size, more induces more conf; up to 3 or 8

descriptive social norms, (usual beh); inunctive norms  (what is clearly expected but not clearly specified)
normative focus theory to predict when inunctive norms are followed  (see someone picking up trash,
people are less likely to litter)  
situational norms (be quiet in church or library, louder in a crowded stadium).  Activate schema, behavior is 
appropriately moderated 

Why conform?   normative social infl:  for approval; desire to be right (social comparison)
Conf can have nasty effects when the group  is conforming to bad morality/ethics

sometimes, resist conformity:  individuation;  more Asch line-lengh conformity in Collectivist culters vs. indiv.
personal control:   reactance;  and, sometimes not possible to conform  (homosexuals; handicapped; for one 
reason or other, cannot follow the social norms)

minority influence:  Moscovici research, idea of idiosyncracy credits; consistency, lack of rigid dogmatism, 
not too severely out of the norm.   
Minorities often have lack of pluralistic ignorance (they overestimate degrees of acceptance of their  views, 
which might actually help  them be more determined and successful, etc).  Minorities can induce systematic
processing (vs peripheral)

Compliance:  a step up from conformity in strength
six influences based on observations of business techniques and strategies, etc:  
a) friendship/liking; b) commitment/consistency; c) scarcity; d) reciprocity; e) social validation; 
f) authority (Cialdini)
ingratiation/flattery;  convince that you are similar to me
foot-in-door and lowballing  (based on  b above)
door-in-face, "that's not all":   based on d 
hard-to-get (hire me!), fast-approaching-deadline  (based on  c)
social validation, do what you think others do  

symbolic social influence  (people aren't really physically present)
relational schemas :  "what would ____ think?"      (father, friend, etc)
think about friend (put into a "think about friend" schema)  more likely to agree to help)

Obedience:   Milgram fake shock study 65% total 450 v to innocent victim, 30% in hand grasp shock-plate
why:   E takes responsibility; insignia, badges of status; gradual nature of expt; fast accelation of situation
reduce obedience:   reduce perception of authority; models who refuse; undermine legitimacy of authority;
aware of psychological power games being played.  

Other tactics to gain compliance, in workplace:   rational persuation; inspirational  appeal to ideals;
consutative (participate in decision-making); ingratiation; exchange; personal appeal  to friendship;
coalition bldg ("others have already agreed ...."); legitimating ("I'm your boss"")  ; pressure (demands, 
threat, intimidation etc) 
sometimes reactance makes persuasion attempts fail

--end