Evolutionary theory of attraction
Increased chance of survival associated with the partner based on genes.
Physical appearance: good is an indicator of good health - more fertile. Men care more than women.
Youthful characteristics: Prefer facial features that are youthful
Symmetrical features: More symmetrical faces are more attractive meaning nothing is wrong therefore allowing for more likely to be reproductive
Feminine features
Social status
Biological theory of attraction
- Neurotransmitters cause attraction (Increased norepinephrine causes an increase in adrenaline)
- Increased dopamine responsible for feelings of elation and excitement
- increased oxytocin (Love hormone)
- social origins: environmental factors
- Proximity is the most influential factor for forming a relationship
- social comparison: finding someone more attractive that people they are being compared with
Duck study breaking up
- Intrapsychic: admits to themselves that they are dissatisfied with their relationship, and they spend a lot of time thinking of reasons for this dissatisfaction and possible ways forward, this stage focuses on internal thought processes before confronting their partner.
- Dyadic: Confronts partner and voices dissatisfaction. Lots of complaints made (usually commitment problems). Rethinking of alternatives.
- Social: telling friends, and relatives of distress. More difficult for the couple to mend relationship
Prosocial behaviour
Voluntary behaviour with intent to help someone else
- personal characteristics
- social factors
- Mood has been found to influence these decisions
- competence to deal with the situations
- Altruism is when a person to help others even if the costs out weigh the benefits
- Feelings of empathy is to feel like what the other person is feeling like if we were them
Antisocial behavior
Behaviour that is harmful towards others
- aggression
- prejudice
Reciprocity principle
Do unto others as they do to you, the feeling of owing someone back if they help you
Social responsibility norm
Members of society are expected to provide help when they are in need without expectation of it being repaid including old people and sick people
- Only applies to people who are in a situation where they cannot help themselves through no fault of there own
Darley and Latane (1968)
- Participants were placed in a cubicles connected by an intercom
- discussed different topics om intercom
- Observed how each individual behaved
- One person who was posing as a student said he was prone to seizures
- pretended to have a seizure
- bystander effect occurs when a persons own safety is at risk
Bystander affect
- The bystander effect is the phenomenon in which the presence of people influences someones likelihood of helping another person in an emergency
- As the number of people in an emergency increases, the less likely an individual will help someone in need
Darley and Latane’s 2nd study (1968)
- People were told to finish a questionnaire within a smaller room, as they were completing the experiment smoke would fill the room
- Done with a participant on there own and with a participant with a group of people who were apart of the experiment
- The lone participant left immediately however, the participant in a group stayed for 20+ minutes once she noticed the smoke as no one else was reacting
Bystander intervention model steps
- Notice the event
- Interpret the event as an emergency
- Assume responsibility
- Know the appropriate form of assistance
- Implement decision
(Most stop at stage 3)
Diffusion of responsibility
The tendency for no one to help because the responsibility to help is spread throughout the group
- The greater number of bystanders the less likely any one person will help
Social influence (conformity)
The reaction of bystanders will influence the likelihood of help
- if other bystanders seem unconcerned, potential helpers may perceive the situation to warrant assistance
- If the crowd appear concerned the person will help
Audience inhibition
The presence of other bystanders may make the potential helper self-conscious and inhibit helping behavior. This is the fear of ‘social blunders’ where they are afraid that others will judge them based off of mistakes they may make
Cost-benefit analysis
- Physiological arousal: triggered by seeing victims distress, greater arousal leads to greater chance to help
- Labelling the arousal with a specific emotion: May be personal distress (feeling of tension or distress when someone else is in distress, action for themselves) or empathetic concern (recognizes someone else’s emotional state and expresses appropriate concern of that state is negative,
- Evaluating the consequences of helping: costs of helping outweigh benefits, costs = more time or effort, greater the costs - less likely a person will help, the amount of distress or potential rewards of helping someone will also enter the equation
Groupthink
Conforming what the group wants in general even if they do not think the idea is good -> can be more extreme then normal decision.
- Highly cohesive: maintaining group harmony is better the making sound decisions
- Leader is directive and makes their opinion known: May discourage other group members to speak up
- Isolated from hearing alternative or new viewpoints: an illusion of unanimity among the group members
- perceived invulnerable or invincible and morally correct
- holds stereotypes of negative attitudes toward the out-group or others with different viewpoints
Bushman (2002)
A meta analysis was conducted across 35 different studies selected tested the correlation between agresmeta-analysission and exposure to violent video games.
General aggression model (2 criticisms and cons)
- Measures of aggression is artificial: different violent and nonviolent video games can’t fully be classified in that way.
- Laboratory results have not translated into real-world, meaningful effects: GAM cannot predict aggression in the online world, consumption of violent video games have increased although delinquency has decreased
- research has failed to control for other variables such as mental health and family life
- GAM fails to fully account for biological and genetic aggression
- GAM suggests that person has limited control over aggression
- Publication bias
- Confounding variables in longitudinal studies
