ecture 8: Computational approach to close relationship
L
Relationship initiation:what people prefer in partners, how they evaluate options, and why features (similarity, proximity, familiarity) reliably
increase attraction & choice. Focus on attraction, mate value, and desirability to predict who pairs w/ who
Relationship functioning:what happens after bond is formed, why some partnerships remain satisfying vs deteriorating. Focus on satisfaction,
commitment, trust, attachment, responsiveness, support.
Attachment theory:comes from early caregivers, either anxiety (fear of abandonment/doubt of partner’s love) or avoidance (discomfort with
closeness/dependence)
Interdependence theory:relationships are dynamic systems of mutual influence – provide both pleasure (support, companionship) and costs
(conflict, obligations). Dependent on situation and both partners’ choices. Patterns of responsiveness can build trust, commitment, shifts attention
towards long-term welfare. Repeated disappointments erode motivation to invest → more likely breakup. Theory stresses accumulation of everyday
decisions transforming relationships for better/worse.
Computational approach:complementsverbal theory(just describing constructs and using reason informally to derive prediction “people preferkind
partners”, usually too ambiguous/imprecise); specifies in formal terms the information the mind takes in (inputs), the rules or algorithms it applies
(computations) and the resulting thoughts/feelings/actions (outputs). Forces clarity about assumptions, yields quantitative predictions, enables
systematic testing & scaling.
- EX: Desirability as (negative) distance between person's ideal point and a partner’s actual traits in a multidimensional space. Smaller distance =
greater attraction.
Models are:transparentabout what is being computed, generate numeric predictions that can be compared to data (precise prediction + rigorous test),
and can incorporate individual differences by letting diff. ppl. weight attributes differently.
Agent-based models (ABM):agents interact in virtual “mating market.” Researchers observe emergent patterns & compare outcomes with real data.
EX: Explaining positive correlation between attractiveness of couples
1. Matching hypothesis:people seek partners with attractiveness similar to their own.
2. Market-based account(Kalick Hamilton model) says everyone wants most attractive partners, but the most attractive are in highest demand
and pair with one another first, leaving others to pair later. Produces positive correlation.
Can use ABM to implement idea: shows partner-attractiveness correlation; assortative outcomes can emerge w/out explicit matching rules. Lesson: not
that toy model is “true”, but different mechanisms can generate similar population-level patterns, and computational models can help distinguish them by
deriving testable predictions.
More realistic models incorporate reciprocity & limited resources –resource-allocation modelABM. People initially invest effort towards most
desirable, then reallocate towards those who also invest in them. More realistic, turns theoretical assumptions into head-to-head model tests.
Benefits to computational approach:
1.Transparency: precise statements of how inputs map to outputs (no wiggle room). 2.Precise prediction:numeric predictions that can be falsified
and refined. 3.Rigorous tests:with precise prediction afforded by formal math equations, computational models can be tested more rigorously against
real-world data. 4.Applicable at scale:in a way verbal models are not, since they have ability to simulate complex, interdependent social systems
simultaneously (via computer-based simulation)
Lecture 9: Group Processes I
Social facilitation effect:idea that presence of others can enhance performance (cyclists riding faster in competition than alone, children reelingin
fishing line faster with another child working alongside them..)Skilledpool players did better when watched,beginnersperformed worse. General
pattern:presence of others tends to facilitate dominant responses:improves performance on simple/well-learned tasks, impairs performanceon
complex/unfamiliar ones.Mere presence effect:even without interaction, the simple awareness of being observed can heighten arousal, sharpen
attention, and sometimes disrupt performance.Cockroaches:Zajonc first illustrated principle w/ cockroaches, who ran faster through simple runway
with audience, but slower when going through complex maze.Dressing task:Markus asked participants to put on 1) own shoes and clothing
(well-learned task) or lab gear (unfamiliar task). Eitheralone, in front ofattentiveaudience, ormerely presentother. Novel task was completed slower
under observation, especially with attentive audience. Well learned task completed faster, especially w/ attentive observer.Facilitation is ofdominant
response, not performance per se.
Social loafing: tendency to exert less effort when working collectively than working alone, esp. when individual contributions are hard to
identify/evaluate. Process loss: group produces less than the sum of what members would do individually. Likely when 1) individual outputs are
anonymous/untracked, 2) the task is low in personal meaning/importance, 3) group is large or loosely connected, 4) expectations about others’ effort are
uncertain (“someone else will do it”). Fix: make each contribution identifiable, assign clear roles & deadlines, emphasizes the indispensability of each
member’s work, keep teams small, strengthen cohesion/shared norms, provide diagnostic feedback that links effort to outcomes.
Deindividuation in groups:more likely to do things you wouldn’t when in a group. Ex: halloween, groups of kids violated “1 candy” rules more than
alone (group context. Asking for kids names reduced norm violations (Identifiability). Both in a group & anonymous, hallmark pattern of deindividuation,
most norm violations. More severe: violent incidents in Northern Ireland found perps w/ masks → more serious offenses.
Key moderators of deindividuation: salient norms, degree of anonymity, emotional tone of crowd.
Lecture 10: Group Processes II
Social identity theory:in-group favoritism, out-group homogeneity, out-group derogation (less moral or competent)
Minimal group paradigm:Experiment where group membership is created on arbitrary criteria (fav painting of 2). Across many versions, three
allocation strategies are typically contrasted: (1) maximize joint profit (give the pair the largest total), (2) maximize in-group profit (favor your group
member even if the total is smaller), and (3) maximize difference (ensure your group member beats the out-group member by the widest margin, often at
a cost to the total). Peopledonotprimarily maximize collective gain. Instead, choosein-group maximizationoption, sacrificing overall outcomes.
Once a boundary between “us” and “them” is made salient, in-group bias reliably follows.Generalizes a wide range of intergroup
phenomena (sports fandom to high-stakes conflicts) by: categorization (us vs them), identification (I am one of Us), and comparison (how we stack up
against them). Machinery of minimal groups is so basic even the thinnest boundaries set it in motion.
Representative paradigm: infants pick between helper and hinderer of character (bunny) that either agrees with their food preferences or doesn’t.
In-group rabbit causes preferential choice of helper. Out-group rabbit causes choice of hinderer. Reward prosociality toward in-group and tolerate/prefer
antisociality towards out-group.
Realistic conflict theory:conflict arises when groups compete for limited resources, esp. when the resources are zero-sum: one group’s gain =
another’s loss.Robbers Cave Experiment:1st stage:group formation, boys in cabins don’t know about other cabin, participate in cooperative
ctivities, fostered in-group cohesion. Social bonds formed quickly. 2nd stage:intergroup competition, made the boys compete. Quickly hostility between
a
cabins. 3rd stage:conflict reduction,tried to restore harmony. Simple shared contact wasn’t enough, needed to work together towards common goals. By
the end were all gang. Found: situational structures of competition can create prejudice & hostility, mere coexistence/contact isn’t enough to resolve
divisions, what heals is superordinate goals – shared challenges or values that require cooperation & benefit all.
Wisdom of crowds:average guess of ox weight was 1lb off. HOW- every person has “signal” (shared info about target- tends to line up across people)
and “noise”(random over and under shooting, tends to point in different directions). Averaging cancels noise. Random errors offset one another, shared
signal shines through. Key conditions: crowds are wise when a) individual judgments are independent (no discussion), b) diversity of
information/perspective, c) simple, transparent aggregation rule (like mean/median)
When crowds are wrong: Groupthink: pattern of faulty decision making in cohesive groups, where drive to reach consensus >> drive to get it right.
Antecedent conditions: high cohesiveness & insulation from outside input, directive leadership (leaders signal preferred option early), lack of formal
procedures for info search and risk appraisal, high stress/time pressures that favor quick concurrence > careful analysis.When concurrence is goal→
illusions of invulnerability & belief in inherent morality of the group, stereotyping of out-groups, self-censorship, pressure on dissenters, illusion of
unanimity, shallow search (few alternatives considered, weak risk analysis, selective use of evidence, no contingency plans)
Guardrails against groupthink: Leader neutrality @ start, structured dissent (assign devil’s advocate), outside input (bring in independent experts late in
process), clear procedures (w/ written alternatives, risk matrices, and contingency plans before committing)
Lecture 11: Altruism(acts of helping others without apparent self-benefit)
Two emotional responses to others’ distress:personal distress(self-oriented, aversive reaction ex. to relieve one’s own discomfort) andempathic concern
(other-oriented emotion that motivates helping simply to alleviate another’s suffering).Empathy-altruism hypothesis– Elaineexperiment:When
participants felt high compassion—believing they were similar to Elaine—they helped at high rates regardless of the ease of escape. When empathy was
low, participants only helped when escape was difficult (i.e., when they had to keep watching her suffer).High-compassion helping is truly altruistic,
whereas low-compassion helping is egoistic.Carol experiment:hear about girl on radio who was in an accident & needs notes. Students in the
high-empathy condition (told to imagine Carol’s feelings and perspectives) helped regardless of the personal cost, whereas low-empathy students helped
primarily when the cost of refusal was high (Carol will return to class).Empathy plays large role in motivating altruistic behavior. Not for
personal gain.Limits of altruism: people more likely to donate to single person than larger/more urgent problem. Empathy more readily engagedby
specific face & story, triggers affective resonance (can imagine a person’s experience), and perceived efficacy (contribution will directly change person’s
outcome). Large-scale stats elicit psychic numbing (motivation flattens with # of victims) and group-level diffusion of responsibility (surely others will
help).Educatingpeople aboutidentifiable victim effectactually just decreased motivation to help – dampened emotional spark that got them to donate
to individual in the first place.Extraordinary altruism:voluntary, costly aid intended primarily to benefit another, with little or no expectation of
reciprocity or recognition (i.e., gifting a kidney anonymously) people tend to view it as NBD→ shows they view compassion as not simply reserved for
inner circle. These people (antithesis of psychopath) generalize compassion across social distance. 1. Show lower personal distress (stay focused on other
person, without getting overwhelmed). 2. Generosity declines less with social distance (from intimates to strangers). Strangers’ welfare is weighted more
similarly to that of close others.
Effective altruism:grounding charitable action in deliberate reasoning & quantitative evidence about where help does the most good. Recalibrate
moral attention from what moves us emotionally to what matters most in outcomes.Lesson: not a single “best” charity, but a method: compare
opportunities on a common outcome metric, favor interventions with strong evidence and room for more funding, and be willing to change course when
new data arrive. Helps guard against predictable biases that constrain empathy.
Bystander non-intervention effect:the tendency for individuals to be less likely to help when others are present.Good Samaritan study:one
group assigned to talk about parable of Good Samaritan, other assigned to neutral topic. Time pressure varied in 3 groups (already late, had a couple
minutes, or had plenty of time). The degree of HURRY determined whether student stopped to help slumped actor. Emphasizes consideration of personal
cost – altruism is embedded in the moment’s practical constraints. Next - do they interpret situation correctly (if everyone is unalarmed, you will be too-
pluralisticignorance:when you believe privately something is wrong but others’ calm behavior means no action is needed– collective paralysis) EX:
“Smoke-Filled Room Study”: participants alone would report smoke, but those with undercover researchers calm next to them didn’t.
Lecture 12: Aggression(behavior intended to harm another individual,intention > outcome)
Primates:chimps that have intergroup competition exhibit more aggression than bonobos, who inhibit resource-richer areas and tend toward more
affiliative strategies. Male aggression, more for status competition/mate access, female aggression more for defense of self/offspring. Testosterone is tied
to aggression by sensitizing behavior to status challenges, amplifying approach-oriented, dominance-seeking responses that can manifest as aggression
under provocation. Serotonin → inhibits impulsive aggression. (Serotonin more for reactive aggression → receiving serotonergic enhancement caused
high-aggression participants to reduce retaliatory behavior.)
Bobo doll experiment:kids’ aggression was escalated by witnessing adult hit doll, even going beyond adults’ aggression. Exposure to aggressive
models not only activates imitation but also stimulates creative extensions of violence. Imitation decreased with seeing adults punished for aggression,
increased when praised/rewarded.Social learning theory:kids absorb cues abt aggression alongside innate instinct, and these cues to signal whether
aggression is tolerated/rewarded/condemned. Repeated exposure can normalize hostility.
Frustration/arousal-aggression link:Baseball pitchers hit more batters (but not other errors) more on high-heat days. Temperature shown to
increase interpersonal violence and intergroup conflict (El Nino, drought, heat events). Civil conflict is more likely during high-heat years.
Alcohol:biological disinhibition, attentional narrowing, social expectation all altered. Impairs executive control functions, reduced self-monitoring &
sensitivity to consequences. Subtle cues that inhibit aggression (empathy, embarrassment, consideration of others’ perspectives) lose regulatory power.
Placebo alcohol can have the same effect, b/c cultural views that it’s okay to act out when drunk becomes self-fulfilling prophecy. Alcohol weakens
cognitive/social barriers that usually keep aggressive impulses in check.
Violent media:correlation established, but needed experiment for causality:
Kids either assigned to violent police drama or nonviolent (equally exciting) sports event. Kids who watched violent program exhibited way more
aggression when playing after. Boys showed stronger impact than girls.
Culture & Violence:regional pattern in southern/southwestern US of “culture of honor” – high value placed on personal reputation & male toughness,
particularly in response to insult/threat.Where law enforcement was historically weak, men developed reputational systems to deter theft & protect
property. Responding aggressively signaled strength & deterred future offenses.Evidence: Felony-related homicides occur equally across US, but
argument-related homicides are much more common in South & Southwest. Experiment: Southern men would have high rise in testosterone and give less
distance to the next person after being insulted & bumped, whereas Northern men were less reactive & gave more space. High-honor states also
apologize less.Howpeople conceptualizehonorchanges view of apology – if based on morality, apology = good. If based on honor, apology = weak.