1. Benefits
    1. Improve
      1. Self-understanding
      2. Social relationships
      3. Intergroup relations
      4. Group performance
      5. Decision making
      6. Life satisfaction
  2. Big Ideas
    1. 1.We Construct Our Social Reality
    2. 2.Our social intuitions are powerful, sometimes perilous
    3. 3.Attitudes shape, and are shaped by, behavior
    4. 4.Social influences shape behavior
    5. 5.Dispositions shape behavior
    6. 6. Social behavior is also biological behavior
    7. 7. Feelings and actions toward people are sometimes negative and sometimes positive
  3. Social Perceptions and Misperceptions
    1. Confirmation Bias 证实性偏见
      1. Comfirmation biases can serve to preserve and strengthen social expectations and stereotypes about women, racial minorities, and other groups.
      2. This tendency is especially strong when people aren't highly motivated to question their beliefs.
    2. Self-fulfilling Prophecies 自我实现预言
      1. Pygmalion Effect 卖花女现象
      2. Security Dilemma 安全困境
        1. World War Ⅰ
      3. Behavioral Confirmation 行为确认
        1. Behavior confirmation tekes place when people’s social expectations lead them to act in a way that causes others to confirm these expectation
        2. It's a social type of self-fulfilling prophecy
        3. Classic experiment: Reaction time contest over 24 trials
    3. Thin-Slice Judgments
      1. May have evolutionary value, such as rapidly identifying
        1. Potential threats
        2. Possible partners
        3. Competent leaders
      2. Our brains may process emotions before cognitions
      3. Thin slices may avoid distractions that lower accuracy
      4. Strengths and Weaknesses
        1. Social judements can take place very rapidly, sometimes with surprising accuracy.
        2. At the same time, they're prone to certain biases and distortions, and once our judements are formed, we tend to lock into them.
  4. Self-Presentation and Persuasion
    1. Attribution Theory: The Whys and Wherefores of Behavior
      1. A theory about how people make "causal attributions", or causal explanations, for behavior
      2. Useful
        1. It can help us avoid conflict
        2. It can improve relationships
        3. It can increase productivity
        4. It can heighten job satisfaction
        5. It can lead to self-understanding
      3. Harold Kelley's Attributional Framework
        1. People usually explain behavior in terms of:
          1. Person→Something about the person in question
          2. Entity→Some enduring feature of the situation
          3. Time→Something about the particular occasion
        2. Causal attributions are based on:
          1. Consensus→Do other people respond similarly?
          2. Distinctiveness→Do other situations elicit the same behavior?
          3. Consistency→Does the same thing happen time after time?
        3. Example
          1. Suppose you were the only person who performed well on a variety of tests over a range of occasions.
          2. That would be:
          3. Low consensus: you're the only such person
          4. Low distinctiveness: it happens with a variety of tests
          5. High consistency: occurs over a range of occasions
          6. In such a case, Kelley would predict a "person attribution"
        4. Salience and Causal Attribution 显著性和归因
          1. In general, the more salient a stimulus is, the more likely it is to be viewed as causal.
          2. Perceptions of causality are partly a function of when one's attention is directed
          3. And attention is in turn a function of salience
          4. Results of the Experiment
          5. Observers tended to rate the person in their visual field as having:
          6. Set the tone of the conversation
          7. Been the one who determined the type of information exchanged
          8. Caused the other person's responses
      4. Some Twists and Turns When Explaining Behavior
        1. Ignore Consensus
        2. False Unique Effect
        3. Fundamental Attribution Error
          1. Tendency for people "to underestimate the impact of situational factors and overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behavior."
          2. True Error, not simply a Bias
          3. East Asians are much less likely than Westerners to commit the fundamental attribution error.
          4. Compared to the East, Western cultures focus more on "rugged individualism"--the self-made person--rather the group.
        4. Actor-Observer Differences in Attribution
          1. The classic finding is that actors are more likely to explain their behavior as a function of situational factors than are observers.
          2. Unlike the fundamental attribution error, the actor-observer difference is simply a bias.
          3. Actors downplay dispositonal explanations, but mainly when the behavior or outcome is negative.
          4. If the behavior or event is positive, this difference often reverses.
          5. Actor-observer differences are often "self-serving biases" in which actors avoid dispositional attributions when the outcome is negative but not when the outcome is positive.
          6. Actors and observers differ in what's salient
          7. To actors, the situation is often most salient
          8. To observers, the actor tends to be salient
    2. Attitude Bone and Behavior Bone
      1. Why So Much Inconsistency?
        1. Maybe journals are reports of consistency
        2. Many attitudes relate to any one behavior
        3. Many behavior relate to any one attitude
        4. Attitude items tend to be more general
        5. Attitudes and behaviors are often elicited under different conditions
      2. Attitude-Behavior Consistency Attitudes and behaviors are most likely to be related when
        1. They closely match each other(e.g., in generality/specificity)
        2. The attitude is strong or potent(e.g., acquired through experience)
        3. The attitude is easy to recall and has been stable over time
        4. People are made aware of themselves and their attitudes
        5. Outside influences are kept to a minimum
    3. Cognitive Dissonance and Self-Perception 认知失调和自我知觉
      1. Key Parts of Cognitive Dissonance Theory
        1. The act of holding two incompatible thoughts creates a sense of internal discomfort, or "dissonance".
        2. People try to reduce or avoid these feeling of dissonance whenever possible.
      2. Key Parts of Self-Perception Theory
        1. Individuals come to "know" their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own behavior and the circumstances in which their behavior occurs.
        2. To the extent that internal cues are weak, ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is functionally in the same position as an outside observer.
      3. Two Flavors of Dissonance
        1. Predecisional dissonance, in which dissonance infuences decisons
        2. Postdecisional dissonance, in which dissonance follows a choice that has already been made, and efforts to avoid or reduce this dissonance affect later judgments
      4. How Universal Is Cognitive Dissonance?
        1. Dissonance does occur around the globe, but the form it takes is somewhat different from country to country.
          1. Westerners tend to be concerned about inconsistencies that might suggest we're incompetent or bad in some way.
          2. Easterners tend to be more concerned about choices and behaviors that could lead to social rejection.
        2. If you want to reduce cheating on things like tax returns or exams, would it be more effective to have people sign a declaration of honesty (an honor code) at the top or bottom of the tax reurn or exam?
    4. Persuasion
      1. If you want to be persuasive, is it good to...
        1. Discuss counter-arguements to your position?
          1. Campaigns often stay on the offensive
          2. It's better to discuss counter-arguments:
          3. When the counter-arguments are salient
          4. When the receiver is highly intelligent or opposed to your position
          5. Two-sided Appeal双面诉求
          6. Raise counter-arguments and then explain why they're not convincing.
          7. Counter-arguments can also build resistance.
          8. If you mildly criticize the position people hold, it's like immunizing them with a low-dose vaccine.
          9. Attitude Inoculation态度免疫
          10. The receiver generates reasons why the objection isn't persuasive.
        2. Use a central (fact-filled) route to persuasion?
          1. Central: Based on facts, statistics, and arguments
          2. Works best when receriver is highly involved
          3. Peripheral: Uses beautiful music, idyllic settings, attractive models, or other incidental cues
          4. Works best when receiver isn't too involved or critical
        3. Scare the receriver with a fear-based appeal?
          1. Fear appeals can be very effective as long as you give people specific steps they can take to avoid whatever the threat is
          2. If you just scare people without saying how to avoid the threat, fear appeals can backfire and lead to denial of the threat
          3. In the case of political ads, the action to take is clear: vote for the candidate, or else!
      2. 6 Scientifically Validated Principles of Persuasion
        1. Reciprocity互惠性
          1. Obligation to give when you receive
          2. Restaurant: Gift with bill
          3. 1 candy: increase 3% tips
          4. 2 candy: increase 14% tips
        2. Scarcity稀缺性
          1. People want more of those things there are less of
          2. The Benefits+What Unique+What they stand to Lose
        3. Authority权威性
          1. People will follow credible knowledgeable experts
        4. Consistency一致性
          1. Looking for and asking for commitments that can be made
          2. Voluntary active+Public commitments
        5. Liking喜欢
          1. People prefer to say yes to those they like
          2. 3 important factors of like someone
          3. People who are similar to us
          4. People who pay us compliments
          5. People who cooperate with us towards mutual goals
        6. Consensus普遍性
          1. People will look to the actions of others to determine their own
      3. The Ins and Outs of Social Influence
        1. Some effective social influence techniques
          1. Asking people to imagine or predict doing something
          2. Telling a stranger your name before making a request
          3. Engaging people in a dialogue rather than a monologue(talking with people rather than at people)
        2. Three of the Most Famous Techniques
          1. The foot-in-door technique
          2. First researched in the 1960s
          3. Premise: People are more likely to comply with a large request after a smaller one
          4. People become, in their own eyes, "the kind of person who does this sort of thing, who agrees to requests made by strangers... who cooperates with good causes"
          5. Consistent with self-perception theory
          6. The technique is most effective when:
          7. The person is labeled helpful or a supporter
          8. The large request seems to continue the small one
          9. The door-in-the-face technique
          10. Main finding: Compliance with a small request is much higher if you can first get someone to "slam a door in your face" with a larger request.
          11. Especially effective when:
          12. The same person makes both requests
          13. The request are face-to-face with no delay
          14. Request are prosocial with same beneficiary
          15. The low-ball technique
          16. Request after people have a agreement
  5. Obedience, Conformity, and Deindividuation
    1. Obedience to Authority
    2. Group Pressure and Conformity
      1. Conformity: a change in behavior or belief as a result of social pressure
      2. Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiments
        1. 18 trials per session, including 12 "critical trials"
        2. Participants gave incorrect answers in the direction of majority(i.e., conformed) on 32% of critical trials
          1. Three out of four participants conformed at least once
          2. One-third of the participants conformed on half or more of the critical trials
        3. Asch varied the number of confederates
          1. One confederate had hardly any effect
          2. Two confederats elicited 14% conformity
          3. Three confederates elicited 32% conformity
          4. Adding more confederateds has diminishing effects
        4. Asch also broke the unanimity of the majority
          1. Conformity fell to roughly one fourth of previous levels
          2. Unanimous majority of three>majority of eight with one dissenter
        5. Asch looked at whether he could increase the difference in line length between the majority's answer and the correct answer so much that no participants conform.
          1. Even when the lines differed by as much as seven inches, some paricipants continued to yield to the majority!
      3. Reasons Why the Conformity Level Seems High
        1. Participants were not members of a cohesive group
        2. There weren't penalties, financial losses, or punishments administered for guessing incorrectly
        3. The correct answers were embarrassingly obvious
        4. The assault on the potential dissenter's judegment reaches an intensity virtually unparalleled outside the laboratory
      4. Meta-Analysis: Asch-Style Confirmity Studies
        1. Women tend to conform somewhat more often than do men
        2. Conformity levels have steadily declined since the 1950s
        3. Conformity increases as the majority size grows from 2 to 13 people
        4. Conformity is more likely when the majority is made up of ingroup members than outgroup members
        5. Collectivist countries show higher rates of conformity than do individualist countries
    3. Deindividuation
      1. The Dynamics of Deindividuation
        1. Deindividuation occurs when "individuals are not seen or paid attention to as individuals. The members do not feel that they stand out as individuals...and there is a reduction of inner restraints against doing various things."
          1. Some of the antecedent conditions that increase the chances deindividuation will occur:
          2. Anonymity
          3. Participants in a room with slightly dimmed lighting cheated more than participants in a well-lit room
          4. Participants wearing sunglasses behaved more selfishly than participants wearing clear glasses
          5. Diffused reponsibility
          6. Group size and group activity
          7. Lynchings tended to become more vicous as the size of mob grow
          8. The Waco Horror
          9. Physical and mental arousal
          10. Altered time perspective
          11. Sensory input overload
          12. Physical involvement
          13. Altered states of consciousness
          14. Meta-Analysis of 60 studies on deindividuation concluded:
          15. Larger groups either induce or facilitate stronger antinormative behavior.
          16. Women were just as likely as men to violate norms when the setting promoted deindiciduation
        2. Positive: Uninhibited dancing, singing, performing
        3. Negative: Lynching, gang rapes, riots, stealing, cheating
      2. The Stanford Prison Experiment
        1. Two Bedrock Principles Governing Research
          1. Informed consent: Researchers must "inform participants about... factors that may be expected to influence their willingness to participate such as potential risks, discomfort or adverse effects"
          2. Right to withdraw: Participants have a "right to decline to participate and to withdraw from the research once participation has begun"
    4. Main Lesson
      1. The main point of Milgram's research wasn't that 65% of people in the baseline condition deliver the highest shock. It's that under certain circumstances, people will obey a stranger's command to harm another person.
      2. The main lesson of Asch's research wasn't that people will conform on 32% of all critical trials. It's that under certain circumstances, people will go along with the group, even if it means contradicting the evidene of their sense.
      3. The main point of the Stanford Prison Experiment wasn't that guards will become abusive 65% of the time, or 32%, or 10%... It's that we need to guard ourselves against situational factors that can lead us to behave destructively.
  6. Group Behavior: The Good, Bad, and Ugly
    1. Group Dynamics and Groupthink
      1. Refers to psychological processes and behaviors that occur either:
        1. Within a group(intragroup dynamics)
        2. Between groups(intergroup dynamics)
      2. Groupthink: Decision making suffers when a cohesive group becomes insulated from dissenting viewpoints, expecially when the group leader promotes a particular solution or course of action.
    2. The Abilene Paradox
      1. When groups of people tale actions in contradiction to what they, as individuals, really want and end up defeating the very purposes they set out to achieve.
      2. Action Anxiety
      3. Negative Fantasy
      4. Real Risk
      5. Fear of Separation
      6. Confusion of Fantasy and Realiy
      7. Blame
      8. Collusion
      9. Blame the Leader
      10. Assess Real Risk of Taking Actions
      11. "Own up" To Our Beliefs
      12. Confront the Group
    3. Categorical Thinking Gives Rise to Prejudice
      1. The Line Between Black and White in the U.S.
        1. Among White American, roughly 1 out of every 100 genes comes from a Black ancestor.
        2. 75-90% of Black American have White ancestors.
        3. On average, Black American have gotten one out of every four or five of their genes from a White ancestor.
      2. Gender Beyond Female and Male
        1. There are cases in which someone is born with XY-male chromosomes but is anatomically closer to female, or XX-female chromosomes but is anatomically closer to male.
        2. A person could be:
          1. Genetically female
          2. Anatomically male
          3. Hormonally female
          4. Behaviorally male
    4. The Minimal Group
      1. Ingroups and Outgroups
        1. An "ingroup" refers to a group that you're a member of, and an "outgroup" refers to a group that you're not a member of.
        2. One person's ingroup may be another person's ourgroup
        3. Focusing on group often:
          1. Changes how we see the individuals or elements within the groups
          2. Leads us to see one group as better or worse than another
        4. Ingroup Bias
          1. "Ingroup bias" is the tendency to favor one's own group or to see it as superior to an outgroup.
          2. Giving more money to ingroup members
          3. Guessing that attractive people are ingroup members
      2. A Minimal Group Classic: Rabbie and Horwitz
        1. Only enough radios for one group
        2. Three experiment conditions:
          1. Change condition--A coin toss decides
          2. Experimenter condition--Experimenter decides
          3. Group condition--One group appears to decide
        3. Control condition didn't mention radios
        4. Students in the experimental conditions displayed ingroup bias, whereas students in the control condition did not.
        5. Students in the experimental group rated:
          1. The ingroup as less likely to be hostile and more desirable to belong to than the outgroup
          2. Ingroup members as more reponsible and desirable as friends
        6. Even a coin toss was enough to trigger ingroup bias.
        7. The results of minimal group research do not mean that prejudice and discrimination are merely a matter of superficial group dynamics. Prejudice is also a function of culture, politics, history, and economics.
        8. Ingroup bias isn't unavoidable or inevitable--there are effective techniques to reduce prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination.
    5. When Intergroup Biases Don't Feel Like Biases
      1. Why Do Intergroup Biases Persist?
        1. One reason is that they're attached to slow-moveing institutions and systems, such as culture, law, and economics.
        2. Intergroup biases don't always feel like they're biases.
          1. The outgroup homogeneity bias
          2. Positive stereotypes and "benevolent" forms of prejudice
      2. The Outgroup Homogeneity Bias
        1. "Outgroup homogeneity bias": A tendency to see outgroup members as more alike than ingroup members
        2. The bias has also been found when the groups differ by gender, age, and religion.
        3. Reduce members of an outgroup to a single identity is just one step away from stereotyping them.
        4. Perceptions of homogeneity might not feel like prejudice, but they can lead to stereotyping and discrimination.
        5. If you flip things around and get people to think about differences among outgroup members, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.
      3. Effects of Thinking About Outgroup Variability
        1. Students were told that they'd be participating in a pair of unrelated experiments on memory and hiring decisions
        2. Three conditions:
          1. Write about how Arabs are similar to each other
          2. Write about Arabs are different from each other
          3. No writing about Arabs (control condition)
        3. In what seemed to be a second experiment, students were asked to evaluate four job candidates for a sales position.
        4. The strongest candidate's CV had a male French name or male Arab name.
        5. Students who wrote about Arab homogeneity or didn't write any sentences discriminated against the Arab job candidate, whereas students who wrote about the variability of Arabs showed no job discrimination.
      4. Are Outgroups Always Seen As Homogeneous?
        1. The effect is strongest when:
          1. The ingroup is relatively large
          2. The ingroup and outgroup are enduring, real-life groups
        2. If the ingroup is small and the attributes in question are important to its identity or stereotypically associated with the group, the effect may disappear or even reverse.
        3. Female nurses tend to see male nurses as more homogeneous than female nurses, but male nurses show an ingroup homogeneity effect.
        4. Male police officers tend to see female officers as relatively homogeneous, but female officers show an ingroup homogeneity effect.
      5. Positive Stereotypes and Benevolent Prejudice
        1. Another way that prejudice and discrimination can occur without it seeming like anything's wrong is through positive stereotypes and "benevolent" forms of prejudice.
        2. Asian people are often stereotyped as being good at math
        3. Hispanic people are stereotyped as being family oriented
        4. African American men are stereotyped as having athletic ability
        5. Women are stereotyped as being more nurturing than men
      6. Ingroup Favoritism and Affinity
        1. Discrimination and bias often have less to do with attitudes toward the outgroup than with ingroup favoritism--that is, preferring the ingroup over the outgroup.
      7. One Last Study on Ingroup Favoritism
        1. Modeled after the experiment on seminary students who were giving a speech on the Parable of the Good Samaritan
        2. British soccer fans answered surveys about their home team, and then had to walk between the Psychology Department and a nearby building.
        3. In a second experiment that was part of the same study, the initial surveys asked about being a soccer fan rather than asking people about being a fan of a particular team.
      8. Intergroup Biases Toward Other Species
        1. Do we see members of another species as more alike from one to the next than they really are?
        2. Do humans show species-based ingroup bias?
          1. Do you think of meat as coming from something or someone?
          2. Do you associate dairy products with a lactating animal?
        3. Does it make sense to talk about prejudice toward animals?
        4. What can we learn from how we think about animals?
  7. Conflict, Peacemaking, and Intervention
    1. Bystander Intervention
      1. How Groups Can Go Up in Flames
        1. When students waited alone, 75% reported the smoke, and half of them reported it within two minutes.
        2. When students waited with two passive confederates, only 10% reported the smoke.
          1. What did they do?
          2. They coughed, rubbed their eyes, and opened the window.
          3. After the experiment, students who hadn't reported the smoke gave a wide variety of explanations.
          4. Some people said they thought the smoke was steam or a vapor coming from an air conditioner.
          5. Others thought it was purposely introduced to simulate an urban environment.
          6. Still others thought the smoke was a "truth gas" piped in by the experiment.
      2. Bystander Intervention and Personality
        1. People who score high in masculinity are less likely to help in emergency situations.
        2. In contrast,femininity does not seem to be significantly related to bystander intervention.
        3. Research on sex differences shows mixed results.
          1. Some studies find no sex differences.
          2. Others find that men are more likely to help women or help in dangerous situations, and women are more likely to help children.
    2. The Triggers of Aggression
      1. Definitions
        1. Aggression is "physical or verbal behavior intended to cause harm".
          1. Hostile aggression springs from anger or hostility.
          2. Instrumental aggression also aims to harm, but mainly as a means to some other end.
        2. Most social psychology research on aggression has to do with things that may or may not cause it, such as violent TV shows, hot weather, pornography and video games.
      2. The Scientific Consensus
        1. In 1972, the US Surgeon General warned of "a causal relation between viewing violence on television and aggression behavior".
        2. In 1982, a report by the U.S. National Institute of Mental Health supported this conclusion.
        3. In 1985, the American Psychological Association Passed a resolution informing broadcasters and the public that television violence poses a danger to children.
        4. In 2000, "Over 1000 studies ... point overwhelmingly to a causal connection between media violence and aggression behavior."
      3. Effects of Media Violence: A Meta-Analysis
        1. In 2007, a meta-analysis examined 24 research reports in which (1) children and adults were exposed to media violence, and (2) the amount of aggression was later recorded or rated.
        2. The results: roughly one out of every four or five participants showed an increase in aggression.
        3. To put these results into context, the effect of media violence on aggression was stronger than the effects of:
          1. Condom usage on HIV transmission
          2. Lead exposure on children's intelligence
          3. Calcium intake on bone mass
      4. The Impact of Violence TV Commercials
        1. A 2010 study found a significant increase in aggressive thoughts when kids watched a violent TV commercial for action figure toys.
        2. In focus groups, neither the kids nor parents expressed concern about violent commercials.
      5. The Famous "Bobo Doll" Experiment
        1. In a classic 1961 study, children either were or were not exposed to an adult model who punched, kicked, and yelled at a plastic Bobo doll.
        2. Kids exposed to an aggressive model often ended up imitating the behavior, whereas other kids hardly ever showed aggression toward the doll.
      6. The Flip Side: Positive Media Effects
        1. Based on Bandura's work, serial TV dramas have harnessed the power of imitation learning to promote social change.
          1. In Mexico, nearly 1 million people enrolled in a program to learn to read after watching a TV drama that promoted literacy by showing characters struggling to read and then becoming literate.
          2. In Tanzania, a series of TV dramas led married people to discuss the need to control family size and to adopt family planning methods.
      7. A Deadly Combination: Violence and Publicity
        1. The more a fight was publicized, the larger the increase in murder afterwards.
        2. When a Black boxer lost the fight, the murder rate increased for young Black male victims.
        3. When a White boxer lost the fight, the murder rate increased for young White male victims.
      8. The Effect of Aggressive Song Lyrics
        1. When male college students listened to a couple songs with sexually aggressive lyrics, the students later showed a level of aggression toward a female confederate that was roughly 50% higher than they showed toward a male confederate or a female confederate when the songs hadn't been aggressive.
      9. The Effect of Violent Video Games
        1. A 2007 study found that after 20 minutes of playing a violent video game, people showed physiological evidence of desensitization when shown a video of real-life violence.
          1. That is, people's heart rate didn't increase.
          2. And their galvanic skin response (a measure of sweating) didn't show any sign of arousal.
        2. A 2011 study found neural desensitization after college students played violent video games.
          1. Students spent 25 minutes playing a violent or nonviolent video game.
          2. Students who played a violent video game showed less brain activity in response to violence.
          3. The more desensitization there was, the more aggression occurred later.
      10. Experiment research shows that exposure to nonviolent or violent pornography results in increases in both attitudes supporting sexual aggression and in actual aggression.
      11. Other Triggers of Aggression
        1. Biological factors(e.g., genetics, testosterone)
        2. Alcohol use
          1. In the United States, alcohol is associated with 40% of all violent crimes and two thirds of all intimate partner violence.
          2. Even exposure to alcohol-related images and words is enough to increase aggressive thoughts and behavior.
        3. Exposure to violent words and images
          1. Participants give a higher number of electric shocks to someone when there are guns visible in the room than when no guns are visible.
          2. This kind of priming occurs whether the weapon is a handgun, rifle, or knife, whether the weapon is physically present or just a photo, and whether the study takes place in a laboratory or field setting.
        4. Cultural factors(for example, living in a country or cultural community that emphasizes male honor and machismo)
        5. Physical pain or discomfort(e.g., crowding, air pollution, heat)
          1. Studies have found that during hotter days, months, seasons, and years, aggression increases in the form of domestic violence, criminal assaults, and major-league batters being hit by pitched baseballs.
          2. Speculation: Heat might be playing a role in certain Middle Eastern and African regions that are regarded as "hotspots" or "hotbeds" of violence (not as a main factor, but as a contributing factor).
          3. Research by Craig Anderson and his colleagues suggests that increases in heat due to climate change may translate into tens of thousands of serious and deadly assaults.
    3. Terrorism
      1. What is Terrorism?
        1. Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents, usually intended to influence an audience.
        2. "Arab" is an ethnic label that refers to a cultural group united by history and the Arabic language.
          1. Millions of Christian Arabs
          2. Thousands of Jewish Arabs
        3. "The Arab world" includes twenty-some countries in the Middle East and Northern African.
        4. "Muslims" are believers in Islam.
      2. What Type of People Become Terrorists?
        1. Were the Sep 11th Terrorists Madmen?
          1. A mentally unbalanced terrorist would present a security risk to other terrorists in the group, because terrorists need to operate in secrecy.
          2. Consequently, terrorist groups generally look for reliable team players and try to screen out unstable individuals.
        2. Suicide bombers are more likely to be...
          1. Religious
          2. Unemployed
          3. Fatherless
          4. Friendless
          5. Tend to be angry
      3. What Causes Terrorism To Happen?
        1. Political repression
          1. Relatively little terrorism occurs under dictatorships.
        2. Poverty
          1. Traditionally, the least developed countries have had less terrorism.
        3. Lack of education
          1. Palestinian suicide bombers have lower rates of poverty and higher rates of formal education than other Palestinians, and the 9/11 terrorists came from middle-class or upper middle-class backgrounds.
        4. A Common Cause of Anti-American Terrorism
          1. One key cause of anti-American terrorism is U.S. military financial, and political support for unpopular regimes.
          2. In many cases, terrorists are trying to:
          3. Drive the U.S. out of a geographic area or end its support for a regime
          4. Retaliate in response to U.S. policies and actions
          5. Restore a sense of honor, status, or control
      4. How Can Terrorism Be Reduced?
        1. Has the Global War on Terror Worked? (Large Military Response)
          1. If the goal is to capture or kill specific terrorist leaders, the strategy has been fairly effective.
          2. In December of 2011, President Obama reported that 22 out of 30 top al Qaeda leaders had been killed.
          3. Of the 21 suspected terrorists indicted for the 1998 United States embassy bombings, 17 have been caught or killed.
          4. If the main goal of the war on terror is to reduce terrorism, the best available evidence from terrorism experts who've looked carefully at the historical record, is that military responses tend to have either no effect or tend to temporarily increase the level of terrorism.
        2. In the long run, education and socialization are critical so that the next generation doesn't see other groups as the enemy and violence as the solution.
        3. In the short run
          1. Fortify self-protective measures
          2. Improve information sharing
          3. Work to build strong alliances
          4. Export medical technologies
          5. Find ways to take the third side
    4. Ways of taking the Third Side of The Conflict
      1. In mediation a third party works to resolve a conflict by facilitating communication and offering suggestion.
      2. In arbitration a third party studies both sides of a conflict and impose a settlement.
        1. In binding arbitration the two sides agree in advance to accept whatever solution the arbitrator decides.
        2. In final offer arbitration each side submits its best offer, and the arbitrator chooses which one will be accepted.
  8. Romance, Empathy, and Life Satisfaction
    1. Empathy: the Power of Outrospection
      1. Two General Types of Empathy
        1. Affective empathy has to do with feeling the emotion that someone else feels--what's sometimes known as "emotional matching".
          1. If you feel happy and I empathize, I feel happy.
          2. If you feel upset, I feel upset, too.
        2. Cognitive empathy has to do with imagining how someone else thinks or feels, or imagining what you would think or feel if you were in that person's position.
      2. When People Lack Empathy:
        1. A lack of empathy is associated with prejudice, aggression, bullying, child molestation, and abusive parenting.
        2. In a study that compared abusive and nonabusive mothers, empathy scores accurately classified 80% of the abusive mothers. In fact empathy scores predicted child abuse even better than life stress.
      3. Some Correlates of Empathy
        1. People high in empathy not only tend to be less prejudiced and aggressive, but they and their life partners report higher levels of relationship satisfaction.
        2. People high in empathy are more likely to intervene in emergency situations.
        3. People in high cognitive empathy tend to reach better negotiated outcomes.
      4. The Central Role of Empathy Across Cultures
        1. The Native American saying about "walking a mile in the moccasins of another person"
        2. "Oneness" in Eastern religions and philosophies
        3. The "Golden Rule" in Judeo-Christian, Islamic, and Asian traditions
      5. Outrospection外观法
        1. Discovering who you are and what to do with your life by stepping outside yourself, discovering the lives of other people, other civilizations.
    2. Romantic Attraction and Close Relationships
      1. The Power of Proximity
        1. Friendship formation in new
          1. housing project for married students
        2. Researchers could examine:
          1. How many houses away students were from their closest friends
          2. Whether the students lived on an end unit
        3. The two major factors affecting the friendships which developed were (1) sheer between houses and (2) the direction in which a house faced. Friendships developed more frequently between next-door neighbors, less frequently between people whose houses were separated by another house, and so on. As the distance between houses increased, the number of friendships fell off so rapidly that it was rare to find friendship between persons who lived in houses that were separated by more than four or five other houses.
      2. Birds of a feather do flock toether! 物以类聚人以群分
        1. People tend to be more attracted to others who are similar to them in:
          1. Age and education level
          2. Race and ethnicity
          3. Personality and attitudes
          4. Economic status
          5. Physical characteristics
      3. The Complementarity Hypothesis 互补性假设
        1. The idea that "opposites attract" has received relatively little research support.
        2. Although exceptions exist, people don't tend to choose friends or partners who have backgrounds, attitudes, or values that complement theirs--they tend to favor similarity.
      4. Physical Attractiveness
        1. Question
          1. After people have gone out on a date with someone, how much does physical attractiveness determine whether they'll want to continue dating the person?
          2. And does the answer differ for females and males?
        2. How much does it matter?
          1. The physical attractiveness of a date correlates more strongly with a desire to date that person than do judgments of character and the perception of common interests.
          2. Man express more concern about physical attractiveness than do women, but when it comes to actual partners, men and women value attractiveness to nearly the same degree.
      5. On the Accuracy of Relationship Predictions
        1. If you ask students to predict whether their dating relationships will still be around after a year, they're less accurate than their dormitory roommates or their parents.
        2. Why? Because they're motivated to believe that the relationship will continue, so they neglect disconfirming evidence, whereas parents and roommates weigh the good and the bad.