List of social psychology theories Puns

I've been reading a book by a clinical psychologist that explicitly states that our brain takes input from how others treat us and assigns us a certain status level or place in the dominance hierarchy. There were no references for me to go lookup. But, I did read another book some time ago from an evolutionary psychologist that stated pretty much the same thing. So, is there a certain theory that this is called? Where can I find more information about this?

Is there a consensus? Is it very popular?

With the college semester starting up soon, I thought I'd share this little excerpt from one of my classes. I'd also be interested in your thoughts in terms of the validity of this theory.

>Reward Theory of Attraction: The theory that we like those whose behavior is rewarding to us or whom we associate with rewarding events.

Source: Myers, D. G. (2014). Social psychology. New York: McGraw-Hill.

>Asked why they are friends with someone or why they were attracted to their partners, most people can readily answer. “I like Carol because she’s warm, witty, and well-read.” What that explanation leaves out—and what social psychologists believe is most important—is ourselves. Attraction involves the one who is attracted as well as the attractor. Thus, a more psychologically accurate answer might be, “I like Carol because of how I feel when I’m with her.” We are attracted to those we find it satisfying and gratifying to be with. Attraction is in the eye (and brain) of the beholder.

>The point can be expressed as a simple reward theory of attraction: Those who reward us, or whom we associate with rewards, we like. If a relationship gives us more rewards than costs, we will like it and will wish it to continue. This will be especially true if the relationship is more profitable than alternative relationships (Rusbult, 1980). Mutual attraction flourishes when each meets the other’s unmet needs (Byers & Wang, 2004). In his 1665 book of Maxims, La Rochefoucauld conjectured, “Friendship is a scheme for the mutual exchange of personal advantages and favors whereby self-esteem may profit.”

>We not only like people who are rewarding to be with but also, according to the second version of the reward principle, like those we associate with good feelings. Conditioning creates positive feelings toward things and people linked with rewarding events (Byrne & Clore, 1970; De Houwer & others, 2001; Lott & Lott, 1974). When, after a strenuous week, we relax in front of a fire, enjoying good food, drink, and music, we will likely feel a special warmth toward those around us. We are less likely to take a liking to someone we meet while suffering a splitting headache.

>Pawel Lewicki (1985) tested this liking-by-association principle. In one experiment, University of Warsaw students were virtually 50–50 in choosing which of two pictured women (A or B in Figure 11.5 ) looked friendlier. Other students, having interacted with a warm, fr

I want to understand why people behave the way they do especially in relation to other people. Thanks for your suggestions.

Social Psychology largely exists to explain things like: Why does racism exist? How could something like Hitler Germany happen? etc...

IMO, they provide much better explanations then the typical people are evil, stupid, uneducated, selfish, etc... self-serving explanations I see here. And no, corporations, government are not a good answer either.

The much more informed answer is that people are IRRATIONAL in a sense that our brains have shortcomings that allow things like this to occur. Without knowing WHY (or having the wrong answer), no amount of social-political organization will change that (or do so accidentally)

MANY, many people today educated in modern psychology are would be anarchists if only they were not so allergic the pseudo-explanations for human behavior provided by political groups that keep them from reading the literature. The worst offender is this constant assumption that reason/philosophy is what is in control of human behavior and what needs to be done is convincing people they are wrong through logic (which can work sometimes.)

Recommended Reading: (mixed in some behavioral economics/cognitive psych) Mistakes were made but not by me. Predictably Irrational. Strangers to ourselves. Stumbling on happiness. Thinking fast and slow. The robots rebellion.

Disclaimer: I am not a logical positivist of any sorts so this is not a bash on philosophy.

Currently doing research, don’t know where to start. Any contemporary scholars currently doing work on these theories or anything of this nature? Thank you teachers and students.

Hello All,

I am attempting to do some homework for class. These are the instructions.

In this exercise, you will evaluate evidence relative to the following question: Is gender development the result of biological forces or cultural learning? First, decide whether each of the three research findings listed below more directly provides evidence in support of the biological argument or the culture-learning argument, and explain your reasoning. Then, use the same research to develop a counterargument that supports the other side of the controversy.

These are the questions with my arguments included. Do not worry about question 2. I have to research more on why that is as I have never heard of that before.

#1. There are more male than female engineers, physicists, and airplane pilots.

• Argument Supported: This is evidence that supports the culture-learning theory. It has been common throughout human history that males were perceived to be stronger and smarter than females. As a result of this perception in our history, it has led to certain jobs that have the perception of being male-only jobs. This supports this theory due to what the social norms were in those centuries past and in some cases currently practiced.

• Counterargument:

#2. Girls tend to play in small groups, with one or two friends, while boys tend to play in larger, less intimate groups.

• Argument Supported:

• Counterargument:

#3. In their play, 5-year-olds aspire to sex-linked occupations, even if their parents’ behavior tends to counter such stereotyping.

• Argument Supported: This supports the Social-Learning theory. While their parents are making an impact in what they are learning and how they perceive the world and themselves. The media that they are consuming and other “outer” social influences are also at play. Examples like what playmates they have and how the playmate's parents behavior presents to those playmates and their own “outer” social influences.

• Counterargument:

Now Onto the Problem. I can not create counter-arguments against these ideas in my head. I'm not asking for the answer but we know now that nature and nurture both play vital roles in how kids perceive the world and how they perceive themselves.

Currently, the most I have been able to come up with is "because genetics says your male and female" which is very inadequate for this argument.

Edited For Formatting.

I really love Liar Game and One Outs. I've been looking for titles that have similar emphasis on game theory, decision theory, psychology, economics, etc. I've looked into gambling manga but I feel like the sophistication behind the mind games is kind of lacking.

I've always called it the "Slingshot Theory" both because I could never remember the actual name for it and because it's basically what happens to people's perspective of you. Like, it happened with a US president from a while ago (I want to say JFK) where everyone thought he was "too perfect" and then he messed up pretty badly on a piece of legislation. His approval actually went up because the failure "slingshotted" the public's opinion of him from "too perfect" to "more normal and therefore more likeable" in an "even he messes up" kind of way.

I'd be happy to just find a big list (like google?) of inventories and tests sorted by what they try to measure. I'm interested in finding something like a "social phobia scale" because I'm trying to examine a phenomenon by looking into its effects on fearful extreme groups.

Does anyone know where I can find such a list?

Does anyone know of any constructs that could be helpful for determining an "extent of social phobia"?

Does anyone know of an inventory or test that could distinguish between different phobias? Is it even possible to effectively distinguish between social phobia and other phobias (I'm expecting massive comorbidity)?

I hope you can help me! Sorry if some of this sounds a bit amateurish. Thanks!

I've used an Oxford comma in the example in the title to separate the two uses of 'and' in the middle of the sentence. Does this make sense? What would be a clearer way of writing this?

The full sentence is 'There is a long standing conflict in the sciences between natural sciences such as physics, chemistry, and biology and social sciences such as economics, sociology and psychology.' However I am not so bothered about this sentence as I am about understanding how to construct this kind of sentence.

Give the name of this occurrence if you know it.

I need someone to do a 15 page research paper due on Dec 13th. I have the study picked out. Willing to pay 200. Would also like someone with past work/reviews.

Are there any comprehensive lists with good credibility on all the theories we need to know for psychology/sociology? I feel like every study company has a list of their own theories, and there's probably only 70-80% overlap.

Link: http://brunellifesc.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_aUXuL7SmjXiyaDc

Hello! My name is Hannah, and I’m an undergraduate Psychology student. I’m conducting an online study on the sharing of content on Instagram. To take part, you must be 18 or older, and will take approximately 10-20 minutes to complete.

Questions about COVID-19 will be included, but you will not be asked about your personal experiences. You have been invited to participate in this study to further Psychology research into social media! Your responses will be anonymous, and you are free to withdraw at any point. This research has been approved by the Brunel University London Ethics Board. Thank you in advance!

Hello everyone, Today I decided to do something different. I feel community observation in a neutral capacity will be educational in regards to the topic I wish to address. Considering the emotional nature of participants on both sides of the argument, as well as, intentional trolling, bare faced social engineering and the occasional zealot, I think much can be learned. so what might be this inflammatory topic be?

Well, recently it has come to my attention and likely yours too the whole "Gamer Gate" debacle. It is an emotionally charged subject to say the least, that has in my opinion developed into a fully fledged propaganda war on both sides. Each side trying to change public perception of both itself and the opposing side. Social engineering, whether intentionally or not, is being used aggressively as well as defensively by both sides in order to maintain ground in the hearts and minds of the public opinion.

Even now, as I write this, I re-type every sentence in an effort to remove my own personal bias and try to present an objective and neutral language. This I might say is tedious and exhausting, I honestly expect in my finished post that my personal bias be clearly observable and my efforts to be a exercise in futility. Considering my experience and knowledge of the factors in play, and the likely hood that I am better defended than most against such biases, I think this serves to highlight the gravity and weight of the conflict.

So with that out of the way lets get on with this...

• Self-licensing

Self-licensing is a term used in social psychology and marketing to describe the subconscious phenomenon whereby increased confidence and security in one’s self-image or self-concept tends to make that individual worry less about the consequences of subsequent immoral behaviour and, therefore, more likely to make immoral choices and act immorally.

This is best understood in the term's "The ends justify the means" or "The path to hell is paved with good intentions" where by, as long as you believe you are doing good, it is often common practice to in fact do bad and ignore any feelings of guilt. No army has ever marched to war with the intent to kill for the sake of fun, people always think their cause is more just and right than that of the cause of their enemy. As I stated with the [Endowment effect](http://en.wikipedia.org