Difficulty: Intermediate | Prerequisites: Attitudes, social cognition, group processes (Chapters 7–10)
These three chapters cover the prosocial and relational side of social psychology. Attraction and Intimacy (Chapter 11) examines why we like and love the people we do. Helping (Chapter 12) asks when and why people help others, and what stops them. Conflict and Peacemaking (Chapter 13) looks at how disputes arise between individuals and groups and how they can be resolved. Together they complete the course arc: from how we think about others, to how we influence and are influenced by them, to how we form relationships, help (or fail to help), and manage conflict.
We are drawn to people who are nearby, similar to us, and physically attractive, and our close relationships follow predictable patterns described by attachment and love theories. Helping behaviour is shaped by the number of bystanders present, norms of responsibility, and empathic concern. Conflict escalates through misperception and competition but can be resolved through superordinate goals, negotiation, and communication.
Proximity (propinquity)
Physical nearness is one of the strongest predictors of attraction. The mere exposure effect means that repeated contact with someone increases liking. In simple terms, this means you are most likely to become friends with the people you see regularly.
Mere exposure effect
The tendency to develop a preference for things (including people) simply because we encounter them repeatedly. Familiarity breeds comfort, not contempt.
Similarity
We tend to like people who are similar to us in attitudes, values, interests, and background. The matching hypothesis extends this to romantic relationships: people tend to pair with others of similar attractiveness.
Physical attractiveness
Physical appearance plays a significant role in initial attraction. The "halo effect" means we attribute more positive qualities (intelligence, kindness) to attractive people.
Matching hypothesis
The idea that people tend to form romantic relationships with partners whose physical attractiveness is roughly equal to their own.
Attachment styles
Patterns of relating in close relationships, rooted in early interactions with caregivers (Bowlby, Ainsworth). Three main styles:
Secure: comfortable with intimacy and independence.
Anxious/ambivalent: preoccupied with relationships, fear of abandonment.
Avoidant: uncomfortable with closeness, values independence.
Triangular theory of love (Sternberg)
Love has three components: intimacy (closeness, connectedness), passion (physical attraction, romance), and commitment (the decision to maintain the relationship). Different combinations produce different types of love.
Companionate love
Deep affection and attachment felt for those with whom our lives are intertwined. Characterised by intimacy and commitment rather than passion.
Passionate love
An intense state of absorption in another person, involving physiological arousal and a longing for union. Typically strongest early in a relationship.
Equity theory
Relationships are most satisfying when both partners perceive that their inputs and outcomes are roughly proportional. Perceived inequity breeds distress.
Self-disclosure
The process of revealing personal information to another person. Reciprocal self-disclosure deepens intimacy and trust over time.
Physical nearness is the single most reliable predictor of friendship and romantic pairing. Students who sit near each other, colleagues on the same floor, and people in adjacent apartments are more likely to become friends.
The mere exposure effect (Zajonc) explains part of this: repeated exposure to a neutral stimulus increases liking for it. This operates below conscious awareness.
Proximity also increases the chance of interaction, which allows similarity to be discovered and relationships to develop.
Birds of a feather flock together: we prefer people whose attitudes, values, personality traits, and backgrounds resemble our own.
Similarity provides validation for our worldview and reduces the likelihood of conflict.
The matching hypothesis: in romantic relationships, partners tend to be similar in physical attractiveness. People initially aim high but tend to settle with someone at their own level.
Attractiveness matters more in initial encounters and less as relationships develop.
The halo effect: attractive people are judged as more intelligent, warm, socially skilled, and successful, regardless of whether they possess those traits.
What counts as attractive has both universal elements (facial symmetry, averageness) and culturally variable elements (body ideals, grooming standards).
Attractiveness biases appear in hiring, courtroom sentencing, and school (teachers rate attractive students more positively).
Bowlby's attachment theory: early caregiving experiences create internal working models of relationships that persist into adulthood.
Ainsworth identified three infant attachment styles (secure, anxious, avoidant); Hazan and Shaver applied these to adult romantic relationships.
Secure attachment (roughly 60% of adults): comfortable with closeness and interdependence. Associated with longer, more satisfying relationships.
Anxious/ambivalent attachment (roughly 20%): preoccupied with the relationship, high need for reassurance, fear of rejection.
Avoidant attachment (roughly 20%): uncomfortable with closeness, values self-sufficiency, may withdraw when partners seek intimacy.
Sternberg's triangular theory of love: different combinations of intimacy, passion, and commitment produce different love types:
Romantic love = intimacy + passion (no commitment)
Companionate love = intimacy + commitment (no passion)
Consummate love = all three components
Infatuation = passion alone
Equity theory: satisfaction is highest when both partners feel the ratio of what they put in to what they get out is roughly fair.
Self-disclosure reciprocity: relationships deepen through gradually escalating mutual self-disclosure. Sharing too much too soon or too little over time can stall intimacy.
Investment model (Rusbult): commitment depends on satisfaction, quality of alternatives, and the size of one's investment (time, shared resources, emotional energy). People stay even in unsatisfying relationships when alternatives seem poor and investments are large.
Online dating algorithms rely on similarity and proximity principles. Attachment theory informs couples therapy, where understanding each partner's attachment style helps predict and address conflict patterns.
"Opposites attract" is one of the most persistent myths. Research consistently shows that similarity, not complementarity, predicts attraction and relationship satisfaction.
The halo effect does not mean attractive people are better people. It means we perceive them that way, which is a cognitive bias.
Attachment styles are not fixed for life. They can shift with significant relationship experiences or through therapy, though the early style tends to be the default.
⚠️ Know the three main factors in initial attraction (proximity, similarity, physical attractiveness) with evidence for each.
⚠️ Be able to name and describe the three attachment styles and their implications for adult relationships.
⚠️ Sternberg's triangular theory: know the three components and how they combine into different love types.
⚠️ Equity theory and the investment model are frequently tested as explanations for relationship maintenance and dissolution.
True or false: the mere exposure effect means that familiarity with a person increases liking.
Fill in the blank: the ______ hypothesis suggests that romantic partners tend to be of similar physical attractiveness.
True or false: people with avoidant attachment styles are typically comfortable with high levels of intimacy.
Fill in the blank: according to Sternberg, ______ love combines intimacy, passion, and commitment.
Answers: 1. True. 2. Matching. 3. False (they are uncomfortable with closeness). 4. Consummate.
Bystander effect
The finding that the presence of other people reduces the likelihood that any single individual will help someone in need. The more bystanders present, the less likely any one of them is to intervene. Think of it as: everyone assumes someone else will step in.
Diffusion of responsibility
The key mechanism behind the bystander effect. When others are present, each individual feels less personally responsible for taking action.
Pluralistic ignorance
A situation in which bystanders look to each other for cues about how to respond. If no one is reacting, each person concludes the situation must not be an emergency. In simple terms, this means everyone is waiting for someone else to react, and the collective inaction signals "nothing is wrong."
Social responsibility norm
The societal expectation that people should help those who need assistance, without regard to future exchanges. We feel obligated to help a lost child, an elderly person who has fallen, or someone in obvious distress.
Reciprocity norm
The expectation that people will help those who have helped them. This norm underpins much of cooperative social life.
Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson)
The theory that empathic concern (feeling compassion for someone in need) produces genuinely altruistic motivation to help, regardless of personal benefit.
Social exchange theory
The view that helping behaviour is governed by a cost-benefit analysis. People help when the rewards (good feelings, social approval, reciprocity) outweigh the costs (time, danger, effort).
Altruism
Helping behaviour motivated by a desire to benefit another person, with no expectation of personal gain. Whether pure altruism exists or whether all helping is ultimately self-interested is a central debate in this chapter.
Kin selection
An evolutionary explanation for altruism: we are more likely to help genetic relatives because doing so increases the chance that our shared genes will survive.
Negative-state relief model
The idea that people sometimes help others in order to relieve their own negative feelings (sadness, guilt). On this view, helping is egoistically motivated.
The Kitty Genovese case (1964) prompted research into why bystanders fail to help. Darley and Latané identified a five-step decision process:
Notice the event: distractions, hurrying, and self-absorption reduce noticing.
Interpret it as an emergency: pluralistic ignorance can lead bystanders to conclude nothing is wrong.
Assume responsibility: diffusion of responsibility means the more people present, the less personal responsibility each feels.
Know how to help: lack of training or knowledge can prevent action even when motivation is present.
Decide to act: even after the first four steps, fear of embarrassment, danger, or legal consequences can prevent helping.
The bystander effect is robust across cultures and situations, though it is reduced when the emergency is clear and unambiguous, when bystanders feel a personal connection to the victim, or when they have relevant training.
Social exchange theory: helping is a cost-benefit calculation. We help when the psychological rewards (feeling good, social approval, avoiding guilt) outweigh the costs (time, effort, risk).
Empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson): when we feel empathic concern for someone, we help out of a genuine desire to reduce their suffering, regardless of personal benefit. Batson's experiments tried to rule out egoistic alternatives by giving participants an easy escape from the situation; those who felt empathy helped even when they could easily leave.
Negative-state relief model (Cialdini): helping is driven by the helper's desire to relieve their own distress. On this view, empathy produces personal sadness, and helping is the way to feel better.
The debate between Batson and Cialdini remains unresolved. Both models have experimental support.
Social responsibility norm: we should help those who are dependent on us or in need.
Reciprocity norm: we should help those who have helped us. This creates a web of mutual obligation that sustains cooperation.
Justice norm (equity): we should help to restore fairness when someone has been treated unfairly.
Number of bystanders (diffusion of responsibility)
Ambiguity of the situation (pluralistic ignorance)
Cost of helping (danger, time, effort)
Perceived dissimilarity between helper and victim
Being in a hurry (the Good Samaritan study: seminary students rushing to give a lecture on the parable of the Good Samaritan were less likely to stop and help a person slumped in a doorway)
Anonymity and urban environments (stimulus overload reduces attention to others' needs)
Feeling empathy or personal responsibility
Having a personal connection to the victim
Being in a good mood (the "feel-good, do-good" effect)
Guilt (people who feel guilty are more helpful, presumably to repair their self-image)
Modelling: seeing others help makes helping more likely (social learning)
Small-town vs. large-city: helping rates are higher in smaller communities
Bystander intervention training (used in universities, workplaces, and public safety campaigns) teaches people to recognise emergencies, take personal responsibility, and overcome the inhibitory effects of others' inaction. The research explains why explicit instructions matter: "You, in the red jacket, call 999" overcomes diffusion of responsibility far more effectively than a general cry for help.
Students often assume the bystander effect means people are indifferent or selfish. The research shows they are paralysed by social cues and diffused responsibility, not by a lack of caring.
The empathy-altruism debate is not settled. Students sometimes present Batson's view as established fact. Both the empathy-altruism and negative-state relief models have experimental support.
The bystander effect is not absolute. When the emergency is clear, when the victim is similar to the bystander, or when bystanders have been trained, helping rates increase substantially.
⚠️ Darley and Latané's five-step decision model is heavily tested. Be able to name all five steps and explain how each can break down.
⚠️ Know the difference between diffusion of responsibility and pluralistic ignorance as mechanisms underlying the bystander effect.
⚠️ Be prepared to compare and evaluate the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative-state relief model.
⚠️ The Good Samaritan study is a favourite example. Know the finding: time pressure overrides even strong prosocial intentions.
True or false: the more bystanders present, the more likely each individual is to help.
Fill in the blank: ______ ignorance occurs when bystanders look to each other and conclude the situation is not an emergency.
True or false: Batson's empathy-altruism hypothesis argues that empathic concern produces genuinely selfless helping.
Fill in the blank: the ______ of responsibility means each bystander feels less obligated to act when others are present.
Answers: 1. False (the bystander effect: more people, less helping per person). 2. Pluralistic. 3. True. 4. Diffusion.
Social dilemma
A situation in which individual self-interest conflicts with the collective good. Classic examples include the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons. Think of it as: what is best for me is worst for us.
Prisoner's dilemma
A game theory scenario in which two parties must decide whether to cooperate or defect. Mutual cooperation yields the best joint outcome, but each party is individually tempted to defect.
Tragedy of the commons
A social dilemma in which individuals deplete a shared resource by acting in their own short-term interest, even though this harms everyone in the long run.
Mirror-image perception
The tendency for both sides in a conflict to view themselves as moral and the other side as immoral. Each side holds a mirror image of the other's view.
Superordinate goals
Goals that are compelling for both groups and require their cooperative effort to achieve. Sherif demonstrated their effectiveness in reducing intergroup hostility at Robbers Cave.
GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction)
Osgood's strategy for de-escalating conflict: one side announces and makes a small conciliatory gesture, invites reciprocation, and continues with further concessions as the other side responds. A slow, trust-building spiral.
Mediation
A form of conflict resolution in which a neutral third party facilitates communication and negotiation between the disputing parties, helping them reach a mutually acceptable agreement.
Arbitration
A form of conflict resolution in which a neutral third party hears both sides and imposes a binding settlement.
Integrative negotiation
A negotiation strategy in which both parties work to find solutions that satisfy the interests of both sides (win-win), rather than simply splitting the difference.
Zero-sum thinking
The assumption that one party's gain is the other's loss. In many conflicts, this assumption is false, and integrative solutions exist that benefit both sides.
Competition for scarce resources: realistic conflict theory (Sherif) applies here as well. When groups perceive resources as zero-sum, conflict intensifies.
Perceived injustice: when people feel they are being treated unfairly relative to others, resentment and conflict follow.
Misperception and distrust: mirror-image perceptions mean each side sees itself as the reasonable party and the other as the aggressor. These distortions are self-reinforcing.
Social dilemmas: situations where individual rationality leads to collective harm (tragedy of the commons, prisoner's dilemma). Without communication or regulation, self-interest undermines cooperation.
Escalation often follows a predictable pattern: a triggering event leads to retaliation, which is perceived as disproportionate, prompting further retaliation in a spiral.
Fundamental attribution error in conflict: each side attributes the other's hostility to disposition ("they are aggressive") rather than situation ("they are responding to our actions").
Self-fulfilling prophecy: expecting hostility from the other side leads to defensive or aggressive behaviour that provokes the very hostility that was feared.
Group polarisation: within each side, group discussion can push positions to more extreme and less conciliatory stances.
Superordinate goals: shared challenges that require both parties to work together. The Robbers Cave experiment showed that introducing superordinate goals reduced hostility between competing groups.
Contact under favourable conditions: as in the prejudice chapter, equal-status, cooperative, institutionally supported contact reduces conflict.
Communication: simply allowing conflicting parties to talk, especially about their underlying interests rather than their stated positions, can reveal integrative solutions.
Negotiation: moving from positional bargaining ("I want X") to interest-based bargaining ("my underlying need is Y") opens space for win-win agreements.
Mediation: a neutral third party helps both sides communicate, identify shared interests, and craft an agreement. Effective when parties are too angry or entrenched to negotiate directly.
Arbitration: a neutral third party imposes a binding settlement. Used when mediation fails, but can leave both sides dissatisfied.
GRIT: a de-escalation strategy where one side makes a small unilateral concession, announces it, and invites reciprocation. If the other side responds, a positive spiral of concessions can develop. Used in international relations.
The prisoner's dilemma is used to model everything from arms races to climate negotiations. GRIT influenced Cold War de-escalation strategies. Mediation and integrative negotiation are standard tools in labour disputes, international diplomacy, and family law. The jigsaw classroom (Aronson) applies superordinate-goal principles to reduce intergroup conflict in schools.
Students often treat conflict as inherently negative. Constructive conflict can lead to better decisions, creative solutions, and stronger relationships when managed well.
The prisoner's dilemma does not prove people are selfish. It demonstrates how structural incentives can undermine cooperation, even among well-intentioned actors. Communication and repeated interaction increase cooperation.
GRIT does not mean unconditional surrender. It involves small, announced concessions with clear expectations of reciprocation. If the other side does not reciprocate, the strategy pauses.
Mediation and arbitration are different. Students sometimes conflate them. Mediation = facilitating agreement; arbitration = imposing a decision.
⚠️ Be able to explain the prisoner's dilemma and the tragedy of the commons as examples of social dilemmas, and how communication and regulation help.
⚠️ Know the concept of superordinate goals and how Sherif demonstrated their power at Robbers Cave.
⚠️ GRIT is a specific de-escalation strategy. Know its steps and be ready to apply it to a scenario.
⚠️ Distinguish mediation from arbitration. Know when each is appropriate.
⚠️ Mirror-image perceptions and the fundamental attribution error in conflict contexts are frequently tested.
True or false: in the prisoner's dilemma, mutual cooperation yields the best outcome for each individual.
Fill in the blank: ______ goals are shared objectives that require cooperative effort from both groups to achieve.
True or false: arbitration involves a neutral third party imposing a binding decision.
Fill in the blank: GRIT stands for Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in ______-Reduction.
True or false: mirror-image perceptions mean both sides in a conflict tend to see the other side as reasonable.
Answers: 1. False (mutual cooperation yields the best joint outcome, but each individual is tempted to defect for a personally better result). 2. Superordinate. 3. True. 4. Tension. 5. False (each side sees the other as immoral or aggressive).
Q: Using Darley and Latané's model, explain why a person might fail to help someone who collapses on a crowded train.
A: At step 1, the person may not notice the collapse (distracted by a phone, headphones). At step 2, pluralistic ignorance may operate: if other passengers do not react, the person concludes it may not be serious. At step 3, diffusion of responsibility means the person assumes someone else (perhaps someone closer, or someone with medical training) will help. At step 4, they may not know first aid. At step 5, they may fear embarrassment or doing something wrong in front of a crowd. Any of these steps can prevent helping.
Q: Compare and contrast the empathy-altruism hypothesis and the negative-state relief model as explanations for helping behaviour.
A: The empathy-altruism hypothesis (Batson) holds that feeling empathy for someone in need creates a genuinely altruistic motive to help, aimed at reducing the other person's suffering. The negative-state relief model (Cialdini) holds that witnessing another's suffering produces sadness in the observer, and helping is motivated by a desire to relieve one's own negative feelings. Both predict helping, but for different reasons: one is other-focused, the other self-focused. Batson tested this by offering participants an easy escape from the situation; empathically aroused participants helped even when they could have left, which he argues supports genuine altruism.
Q: Explain how the matching hypothesis applies to romantic relationships. What evidence supports it?
A: The matching hypothesis proposes that people tend to form romantic relationships with partners who are similar in physical attractiveness. Evidence comes from studies of couples: partners tend to be rated at similar attractiveness levels. People may initially be attracted to the most attractive options, but real-world pairing tends to converge on matches where both partners are roughly equal in attractiveness, partly because more attractive partners are harder to attain.
Q: A factory and a neighbouring community are in conflict over water usage. Describe one structural solution and one communication-based solution from the conflict resolution literature.
A: Structural: introduce a superordinate goal. If a drought threatens both the factory and the community, they share an urgent need to conserve water, which forces cooperative planning. Communication-based: mediation. A neutral third party could help both sides identify their underlying interests (the factory needs water for production; the community needs clean drinking water), which may reveal integrative solutions (e.g. the factory installs recycling systems and the community gains guaranteed supply).
Q: What is GRIT, and how might it be applied to a dispute between two departments in a company that refuse to share resources?
A: GRIT (Graduated and Reciprocated Initiatives in Tension-Reduction) is a strategy where one party makes a small, announced concession and invites the other side to reciprocate. One department might publicly offer to share a minor resource (e.g. a meeting room booking), announce the gesture, and invite the other department to make a comparable gesture. If reciprocated, both sides make slightly larger concessions over time, gradually building trust and cooperation.
Q: Distinguish between passionate love and companionate love. How does each relate to relationship satisfaction over time?
A: Passionate love is characterised by intense longing, physiological arousal, and absorption in the other person. It tends to be strongest in the early stages of a relationship and declines over time. Companionate love is characterised by deep affection, trust, and mutual caring. It tends to grow over time as the relationship matures. Long-term relationship satisfaction depends more on companionate love; couples whose passionate love fades but who have not developed companionate love are at higher risk of dissolution.
Attraction connects to Chapter 7 (Persuasion): attractive communicators are more persuasive via the peripheral route. Helping connects to Chapter 8 (Group Influence): diffusion of responsibility and social loafing share the same mechanism of reduced individual accountability in groups. Conflict and Peacemaking ties together nearly every earlier chapter: prejudice and stereotypes (Ch. 9) fuel intergroup conflict, aggression (Ch. 10) escalates it, and group polarisation (Ch. 8) pushes sides toward extreme positions. The contact hypothesis from Ch. 9 reappears as a conflict resolution strategy.
Attraction, proximity, propinquity, mere exposure effect, Zajonc, similarity, matching hypothesis, physical attractiveness, halo effect, attachment styles, Bowlby, Ainsworth, Hazan, Shaver, secure attachment, anxious attachment, avoidant attachment, Sternberg, triangular theory of love, passionate love, companionate love, consummate love, equity theory, self-disclosure, investment model, Rusbult, bystander effect, Darley, Latané, diffusion of responsibility, pluralistic ignorance, empathy-altruism hypothesis, Batson, negative-state relief, Cialdini, social exchange theory, social responsibility norm, reciprocity norm, kin selection, Good Samaritan study, conflict, social dilemma, prisoner's dilemma, tragedy of the commons, superordinate goals, Sherif, GRIT, Osgood, mediation, arbitration, integrative negotiation, mirror-image perception, zero-sum thinking, jigsaw classroom, Aronson, social psychology NYU, social psych chapter 11, social psych chapter 12, social psych chapter 13