PSY 159 Exam 3

stanford prison experiment

• Both prisoners and guards conformed to their roles

  • Dressed like guards and acted with authority to intimidate prisoners

  • prisoners were stripped and referred to by their assigned numbers

• real world parallels:  Americans in Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq taking photos of abuse towards prisoners

• Power of the situation: the system was set up to be that way

• critiques: Zimbardo and assistants were pushing the guards to display certain behaviors

carnahan and mcfarland ad recreation

• put out the same ad Zimbardo used to recruit college students for a study

• Two versions of ad: in one, it asked for people do to a study on prison life. In the other version, mentioned nothing about prison. Just said it was a psychology study.

• People interested in participation were asked to fill out some forms about personality characteristics.

• Those who signed up for the prison life ad scored higher on abuse-related characteristics and lower on empathy

possible selves

actual self, ideal delf, ought self, feared/undesired self

actual self

who you are now

ideal self

type of person you want to be

ought self

type of person you think you ought to be. you believe it is your duty, obligation, or responsibility

feared/undesired self

the person you don’t want to become

self guides

motivate us to move towards ought self and away from feared self

self-discrepence theory (higgins)

• Actual - Ideal discrepancy: dejection related (sad, disappointed, discouraged)

• Actual - Ought discrepancy: agitation related (nervous, worried, tense)

• associated with psychopathology

  • TV distracts us from our shortcomings

  • discrepancy with selves is associated with mental health problems (depression/anxiety)

• we like people who we think bring us toward our ideal self

self-regulation

• involves control of one’s behavior (and thus usually involves controlled processes

•  typically involves a feedback loop in which the person compares the self against standards, operates to bring the self closer to these standards, and then compares again until the goal is reached

• needed for delayed gratification

• ADHD people have impulse control problems

• substance abuse problems

• bulimia: no self control with how much they eat

• anorexia: misregulation with how much they eat

• marshmallow test: higher self control predicts positive social, cognitive, and mental health outcomes later on

• low self control = more likely to be unemployed

• people who show more self control during adolescence = better relationships + workplace years later

implementation intentions and goal pursuit

makes goal more likely to be achieved

advantage of the journey metaphor

Better to focus on the process than the end result

helping others self regulate

makes you better at self regulating yourself and less likely to be depressed

ego depletion

• The self expends some limited resource (like some energy or strength) when it engages in acts of volition (self-regulation/self-control, choice. Active response).

• When we’re depleted, our ability to self regulate down the road gets impaired.

• ex. more aggressive behavior if depleted

ego depletion cookies and radishes

chocolate chip cookies and radishes: sit people down and stick in front of them freshly bakes chocolate cookies and some radishes. In control condition, people can sample either. In ego depletion condition, told they can only sample the radishes and not the cookies. For most people, this takes self control. After that, people were given an unsolvable puzzle to see how long they’d attempt to complete it. People in the radish-only group gave up on the puzzle sooner.

factors that can minimize ego depletion

• motivation

• People who believe in unlimited willpower don’t show ego depletion effects

• If we care enough about it, we wouldn’t get depleted

• People in some cultures believe that engaging in mental activity is energizing, so they don’t show ego depletion effects

• The ego depletion effect appears to be weaker than we originally thought

• Recent research suggests the depletion effects may be more due to a process change (e.g., focusing on relaxing, positive activities) than a limited resource issue.

  • If you’ve been studying for hours and then you take a break, this could be interpreted as depletion, but it’s not that you can’t regulate, it’s just that you’re choosing not to and you want to do something more positive

self-assessment

the desire to have more accurate information about the self

self-enhancement

the need to achieve and maintain a positive sense of self; want to hear or establish how good we are.

most potent motive (in american culture)

self-verification

want others to confirm our own point of view; people desire consistency in their cognitions about the self

self-improvement

the desire to get better

sources of evaluative feedback

• direct feedback from others (friends and family)

• social comparison

  • ex. how well you do on a test compared to classmates

• temporal comparison

downward social comparison

comparing ourselves to people going worse than us. self-enhancement motive

upward social comparison

comparing ourselves to people doing better than us. self-improvement motive

temporal comparison

• comparing ourselves to ourself at a different time

  • “I was worse at it then but I’m better now”

• way to cope with living through a bad/traumatic experience

  • “I’m a stronger person now for living through that”

social comparison consequences

• big fish little pond effect

• successful women in traditionally male roles sometimes get attributed negative personality characteristics

  • Women do it because seeing other women have a level of success that they do not have makes them feel worse about their own abilities

• beauty ideals in media: disproportionate amount of overly thin women and muscular men

  • To reach physical ideals, men will take steroids/supplements

taylor and brown on self-enhancement

argued that best adjusted people operated under positive illusions about our abilities and control, and have unrealistic optimism

self-enhancement about ability

• “Better than average” 

  • most likely to say this about tasks that are easy, ill-defined, controllable

  • We tend to think that we’re more moral or charitable than other people

• exaggerate gpa/grades and relationships

• more likely to recognize altered image of yourself if made to look more attractive instead of unattractive

• think we know others better than they know us

• think we are less biased than others

• overclaiming we have knowledge that we don’t really have

• dunning-kruger effect

dunning-kruger effect

thinking you’re good at something when you’re really not

illusions of control

superstitions

• increase self confidence

• ex. wearing a lucky piece of clothing

unrealistic optimism

• future negatives

• “change = improvement”

• too much and too little optimism is bad

mcnulty and swan roommates study

•  had roommates rate themselves are rate each other and then do it again a few months later to see if there was a pattern

  • Found evidence of reflected appraisal

    • Begin to view self how roommate sees you

  • Found evidence of self verification

    • Roommate seeing you how you see yourself

self verification in relationships

• People tend to be more committed to people who provide verifying feedback

• Over time, if partner doesn’t see you how you see yourself, you question everything (your knowledge/perceptions)

• Verification with a negative self-concept

therapy implications for self-verification

if they just tell you everything about you is good, that’s not helpful and you wont believe them. Better to acknowledge the issues

self esteem studies

self esteem predicts a range of physical health, mental health, and other life outcomes.

ex. happiness, persistence, depression, eating disorders.

mixed findings on academic performance and aggression

types of self esteem

stable vs unstable, contingent vs non contingent, explicit vs implicit

unstable self esteem

unclear sense of self, which is linked to depression and defensive behaviors. true whether it is high or low

contingent self esteem

sense of value rises and falls based on specific achievements, appearances, social status, or external validation. better to have noncontingent self esteem

explicit self esteem

how you consciously think and feel about your worth, and what you are willing to report to others

implicit self esteem

sense of self worth that operates outside your awareness

people with high explicit and low implicit

more defensive behaviors

stable self esteem

secured confidence. emotional regulation, low defensiveness, high psychological wellbeing

unstable self esteem

unclear sense of self, which is linked to depression and defensive behaviors (true whether it’s low or high)

name-letter effect

people favor letters that are in their own name. because of this, we may be drawn to things that are labeled with those letters

ex. geographical choices, career choices (denise the dentist), company choices, relationship choices (sally and sam)

need to belong/sociometer hypothesis

• the self esteem system monitors others’ reactions and alters the individual to the possibility of social exclusion

• Helps motivate us and propel us forward

• Research findings: 

  • Correlational: people with more friends tend to have higher self esteem

  • Experimental: when told no one wants to work with you after being told to get into groups, your self esteem lowers

  • Intraindividual: on days when we feel more connected to ourselves, high self esteem

  • Interdividual: people who report high number of social connections have higher self esteem

  • International patterns: in countries where there's a lot of community interaction, high self esteem compared to isolated countries

• Self of belonging → meaning in life/goal striving

self-defeating behavior

enjoy in the moment but won’t help in long term

social exclusion

self defeating behavior, display aggressive behavior, lower empathy, suicidal thoughts, more likely to believe conspiracies

how to reduce feelings of exclusion

friends, social reconnection, groups (sports/music - give sense of identity), religion (connection to deity/god), pets, AI (does not replace human interaction)

walton and cohen social belonging intervention

subtly introduce feelings of belonging within college students

terror management theory

Humans have a drive and desire to survive, but humans, unlike other organisms, have a cognitive wherewithal to know we’re going to die. We don’t like this. This conflict creates terror. We manage the terror by investing in a world view - “I may die, but my culture will live on.” Symbolic immortality. Self esteem helps us deal with death anxiety because we like to think we’re a valuable member of society. Some studies show that self esteem is an anxiety buffer

mortality salience (MS) manipulation

• “Please briefly describe the emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you.”

• “Jot down as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die and once you are physically dead.”

• People react less to mortality salience if they have high self esteem

independent construal

• self as an autonomous, independent person

  • Western world view

• focus on figure

• less mimicry

• ego-focused emotions (anger, frustration, pride)

• ideal affect - excitement

• more self enhancement

• prefer uniqueness

• own choices

interdependent construal

•  self is defined in terms of its connectedness, its relations with others

  • Eastern world view

• more holistic/context sensitive

• more mimicry

• other-focused emotions (sympathy, shame)

• ideal affect - calm

• more self criticism (self improvement)

• prefer conformity

• others choose

attitude

a learned evaluative response, directed at specific objects which is relatively enduring and influences behavior in a generally motivated way

learning attitudes

classical conditioning, instrumental/operant conditioning, social learning/modeling. there is a genetic basis to some attitudes —> can test with twins. some food preferences are genetic

attitude-behavior relationship

• The way people behave does not always align with their attitude

• lapiere (1930) study

• attitudes predict behavior

Lapiere (1930) study on attitude-behavior relationships

• wanted to see how young chinese couple was treated in restaurants around the US. Months later, Lapiere wrote to all the places he visited and asked if the Chinese couple was welcome. Over 90% of the responses were negative. They are expression negative attitude about group, but doesn’t match behavior of how they treated the chinese couple when they were actually there

  • Easier to be evil in the abstract than when you see people face to face

  • In the theoretic abstract, you can say you don’t want certain people coming to restaurant, but you want the income and want to fill the tables, no matter who’s there

factors influencing attitude-behavior relationship

• level of specificity: If you want to predict a specific behavior/outcome, better to target the attitude that specifically relates to that

• Direct experience: Can crystallize our attitudes and affect our behavior

• Strength of attitude: if attitude is striongly held, its more likely to be more predictive, and that can increase the accessibility 

  • Accessibility: anything thats more accessible in our mind tends to have a bigger impact on our thinking and behavior

    • If something is primed, it is made more accessible in our mind

  • Self focus

  • Moralized attitudes and attitudes based on emotion are more stable

communicator variables

source credibility, product source cues, vocal cues signaling confidence. may also be persuaded by sources that are attractive, likable, and confident.

source credibility

• we are more persuaded by sources that are expert and trustworthy

message variables

vividness, one sided vs two sided messages, repetition

vividness strengths and weaknesses

• If have a lot of vivid imagery, may lose focus on the product + lose the message

• To be effective, the product/message must be congruent/incorporated with the imagery

One sided vs two sided messages

• One sided: just giving your pov, pushing a product and only talking about strengths

• Two sided: giving your pov, but acknowledging other side

  • Pharmaceuticals have to talk about side effects

• Two sided tends to be better because it makes the person giving the message more credible/trustworthy

  • More open to listening to someone if they acknowledge our viewpoint 

• Don’t want audience to start generating criticism/counterarguments on their own

• Ironic effect of warnings: if theres a message about a product or drug and the person acknowledges side effects/negatives, it comes across as more trustworthy, but over time, people will remembering hearing about it from a trustworthy source but forget the negatives

mere exposure effect

• the more often people are exposed to a stimulus, the more positively they evaluate that stimulus

  • Helps incumbents

illusory truth effect

• people tend to believe information more if it has been previously encountered

  • If you spout a falsehood repeatedly, some people will believe it

use of humor

• Advantage: memorable, gets people amused, positive feelings

• Disadvantage: joke may be taken wrong (can backfire)

fear appeals

• Important to include good recommendations on how to alleviate the fear

• Moderate fear may be best

audience variables

• Effects tend to be inconsistent

• Knowledge about the issue

• Intelligence

• Age

  • Younger: attitudes still forming

  • Middle aged: views are set 

  • Older: can sometimes be manipulated

channel variables

Face to face vs audiovisual vs audio only vs written, etc. 

elaboration likelihood model (ELM)

• Petty and Cacioppo

• Central route: attitude change results from a careful, thoughtful consideration of the information in a message

  • Argument quality is importance

• Peripheral route: attitude change results because the attitude object has been associated with positive or negative cues; or a person utilizes a simple decision rule to evaluate a communication

• Better to use central because more elaborative processing 

• Attitudes via central route tend to:

  • Persist longer

  • More resistant to change

  • More predictive of subsequent behavior

motivational factors of ELM

• Personal relevance/involvement

• Personality differences: need for cognition

• Multiple source effect

• Surprising source: if we hear a message from a source we’re not expecting, it can get us to think about it

• Number of people responsible for evaluating the message: the fewer people involved, the more responsibility you have