Midterm Textbook Review Chapters 1-5

social psychology

the scientific study of how we think about, influence and relate to one another

social psych sits between

• personality psych - focus on the individual’s internal traits and dispositions

• sociology - focus on groups, institutions, and society

social psychologist study the individual in a

social context, and they use experiments more than sociologists do

core theme of social psych

behavior is a product of both the person and the situation

social psych is not just common sense

much of what seems obvious only seems that way afterwards (hindsight bia)

we construct our social reality

we interpret situations rather than perceive than objectively - the same event can mean different things to different people

priming

• unconscious activation of particular associations in memory, which then influences how we interpret later events

• recently encountered words, images, or ideas make related concepts more accessible and shape how we interpret ambiguous information - ex. being primed with hostile words makes an ambiguous person seem more hostile

construal

how we see and interpret a situation matters more than the objective situation itself

self fulfilling prophecy

beliefs can become self fulfilling

our social intuitions are powerful, sometimes perilous

a great deal of thinking is automatic, effortless and unconscious, alongside controlled, deliberate thinking

intuition is useful

snap judgements, thin slices of behavior, expertise, but we need systematic research to check our hunches

intuition is useful but has powerful pitfalls

• overconfidence

• misreading others

• hindsight bias

• being swayed by vivid anecdotes

social influences shape our behavior

we are social creatures, strongly influences by cultural norms (rules about accepted behavior) and by other people

chameleon effect

we mimic others’ postures and mannerisms without awareness

• cultural differences in what is considered appropriate

• the pull of conformity

the power of a situation can

lead good people to do surprising things

fundamental attribution error

we underestimate the situation and overestimate personality when explaining others’ behavior

personal attitudes and dispositions shape behavior

along with behavior, inner attitudes, personality traits, and values influence how we interpret and respond to situations

person-by-situation interactions

different people respond to the same situations differently

attitudes affect behavior and

behavior affects attitudes

social behavior is biologcally rooted

humans are products of evolution and out social tendencies (attachment, cooperation, aggression mate preferences) have roots in biology

biopsychosocial approach

behavior is explained at three levels simultaneously

• biological - genes, brains, hormones, evolution

• psychological - thoughts, feelings, motivations

• socio-cultural - norms, culture, situations

social neuroscience

integrates biological and social perspectives (ex. social rejection activating regions associated with physical pain)

evolutionary psychology asks

how natural selection predisposes behavior

social psych’s principles are applicable to everyday life

• research in health, law (eyewitness memory, jury decisions), business, education, relationships, sustainability, and more draws on social psychology findings

• applies to the Canadian context - multiculturalism, intergroup relations, bilingualism, Indigenous-settler relations

social psych is NOT value free: values enter in at least three ways

• choice of research topics - what problems we choose to study, such as prejudice, aggression, altruism

• hidden values in the labels we use - calling a behavior assertive vs aggressive, firm vs stubborn, defining mental health, maturity or self esteem

• the way psychological advice is shaped by value assumptions - advice to “be true to yourself “ reflects and individualistic perspective

hindsight bias

• i knew it all along phenomenon

• findings seem obvious when looking back

• tendency to exaggerate, after learning outcomes, our ability to have foreseen how things would turn out

evidence of hindsight bias

people given a result (ex. that people grow “fonder” vs “forgetful”), easily explain it, and just as easily explain the opposite

• people told one outcome find it unsurprising, and people told the opposite also find it unsurprising

hindsight bias aka i knew it all along phenomenon is linked to

overconfidence - makes us underestimate how uncertain events actually were and can make us unfairly judge decision-makers

because of hindsight bias, research is needed to

test intuitions - experimentation shows what really happens, and reveals when common-sense sayings (ex. absence make the heart grow fonder or out of sight out of mind) do or do not hold

to reduce hindsight, a practical tip is to

imagine the alternative outcomes to reduce the hindsight bias

theory

an integrated set of principles that explains and predicts observed events - a good theory effectively summarizes many observations ad makes clear predictions that we can use to confirm, modify, or reject the theory, and perhaps generate new research

hypothesis

testable proposition that describes a relationship that may exist between events- predictions are tested through research, and theories are refined

operational definitions

state precisely how a variable is measured or manipulated in a given study

theories are not just guesses

they organize facts and generate hypotheses that can be falsified

correlational research

detects naturally occurring relationships between variables and lets us predict one from another - ex. surveys, archival records, naturalistic observation

correlation coefficient (r)

ranges form - 1 to +1

• positive - both rise together

• negative - as one goes up, the other goes down

• closer to 0 = weaker relationship

correlation does not equal causation

• if A and B correlate, possible explanations are: A causes B, B causes A, or a third variable (confound) causes both

• variables moving together does not automatically mean the directly cause the other

• ex. seeing violence on TV and aggressive behavior or self-esteem and academic achievement

longitudinal correlational designs

measures variables across time, which can help clarify direction - but still does not prove causation

survey reseach

• asking people to report attitudes and behaviors

• concerns include:

  • unrepresentative samples

    • population = whole group interest

    • sample = subset studied

    • random sampling = every member of the population has an equal chance of being selected, allows generalization

    • larger samples are not better if they are biased

  • wording effects - question phrasing changes answers

  • question order

  • framing

  • social desirability bias - people report socially approved answers

advantage of correlational research

can study real-life, important variables that can’t be ethically manipulated, and often with large samples

experimental research

used to identify cause and effect by manipulating one or more factors and controlling others

features of experimental research

• independent variable

• dependent variable

• random assignment - participants assigned by chance to conditions, so that the groups are equivalent at the start - this allows causal conclusions, and it differs from random sampling(who gets into the study)

• control condition

• experimental condition

• confound - any other factor that varies systemically

lab experiments give

high control

field experiments are

in real-world settings with less control but more realism

replication

repeating a study (often with different participants or settings) to see whether findings hold; findings that replicate across cultures, settings, and methods are more convincing

cross-cultural research

checks whether findings generalize beyond Western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic (WEIRD) samples

generalizing from lab to life

• critics worry lab research is artificial, defenders argue that the aim is to test theoretical principles, not recreate everyday life

mundane realism

how closely a lab setting resembles real life

experimental realism

how much the experiment absorbs and involves the participants, more important than mundane realism

ecological validity

concerns how well finding generalize to real-world situations

• often, labs and fields produce similar effects, which supports generalizability

deception

sometimes used to prevent participants’ awareness of the hypothesis from altering responses (demand characteristics) - confederates and cover stories are common; participants are debriefed afterwards

Replication Crisis and The Open Science Collaboration

• in 2015, Open Science Collaboration attempted to replicate 100 psych studies, far fewer replicated with statistically significant effects than the original studies reported ad effect sizes were smaller

• ***be cautious about single studies, and look for converging evidence

contributing causes to replication crisis

• small samples

• publication bias - only significant findings get published

• flexible analyses (p-hacking)

• questionable research practices

responses to replication crisis

• pre-registration of hypotheses and analyses

• larger samples

• open data and materials

• registered reports

• emphasis on replication

spotlight effect

overestimating how much others notice and evaluate our appearance and behavior

• classic study: students asked to wear an embarrassing t shirt before entering a room though about half of the people would notice it, but fewer did

illusion of transparency

estimating how well others can read our emotions and internal states (ex. nervousness during a speech; lying) - we overestimate how “see through” we are

spotlight effect and illusion of transparency both stem from

the fact that we are the center of our own world (egocentrism) and we anchor on our own perspective and then insufficiently adjust

implication of spotlight effect and illusion of transparency

others are less focused on us than we imagine, they are busy being the star of their own spotlight

self-concept

our answers to the question “Who am i?” - sum total of our beliefs about ourselves

self-schemas

mental templates (beliefs about self) by which we organize and interpret our experiences

• help us notice, process, and remember information related to the traits they cover (ex. a person who sees herself as athletic will notices other people’s athletic behaviors

possible selves

images of what we dream of or dread becoming (the hoped-for self-concept, and it is particularly salient when we are distinct from others in the situation (distinctiveness, ex. minority status)

working self-concept

• self concept can be flexible

  • the self we are thinking about right now depends on context

culture shapes

self concept

social comparison helps shape self-concept

evaluating our abilities and opinions by comparing ourselves with others

• tend to make comparisons with similar others

• upward comparisons - with those better off

• downward comparisons - with those worse off

• social media amplifies upward comparison

reflected appraisal/looking glass self

we see ourselves through others’ eyes, or rather, how we think they see us

self-perception

we infer our attitudes by observing our behavior, particularly when internal cues are weak or ambiguous

over justification effect

• rewarding people for doing something they already enjoy doing can reduce intrinsic motivation, because people attribute their behavior to the reward (extrinsic motivation) rather than their own interest

• classic study: children who were promised a reward for drawing with felt-tip pens later spent less time drawing than children not rewards

• **unexpected rewards, or rewards that signal competence (informational), don’t generally reduce motivation

• insight: control-oriented rewards decrease intrinsic motivation, while informational rewards may enhance it

• self-perception theory

feedback from others and ones’ own experiences:

success and failure, social roles, and our experiences with others

individualism

giving priority to one’s own goals over group goals and defining one’s identity in terms of personal attributes rather than group identifications

• typical in North America, Western Europe, Australia, New Zealand

collectivism

giving priority to the goals of one’s groups (often extended family or work group

• typical in Asia, Africa, Central and South America

Independent self

• self is a bounded, unique entity

• the self is bounded by internal traits

• goals are personal achievement and uniqueness

• communication is direct

interdependent self

• self is defined in relation to others

• identity is relational

• values harmony, belonging and duty

• communication is more indirect

culture influences self descriptions

• more references to personal traits in individualist cultures

• more references to roles and relationships in collectivist cultures

• self esteem sources

• how people respond to praise

• how they explain thei behavior

culture is not static

• cultures vary within countries, individuals vary within cultures

• individualism has been rising in many societies, with changing language use, aiming practices and pronouns

explaining our behavior

we are often unaware of why we act as we do - people often can’t accurately report the causes of their behavior and instead rely on plausible theories

dual attitudes

we can hold differing implicit (automatic) and explicit (conscious) attitudes toward the same object - implicit attitudes can be different from what we report

we have limited access to the processes of our minds

we know our thought and feelings better than the causes of them

introspection

• looking inward to examine own conscious thoughts, feelings, sensations, and mental states

• can be unreliable

• reasons analysis can even diminish the quality of decisions (people who explain their choices may choose differently and be less satisfied)

predicting our behavior

people are often wrong about how they will act

• we are overly optimistic about our future behavior (will you be generous? will you go to the gym?)

planning fallacy

the tendency to underestimate how long it will take to complete a task

• even when people know that past project took longer than planned, they remain optimistic

• remedy: consider the past (the outside view) and beak the project into subtasks; ask others for estimates; be realistic about unforeseen setbacks

impact bias

overestimating the enduring impact of emotion-causing events

• part of effective forecasting - predicting our future feelings) - tends to grow wrong in intensity and duration

why does impact bias occur?

• focalism - we focus on the event and ignore other things in life that continue to matter

• immune neglect - we underestimate our psychological immune system - the ability to adapt, rationalize, and make sense of events

wisdom and limits of self-analysis

• self-knowledge benefits from others’ views

• others’ perceptions of us, especially close others, can predict our behavior as well as or better than our own self-reports for some traits

when predicting our behaviors, we should

discount our introspective certainty; look at base rates and others’ experiences

self-esteem

a person’s overall self-evaluation or sense of self-worth

motivation

people strive to maintain and enhance positive self-views

Sociometer Theory

self-esteem is a gauge of how much we feel included and valued by others

• social exclusion lowers self esteem. inclusion raises it

• self-esteem exists, in part, to monitor our social acceptance, motivating behaviors to gain others’ approval

contingencies of self-worth

self esteem is tied to certain domains (ex. academics, appearance, approval of others)

• basing self worth on external domains can lead to stress, as threats to that domain harm self-esteem

self-esteem and well-being

• low self esteem correlates with depression anxiety, and vulnerability

• high self-esteem can be fragile or defensive - does not CAUSE better academic performance and does not clearly reduce violence or prejudice

• self-esteem is partially a result of success and relationships rather than the cause

• correlation does not mean causation

self-efficacy

one’s belief in one’s ability to perform specific tasks

• if higher, can lead to greater persistence, better coping, and better performance

locus of control

• internal - I control my outcomes

• external - chance or outside forces control my outcomes

• internals generally achieve more, cope better, and feel less stressed

learned helplessness

hopelessness and passivity learned when a person or animal perceives no control over repeated bad events

• related to depression

• can undermine motivation even when control is possible later

self-determination

sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness fosters well-being

• having more control (even small choices) benefits health - ex. nursing home studies

too much choice can

reduce satisfaction - maximizers vs satisficers

terror management theory

self-esteem buffers anxiety about death; reminders of mortality increase defense of cultural worldview and efforts to boost esteem

• behavior is deeply driven by the conflict between a self-preservation instinct and inevitable awareness of death

self-serving bias

our readiness to perceive ourselves favorably

• shows up in

  • self-serving attribution

  • unrealistic optimism

  • better-than-average effect

  • false consensus effect

  • false uniqueness effect

  • self-serving definitions of traits

self-serving attributions

• taking credit for successes (internal, dispositional attributions)

• blaming failures on external factors

• seen in sports, work, academic, and relationship settings - each partner thinks they contribute more to housework or relationships

unrealistic optimism

thinking we are more likely than others to experience good events and less likely to experience bad ones - often weakened after bad events

better-than-average effect aka above-average effect

most people rate themselves as above average on subjective, desirable traits (ex. drivers, leadership, ethics, getting along with others)

• a majority cannot all be above average

• effect is stronger for ambiguous, subjective traits and for traits that are valued

false consensus effect

overestimating the extent to which others share our opinions, behaviors, and beliefs - especially when we behave in an undesirable way - “everyone does it”