Social Psych exam 2

How well are we at figuring out others?

Not well

Observing ppl Mannes 2012

Prejudice

• physical appearance = prejudice bc of physical appearance sets the stage for judgement 

  • Ex: Hair before and after of football players 

    • Shave hair = taller, stronger greats potential as a leader, more dominant, older wiser 

    • W/ hair = weaker, more attractive, younger, less leader like 

women hair

specifically natural

• curly hair: less professional, leader, friendly, and more angry

• Straight: leaders, maintain their own in corporate 

clothes Howlett et al. 2013 

suit off the rack: slobber, less professional, naive 

Tailored: more professional, intelligent, confident  

Pronouns Pennebaker

They/them: sketchy, hiding something, not professional and/or competent

He/Him & Her/She: more honest 

facial shape & eye size

round eyes & face: seem babyish, not leader like, naive

owned objects

what you drive, wear, etc.

• tesla: initially for electric, now ppl don’t have good connotation 

first impressions matter

handshake

• stronger: more leadership material

• Weaker: less leader like

There are cultural differences

Observing peoples “trustworthiness”

• eyebrows “v” + mouth downwards = untrustworthy 

• Eyebrows “v” less + mouth upwards = trustworthy 

4 characteristics of communication

• words 

• Face

  • Like to focus on the shifts of these 2 above 

• Body 

• Voice 

  • But really should focus on this 

Solution is to record, bc as you go down it’s harder to control 

mirror neurons 

fires when mirroring a particular act 

• motor system

example of mirror neurons in monkeys

put electrode in motor neuron

• fired when they did smth & when they saw someone else do it 

  • when s/o cut their finger 

    • you might have empathy for that person bc of mirror neurons 

  • when disgusted

    • you get digusted when also seeing another person be disgusted too 

infant stage 

big round face, eyes 

• when looking at brain scans it was activated in PFC 

  • PFC: responsibility 

    • we need to help them, bc they’re not leader like 

    • make decisions to taking care of the baby/someone else 

Gibson (1979) 

Maybe we identify things not bc of what info is given but bc we’re supposed to act on it, the determine what the object is 

• act, then understand 

Affordance theory

opportunity for action

• first get info, PFC activity, the object gives me an opportunity to take action, then recognize 

• affordance about social interaction 

Disney + Affordance

they might be using it for their gain

ex: princesses 

• big eyes, round face 

  • Opportunity to take actions 

Judging you on a particular situation

there’s a “script”

• events that are supposed to happen at in this event/they way you’re supposed to act at the event 

  • cultural diff. 

judging you on a particular situation funeral example

you’re supposed to be sad and crying

BUT some ppl might laugh, not bc it’s a funny situation

• bc it’s a nervous tick

understand verbal + nonverbal

judgement

• ex: do you tip them based on if they smiled or had an RBF

Judging emotions in context

90% of the time we’re wrong bc there’s no context

nonverbal cues

• body language + eye contact/gaze 

  • Prejudged 

    • Not friendly = no gaze 

• Physical touch 

  • A long time ago it was warm & friendly 

  • Now perceived as creepy 

• Cultural diff 

  • Middle finger 

Friend vs Foe

Do I approach or run away? 

• instantaneous judgement 

  • to increase survival 

Real vs fake smile

slightly diff muscles

• real = More creases 

attribution theories

• identify dispositions

  • look at what they’re doing, identify their internal state, to arrive at causal  

• inferences or judgements

  • not good at making attributions 

Heider (1958) 

causal explanations 
“do you realize that that these are inanimate objects?” 

• little circle & triangle trick the big triangle, bc big triangle is chasing them down 

  • if we can judge inanimate objects we can do this w/ humans

  • we basically see/create cause & effect 

• internal = explain behav based on internal disposition/personality, attitude

• external = explain behav based on external/situation

internal attribution

explain behav based on internal disposition/personality, attitude

• when behav is perceived as being intentional 

• dispositional 

external attribution

explain behav based on external/situation

• we make explanation if we think it’s unintentional/accidental 

• situational 

Jones’s correspondent inference theory

at what point are we able to make internal attribution

• intentional action vs accidental 

• correspond w/ what they’re doing & personality trait 

1. choice 

   1. their choice → internal 

2. against norms 

   1. atypical → internal 

3. intended vs accidental 

   1. intentional → internal 

Kelley’s covariation theory

internal + external across multiple observations (of that person)

• consensus 

• distinctiveness 

• consistency = extent to which perosn behaves every single time in from of 

consensus 

extent to a behavior where others act the same way in the same situation 

• smoking alone = internal

• smoking w/ ppl = external

• kelley’s 

distinctiveness

extent to which a person behaves in a single situation vs other situations

• only smoking @ psych building = external

• smoking @ other places = internal

• kelley’s 

consistency

extent to which a person behaves every single time in that particular situation

• only smoking @ psych building = internal

• only smoke 1 time = external

• kelley’s 

influences of cognitive heuristics

very hard to think critically as we make judgements based on availability heuristics

• what info comes readily to mind 

availability heuristics

what info comes readily to mind 

• aka shortcuts 

false consensus

our opinions are common & held in the same way

• Dr T judges people who like water, bc she hates regular water

Base rate fallacy

power of anecdotes over real life stats

• “do you play basketball bc they’re tall 

counterfactual thinking 

degree by which are influence by alternative outcomes might have happened but didn’t 

• upward: sad that smthg that could’ve happened, but didn’t

• downward: happy smthg that could’ve happened, but didn’t

upward counterfactual thinking example

silver medals

• they could’ve gotten gold, but didn’t 

downward counterfactual thinking 

bronze medals

• they could’ve not place, but didn’t

fundamental attribution error

when observing ppl we

• overestimate internal 

• underestimate external

  • this occurs bc of actor-observer diff 

actor observer difference

if observing ourselves = actor

• I’m late for work! 

  • btw I cut s/o off

looking at s/o else = observer 

• RUDEE

  • s/o cuts me off 

Is a fundamental attribution error a western bias?

lowk yes

• U.S. (individualistic) 

  • more personal attributions 

  • less situational attributions

• Southeast Asia (collectivist) 

  • less personal attributions 

  • more situational attributions 

Fish test

what is occurring between members of the group

individualistic: 1st fish is leading 

• internal att

collectivist: 1st fish is being chased 

• external att 

attributions within cultural frames

flexible depending on which culture has been activated 

• chinese-americans 

American photos: more person att 

Chinese photos: more external att 

perceptual bias

ambiguous figure

• we see things that aren’t really there 

the priming of social behavior

it drives how we see others 

• we’re judging your behavior as if you have control 

ppl who counted money were less likely to help s/o who dropped papers in front of them than ppl who counted w/ m&ms 

rude study

measuring how long it would take for ppl to interrupt when research assistant was being rude

• those who unscrambled rude words, interrupted more than those who had polite words 

primacy effect

info we receive is refined & recalled better

• push & influence judgement

positive then negative or negative then positive = 1st info draws opinion

closure hypothesis

concepts are 1st, result of 1st impression

close down any other info that comes in 

change of meaning

impression is found

next info is going to change the meaning to fit impression 

motivation biases

judge based on perceived efforts & motivations

• means to protect SE 

  • freeloader = based on situational 

  • worker = based it on personal att 

2 step model of attribution

1. Automatic internal attribution

2. Effortful correction for external factors

   1. Your cognitive load = how difficult is it for you to change your mind on a person/group

What factors lead to effortful correction for external factors? 

• cognitive load = how difficult is it for you to change your mind on a person/group

  • Mood

  • Mental health

  • Sleep

  • etc.

information integration theory

integrate updated info

• fit into existing cognitions based on

1. favorable (high value) vs unfavorable (low value) 

2. weight = importance, value of weight

deviation from info integration theory 

alternatives for how we cement & update info

embodied cognitions - smthg you do produces thought 

• your mood may have an effect

  • ex: when meeting s/o when in a depressed vs not depressed mood - diff impression

implicit personality trait map 

in the brain everything is connected 

• once you activate 1 thing/characteristics, you activate everything else 

Rosenburg 

1. warmth: low or high 

2. capability vs incapability 

spreading activation 

neural pathways are connected 

• if you activate 1 neuron, other things will also activate all of them 

  • fosters cementing 

confirmation bias

shut down, no additional evidence

if new evidence, you change your evidence to support you

• leads to preservation of beliefs 

preservation of beliefs 

take standard test 

told “you did well” or “did bad” 

• sike, we got it mixed up and you did average 

  • BUT it didn’t matter what they were told after

“did well” group still felt like they did good & “did bad” group still felt like they did bad 

conformity hypothesis testing 

med school’s taught that POC had a higher pain tolerance - so they prescribed less medication 

• doctor’s believed this for a long time 

  • take longer for them to change their mind

Facebook 

ad click on 1 political side 

• then you only got that side’s posts 

  • highlight confirmation bias 

Self fulfilling prophecies

1. Perceiver has a belief about s/o or thing, an expectation

2. Expectation influences behavior

3. Target reacts accordingly

4. Expectation is reinforced

persistence + change

• civil rights act 

• women’s rights act 

• increasing multi-racial population 

  • social norms have changed, but internal biases seem to persist 

Persistent attitude

change is followed through with __

• antisemitic tweets increased 50% from __ date to 2020 

• 2021 733 hate groups identified in U.S. 

  • now 2025 1,371 hate groups 

prejudice 

negative learned attitude or feeling towards a group of ppl

discrimination

negative behaviors directed towards a particular group of ppl

stereotypes

cognitive idea about a group of ppl (general thought)

• doesn’t always have to be negative 

• can lead to prejudice if it’s is negative

gender roles

traditional roles start at a young age

• categorize boy vs girl “social norm” 

  • gender reveal parties 

  • gender books & toys 

    • 1980s legos started gendering colors & kits

      • “one category might be looked down on” → prejudice 

Generics

talk about group as a whole

• you’re making an assumption that everyone in that group exhibits that 

  • “girls aren’t good at math” 

social essentialism

certain social categories are fundamental different

• can promote bias 

generics vs specifics butterflied example

“butterflies have dust on their wings” = Generic

• “they need it to fly” = all butterflies need it to fly, explained entire category

“this butterfly has dust on it’s wings” = specific 

• “it flew through a dusty room” = causal based

  • decreased child’s want to make a categorical assumption 

modern racism

increased implicit

• decreased in explicit racism, but hasn’t gotten any better 

modern racist example

Intel Ad

• looks like they’re bowing down to a white man 

  • ppl don’t see it when it’s clearly there

judicial system

is there bias in a system/institution that’s not supposed to have bias?

• sentencing women POC

  • ^ stereotypical black features = harsher punishments 

  • ↓ stereotypical black features = less harsh 

Micro aggressions

subtle, often unintentional, comments or actions that convey bias

• ex: do you speak English? Where are you from?

Explicit + implicit biases 

Which person would you like to be friendly w/ = showing black + white persons

• % showing explicit preferences, ↓ as you get older 

  • on the surface it looked like ↓

• effect of implicit preferences, stays the same as you get older 

  • IAT shows no change, what you think is harder to control

Brain + categorizations 

brain automatically categorizes to lighten the load 

• makes it easier when you encounter the info again 

  • so you don’t have to relearn it again 

kitchen 

flash this photo 

• ppl usually say there’s a toaster, air-frier, etc.

  • sometimes you see these things, even though it’s not there

categorizatoin + biases 

categorization leads to biases 

• derived from social fear 

• Amygdala + Fusiform Face Area are connected

Williams syndrome

genetic disorder

• incredible storytellers 

• connection between amygdala & FFA is weak 

  • so no social fear or “stranger danger” 

Brain + perception 

our brain’s create a contour that’s not really there 

• our brain sees it 

  • even the outside background seems to be darker than the invisible rectangle

brain + light distortion 

white & black face same contrast 

• asked to adjust white to black face & vice versa 

• but once categorized you have an expectation

ambivalent (modern) sexism 

subtle 

1. hostile

2. benevolent

hostile sexism

society or males persevere & preserve male dominance over women

• subtle

benevolent sexism

comes across as caring and nice

• but shows dominance of men

• men will treat women as incapable of doing smthg, but not say it flat out 

  • emphasize men’s role to protect & provide

  • even more subtle 

  • “I’ll take care of it” 

objectification 

sexism still exists bc of __ 

• promote diff. between men & women 

  • objectification of men is happening more too 

Modern ageism - techsplaining

modern culture = older ppl are seen as childish, useless, losing senses/intellect

• predominant to older gen

  • assume they don’t know

• but in reality younger ppl don’t know more than older ppl about tech

Modern ageism - acute ageism 

older gen complain about young gen 

• negative characteristics & stereotypes 

  • entitled, coddled, radically progressive, whiny, lazy, arrogant = not good enough 

    • start to see in workforce in hiring now!!

stigma 

long standing prjudice 

• targeted for generations 

• feeling of relentless & profouond bias

1. Once stigmatized “I am deviant” not good enough

2. seen as deviant, self stigmatization = feel negative about yourself

   1. it becomes internal

   2. not only are you diff, but you’re not good enough

   3. affects everything you do

implicit stigma t-shirt example 

blank t vs “got pride” t 

• asked for $ for parking meter 

  • gay t = you are deviant, not worht my $ 

implicit stigma weight 

research assistant

• wanted to see diff between weight differences and customer service 

  • prosthetic = treated poorly

    • if holding milkshake, treated worse

      • activated smthg about their weight

  • real = treated well

    • if holding green shake, treated better

stereotype threat 

poor performance when activating certain stereotype 

Modern racism 

subtle, covert form of racism 

• ex: denial of systematic racism, racial bias in hiring or housing