social psych exam 1

what is the goal of social psych

address the fundamental questions of WHAT and WHY about human nature

social psychology aims to learn what people actually…

think, feel, or do in a given situation

social psychology

the scientific study of how people think about, influence, and relate to others

social cognition

how people think about themselves and the social world; how people select, interpret, remember, and use social info to make judgments and decisions.

gestalt psychology

school of psychology stressing the iportance of studying the subjective way in which an object appears in peoples minds, rather than objective, physical attributes of the object; the whole is different than the sum of its parts

domain/level of analysis of social psycholgy

the unit of study is the individual

domain/level of analysis of sociology

the group or community as a whole rather than the individual

what is the emphasis on is social psych

emphasis on the context or situation

what is the emphasis on is personality psych

emphasis on the person and individual differences

contemporary social psych

combines emphasis on the person and the situation interacting together

2 parts of the methods of socail psychology and what they mean

conceptual part: concepts, constructs, and theories of intrest (intelligence, attraction, prejudice)

empirical: what is measured (operational definitions, hypotheses)

theories

general principles that explain predicted and observed events

ex: H1: aggression=actions to harm others

pain, frustration, heat, and stress all increase aggression

so these findings —> a theory that suggests discomfort leads to aggression.

hypotheses (H1)

testable predictions about how people will respond under specific conditions

operational definition

how we quantify an abstract construct or concept

how are hypotheses and theories linked

hypotheses are generated from existing theories; theories are built from confirmed hypotheses and other empirical/measured evidence; continually refined and updated

methods want to be both…and …

reliable: is it consistent

valid: accuracy

external validity

accuracy across situations/people, tested with replication

internal validity

accuracy of causal relationships between variables; ruling out alternative explanations

construct validity

accuracy of the contsruct of interest; how accurate the way you are testing an inquantifiable idea with a quantifiable experiment so that it only tests that specifc construct and not others.

convergent construct validity

the measure correlates well with other tools that asses the same construct

ecological construct validity

the degree of which research findings real-life situations and can be generalized to the real world; does it reflect natural human experiences

ethnography

researchers studying their topics emerged in their field; observing from inside

traits of ethnography

high in ecological validity, qualitative data, highly realistic and detailed data

strengths of ethnography

realistic, potential for high construct validity, good for describing phenomenon, high level of detail

weaknesses of ethnography

rarity/secrecy of behavior, massive time/resource commitment, ethics? (harm to self/pps), causality, low internal validity, sometimes low gernalizability/low external validity; tradeoff between ecological and external validity

correlational approach

statistical technique that tests the degree of relationship between two variables; how much can one be predicted by the other

correlation coefficent

number between 0-1

positive or negative

large value =.strong relationship

sign shows direction of relationship; positive go together, negative go opposite dirrections

examples of positive correlations

social connections and wellbeing

efficacy and performance

attention and memory

testosterone and aggresion

example of negative correlations

intergroup contact and prejudice

fatigue and performance

alcohol and self-regulation

power and perspective-taking

strengths of correlational approach

test and establish relations, low investment of H1, easy to collect large, representative samples, potential for external validity

weaknesses of causal relationships

interpretation/internal validity, if self-reported there may be a problem of accuracy (validity)

2 kinds of studies

field studies and lab studies

field studies

outside the lab, natural settings

lab studies

true, in-lab experiments

cause variable and what they are

independent variable: what is manipulated or systematically changed in an experiment; includes random assigment

predictor variable: explanatory variable without random assignment (field study)

effect variable and what it is

dependent variables: whats measured; outcome variable; thing expected to change, differ, increase/decrease, typically affect behavior or cognition

field studies

natural setting, nothing is manipulated, so no true independent variable; naturally occurring groups (no random assignment); measure outcome/dependent variable

strengths of field experiments

lots of realism, construct validity; ecological validity and possible external validity

weaknesses of field experiments

limited claims about causality

low internal validity

no control over groups/no random assignment

lab studies

experimental approach; benefit of random assignment, pps get equal change to be in either condition; other differences applied equally to both conditions

four methods of the self concept

introspection, the looking-glass self, self-perception, vicarious self-perception

priming

stimuli from environment activate related concepts in the mind; activation spread to related concepts

ex: “ice” makes you think of cold, snow, christmas, hockey, winter; called spreading activation

studies about introspection

elderly words, rude/polite words, preferences of attractiveness/slight of hand

main idea of introspective access

people have limited introspective access; things really effect us that we dont consciously realize; we usually know what we feel or think, but not why

introspection

listening to our “inner voice”

the looking glass self

internalizing others’ feedback, seeing ourselves as others see us

limits of the looking-glass self

we don’t see ourselves exactly as others do, others may not have insight, people dont always accept the opinions of others

self perception

view of self informed by current behavior; active and “available” info shapes self perception

self-perception main idea

look at our own actions to infer preferences

vicarious self-perception

adpot traits from “merged” others; people have “merged” identity with similar others; sense of connection based on important self-relevant trait or feature

ex: swifties

learn about ourselves by watching “merged” others; called the spy-glass self

self-concept

knowledge of the self

self-esteem

evaluation of the self

trait

how good you feel about self generally; stable

state

how good you feel about yourself in the moment; varies

explicit ways to measure self esteem? strengths/weaknesses?

self report

strengths: easy, precise, domain-specific

weaknesses: skewed self-presentation; hides the negative, highlights the positive

explicit vs implicit

explicit: measures more precise; specific but susceptible to self-presentation, social, performance, appearance

implicit: measures less biased by self-presentation; primitive/general measure of self-evaluation, lower test-retest reliability, less predicitve of behavior

implicit way of measuring self-esteem

sequential priming… does “me” mean “good”

self-protection versus self-enhancement

low SE is more worried about protecting the self from failure, wants to avoid the negative; focused on threat, harm, and failure

high SE are more concerned with achievement, enhancement; approach success; focused on reward, achievement, and success

when asked “does this trait descibe you” people with low SE…

are less confident, less extreme, take longer, exhibit unstable perceptions, only exhibit confusion with the self

benefits of high self esteem?

buffer against bad news or failure, more resilient and persist longer at hard tasks, report more positive affect, take initiative, willing to try new things, more confident, less susceptible to persuasion

how can high SE be bad

moe willling to experiment with drugs, risky sexual behaviors, less influenced by persuasion

describe narsiccists

unrealistically high SE, narcissists are more aggressive, greater ingroup favoritism, manipulative, unfaithful, associated with sexual violence, narcissists dont think they are narcissists

self esteem does not caused increased…

intelligence, success, performance

2 theories of what self esteem is for

terror management theory (TMT)

sociometer theory

describe terror management theory

death is a perpetual fear in all humans, we all know that we will die and that knowledge is a constant source of non conscious anxiety; SE is to protect us from death anxiety

culture idea of TMT

our culture lives on after our deaths; relationships, art, institutions, religions

culture is a source of symbolic immortality

symbolic immortality reduces death anxiety

SE indicates how well we are fitting in with our culture/achieving symbolic immortality

sociometer theory

rooted in evolutionary psychology; needed others to survive; those who attuned to the group survived; people developed an innate need to belong; SE is a sociometer or gauge that tells us if we are being accepted

so low self-esteem is a warning that relationships are in danger or rejection is close

does TMT or sociometer explain behavior

TMT; acting in ways that may result in rejection

anti social behavior

self regulation

self-control or will power; largley explicit, conscious, and deliberate

3 major forms of self-regulation:

overriding short term desire in favor of long term benefits (impulse control)

manage goals (persistence, prioritization)

any process of monitoring and altering ones responses; thoughts behaviors; direct redeploy attention, compare performance to standard

effective self regulation is necessary for global functioning

ya

delayed gratification/marshmallow test

self regulation is a good thing; self control kids scored 210 pts higher on SAT

high capacity of self control predicts:

stable relationships, more success (self control is a better predictor of academic success than IQ), less criminality, better mental health/longer life

limited resource model

all types of control rely on ONE limited energy course

brain part associated with control

prefrontal cortex

obstacles of self regulation

capacity for control is limited/can be fatigued

attention is limited

limited attention descriptors

people can only actively regulate one thing at a time

automatically attend to environment (studying with distractions, diets fail while watching TV)

goals can distract; ziegarnik effect

experience of intrusive thoughts about an active and unfulfilled goal

ex: thinking about bio test wile writing psych paper

multiple goals are distracting

what the heck effect

abandon the goal after initial failure; what the heck its just a little more

to combat: planning and anticipating for failure when persuing goals; have a rebound plan after failure

obstacles to successful self regulation

relies on limited resources

relies on limited attentional focus

often commitment wavers

3 self motivations

self appraisal, self verification, self enhancment

self appraisal

learn the truth about ourselves

self verification (consistency)

confirm what we already believe about ourselves

self enhancment

see the best in ourselves

enhance self to others; best foot forward; can backfire due to substance use, unhealhty fitness, false modesty=arrogance?

self protective behavior

low fragile self esteem; when failure seems likely

self handicapping

create obstacle for self, excuse for failure, even better is you succeed, no one is buying it

self serving biases

good = us; internal attribution, skill, ability, effort

bad = external attribution; bad luck, “they”, chance

self serving biases cause the…

better than average effect and shapes perceptions of the futre

unrealistic opimism

we think good things are more likely to happen to us than others

and that bad things are less likely to happen to us than others

false consensus and uniqueness

juggle frequency and norms to self-enhance

opinions: overestimate agreement with ourselves (false consensus)

negative events: overestimate consensus; it must not be that bad if everyone is doing it

positive events: we overestimate uniquness: even more awesome if success is rare

BIRGing

basking in reflected glory; others can make us look good

CORFing

cutting off reflected failure; distancing ourselves from those who make us look bad

when self-relevant, others success can be threatening because…

it creates upward comparison

managed by reducing chance of threat, distancing from person, de-identify with domain