dr. feinberg columbia summer session B
Norman Triplett, 1897-1898
social facilitation = the presence of others increases individuals' performances in other noncompetitive situations as well
experiments: bike racing and fishing reels
people/animals tend to race/reel faster when there are competitors as opposed to trying beat a PB alone
For learned/automatic behavior → competitors tend to provide physiological “boost,” but for activities not natural, make one nervous and under-perform
Max Ringelmann, 1913
ringelmann effect/social loafing = pertaining to group performance, individual strength/effort cannot be measured, only collective is known, leads to not divided effort equally, + many will slack and rely on the work of others
Generally, people will not put in their 100% effort into things when in groups and individual participation cannot be measured
Generally, the more people, the less effort
ABC Triad
= Affect, Behavior, Cognition
Broad understanding of how human beings think, act, and feel
Push brain to interpret word around in different directions (D_ _ K activity)
Look at exact same situation/data and come up with very diff. answers due to social forces
Parts of priming
Channel factors = little change which leads to substantive psychological change
Subliminal messages = hidden words or images that are not consciously perceived but may influence one's attitudes and behaviors
Ult. not influence every action, but could insite memory etc.
ex) voting, not influence whether you vote for X or Y, but whether you vote in general
The scientific method
State problem
Formulate testable hypothesis
Design study and collect data
Test the hypothesis with the data
Communicate study results
Scientific theories
Constructs linked in some logical way
Linked through observable variables
Variables are operationally defined
Scientific theory must be testable + hypothesis comes from theories
To measure non-tangible things:
Go from abstract, to concrete/measurable
*Operational definitions = whether from stimulus or response, need one for both X and Y
Variables
Independent
Observable event that causes person to do something
Manipulated vs. individual difference
Dependent (operational response)
Observable behavior produced by the person
Experiments vs. quasi-experiments
Experiment:
Researcher controls procedure + participants are randomly assigned
Can have no permutations, no pre-existing ‘groups’ etc. even before study
If not “double blank” will affect behavior + results (esp. for things like drug studies)
Allows for statements of cause and effect
Quasi-experiments:
= experiment w/ no random assignment
ex) people exposed to different media w/ different levels of violence
1: Participants → random assignment → violent TV → high aggression
2: Participants → random assignment → non-violent TV → low aggression
Can simulate situations, have them believe they are inflicting violence, even if not rly
Correlations
Relationship between two variables
Coefficient
Positive → linear relationship, same direction
Negative → non-linear relationship, inverse directions
Approach
No effect to control variables of random assignments
Weakness → does not prove causation
Strong → variables very related
Weak → variables slightly related
None → variables are not related at all
Validity
construct validity = concerns the extent to which your test accurately assesses what it's supposed to
Construct validity of the cause
indep. variable - theoretical stimulus
Construct the validity of the effect
dep. variable - theoretical response
Internal validity → if the cause and effect are reliable + accurate
External validity → generalized, contrast real world
Features of experimental studies
Internal validity = when independent variable caused change in dependent variable
Ability to get a cause/effect relationship
Confederate = a person pretending to be a participant
“Secret assistant” in research
Aim to get participant to be honest about their judgements
Cut off expectations to get valid results ; “misdirection”
Reliability and validity
3 types of reliability (consistent)
Always want consistency in results, do it multiple times and wanting to achieve same results
5 types of validity (correct)
Can say anything/call an object anything, doesn’t make it true/valid, + can be consistently wrong too
Answer question: is it really measuring what you mean/intend to measure?
Types of experiments
Laboratory experiments
Experimental realism → In lab, but still doing things - if put in a situation, is it realistic to you?
Mundane realism → Is there a corresponding relationship between an outside event?
Even in just the principle of the action
ex) specifics perhaps widely different in experiment, but the constant is an everyday principle
Field experiments → experiments outside, less control over the control - advantage of more real world issues and outside circumstances, more clearly generalizable
External validity → findings can be generalized
Experiment vs. quasi-experiment vs. correlation activity results
Experiment → b/c assigned to a condition, creation of condition
Correlation → “related to” in explanation
Correlation→ length of time, satisfaction
Quasi-experiment → b/c categorical variable, comparing groups but not randomly assigned
Quasi-experiment → b/c categorical, abroad/not abroad, no number of people
Experiment → b/c manipulating circumstances
3 parts of the Self
Self-knowledge → self-awareness
Interpersonal self → public self
Agent self → executive function
Not unrelated concepts, will always overlap on some situation
What is the “true” Self?
Self as impulse → inner thought or feelings
Self as institution → public behaviors, especially official roles
Independent self-construal → what makes the self different
Interdependent self-construal → what connects the self to the group
Purpose of self-awareness
Self-regulation
Little children are the most violent, etc. b/c least developed mentally
Adopt the perspective of other people
Only comes from awareness of different selves, little kids unable to distinguish
Manage behavior in pursuit of goals
Enables people to be more socially desirable
When self-awareness feels bad → seek to escape it
Self-awareness theory
= noticing ourselves and our behavior leads us to judging our behavior according to our internal standards
Mirror, audience, photo, hear name → self-awareness → unpleasant self-discrepancies → “change!” (match behavior to standard) OR “escape!” (withdraw from self-awareness)
Actively changes behavior, or escape in some way
Looking-Glass Self - Cooley, 1902
= the process wherein individuals base their sense of self on how they believe others view them
You imagine how you appear to others + how others will judge you
You develop an emotional response as a result of imagining how others will judge you
May not know how people regard them
People are reluctant to give negative comments as people may not be receptive to negative comments
So, just tend not to make them (even if honest)
Take the negative comments and ‘treat them like junk’ → disregard feedback
Limitations to relying on others when trying to understand the self
Generalized Other - Mead, 1934
Feedback from others tells us who and what we are
Formulate an impression of ourselves from others based on real and imagined
Limits to introspection
= examination or observation of one's own mental and emotional processes; “privileged” access
child under 11 could not be introspective, no idea why they did what they did; brain not developed
Nisbett and Wilson attack on privileged access, 1977
Ultimately, we do not have privileged access
Make after-the-fact explanations for actions
CAN be affected by social and environmental factors
While you can drive and you know how to drive but → what do you know about cars or how they work/how they're driving?? You DON'T
We may know what we think and feel, but not why
Social comparison theory
= suggests that people value their personal and social worth by assessing how others see them
Relative judgments based on those around us
Upwards social comparisons:
Not as tall, not as smart, not as funny etc. as…
Hit to self-esteem, but motivates one to try harder, gives smthn to strive towards
Downward social comparisons:
Taller, smarter, funnier etc. than…
Feels good mentally, but leads to complacency → no motivation
Typically, after an upward comparison, move towards a downward comparison
Tendency for downwards comparisons, but need some sort of upwards motivator
Self-perception theory - Bem, 1965
= people become aware of certain attitudes by observing their own behavior
Extrinsic motivation → more salient, visible motivators/logic
Intrinsic motivation → truly entirely self-generated? - no…, could stem from external factors
Look at ourselves from an outside perspective - infer things about our motivations based on how others perceive us
Make a causal inference about ourselves → requires self-awareness, but no deep introspection
Can answer these why/perception questions, but only based on what an onlooker would see
Use the most salient, causal, most observable explanation out there ultimately
Overjustification effect
= intrinsic motivation diminishes for activities associated with expected rewards
If both motivations, once introduce extrinsic motivation, outweigh the intrinsic
ex) hobby you just like doing, people would infer that you do XYZ because you love it, BUT then you get paid for this hobby → two different possibilities for why: loving it, or money?
Over time, the intrinsic motivation disappears, no longer a hobby you like, or do in your free time, it is now your job
Diminish intrinsic joy for activities → once getting paid for it, you are less intrinsically motivated to do it
Always a risk/danger that love/intrinsic joy will diminish once it is your job/getting paid if left unchecked → will have to dig real deep to it to remain a joyous activity
If paid less (ex: teaching), the perception will be that they really love their job because less monetary influence
Phenomenal self/working self-concept
when unusual aspects of yourself become prominent
Nothing changed about you, just became more salient/important in that moment
Being a lone member of some category → heightens self-awareness → impair performance → attention directed on this difference, whereas no one else is
3 motives for self-knowledge
Appraisal Motive (or self-assessment)
Looking for the truth about oneself
Want to know ‘factual’ information about oneself
Get a more accurate sense of self
Weakest motivator
Self-Enhancement motive
Want to get compliments from others b/c feels good
Want to enhance self/feel good about oneself
Biggest motivator - what we as people want above all else (emotional appeal)
Consistency motive (or self-verification)
Looking for confirmation about current belief about self
I have thought about myself, but do others have the same? Is it reliable? Consistent?
Second motivator (cognitive appeal)
Self-enhancing triad
1) Above Average Effect
Most people think they are above average in not being susceptible to this effect
“Somebody is gonna be above average, and it's me”
2) Illusion of Control
The idea that people have control over positive events - it’s no longer random luck, it's your intelligence
But, all the bad stuff, well no, ‘that happens to everyone,’ had no control, not attributed to self
3) Unrealistic Optimism
Non-depressed individuals are unrealistic optimists - dismiss truths
We don't think bad things will happen to us, it will only happen to others
Lead to unsafe/irresponsible behaviors, inflated sense of self-ability
^ Distortions of reality that make people feel good about themselves (ult. goal)
Self-reference effect & endowment effect
self-reference: information bearing on self is processed more deeply and remembered better
ex) teacher says name in class if not pay attention, head pops up/surprised
endowment: items gain in value to the person who owns them
Self-esteem
A high self-esteem → positive views
Not want to have too much → NPD, etc.
Provides initiative, feels good, but high self-esteem often amounts to nothing more than a false belief that one is superior
Narcissism, higher prejudice, and might sabotage others to maintain a high sense of self
A low self-esteem → absence of strong positive views
“Realistic” viewpoint, not negative, just an absence of uplifting positive ones
self-concept confusion, not want to fail, etc.
Pros vs. cons of pursuing self-esteem
May have harmful consequences
Taking the easy road to ensure success
Get true satisfaction from the risks you take when do well
Impairing autonomy
Take the pathway that you know you'll be important/better than others
Needing to meet the expectations of others
Weakening individual intrinsic motivation
Impairing learning
If always going the easy route, not doing b/c of passion or love or care, just because of extrinsic rewards
Damaging relationships
Potentially harmful to health
Self-presentation
= any behavior that seeks to convey some image of the self to other people
Includes a wide range of actions
Explicit statements about the self (e.g. “I forgive, but I don’t forget”)
How you dress, or what car you drive
Making excuses or threats
Trying to hide your fear or anger so others think you are cool
Want social acceptance
Increase chance of acceptance and maintain place within group
Way to claim identity
Social validation to claims of identity
Setting vs. pursuing goals
Goals are a link between values and actions
NEED a strategy, a game plan of how to achieve said goal
Setting goals
Choosing among possible goals
Evaluating their feasibility and desirability
Pursuing goals:
Planning and carrying out behaviors to reach goals
Mindsets of setting and pursuing goals differ
Setting goals → realistic
Pursuing goals → optimistic
Planning fallacy
= “belief that one’s own project will process as planned, even while knowing that the vast majority of similar projects have run late”
However, we are remarkably accurate in understanding how long it will take others to do things; positive illusions
Overly optimistic about ourselves, but not about other people
Plans that are too detailed or rigid can be discouraging, so loose + tend to be overly optimistic
Paradox of choice
= suggests that the more options available, the more effort is required to choose and leaves us feeling unsatisfied with our choice
When given too many choices, don’t choose at all
Counterintuitively, more choices make you less likely to choose
Zeigarnik effect
= our tendency to remember incomplete or interrupted tasks better than completed ones
Conscious and automatic systems help pursue goals
Conscious system helps set goals; resume activity after interruption; devise alternative plans
Automatic system reminds us of the goal
Goals help individuals resume an activity after interruption
Positive illusions of ourselves, failure to recognize our downsides
Self-determination theory
= examines how social contexts and individual differences facilitate different types of motivation, and then the actions we take after
We need to have some feeling of autonomy
Perceived freedom produces benefits
Panic Button Effect = tendency for people to engage in reckless or impulsive behavior when under pressure
When told not to do something, want to do it more
Entity theory vs. incremental theory
Entity = good and bad traits are fixed
People should not be expected to change; dislike criticism or bad feedback
Just are the way they are → “i am the way i am; why should i have to change?”
Insult of behavior is then directly TO you
Incremental = traits can change and be improved
People can change + we enjoy learning and challenges
Can overcome traits no matter how bad/good; willing to face challenges
Generally healthier mindset b/c when faced with a challenge will attempt to change behavior to overcome the challenge
Influences on choice
1) Risk aversion → pick safest option
Winning $10 v. losing $10, losing outweigh
2) Temporal discounting → overvalue present over even near-future w/ rewards etc.
$1000 today v. $1200 in a month?
3) The Certainty Effect → definite outcomes are favored
Russian roulette; risk from 1% - 0% v. 8% - 4%
Pay FOR guarantee, something psychologically of value to us
4) Keeping options open → don’t want to corner ourselves into something, like ‘freedom’ to choose
omission bias → prefer to be hurt by non-action than action taken
Reactance theory
= when individuals perceive their freedom of choice as being restricted, they aim to ‘reclaim’ that freedom, so often they will do the opposite of what they feel pressured to do
or “reverse psychology”
People desire freedom of choice and react negatively when freedom to choose is reduced
People are influenced more by what they stand to lose than what they stand to gain
Error management theory
= judgment strategies biased toward less costly errors are expected to evolve and are superior to unbiased strategies
suggests that human cognition has evolved to prioritize minimizing more costly errors(pos instead of neg), leading to systematic biases in perception and decision-making
Has roots in evolutionary theory
Men → focus on the present, focus on immediate pleasure/consequences
Focus on here and now when primed about sex
Women → look at the future of relationships, more protective of female friends
Self-regulation relies on…
Standards → ideas of how things could be
Many standards invoke what not do to
Monitoring → keeping track of behaviors
TOTE feedback loop → if violating expectation, possibly change behavior
Capacity to change → willpower; aligning behavior with standards
If not actively using energy to resist, or if distracted by other stressors
delayed gratification
resist impulse for immediate reward in favor of greater, future reward
Self-defeating behaviors
Overemphasize the present rather than the future
Capacity
Seeing what you want stimulates greater desire for it
Resist temptations by avoiding the sight or thought of it
Mischel/marshmellow study
Those who could delay gratification better suited for future success
social cognition
= the capability to perceive the social behavior of other people
Inner processes serve interpersonal functions
Social acceptance, relationship formation, and maintenance
3 goals for thinking
1) Discover the right answer
Time-consuming + requires a lot of effort
2) Confirm the desired answer
Want to get “followers” to agree + appease you rather than the most correct
3) Reach the answer quickly
Energy efficient + works fine for us most of the time
BUT, cognitive miser → tendency to be reluctant to do much extra thinking
stroop test
See colors, see word-version of colors, see color-word but shaded in a diff. color
The conscious mind has to override our unconscious mind (as we can read) desire to give the ‘correct’ answer despite the task being to say the color, not the word
2 processes to suppress thought
1) Automatic → checks incoming information for reminders of unwanted thought
2) Controlled → redirects attention away from unwanted thought
without controlled mind, mind flooded with cues from automatic
schemas and scripts
Schemas = represent substantial information about a concept, its attributes, and relationships
“Stereotypes” for people
Scripts = define situations and guide behavior
Generally, how things will unfold
priming and framing
Priming = activating an idea in someone’s mind, so related ideas are more accessible
Wakening of associations, “nearby” concepts
ex) old people prime - walk slower after
Framing = whether messages stress potential gains or losses
ex) 10% fat v. 90% lean
ex) tax rebate vs. bonus
“People consider a 'tax bonus' an “unexpected good fortune”, but consider a 'tax rebate' more like their regular income.”
attribution theory + cube
Look for all causal explanations for why someone did something
Internal factors → doing it bc of internal/intrinsic reasons?
External factors → doing it bc of external factors?
ex) did well on an exam
stable/internal: ability → you're smart, intelligent enough to do well
stable/external: task difficulty → exam was just easy, was teacher not student, everyone do well
unstable/internal: effort → studied really hard for THIS exam, not carry over for every exam
unstable/external: luck → mult. choice exam, just guessed, got lucky
attributions and excuses
1) Raise consensus → it happens to everyone
2) Lower consistency → it doesn’t usually happen to me
3) Raise distinctiveness → it doesn’t usually happen in other situations
Reminds them of THEMSELVES, which they would think more highly of
self-serving bias
Two dimensions
Tend to sway towards stability when we do well, but blame instability on others when do badly
We take credit for a win, while others blame ref./prof. for loss
observer/actor bias
External → internal attrition
When you are actor (situation → external); not a reflection of you, it’s external condics. fault
When you are observer (actor → internal); reflection of them, was their fault
Willing to admit to good for ourselves, but attribute bad to others
fundamental attribution error
= “a cognitive attribution bias in which observers underemphasize situational and environmental factors for the behavior of an actor while overemphasizing dispositional or personality factors”
Behavior freely chosen is more informative about a person (Jones & Harris, 1967)
People TOLD to write a pro F. Castro essay → had no choice, just doing assignment, says nothing about them
People given CHOICE to write pro or con F. Castro essay → generally assume that if you write a pro essay, you like Castro, and if write con, don’t like Castro
Even in the face of an external factor, still assume if write the pro essay, regardless of choice, you like Castro
Even if told about external factors outside of one’s control, still their action/their fault
Halo/Horns Effect followup
Ignoring external factors on a whole group, obv. their fault, leads to sexist/racist/etc. → it is a bias.
Error because judgments are systematically biased, not necessarily bc wrong/right
representativeness heuristics
def: The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the extent to which it “resembles” the typical case.
ex: In a series of 10 coin tosses, most people judge the series HHTTHTHTTH to be more likely than the series HHHHHHHHHH (where H is heads and T is tails), even though both are equally likely.
→ Judge likelihood by the extent it resembles the typical case
Which is healthier, Lucky Charms or granola, (for rats)?
If look at nutritional value, Lucky Charms significantly ‘healthier’ than low-fat granola, but doesn’t get questions bc this is what we have been told about them
Got 5 heads in a row, what will the 6th be? Most people would say tails
availability heuristics
def: The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind.
ex: People overestimate the frequency of dramatic deaths (e.g., dying in an airplane crash) and underestimate the frequency of less dramatic deaths (e.g., dying from lung cancer).
→ Judge likelihood by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind
ESP beliefs and dream
Jaws and the dangers of sharks
Paid more attention to stories of shark attacks after the movie, when stats never really changed
Seems to be important bc it “pops” into your brain, so we tend to overestimate its relevance/reality and overvalue it
Which state has more tornadoes each year, Kansas or Nebraska? Kansas or Oklahoma?
Nebraska/Oklahoma is the real answer, but think Kansas because of Wizard of Oz, ‘maybe picked for the movie b/c it was occurring most there’ idea
simulation heuristics
def: The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which you can imagine (or mentally simulate) an event.
ex: In the Olympics, bronze medalists appear to be happier than silver medalists because it is easier for a silver medalist to imagine being a gold medalist.
→ Judge likelihood by the ease with which you can imagine it
Counterfactual thinking and the Olympics
More upset if miss a plane by 2 minutes than 30, despite both missing their planes b/c easier to imagine little things going right and arriving 2 minutes earlier as opposed to 30 min
anchoring and adjustment heuristics
def: The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by using a starting point (called an anchor) and then making adjustments up and down from this starting point.
ex: If one party in a negotiation starts by suggesting a price or condition, then the other party is likely to base its counteroffer on this anchor.
→ Judge likelihood by using a starting point and adjusting from that point
Wheel of fortune wheel (10 vs. 65) → how many countries are in Africa?
Answer: 54-56 depending on how you define
Language and the subsequent adjustments that happen as a result are diff.
Systematic biases
confirmation bias
def: The tendency to notice information that confirms one’s beliefs and to ignore information that disconfirms one’s beliefs
ex: Looking for evidence that your horoscope is true if you believe in astrology, and ignoring evidence that is inconsistent with your horoscope
Remember, our brains are designed to argue, so of course we gather info to support our arguments
Designed to get people to agree, not to be right
Want experts to affirm what we alr believe, so stay confined to bubbles of belief
ex) news cites, dismiss the other side as false, and listen to side that we most agree to alone
illusory correlation
def: The tendency to overestimate the link between variables that are related only slightly or not at all
ex: Believing that mentally ill individuals are violent and dangerous
Hamilton & Gifford, 1976
Problematic when used for prejudice or stereotypes → connect traits of a person to the whole group (esp. for things like criminal behavior)
Way overestimated prevalence of negative behaviors for minority populations despite the stats/percentages being the same
base rate fallacy
def: The tendency to ignore or underuse base rate information and instead to be influenced by the distinctive features of the case being judged
ex: Thinking that it is equally likely to have 60% of births be male in a small or a large hospitals
ex) 2 hospitals (45 v. 15 babies a day) which one is most likely to have days where over 60% of babies born are male?
15 more likely → smaller the number, the most likely to get variation/most space in %
gambler’s fallacy
def: The tendency to believe that a particular chance event is affected by previous events, and that chance events will “even out” in the short run
ex: Believing that one is more likely to get a heads on a coin toss after the sequence TTTTTTTTT than after the sequence THHTTHTHT
ex) assuming a change in probability will occur as a result of the outcome of prior flips → incorrect because every outcome of a 21-flip sequence is as likely as the other outcomes
hot hand
def: The tendency for gamblers who get lucky to think they have a “hot” hand and their luck will continue
ex: Believing that one is more likely to get a tails on a coin toss after the sequence TTTTTTTTT than after the sequence THHTTHTHT
false consensus effect
def: The tendency for people to overestimate the number of other people who share their opinions, attitudes, values, and beliefs
ex: Believing that most people have the same religious beliefs as you do
A bias that causes people to "see their own behavioral choices and judgments as relatively common and appropriate to existing circumstances"
false uniqueness effect
def: The tendency for people to underestimate the number of other people who share their most prized characteristics and abilities
ex: If a person exercises regularly, underestimating the number of other people who also exercise regularly
If you eat healthy, you underestimate % of others who do the same
Want to show/prove how unique and special we are
theory/belief perseverance
def: The tendency to stick with a conclusion unless there is overwhelming evidence to change it
ex: Continuing to dislike someone because you heard she was mean to your friend, even though you later find out she was not mean to your friend
= maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.
ex) study gave people a description of what makes a good firefighter, was in line with what people see in movies (running into burning buildings, “action hero” esc.) and accepted it as true, then in key condition, told people that gave them a stereotype description, and gave them the real, realistic version → but, at end, when asked still wrote the stereotypical information bc its what is most consistent with our beliefs even if told wrong
statistical regression
def: The statistical tendency for extreme scores or extreme behavior to return toward the average
ex: The “Sports Illustrated jinx,” in which athletic performance usually declines after appearing on the cover of Sports Illustrated
SI Cover Effect or Madden Effect
Believed “curse” that player on the cover of the game will do worse the next season
People don’t view outliers as outliers, that horrible/terrific grade is NOT representative of future scores, if was good, next will likely go down, if was bad, next will likely go up
illusion of control
def: The belief that one can control totally chance situations
ex: For gamblers, throwing dice softly for low numbers and hard for high numbers
= a false belief that one can influence events
Superstitions fall under the category
counterfactual thinking
def: Imagining alternatives to past or present factual events or circumstances
ex: After getting in a car wreck, thinking “what if” I had gone home using a different route
Imagining alternatives to past or present factual events or circumstances
First instinct fallacy
Upwards counterfactuals → positive outcome
Regret, but…
Help make future situations better
Downward counterfactuals → negative outcome
Comfort it could have been worse
magical thinking
Assumptions that don’t hold up to logical scrutiny
Touching objects pass on properties to each other (contamination)
Resemblance to something shares basic properties (contamination)
Thoughts can influence the physical world
counterregulation
Driven by cognition, not bodily needs
“What the heck” effect → already done, already broken diet, so “what the heck?” just have more - inflexible due to diet
Once the wall of willpower crumbles, floodgates open and will binge
ex) Dieters and non-dieters will eat different amounts of food based on eating pattern
Milkshakes and ice cream (Herman & Mack, 1975)
0: Nondieters had more ice cream than the dieters
1: nondieters had less ice cream, dieters had more
2: nondieters had even less ice cream, dieters maintained the same level
polarization
Attitudes get more extreme with time
ex) If being a little pro-Trump is good, then being extremely pro-Trump must also be good
order effects
ex) How happy are you with life? Then, ask how many dates (no signif. relationship)?
No correlation was found between them, but when asked in reverse order → r = 0.67
If have been on many dates, happier - if been on less, less happy
Diff to framing → only changing the CONTEXT of the questioning
Take studies with a grain of salt, some studies will not consider the ordering and how it will affect the answer
Reducing cognitive errors/debiasing
Considering multiple alternatives
Rely less on memory
Use explicit decision rules
Search for disconfirmatory information
Use meta-cognition
What makes us human?
Human thought uses and combines symbols
Language allows for exploration of linkages of meaning
Conscious mind is uniquely human
Complex patterns of thought
Only humans engage in counterfactual thinking
Human thought creates unique eros and capabilities to find the truth
are people really idiots?
We make predictable errors
Cognitive misers
Heuristics are short cuts
How serious are the errors
On trivial events → use heuristics and automatic processing
On important events, → use conscious processing and make better decisions
basking and blasting
bask = linking oneself to winners
blast = criticizing rival group
tendency shown to blast over bask
self-handicapping
failure at task can be blamed on obstacle
success assumes higher competence
ex) Berglas and Jones exp. with “idiot pill”
positive illusions
overestimate good qualities
underestimate faults
overestimate control over events
unrealistically optimistic
self-deception
fool themselves to maintain positive outlook
self-serving bias
compare self to people slightly worse
Why care about self-esteem?
sociometer theory → measure of social acceptability
theory of terror management → large groups make decisions to gain comfort frm avoiding thoughts of death
habits
occur with relatively little control by the deliberate system
can be dangerous bcs of lack of processing and monitoring
self-defeating acts
result from tradeoffs and faulty knowledge + strategies
tradeoffs: when reward is immediate, cost. is delayed
ex) smoking
faulty knowledge ex) idea of ‘doing best work under pressure’