social psych 2630 midterm

dr. feinberg columbia summer session B

Norman Triplett, 1897-1898

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’