Psych Unit 2

hindsight bias

hindsight bias

“I knew it all along”- tendency to believe AFTER learning an outcome that you saw it coming

• we distort/misremember earlier predictions

• we view events as inevitable (when they actually happened by chance)

• self-serving bias- we want to believe we’re right

overconfidence

thinking we know more than we do/being very confident we’re right (ex. when asked how sure we are about factual questions, we’re more confident than we are correct)

perceiving order in random events (Gambler’s Fallacy)

finding patterns in completely random data because random sequences don’t always look random (ex. flipping a coin and seeing “patterns” of heads or tails)

scientific method

self-correcting process for evaluating ideas with observation and analysis

theory

explains behaviors/events by offering ideas that organize observations

hypothesis

a testable prediction, often implied by a theory

operational definition

clear, detailed statements/procedures about how you will measure/quantify the data collected about the variables.

• allows researchers to successfully replicate a study → MUST be measurable, quantifiable, and achievable

• ex. happiness: # of times someone laughs in 1 hour or self-reported questionnaire

replication

repeating a study with different participants/situations to see if the same results occur

case study

descriptive study where one person/group being studied to try revealing universal principles (usually used when it’s unethical to study multiple participants, ex. feral children documentary from sociology). **can’t generalize to entire population

• clinical case study: therapist investigates the problems associated with a client

naturalistic observation

descriptive study where behavior is observed in their natural state

survey

descriptive study asking people to report their behavior or opinions (less depth than other descriptive studies because it’s self-reported)

• wording effect, false consensus effect

wording effect

certain wording of questions in a survey can affect opinions or responses

sampling bias

when sample isn’t chosen randomly; produces unrepresentative data

representative sample

randomly selected sample; no sampling bias

population

everyone in the group being studied

random sample

sample where everyone has an equal chance of inclusion

correlation

measure of how much 2 factors coincide/how well either factor predicts the other. DOES NOT imply causation. detects naturally occurring relationships, no manipulating

variable

anything that can vary and is feasible/ethical to measure

correlation coefficient, r

statistical index of the relationship between 2 things (how easily the points fit on a straight line on a graph)

scatterplot

graphed cluster of dots, represents values of 2 variables

illusory correlation

perceiving a relationship where none exists, or perceiving a stronger-than-actual relationship

• confirmation bias

• at the root of many superstitions

regression toward the mean

tendency for extreme/unusual scores/events to regress toward the average (ex. students who score way higher/lower than usual on a test are likely to return to their average score when retested)

experiment

a research method where investigator manipulates 1 or more factors to observe the effect on some behavior/mental process to find the WHY

• isolates for causes and effects

• manipulates factors that interest us, while other factors are kept under control

experimental group

the group being exposed to treatment

control group

the group not receiving treatment

random assignment

controls groups by chance, ensures comparable groups

• reduces confounding variables

double-blind

neither the researcher nor the participants know if the treatment or placebo was given. necessary because:

• experimenter bias: experimenter may influence results because they’re looking for a certain outcome

• subject/participant bias: subjects may act in a way they think the experimenter wants them to act

• confounding variables: random assignment reduces these

• Hawthorne effect: subjects change their behavior in a study because they’re aware of being observed

placebo effect

experimental results caused by expectations alone

independent variable

the variable being manipulated

dependent variable

the outcome being measured

confounding variable

a variable that could potentially influence results but we don’t know whether it does or not

validity

how much/to what extent a test measures/predicts what it’s supposed to

APA ethics code

code necessary for all ethical experiments to follow

• informed consent: giving people enough info to decide if they want to be in a study

• protection from greater-than-usual harm and discomfort

• confidentiality: keep individual info private

• debrief: post-experimental explanation of a study, including purpose/any deceptions, to the participants

• anonymity: can participate without giving identifying info

descriptive statistics

numerical data used to meaningfully measure and describe characteristics of groups

• measures of central tendency, variation

• meaningful description → accurate conclusions

  • misrepresentation → inaccurate conclusions

• hierarchy: 1. central tendency (mean median mode), 2. variance (range, standard deviation)

histogram

bar graph depicting frequency distribution

mode

most frequently occurring score(s) in a distribution

mean

average of a distribution

median

the middle score (50th percentile) of a distribution

skewed

scores lacking symmetry around their average value

range

highest score - lowest score

standard deviation

computed measure of how much scores vary around the mean

• outliers increase this number

normal curve

bell-shaped curve of normal distribution (68% lie within 1 st. dev. of mean, 95 within 2 st. devs., 99.7% within 3 st. devs.)

inferential statistics

data allowing one to generalize the probability of something being true about a population

statistical significance

how likely it is that a result occurred by chance

in comparing data between experimental and control groups, the difference MUST be large enough to be considered meaningful; otherwise, a very small difference could be due to chance alone.

• odds of data occurring by chance ≤ 5% → to say a study is significant, the p-value must be less than 0.05

variance

standard deviation squared

z-score

indication (in terms of standard deviations) of distance. from the mean

statistical reliability

when is an observed difference reliable? when can you generalize your findings to a whole population?

• LARGE, REPRESENTATIVE sample

attribution theory

we attribute others’ behavior to their stable traits (dispositional attribution) or the situation (situational attribution)

fundamental attribution error

tendency to underestimate situation and overestimate disposition (ex. if someone cuts you off in the parking lot, you might think wow they’re a rude person)

attitude

feelings that predispose us to respond in a certain way to people or events

• attitudes influence actions, actions influence attitudes

• persuasion routes change attitudes

peripheral route persuasion

when people are influenced by incidental cues (ex. a tiktok influencer is really attractive so you buy a product they’re promoting)

central route persuasion

offers evidence/arguments that trigger careful thinking

foot-in-the-door phenomenon

tendency for people who agreed to a small request to comply later with a large request (ex. you feel bad saying no to salespeople, so you buy a bunch of things you didn’t want to buy in the first place)

door-in-the-face phenomenon

making large, unreasonable requests then small requests (makes the small request seem more appealing) (ex. you ask your parents for a 1am curfew even though you really only want a 12am curfew)

role

set of expectations about a social position, defining how those in the position ought to behave

Stanford prison experiment

male college students became either guards or prisoners, but was horribly unethical and was terminated after 6 days instead of the full 2 weeks. left them all super scarred and damaged emotionally. violated the APA ethics code bc it didn’t protect the participants from harm.

cognitive dissonance

when our attitudes/thoughts/beliefs don’t line up with our actions and we feel bad

norms

understood rules for accepted/expected behavior

chameleon effect

unconsciously mimicking others in current social environment

social contagion

spread of behavior between a group (ex. yawning, laughing)

mood contagion

taking on emotional tones of others (ex. expressions, postures, inflections, etc.)

• mood linkage: sharing of moods

positive herding

positive ratings generate more positive ratings

conformity

adjusting behavior/thinking to coincide with a group standard

Asch conformity test

participants were more likely to give wrong answers about which lines were the same length if the wrong answers were first given by other “participants.”

• 37% gave the obviously wrong answer. when one person agreed with the right answer, 5% still gave the wrong answer.

normative social influence

results from desire to gain approval/reject disapproval

informational social influence

results from willingness to accept opinions about reality

Milgram obedience experiment

participants had to give an electric shock to “subjects” when they incorrectly answered questions, level of shock increased as study went on.

• 65% delivered the HIGHEST level of shock

  • foot in the door

• concluded that obedience trumps morality, people will usually follow orders

social control

power of the situation

personal control

power of the individual

minority influence

power of 1 or 2 individuals to sway the majority

social facilitation

strengthened performance when others are around

social loafing

the tendency for people in a group to exert less effort when pooling their efforts towards attaining a common goal than when individually accountable

deindividuation

loss of self-awareness/self-restraint occurring in group situations that foster arousal and anonymity (ex. following the crowd in yelling at the ref)

group polarization

the beliefs/attitudes we bring to a group grow stronger as we discuss them with like-minded others

groupthink

when the desire for harmony in a decision-making group overrides a realistic appraisal of alternatives (ex. you’re working on a group project and the group decides on a route that you don’t think will get a good grade, but you stay quiet to keep the group in harmony)

culture

behaviors, attitudes, values, and traditions shared by a group and transmitted from one generation to the next

prejudice

an unjustifiable/usually negative attitude toward a group/its members

• stereotypes, discrimination

stereotypes

generalized beliefs about a group of people (ex. women are more emotional than men)

discrimination

acting in negative/unjustifiable ways towards members of a group one is prejudiced towards

microaggressions

subtle forms of discrimination

explicit prejudice

prejudice on the “radar screen” of our awareness (ex. “wow, i really hate women!”)

implicit prejudice

unaware of how our attitudes are influencing our behavior (ex. walking on the other side of the street after seeing someone of a certain group)

ingroup

people with whom we share a common identity (“us”)

outgroup

people perceived as different/apart from our ingroup (“them”)

ingroup bias

tendency to favor our own group

just-world phenomenon

tendency for people to believe the world is just/fair and people get what they deserve/deserve what they get

scapegoat theory

says prejudice offers an outlet for anger by providing someone to blame (ex. hitler blamed the jews for germany’s problems and used that to justify murdering 6 million of them)

other-race effect

tendency to recall faces of one’s own race more accurately than the faces of other races

availability heuristic

tendency to estimate the frequency of an event by how readily it comes to mind (ex. you watch the news and see high crime in a certain neighborhood, then when someone mentions the neighborhood you immediately assume it’s dangerous because that is the notion most readily available to your brain)

victim blaming

amplified by hindsight bias and just-world phenomenon

aggression

any physical or verbal behavior intended to harm someone physically or emotionally

• can be done reactively out of hostility or proactively as a calculated means to an end

• emerged from interaction between biology and experience → biopsychosocial

frustration-aggression principle

the principle that frustration creates anger which can generate aggression

social script

a culturally modeled guide for how to act in various situations

mere exposure effect

phenomenon that repeated exposure to novel stimuli increases liking of them (ex. you may get a so-so first impression of someone but with time you grow to like them more)

passionate love

an aroused state of intense positive absorption in another, usually present at the beginning of a romantic relationship

companionate love

deep affectionate attachment we feel for those with whom our lives are intertwined (still romantic love)

equity

people receive from a relationship in proportion to what they give to it

self-disclosure

revealing intimate aspects of ourselves to others

altruism

unselfish regard for the welfare of others, with no expectation of any benefits for the helper

bystander effect

tendency for bystanders to be less likely to help if other bystanders are present