psych 280 exam 1 - methods and the self

what is social psychology

the scientific study of the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of individuals in social situations

- thoughts and behaviors shaped by social situations

milgram experiment

A series of psychological experiments which measured the willingness of study participants to obey an authority figure who instructed them to perform acts that conflicted with their personal conscience

- administer shocks to "learners" who got incorrect answers

naive realism

peoples belief that they see things exactly as they exist in reality

construal

an interpretation or inference about a situation, behavior, or person

- critical to understanding how people behave in social situations

culture can affect how people:

- think about the self

- respond to transgressions

- express and regulate different emotions

THERE IS VARIABILITY AND THINGS SHARED ACROSS CULTURES

naturalistic fallacy

thought everything that is natural is good

why study thoughts and behaviors scientifically

- systematic and methodical data collection

- repeatable

- falsifiability

theory

integrated set of claims based on empirical evidence, intended to describe something about the world

hypothesis

specific, testable, and falsifiable prediction about the phenomenon we want to study

construct

the conceptual representation of the intangible phenomenon being studied ex. motivation

operationalization

the concrete observable instance of a construct that is studied

ex. the amount of time spent working on a task, self reported motivation

goals of science

describe

explain

predict

describe

what is happening

explain

why is it happening

predict

what will happen

what study describes behavior

naturalistic observation/ethnography

naturalistic observation

observe behavior where it typically happens

strengths of naturalistic observation

- high in external validity

- see what people actually do

limitations of naturalistic observation

- can only describe

- no private/rare events

- observer bias

- low in internal validity

what study predicts behavior

correlational studies

correlational study

determine how much and in what way two pre-existing variables are related

strengths of correlational studies

- study things you cant or shouldn't manipulate

- lots of data

- relatively cost effective

limitations of correlational studies

- response bias

- sampling errors

- cannot determine causal relationships

what study explains behavior

experiments

experiments

manipulate one or more factors while controlling others (holding things constant)

strengths of experiments

- high in internal validity

- CAN conclude causality

limitations of experiments

- more costly

- demand characteristics

- low in external validity

independent variables

variable manipulated or controlled by researcher

dependent variable

measurement of the consequences of changing independent variable

control

manipulate some variables while holding others constant

random assignment

participants must have an equal chance of being in any condition of the experiment

- minimizes individual differences

- "the great equalizer"

how are ethical concerns addressed

- require informed consent so people know what getting into

- minimize harm and discomfort

- only do worthwhile research

- ensure confidentiality

- debriefing participants to true nature of study after over, including deception

- IRB

institutional review board

monitors our activities and approve our studies before we can run participants

replication crisis

a systematic problem in which a large proportion of studies are not reproducible

why might a study not replicate

- chance, false positive sin the original and false negs in replication

- meaningful changes in conditions underlying the effect

- changes in the validity of methods originally used, measures dont mean same thing in new context

- questionable research practices

questionable research practices

- small samples, less reliable estimates

- hypothezeing after results known (HARKing), findings that are just chance reported with same confidence as well supported hypotheses

- p-hacking, analyzing data many ways until one stat significant

- underreporting null effects, choosing not to publish

- fabrication

methodological reform in research

- better stat and methodological training

- larger sample sizes and more consistent analysis of prob of detecting effects

- open science practices

preregistration

documenting hypotheses, sample size, analysis plan

open data

having de-identified data publicly available for independent verification

open materials

sharing research materials for others to use in replications

contemporary issues in methods

- online convenience samples

- machine ;earning and ai

positive correlation

more exposure increased behavior

go in same direction

negative correlation

more optimism less illness

go diff directions

zero correlation

no change w exposure

randomized control trial

random assignment into control or treatment group

confounding variable

a factor other than the independent variable that might produce an effect in an experiment

- reason we can doubt correlation means causation

reliability

Ability of a test to yield very similar scores for the same individual over repeated testings - consistency

validity

the extent to which a test measures or predicts what it is supposed to

internal validity

confidence that only manipulated independent variable and no other external influence could have produced results

external validity

extent to which research finding can be generalized and applied to other people, settings, times, treatments, and real world contexts outside of og study

social self

how we think about ourselves in a social world

self-concept

how we think about the self

self-knowledge

what we know about the self

self-esteem

how we feel about the self

- overall positive or negativ e evaluation of the self

working self concept

changes based on what is relevant to the situation, but also based on what distinguishes us from others \

tendency to focus on characteristics that are uncommon or unique in a context (focusing on what makes us different)

why self knowledge may be limited

- a lot of processes that guide our thoughts and behavior are outside our conscious awareness

- perceptions are shaped by how we feel (or want to feel) about the self

do we know ourselves better than others depends on

- what info people have access to (self for internal traits vs others for external)

- how we are motivated to view the self (may be biased when ppl want to see themselves a specific way

trait self esteem

more stable, long term evaluation of the self (how you feel about yourself in general - standing view of the self )

state self-esteem

moment to moment evaluations of the self (how you feel about yourself right now)

- after specific failure, setback, succss

contingencies of self worth q

people base their self esteem more heavily on domains that they personally value - people differ in things that affect self worth

- self esteem contingent on success or failure in key valued domain

sociometer hypothesis

self esteem in an internal reflection of how we are seen by others - we feel good abt ourselves when other people feel good about us

- diff cultures value self esteem

self enhancement

do things/think in ways that bolster self image

self enhancement motive

desire to bolster positive self image

- motivates biased and overly positive assessments of the self, especially in valued domains - social and internal

- common but not ubiquitous

self verification motive

motivation to feel ones self evaluations are accurate whether positive or not

- consistent and stable sense of self

- may desire or actively seek feedback from others confirming self evaluation

- not paying attention as much attention to things that aren't consistent w self views

subjective accuracy

about feeling that sense of sense is reflected in world and how people perceive you

self regulation

active effort to control or alter ones own behavior in service of a goal

- can involve lots of processes or strategies

- often involves down regulating short term impulses and desires

self discrepancy theory

self regulation goals are determined by perceived discrepancies between who they currently are (actual self) and who they want to be (ideal self) or who they think they are supposed to be (ought self)

- goals dictated by version you want to be or should be

- we regulate behaviors to align ourselves w ought/ideal self

self discrepancy theory

the kinds of self regulation people focus on (regulatory focus) depends on which self they are discrepant with

- discrepancies with the ideal self leads to promotion focus, or an emphasis on attaining positive outcomes

- discrepancies with the ought self leads to prevention focus , or emphasis on avoiding negative outcomes

impression management (self presentation)

efforts to shape how others view us

self monitoring

the tendency to monitor ones behavior to fit current situation

- can be a trait as ppl have diff amts of this

- high self monitors adapt their behavior to the situation more

self - handicapping

engaging in self defeating behavior as an explanation for failure so that it is nor attributed to ability

- can be impression management or to protect self esteem

- want to protect self image from threats

- protecting image against potential failures

self schemas

cognitive representation of persons beliefs ad feelings about the self in general and in certain situations

organizing function of self schemas

- processing info

- retrieving evidence

- rejecting or contexualizing contradictory info

inward subjective experience

- self introspection (may not always be accurate)

- people nor always aware of all the things that drive them

- observing own thoughts

outward behavioral evidence

self perception where people look to own behavior as info about their preferences and characteristics

how info about self comes from other people

reflected appraisal which is our perception of others evaluations of us

- social comparison

social comparison theory

people make assessments about own characteristics by comparing themselves to others

- happens when there is no objective standard

upward social comparison

comparing self to people who are better at something

downward social comparison

comparing to people worse at something

independent self construal

way of viewing self as a separate unique and autonomous from other people and social contexts

- personal goals internal traits self expression individual achievements

- most common in individualistic societies

interdependent self

sees self as fundamentally connected embedded or relational within social group

- social roles, group goals, fitting in

- most common in collectivist societies

better than average effect

people want to hold better images of themselves

- happens with desirable dimensions

- due to ambiguity - dont usually assess ourselves in this aspect

dunning Kruger effect

The tendency for unskilled individuals to overestimate their own ability and the tendency for experts to underestimate their own ability.

- lack of knowledge to understand how bad they are at something

difference between dunning trigger and better than avg effect

better than avg effect deserves that e overstimate ourselves and dk explains why

- dk also explains when and why we overestimate

self affirmation

when faced with a threat, reminding yourself of another positive aspect of yourself in unrelated domain can help avoid a blow to self esteem