psych #3

First impressions

initial judgement of someone's character/personality

we form schemas of others automatically and spontaneously
• made quickly (milliseconds to minutes), from very little information

First impression sources

physical appearance, what people say, how they say it, body language and especially from faces

impression formation

study by Willis and Todorov, 2006
- Photographs of faces shown to participants at various durations
- Asked to judge standing on a trait
- Correlated these ratings with another group of participants who had no time constraints to rate faces on same traits

shows that we just need a fraction of a second to make a judgement of a face

when forming impressions of others what do we care most about

evolutionary history we need to make certain assumptions abt someone:

turstworthiness/warmth (good or bad intentions)

competence/ dominance (ability to enact intentions)

first impressions tend to be enduring, why (pri

primacy effect

we tend to process information that comes to us earlier as weighing into our judgment more than later judgements

early asch studies:
here's a person named jack
- first group say good things and then bad to describe him and second group do the opposite.
first group rates jack higher in terms of likeness

information presented earlier is more important than information presented later

why impressions stick over time: confirmation bias

someone called sam, you have the impression that shes a good worker, you see that she's in the office, she wears smart looking clothes but ignore other information

attend to the information that supports initial impression, other information is ignored

how accurate are we in early impressions

NOT accurate!
- we are tracking emotional expressions and using these to judge character
- emotional expression are momentary; they change
- But it is useful to us to read emotions in face:
signals what’s up with another person (approach/avoid)

when inferring character from other sources

Still not very accurate
- Some accuracy in terms of what people are generally like
(E.g., Extroversion - Big five traits, has a lot of behaviourism to it)
- Somewhat accurate when using behavioral cues as a source

updated impressions

the more we get to know someone the more accurate we are
(e.g., Kenny & Acitelli, 2001; Malloy & Albright, 1990)
• when motivated to be accurate in our impressions, we’re more likely to be accurate (i.e roommates, or date)

factors that limit accuracy in early impressions

confirmation bias
• others may be managing their impression (impression management, shaping personality and trying to be someone they're not)
• we use heuristics when making judgements
- transference of traits from known people to new person (shayans nose on frat guy)
- false consensus (we think other people are similar to us, if you have liberal views and see someone similar to u u believe they also have liberal views)
- Stereotypes: beliefs about characteristics of individuals based on membership to some social category

attributions

inferences we make about the causes of behaviour

attribution theory

When making sense of other’s behavior we can attribute (explain) their behavior to either:
Dispositions:
internal factors such as traits, values, attitudes, beliefs, skills, intentions (jumped bc they're crazy)
Situations:
external factors such as events, weather, aspects of a context,circumstances, other people’s actions, accidents, chance (jumped bc lost a bet)

fundamental attribution error (FAE)

In general, when people try to figure out the cause of another person’s behavior, in Western, Individualistic cultures, people tend to:
• overestimate the impact of internal/dispositional influences (jerk, bad drivers)
• underestimate the impact of external/situational influences (rushing to hospital, sleep deprived)

Collectivistic/interdependent cultures

China, japan, latin america, eastern europe
Tend to value interdependence, cooperation, social harmony to a greater extent (paying attention to the context more)

People from collectivistic/interdependent cultures tend to
commit the FAE much less, if at all
Such people do consider internal factors, but they also consider situational factors

Individualistic/Independent cultures

us, canada, western europe
Tend to value independence, autonomy, self-reliance to a greater extent

self-serving attributions

on average, positive self esteem
our successes -> internal explanations
our failures -> external explanations

stereotypes

beliefs, schemas, or associations that link whole groups of people with certain traits or characteristics
• automatic associations/mental representations
• can be positive or negative, but just associations and not judgements
- sometimes accurate, sometimes based on a kernel of truth, sometimes inaccurate based on assumptions

LEARNED from personal experiences, family and culture
• PERPETUATED by the many experiences we have in life as
we grow up, also by the media (news, tv, film)

prejudice

Attitudes or affective responses toward or about a group and its individual members
• Valenced judgements: evaluative - positive to negative, but negative is usually what we mean when we say prejudice; it tends to get a lot more attention

discrimination

behaviors directed against people because of their group membership;
differential treatment
....not hiring someone, excluding someone from activities,
saying/doing unkind things to people, paying someone less for same work

social categorization

Humans categorize people into different groups based on a shared characteristic(s) or common attributes
- race, gender, age, height
- student organizations, sports teams
- shared beliefs/cause (Political Party; Dog vs Cat person)
- Personal preferences, hobbies

classifying people -> stereotyping
Leads us to divide people into in/out groups
• Our identities are partly/largely derived from various groups we belong to

categorizing is adaptive

- saves time and mental energy
- simplifies our environment
- often is accurate

in groups vs out-groups

- All the groups we belong to = in-groups
• All other groups we don’t belong to = out-groups

costs to social categorization

often stereotypes are negative and/or not accurate and
can drive prejudice and discrimination
• in/out-group division can lead to “Us vs Them” mentality
and increase prejudice
• can lead us to process information about outgroups
differently
➢ Overestimating group differences: “They are not like us”
➢ Out-group homogeneity effect: “They are all alike; we are unique and diverse”

Robber's cave study

Sought to examine how prejudice and discrimination might develop, and also how it might be reduced

Two groups: Eagles & Rattlers
1. Bonding phase
2. Competition phase
3. Reconciliation phase

working together towards something better for both groups reduce discrimination
conflict towards limited resources can lead to prejudice
Reducing prejudice and discrimination
• Contact hypothesis: but contact alone isn’t enough
Mutual interdependence was required
- Working together towards a common superordinate goal

realistic conflict theory

Prejudice and conflict arise from competition for scarce resources among groups
- Resources such as water ways, access to fish, land rights, valued objects
- Economic perspective; lots of evidence to support this theory

social identity theory

A person’s self-concept and self-esteem derives from status and accomplishments of various groups to which the person belongs
• We want our groups to be the best, to be of high status, so we show favoritism to members of our group versus members of other groups
• Prejudice and conflict arise from in-group favoritism and/or
from out-group derogation

attitude

positive/negative/mixed reaction to, or orientation towards, a person,a group, object or idea

like, dislike, love,mixed feelings, against

explicit attitude

easy to report, conscious of it, can be updated with new info
Measurement:
• commonly measured via self-report questionnaires using Likert scales
• but people might be unwilling or unable to tell the truth

implicit attitude

quick, automatic, unconscious/not aware of it, difficult to update
Measurement: indirectly via
• facial expressions (e.g. EMG; less common)
• body language (e.g., distance from someone/thing)
• Implicit Association Tests (IAT; very common; uses reaction times)

Implicit Association Test: (IAT)

Categorization task that uses reaction times based on decision rules to assess strength of associations between concepts and positivity/negativity

Faster responses are thought to reflect stronger associations, thereby presumably revealing implicit bias (automatic unconscious preferences/prejudice)

link between attitudes and behaviour

Attitudes can have consequences on behavior
• But attitudes don’t often predict behavior
• Eg. Abstract attitudes

When are attitudes most likely to predict behavior?

When they are about specific issues
- So they tend to generate specific behaviors
• When they are strong attitudes
- When we are certain about them (i.e., attitude strength)
and they apply to situations with which we have experience
(personal link)

persuasion

changing people's attitudes as a means to change their behaviour

elaboration likelihood model

Dual process theory of persuasion
Central: scrutinizing the content of the message; strengths & weaknesses of arguments, listener, can understand what is being talked about AND have motivation

Peripheral: attending to relatively superficial cues; low effect processing, low ability, simple minded -> credibility of who is talking

Cognitive Dissonance theory

Based on idea that we strongly desire cognitive consistency, or the
mental state in which beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors are compatible
• When there is a discrepancy between beliefs, attitudes and behaviors we
feel dissonance (inner tension)
• Larger discrepancy -> greater dissonance
- we are motivated to reduce it


think recycling is important, don't recycle much
to reduce the dissonance, you can
1. change belief (recycling isn't important)
2. change behaviour (recycle)
3. change perception of of behaviour (but I recycle once a month)

cognitive dissonance: original study (festinger, 1957)

1. boring task for one hour
2. asked to tell next participant the task was enjoyable (to lie) 3. how much they liked the task for $1, $20, or no money

behaviour: told someone it was enjoyable
attitude: didn't enjoy it
^discrepency, inner tension according to cognitive dissonance theory. and since u can't change behaviour u change ur attitude. cannot account for behaviour with contextual (why lie for one dollar and say it was good).


$1 people had insufficient justification to tell someone it was enjoyable
$20 could justify action so still said it wasn't enjoyable, bc attitude didn't need to be ajusted

social influence

the way that people are affected by the real and imagined presence of others

social influence as automatic

reflex-like behaviours

automatic mimicry
- "chameleon effect"

social function: eases social interactions

social norms

- commonly shared beliefs about appropriate actions
• unwritten social rules; might/might not be aware of them
• vary across context, culture, and time
• violating social norms often results in awkwardness, hostility, or ostracism


-> wearing clothes
-> lining up for stuff
-> public displays of affection
-> masks during pandemic

people in collectivistic cultures tend to conform more to social norms, compared to those in individualistic cultures

3 main ways we yield to more explicit forms of social influence

conformity
compliance
obedience

conformity

changing our perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that
are consistent with group norms

compliance

changing out behaviour in response to direct requests

obedience

changing our behaviour in response to commands by perceived authority figures

asch's conformity study

Will people conform their answers to the group?
• 5 confederates, 1 participant
• 3 Trials: In trials 1 and 2, all confederates give correct answers.
In trial 3, all confederates give wrong answer
• Pilot study (control): how easy is this task --- very easy


overall 35% conformed with the error
75% conformed at least once
25% of participants never conformed

why do we conform according to asch's conformity study

informational influence: we need to be correct; we seek information

normative influence: we fear social ostracism, judgement, social exclusion

the stanley milgram experiement

to what extent would people comply with requests/ directives from a perceived authority figure to harm another person

Most predicted that participants would stop around
150 volts, and fewer than 1% would go all the way to max shock

all 40 participants: at least 300 v
26/40 participants: all the way

factors to consider: Participants were agitated and
uncomfortable, some very distressed
• Many wanted to stop
• Encouragement by experimenter
• Told: no responsibility
Part 5: obedience Milgram
15

the stanley milgram experiement

factors that push around this obedience to authority effect

study off campus(|v), must place learners hand on shock plate (|v), person is an assistant (^|)

idea of credibility and,

aggression

behaviour initended to harm another individual

extreme aggression

violence

various forms: physical, verbal, emotional, direct/indirect

instrumental aggression

goal is to achieve somethings (social, emotional, physical)
harmful behaviour has a purpose to it

hostile aggression

Motivated by hostility
• Goal is to cause harm someone
• Emotional, impulsive, in the heat-of- the-moment aggression (e.g., jealousy, road rage)
• Can also be calm and cool (e.g., revenge)

environmental factors of aggression

evidence from correlational and experimental studies proves that heat and hot weather have a positive correlation with aggression

also:
- crowding
- social provocation: insults or social rejection

social learning in relation to aggression

we learn to be aggressive via behaviour modeling

we learn to be more/less aggressive via rewards and punishments

the bobo doll studies (bandura, 1960)

randomly assigned young children to different experimental conditions

IV: modelled behaviour (filmed aggressive adults -> children imitated aggressive behaviours, filmed non-aggressive adults (control) -> kids novel aggressive behaviour)

DV: aggressive acts (how kids reacted)

the bobo doll studies (results)

Watching modelled aggression lead to more aggression in these
children compared to controls
- both imitated and novel acts of aggression
2. Iterations of the BOBO Doll study also showed that modelled
aggression led to more aggression when it was rewarded,
and less aggression when it was punished

prosocial behaviour

actions intended to benefit others such as helping, comforting, sharing, cooperating

what motivates prosocial behaviour

egoism?
altruism?

egoism (in relation to prosocial behaviour)

motivation to increase one’s own welfare; self-interest
- to be seen in a positive light
- to feel good about yourself
- to get something tangible

altruism (in relation to prosocial behaviour)

behaviors intended to benefit another without expectations
of anything in return

motivation to increase another person’s welfare
- concern for other(s)

debate about altruism

is pure/true altruism actually possible?

It often FEELS GOOD to help, comfort, share, cooperate, etc
• We might be denying egoistic motivations
• There is a COST to helping and not helping

evolutionary theory

Altruistic/prosocial behaviors have reproductive advantages
• Helping kin helps our genes survive

so why help strangers and non-kin

reciprocal altruism

Actions that benefit others, despite some immediate risk or cost, that may be repaid in kind in the long run

reciprocity norm (give and take rule)

Rule of social interactions: If someone helps us, we should help in return

• Short-term relationships: reciprocation is expected right away or soon
• Lasting relationships: no score keeping, reciprocation is expected over the long-run


• People can get (very) dissatisfied when there is no reciprocation in return

(AB)using norm of reciprocity STUDY

Observational study
• Hare Krishna’s in airports in 1960’s and 1970’s
• Airport patrons were given unwanted flowers, and often ended up giving $1 or $2 donations (often begrudgingly)

the story of kitty genovese

Attacked twice by same male attacker in New York:

First, stabbed outside of her apartment
Second, raped, stabbed again, murdered in a nearby building

• 37 alleged witnesses heard screams
• Police were called eventually, but too late to save her

BYSTANDER EFFECT

bystander effect

the presence of others inhibits helping

Two of the main explanations for the bystander effect:

1. diffusion of responsibility
2. pluralistic ignorance

diffusion of responsibility study (bystander effect)

study: one of the participants has a seizure next door
IV: group size (alone, +1 other person, +4 other people)
DV: time to help

people will help less, more slowly to an emergency the more bystanders there are. (alone= 1 min, +1 = 2 min, +4 = 3 minutes)

pluralistic ignorance (bystander effect)

The tendency to misinterpret social cues and rely on the overt
reactions of others in ambiguous situation which leads to inaction

interpersonal attraction

positive orientation towards someone; liking
not necessarily romantic/sexual

familiarity

we tend to like people who are known to us

mere exposure effect

the more you see a novel stimulus, the more you like it; easier to cognitively process familiar stimuli

similarity

we tend to like similar others: attitudes, values, interests

reciprocity

we like those who like us; very validating

physical attractiveness

rewarding visible and immediate stimulus (halo effect)

halo effect

belief that attractive people possess a bunch of other positive qualities -> intelligent, happier, better personalities

attachment theory

Human infants develop intensely strong emotional bonds with caretakers as a survival strategy
• Infants rely on caretakers for sense of security and to meet their needs
- Children develop internal working models of how relationship should/do function
• Internal working models give rise in attachments styles
(i.e., secure, anxious, avoidant)

attachment styles

how one typically interacts with a close other

adult attachment theory

Adults continue to develop attachment bonds with close others throughout life
• One has attachment styles for romantic partners and close others

secure (~55%)
anxious/ambivalent (~20%)
avoidant (~25%)

secure (~55%) attachment style

Trusting, more relaxed
• feels worthy of love/affection
• comfortable with intimacy
• believes others are responsive

positive view of self and others

anxious/ambivalent (~20%) adult attachment theory

strong desire for closeness but fears rejection
• vigilant towards relationship threats
• needy, jealous, clingy
• dependent on others approval to feel good about self

negative view of self, positive of others

avoidant (~25%) adult attachment theory

avoids and is uncomfortable with intimacy
• distrusting of others
• self-reliant, confident

positive view of self, negative of others

there's dismissive avoidant and then fearful avoidant

fearful avoidant

distrusting of others
want closeness but fear rejection

negative view of self and others

(relationships) general vs specific attachment

Study 1:
• participants currently in relationships rated themselves on:
- general attachment
- listed 10 most impactful relationships and rated them in terms of attachment

everyone has secure relationships, those with anxious attachment just tend to have more anxious attachment style relationships than the other two and vice versa

personality

stable way of thinking, feeling, and acting i.e stable cognitions, emotions and behaviours

but what counts? intelligence? athletic ability? sexual orientation?

reinfication

occurs when abstract constructs are treated as if they are real or tangible

“Extraversion” is not like your liver or your occipital cortex

It is not located in one place in the brain, cannot be directly measured, is not objectively defined (we can disagree on the shape of extraversion—what it is, what counts, how to measure it)

phrenology (historical approaches - bumps)

Judging character by reading “bumps” on the head
Gall argued that skull bumps were a sign of specific brain enlargements

Psychograph

a machine meant to measure bumps on the head and give ratings for each of the 35 personality categories from the brain map (last slide)

historical approaches - blots

In contrast to objective tests, which are often obvious about what is being studied, projective tests were used to uncover hidden thought processes...
 Example: Rorschach Ink blot
 Example: Draw a Person, Person-House-Tree
 Example: Thematic Apperception Test

Rorschach Ink blot

how do people compare to norms, is there a common pattern?

just show a person an inc blot

draw a person test

tells people to draw a person and gives points (has a head would be a point, proportion of neck to arms would be another)

formulate of the bottom can calculate mental age
loose correlation with age and development but some people are better artists than others -> larger head would be more narcissistic , but of course this isn't accurate

or draw a person, house, tree

Thematic Apperception Test

actually shows a story and asks person to tell the story of what is going on can be revealing of what they think about the world

jealous response from jealous men

Body type theories

fluid types (galen)
body somatotypes (sheldon)

fluid types (galen) body type theories

temperament related to
four bodily fluids
◦ Sanguine: excess of blood = vigor and athleticism
◦ Choleric: excess of urine = easily angered
◦ Melancholic: excess of feces = depressed or sad
◦ Phlegmatic: excess of mucus = tired or lazy

body somatotypes (sheldon) body type theories

Endomorph: overweight = jolly, extraverted, slow
◦ Mesomorph: muscular = athletic, aggressive
◦ Ectomorph: skinny = thinking, withdrawn, fearful

freud's three levels of awareness

1. The conscious mind is what you are presently aware of, what you are thinking about right now

2. The preconscious mind is stored in your memory that
you are not presently aware of but can gain access to

3. The unconscious mind is the part of our mind of which we cannot become aware
◦ It contains, however, the primary motivations for all of our actions and feelings – our biological instinctual drives (such as for food and sex) and repressed unacceptable thoughts, memories, and feelings, especially unresolved conflicts from our early childhood experience

freud's three part personality structure

ID (unconscious psychic energy)
Ego (executive mediator)
Superego (internalized ideals)

Freud's ID

Is the “original personality”, the only part present at birth and the part the other two parts of our personality grow out of
◦ Is entirely unconscious
◦ Includes our biological instinctual drives, the primitive parts of our personality located in our unconscious
 Life instincts for survival, reproduction, and pleasure
 Death instincts, destructive and aggressive drives detrimental to survival
◦ Operates on a pleasure principle; that is, it demands immediate gratification for these drives without the concern for the consequences of this gratification

freud's ego

Starts developing during the first year or so of life to find realistic and socially-acceptable outlets for the id’s needs
◦ Operates on the reality principle, finding gratification for instinctual drives within the constraints of reality (the norms and laws of society)
◦ Part of the ego is unconscious (tied to the id; dark purple part of glacier) and part of the ego is preconscious and conscious (tied to the external world; light purple and white parts of glacier)

superego

Represents one’s conscience and idealized standards of behavior in their culture
◦ Operates on a morality principle, threatening to overwhelm us with guilt and shame
◦ The demands of the superego and the id will come into conflict and the ego will have to resolve this turmoil within the constraints of reality
◦ To prevent being overcome with anxiety because of trying to satisfy the id and superego demands, the ego uses what Freud called defense mechanisms, processes that distort reality and protect us from anxiety