PSYO 252 Lecture 1 (Ch. 2 + 3)

Research methods & the social self

Correlations research

• Assesses strength and direction of relationships

• Does NOT assign causation

Third-variable problem (confound)

• Rather than A causing B or B causing A, secret option C causes both A and B

• Ex. shark attacks (A) are correlated with high ice cream sales (B), both of which occur in the summer (C)

• C here refers to the confound

Correlation coefficient

• Value between -1 and +1

• Larger absolute value indicates a stronger correlation (either positive or negative

True experiments

• Involve independent, dependent, and often participant variables

• Examine cause and effect relationships

Two components required for a true experiment

• Manipulation of the independent variable

• Random assignment of participants to different treatments

Participant variables

• Characteristics of participants that can’t be manipulated

• Eg., ethnicity, religiosity, income

• NOT an independent variable

Random assignment

Participants, already selected for an experiment, are randomly given different treatments (eg., the control group or the group receiving the drug)

Random selection

• Selecting the participants of a study randomly

• Allows for an accurate representation of a population

• Very inconvenient to actually do; is rarely possible

Internal validity (and what is required to ensure it)

• Did the manipulation of the independent variable truly cause the change seen in the dependent variable? Or is it something else?

• Requires random assignment

External validity (and what is required to ensure it)

• Can the results of this study be generalized to larger populations and situations in real life?

• Random sampling is required (which is hard to do)

• This aspect of research is often quite low/poor

Overjustification effect

• Rewarding intrinsically motivated behaviour will decrease the intrinsic motivation

• Occurs when rewards are regular or become an expectation, causing the individual to only perform the behaviour for the reward

• When the individual is no longer rewarded, they will perform the behaviour far less than before they were rewarded

Social facilitation

• Change in performance level when in the presence of an audience, caused by the increased arousal

• Performance is enhanced when the task is easy for the individual

• Performance is impaired when the task is difficult

Does the level of obedience of an individual vary depending on sex?

Nope

What did Elizabeth Loftus reveal in her experiment regarding eyewitness testimonies? What fields might these findings be relevant to?

• Small tweaks in wording (eg., the car “smashed,” “hit,” or “contacted”) drastically impact how witnesses describe events (such as the estimated speed of the vehicles)

• Findings apply to law enforcement, legal fields, and research (such as designing surveys or experiments)

Stereotype threat

• When an individual is aware of a stereotype about themself, they work extra hard to disprove it

• Because of social facilitation, this may cause them to either excel or succumb to the stereotype, depending on how challenging they find the task and who is around them

• To be susceptible, one must be aware of the stereotype (though they don’t have to believe it is accurate)

What is characteristic of the settings of laboratory experiments?

• Environent is controlled

• Participants canbe closely studied

What is characterisitc of the settings of field experiments?

• Real-world setting, less controlled

• Participants act more naturally

Mundane realism

• Extent to which the setting of the experiment resembles a real-life setting where the behaviour studied may occur

• Very low/nonexistent in the Milgram experiment

• Not regarded as crucial

Experimental realism

• Extent to which the content of the experiment (precedures and situation) is real and involving to the participant

• Very high in the Milgram experiment (people cried and hugged the confederate at the end)

Meta-analysis

• Statistical procedure combining results gathered across many studies

• High credibility

Social categorization

• We create in-groups and out-groups (BC and Alberta, English speakers and non-English speakers, “us” or “the terrorists”)

• Allows us to develop social identities and group membership

Social identity theory

• States that we like our in-groups more than our out-groups

• This is used as a means to increase our self-esteem

Black sheep exception (social identity theory)

• When a member of an in-group screws up, they threaten the quality of the group and must be ostracized (form of internal identity threat)

• They are hated by their in-group even more than the out-group

Internal social identity threat

• Threat to a social group comes from within the group

• Eg., a UBCO student wants to transfer to UBCV because they think it’s too small here or not as prestigious

External social identity threat

• Threat to a social group comes from outside of the group

• Eg., a UBCV student shit-talks UBCO on Instagram or a podcast or something

What is the effect of social identity threats on the strength of the group?

• Increased strength

• Eg., following 9/11 (an external social identity threat), Americans of most groups (excluding one…) joined together, and Bush’s approval ratings jumped from 51% to 92%. American flags everywhere

Social validation

• Tendency to seek approval and acceptance from others in our in-group

• Can be obtained by aligning with the social norms of the in-group

• This enhances our self-esteem and sense of belonging

• has been transformed by social media

Affective forecasting

• Trying to predict what emotions one will feel at a future time

• We are very bad at it

• We assume that we will feel more strongly positive or negative for a longer time after an event than we actually will, but we assume we as individuals will recover faster than other people

• We underestimate the effectiveness of our coping mechanisms and other events that will continue to occur in our daily lives to distract us

Basking in reflected glory (BIRG)

• We tend to associate with successful people as a means to increase our self-esteem

• This behaviour is seen more strongly after a perceived self-failure

• We also “cut off reflected failure”

Self-handicapping

• When an individual thinks they may not do well at something, they sabotage their own performance to give themself an excuse other than just being incompetent or stupid

• Eg., before a test a student is worried about, they may choose not to study much, procrastinate, or take the test drunk. That way, when they get 60%, they don’t feel as stupid and can say, “Well, that’s not bad for just cramming the morning of”

Rosenberg Self-esteem scale is a measure of _____ while IAT is a measure of ______

explicit self-esteem; implicit self-esteem

Acculturation

• After immigrating to another country with a very different culture, individuals begin to take on the attributes of the new culture

• Fully take on their attributes within just 1 generation

Defensive high self-esteem

• Individuals who score high on explicit measures of self-esteem but low on implicit measures of self-esteem

• Are actually insecure, feel easily threatened, will lash out, but will act boastful

• Associated with “narcissism”

Self-presentation

• Process through which we try to control the impressions that people form of us

• Some people self-present more than others

• Has been taken to another level by social media and the selfie

Self-monitering

Chronically adjusting one’s actions, behaviour, and appearance to be perceived a certain way in public situations

High self-moniters

• Behave inconsistently across different situations

• Assess what others want and tailor their behaviour to fit it

Low self-moniters

• Act consistently across situations

• Have less of a filter, generally more blunt/honest

Goals of self-presentation

To be perceived as:

• Likeable

• Competent

• Powerful

Ingratiation

• Self-presenting to be seen as likable

• Done through verbal flattery, smiling, mimicking behaviour, making ourselves more physically attractive, projecting modesty

• Women are generally more likable, both to other women and men