Social Psychology (Unit 1)

Theory

an understanding of why an effect occurs

phenomenom

a demonstration on the effect occuring

inductive

specific observation of human behavior to a general theory

example of inductive theory development

kitty genovese murder (woman murdered late night, many witnesses, no one called for help)

Bystander effect

people are less likely to help if there are other people present

deductive theory development

multiple observations from different fields to one unifying theory

example of deductive theory development

ego-depletion theory

ego-depletion theory

theory that we are more likely to give up if we are mentally or physically taxed; we have a finite set of energy

example of ego-depletion theory

Study on whether or not people would resist the temptation of eating a cookie vs only the radish after fasting

=> those who got something to eat before hand were less likely to eat cookie

Theory Evaluation

1. testable/falsifiable

2. fits consistent data

3. generates research/interest by others

4. parsimony - simplest theory is usually the best theory

Experimental design

causation: independent vs dependent variable, controlled setting, random assignment, standardization

Correlational design

a way to look at the extent to whether there is a systematic relationship between measured variables (no manipulation of variables)

Reductionism Approach

isolate the cause and look at one variable at a time on its own

Systems Approach

look at all potential variables/entire system at once (PATH ANALYSIS)

internal validity

the degree to which you are sure about the cause of the results in your study

external validity

the degree to which a subjects behavior is naturally occurring

Operationalization

how we choose to represent/manipulate variables

laboratory experiment research method

experiment in which an independent variable is manipulated to measure a dependent variable

observational research method

systematically observing things in the real world where people don't know when they are being studied (important: observations must be standardized)

field experiment research method

attempt to manipulate independent variable and measure dependent variable in the real world

surveys research method

questionnaire or interview to measure people's attitudes to certain topics

experiment sampling research method

when experimenter gets the subject to report about a behavior thats happening in the real world during real time

simulation research method

when experimenter gets subject roleplay a certain situation

archival

when experimenter gains access to a data set that was not originally collected with the purposes of a study

quasi-experimental

experiment that is looking at a variable that groups subjects but not randomly

lab experiment pros and cons

pros: high internal validity, controlled environment, random assignment

cons: low external validity

observational pros and cons

pros: high external validity

cons: low internal validity, many potential factors

observational example

study about eating alone in a cafeteria women vs men

field experiment pros and cons

pros: high external validity and internal validity

cons: may need to scrap data depending on different circumstances and harder to get approved

field experiment example

the study on aggressiveness when presented with a weapon in the back of a car at a stoplight

survey pros and cons

pros: collect data relatively easily

cons: both conscious and unconscious bias

experiment sampling pros and cons

pros: high external validity, real time data

cons: self reported behavior, bias

experiment sampling example

study on physical attraction and quality and quantity of social interactions, after each interaction, fill out survey

simulation pros and cons

pros: gets you access to situations normally wouldn't have access to

cons: can be unethical,

simulation example

stanford prison experiment

archival pros and cons

pros: external validity

cons: can only have the data thats been collected

archival example

radio station fundraiser or domestic abuse shelter

quasi experiemental pros and cons

pros: able to study causation

cons: low internal validity since there is no random assignment of independent variable

design problems (demand characteristic)

something that happens within a study that tips off the subject of what the experimenter is expecting

design problem/demand characteristic solution

pilot test to see if subjects know what hypothesis is

experimenter bias

experimenter might act differently depending on what they expect the subjects to do or what they know

self-fulfilling prophecy

expectation or belief that can affect your behavior and sometimes make it true (more extroverted tend to look at more extroverted traits)

experimenter bias example

study with teacher being told smart kids vs not so smart kids OR graduate student experimenter study

participant bias/evaluation apprehension

if subject knows they are being studied they many no act as naturally as they normally were

participant bias solution

make subjects anonymous and emphasize important and professionalism of the study

pre-milgram study

no institutional review board/ researchers made their own choices on what is ethical

pre-milgram study example

study with little kid and bunny phobia

milgram study

study about obedience to authority

- war crimes from world war 2

- cover story: memory

-teacher (subject) and learner (confederate)

- every wrong answer results in shock 50 V to 300V

- experts predicted no one would do even above 100V

65% of subjects went all the way

post-milgram study

researcher accessed data from subjects from milgram study and found many negative affects

- government got involved

- IRB established

Belmont report

set of ethical principles/standards that guide research in terms of human participants

Institutional Review Board (IRB)

study must have:

- informed consent/voluntary

- risks vs benefits (must have minimal risk)

- debriefing (must give the opportunity to explain the study, ask questions, provide counseling)

Types of Schema Generation/Development

1. experience

2. operant conditioning

3. modeling

4. social comparison

experience (schema generation/development)

taking in information and organizing with existing information

experience (schema generation/development) example

infants learning language

operant conditioning

a type of learning in which behavior is rewarded or punished; orients us to how objects are grouped

modeling

imitation of what we see (not necessarily about rewards and costs)

social comparison/social comparison theory

when we dont know what our attitude or feeling is, we look to others to compare and see what we are suppose to do

modeling example

babies babbling to mimic language

social comparison example

fancy banquet, not sure etiquette look at others OR personality test with the epinephrine pills

Schemas Structure Characteristic

- dynamic (taking things in first time so can change)

- yet stable (once there is enough information, we become resistant to change)

- central nodes

- fuzzy boundaries (boundaries of schemas can overlap)

central nodes

the notion that knowing one thing can activate many other things that its related to

central node example

Halo Effect

how do we evaluate given our schemas

- seek meaning (how does new info fit into current schema)

- categorize quickly

- seek consistency (finding things that fit and ignoring things that dont)

confirmation bias

the tendency to look for info that fits with current schema and ignore the things that don't

confirmation bias example

study introversion vs extroversion

Types of schemas

1. person

2. object

3. self

4. group (note: stereotypes and confirmation bias can occur)

5. event (use social comparison when we have no info)

controlled processing

processing that involves putting cognitive effort and concentrated behavior.

- single tasked oriented and high motivation

automatic processing

processing that requires little thought or effort, often involves multi-tasking, low motivation and occurs when tired or distracted

priming

the subtle activation of schema

overt-priming

priming where this is conscious awareness of info but not focusing on the info given

overt-priming example

reading passage old study OR weapon in car OR wine store music

covert priming

priming that occurs without the subjects awareness

covert priming example

study where flashed words related to helpfulness to see if people would be more likely to help (with leaky pens though, moved out of automatic processing)

different influence of schemas

1. perception

2. memory

3. behavior

4. decision making

influence of schemas on perception examples

Hannah study OR picture of two men in train cart

Hannah Study

study was a video of a girl hannah going to school and answering questions right or wrong

- only difference between groups was the condition of the house she walks out of to go to school

- subjects were asked to recall after 10 mins

- those that got the higher socioeconomic house said she was very smart and recalled her getting questions right

- those that got the more rundown house maybe had her lower on the smart scale and more likely to recall the questions she got wrong

influence of schemas on memory example

waitress-librarian study (priming vs not priming) OR car crash witness proceeding OR false memory study

decision making influence of schemas

assumption: logical decision makers

reality: we are often illogical/emotional (mental shortcuts)

types of social cognition biases

- small sample errors

- underuse baserate information

- availability heuristic

- represnetative heuristic

- overconfidence

cognitive miser behavior

tendency for humans to think and solve problems in the simplest and least taxing way

small sample errors social cognition bias example

waiter was not good at job so assume the whole restuaramt is bad place

underuse baserate information social cognition bias example

plane crash vs car crash

availability heuristic social cognition bias definition and example

what is more available and easy in terms of examples comes to mind first and can bias us one way or the other

ex: brad pitt vs bill murray OR words start with k vs k third letter

representative heuristic social cognition bias definition and example

rather than paying attention to statistical info, making generalization and judging the likelihood of things in terms of how well they seem to represent

ex: bank teller vs feminist bank teller

overconfidence social cognition bias

more confident about something compared what they actually are

Dunning Kruger Effect

People's perceived ability of a task vs actual ability; people who are worst as it are much more confident that they are good at it while people are pretty accurate if they are good

Heider's levels of responsibility

building a case in terms of wanting to make an internal attribution about someone

1. association - person associated with action

2. causation - did person cause the behavior

3. foreseeability - can the person foresee consequences of their behavior

4. intentionality - did they intend for something to happen

5. justifiability - mitigating circumstances, was there external reason

correspondent inference theory

often times when making attribution about someones behavior and there are array of choices we choose the reason that is non-common compared to the other ones (pay closer attention to different things)

common effects

things that come in array of choices they could have done that are similar to each other

non-common effects

things that come in array of choices that is different from other choices

personalism

more likely to make internal attributions if it affects you

hedonism

more likely to make internal attributions if it causes you pain or pleasure

personalism example

parking ticket for you vs someone else

hedonism example

sad dog on street dog lover vs normal

kelley's cube three dimensions

often times we have more information on whats happening and we use to make internal attributions

1. consensus - social desirable (does it fit with everyone else)

2. consistency - has it happened before

3. distinctiveness - how does it compare to in other situations

fundamental attribution error/correspondance bias

tendency to overemphasize the internal attributions about other people's behavior even when there is strong external reasons

why? desire stable expectations, we are more aware of the people rather than environment, cognitive misers

leads to belief in just world

fundamental attribution error example

study with person speech on pro life

actor-observer effect

how make attributions about others vs ourselves; more internal attributions about others and external attributions about self (expects stable expectation of self)

actor-observer effect example

why did your roomate choose their major vs you?

self serving bias

the tendency to make internal attributions about successes and external ones for failures