Social Psychology Exam 1

social psychology

The scientific study of individuals’ thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a social context

social psychology vs. sociology

• Sociology: focuses on the group level as opposed to individuals

  • Often does not manipulate variables during studies

  • They are more likely to use archival and correlation research

• A question a sociologist might ask:

  • How does prejudice vary between different socioeconomic statuses?

    • They might look at correlational and archival data

    • Large group level

• Social Psychology: manipulates variables during studies

• A question a social psychologist might ask:

  • Can prejudice be induced through intergroup conflict?

    • Controls variables

    • Smaller scale

    • A lot more time consuming and costly

Norman Triplett

considered the first to publish social psych research

• Studied bicyclists behavior (manipulated variables)

• 2 groups: solo bikers vs. bikers competing next to others

• found that the presence of others → faster performance

Max Ringlemann

• Tested rope performance (tug of war)

• Solo rope pulling → more effort

• Group rope pulling → less effort

• found the opposite of the bicycle study

WWII’s effect on social psychology

Hitler’s rise to power changed psychology

displayed a darker human capability

More research into violence and genocide & conformoty and obedience (i.e. Milgram)

European scientists feld to the US which spurred collaboration and conversation

Muzafer Sherif

researched social influence

Robber’s cave study

Immigrant from turkey

experienced hardships and witness brutality (anecdotal evidence to inspire your own research

Kurt Lewin

Polish immigrant

• Interactionist perspective; psych behavior = the interaction between a person and their environment

  • Not nature vs. nurture, it’s nature AND nurture

    • Groundbreaking at the time

• Encouraged the application of social psych

  • Convince Americans to conserve resources during wartime

  • “No research without action, no action without research”

Stanely Milgrim

• American psychologist directly inspired by WWII atrocities

  • The obedience study

  • Huge impact on both the psych field and society

  • Also unethical

Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues

formed in 1936

first organized collect of social psychologists

cross-cultural research

compare/contrast phenomena across different cultures

social neuroscience

• study of the relationship between neural and social processes

  • Ex: social rejection activates similar brain areas as physical pain

hypothesis vs. theory

• Hypothesis:

  • Based in Observation and/or previous findings

  • Necessary before conducting research

  • Predict the outcome of a study, explicitly testable

  • Ex: People in a state of cognitive dissonance will be more likely to select like-minded marijuana-legalization articles to read than those not feeling cognitive dissonance

• Theory

  • Based on past research

  • Organized set of principles/statements to explain an observed phenomenon

  • Help to explain and predict the world

  • Ex: cognitive dissonance can encourage people to approach like-minded content

Basic vs. applied research

• Basic

  • Increase understanding of human behavior & predict outcomes

  • Ex: defining and explaining the phenomenon of racial prejudice

• Applied

  • Apply theory to solve social problems

  • Ex: how can we use our knowledge ot help others reduce their racial prejudice in the real world?

operational definition

• the specific way a variable is represented in a study

  • Variable: Aggression (broad!)

    • Possible ODs (more specific):

      • Interpersonal violence

      • Aggressive thoughts/emotions (survey)

      • Facial expressions

      • Cussing

• ODs need to be VALID: they actually represent the variable

construct validity

1. How a variable is operationally defined is accurate

2. The measures accurately tap into the variables in question

• Otherwise.. our results mean NOTHING

self-report measures and their flaws

participants disclose their thoughts, feelings, desires, and behaviors

• Variables that are difficult to observe

• Rely on participants telling the truth

  • May hide true answers purposefully

  • May not be truly aware of their own inner processes

• The way questions are worded are important!

• Questions may ask about past occurrences

  • Memory is imperfect

  • Try to ask about more recent occurrences (within 1-month window)

Bogus pipeline technique

• participants are led to believe their responses will be checked by a perfect lie detector

  • May encourage more truthful answers

  • Fallen out of favor since the mid 1900s

observational methods and their flaws

• People act differently when they know they’re being observed

  • Try and make observations subtly

  • Use two-way mirrors

• need subjective ratings (can only trust the data when multiple observers agree on observed behavior)

  • need multiple observers

interrater reliability

• level of agreement among multiple observers of the same behavior

  • People act differently when they know they’re being observed

    • Try and make observations subtly

    • Use two-way mirrors

descriptive research

• gathering data that describes (rather than predicts) how people think, feel, and behave

  • Lacks control: cannot make casual claims, only describe

correlational research

• describing the relationship between variables

  • No relationship: variables are distinct

  • Positive: as one increases, the other increases

  • Negative: as one decreases, the other increases

  • can be strong or weak

• Gives us the power to predict!

  • Most often measured with surveys (self-report)

• It can still tell us a lot of good information

• Some variables can’t be controlled (manipulated)

  • Age, income, ethnicity

  • Ethically (mental health status, smoking)

• Great for forming/refining theory

• They still provide us scientific knowledge

  • Several studies over tiem find similar correlations → strong, reliable relationship

experimental research

• a design that aims to study causality

  • Independent variable causes a change in a dependent variable

  1. Control over variables

  2. Random assignment to conditions

independent variables

• researcher controls what “version” participants get

  • Conditions

  • Manipulation

  • Participants get randomly assigned to conditions

    • Ex: a study about video games and the participant gets randomly assigned to play a violent video game or a non-violent video game

dependent variable

• researcher predicts this variable to be dependent on which version of the IV a participant gets

  • CANNOT manipulate this one

  • Ex: social media → depressive symptoms

    • Can experiment with half the participants use social media for a period of time and the other half do not use social media. Take survey afterwards asking about depressive symptoms

    • Dependent variable is the depressive symptoms because the result is dependent on the manipulation

independent vs. dependent variable

Independent Variable (IV)

• The cause / predictor

• Manipulated or chosen by the researcher

• Split into conditions or levels (e.g., experimental vs. control)

• "What am I changing?"

• Example: Type of video game assigned (violent vs. non-violent)

Dependent Variable (DV)

• The effect / outcome

• Measured by the researcher (cannot be directly manipulated)

• Expected to change in response to the IV

• "What am I measuring?"

• Example: Level of aggressive behavior or depressive symptoms after the game

subject variable

• pre-existing traits/characteristics a participant has that are separate from the IV/DV

  • E.g., gender, age, existing depressive symptoms, social media habits

  • Random assignment: makes these even across conditions

internal validity

• there is reasonable certainty that the IV caused a change in the DV

  • Without internal validity, conclusions are weak

  • Was the study conducted well? did we try to account for all unwanted variables?

  • Random assignment? Construct validity? Control? Reduce confounds?

• Internal validity > external validity

external validity

We want studies to describe ALL, not just few

• We want to generalize to the overall population

  • That means we cannot have every study based on white men in their 30s from the US and Canada

• Internal validity > external validity

internal vs. external validity

Internal Validity

• Cause-and-effect relationship (did the IV truly cause the DV?)

• Control and eliminating confounds

• High certainty, strong experimental design, easier to isolate variables

• Often requires artificial lab settings → lowers real-world generalizability

External Validity

• Generalizability (do findings apply beyond the study?)

• Representativeness across populations, settings, and times

• Real-world applicability and broader relevance

• Harder to eliminate outside noise → lower experimental control

confound

• a variable outside of the IV that overwhelmingly affects only one condition

  • No social media → 1.2

  • 3 hours social media → 5.6

    • Staring at a screen is the confound

    • Overwhelmingly only impacting one condition

    • Blue light can mess with your circadian rhythm

      • (Number is depressive symptoms)

  • Revised study

    • Nothing → 1.2

      • Control

    • 3 hours staring at screen → 1.4

      • Control

    • 3 Hours social media → 5.6

      • Experimental Group

random sampling

• every person in a population has an equal chance of being selected for a study’s sample

  • Contrast that with convenience sampling: Gen Psych pool

    • A lot more accessible to researchers

  • Are results of studies the same for different:

    • Ages, sexes, races, incomes, education levels, cultural backgrounds

WEIRD

• W: Western

• E: Educated

• I: Industrialized (country)

• R: Rich (country)

• D: Democratic (country)

experimental realism

• the procedures feel real

  • May not perfectly map onto real life scenarios

  • Participants feel invested

  • Reactions and answers are realistic

  • Allows more control over variables than mundane

• Internal validity

• Harder to generalize to real world scenarios

• Less external validity

mundane realism

• research setting/experience resembles real-world settings

  • Results can be generalized more easily to the real world

• External Validity

• Maps onto real world scenarios

• Less control

mundane realism vs. experimental realism

• Mundane Realism

  • External Validity

  • Maps onto real world scenarios

  • Less control

• Experimental Realism

  • Internal validity

  • Feels real

    • Easier said than done..

  • Harder to generalize to real world scenarios

  • Less external validity

deception

• actively providing false information to participants

  • Cover the true reason

  • Increase mundane or experimental realism

  • confederates increases it

meta-analysis

• statistical procedure that groups up and examines research that has already been conducted

  • Concise and clear picture of an area of study

Bem’s 2011 controversy

• study found significant evidence of “pre-cognition” (seeing the future)

  • He found that people were pretty good at being able to tell when something sexual would appear

• Other scientists couldn’t replicate

  • False positive - type I error

• Bem’s failed study changed psychology practices to make research standards better across the board

• Bigger sample sizes

• Focus on replicating results

• Inspires conversation between researchers

• Uptick in meta-analyses

IRB

• established in 1974

  • Before 1974, you could literally do anything without this checks and balances

  • Protect human participants in research

data scraping

• using pre-existing online data without user knowledge/consent

  • Researcher analyzing TikTok Comments

• tech giants may alter a platform purposefully

self-concept

the collection of beliefs we have about ourselves

self-schemas

beliefs that guide how we process self-relevant information

self-schema & self-concept

self schema: i can lift heavy weights at the gym → self-concept: i am a strong

William Thompson’s self concept issue

• Patient “William Thompson”: brain disorder that impacted recent memory

  • Lack of life continuity & self-concept

  • Constantly crafted new identities

• If we lose our memories, are we still the same person?

  • Personality traits are pretty genetic so

autobiographical memories

• recollection of events that have shaped your life

  • Easier to recall recent past

  • Can easily recall “formative” years (teen - young adult)

  • Recall “firsts”

  • Provides continuity between past and present

  • Memories are often distorted

    • May inflate positive memories

compartmentalization of personality

• we have different “identities” in different contexts

• Different self-schemas become more salient

rouge test

• apply red ink to forehead, place in front of mirror

  • Do they reach for the mirror, or own forehead?

  • The concept is that if they recognize themselves in the mirror, they will reach for their own forehead. if they are don’t recognize themselves, then they might reach for the mirror and may not have that recognition

  • Infants around the age of 18-24 pass the rouge test

• Rouge test is more accurate in America/Canada

  • When trying to replicate this research in other countries/cultures, it didn’t work the same way

  • Children in Fiji, Kenya, and Peru showed hesitation to remove the mark

    • These children were more likely to wait for their parent’s instruction so they were waiting to touch the red mark on their forehead

looking-glass self

• other people serve as a mirror to see ourselves

  • How others perceive us informs ourselves

  • Past and current relationships

introspection

• looking inward to examine one’s own self

  • Internal factors → self-concept

• Issues:

  • Much of our psychology is automatic

    • You don’t remember it and you didn’t really contemplate it

  • We can overthink simple things

  • We can overestimate our underestimate positives & negatives

affective forecasting

• the process of predicting how we would feel/react to a future scenario

  • We’re really terrible at it!

  • Impact bias: people overestiamte the strength and duration of emotional reactions

    • Ex: researchers asked professors on their tenure track to affective forecasting

      • Professors predicted significant happiness from receiving tenure

      • Reality: happiness did not really increase much

    • We overlook coping mechanisms

    • We focus too strongly on singular events

self-perception theory

• simply observe your own behavior instead

  • Bem, 1972

  • Behavior must MOSTLY be of your own choice

  • Participants asked to describe themselves positively → higher self-esteem scores

    • Very recent behaviors to reflect on when asked about their self-esteem

  • Participants asked to describe themselves neutrally

Vicarious self-perception

• make by observing others we perceive as similar to us

  • Participants listened to description of someone helping on a homelessness project

  • Participants who were told they were neurologically similar (to the person helping homeless people) → they rated themselves as more sensitive and self-sacrificing

SOKA (self-other knowledge asymmetry model)

• Internal + non/evaluative: self-esteem

  • Self was more accurate on rating

• Internal + evaluative: intelligence

  • Very close in accuracy by both self and friend

• Observable + non/evaluative: talkativeness

  • Friend was WAY more accurate

• Took “objective” in-lab measures of each trait

• Compared to friend/self ratings

• Study is hard to have an objective measure of anything because, what is accuracy? It’s hard to be objective because what’s accurate to me might not be accurate to my friend

facial feedback hypothesis

• changes in facial expressions can lead to changes in emotion

  • Participants interviewed while directly facing the sun → higher levels of anger

  • Other half of participants were facing the other way and were less likely to be squinting

    • Lower levels of anger

intrinsic motivation

• originates within a person

  • Personal goals

  • Enjoyment derived from an activity

extrinsic motivation

• originates from outside of a person

  • Monetary reward

  • Praise/recognition

  • Awards

intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation

Intrinsic Motivation

• Internal (comes from within the individual)

• Personal satisfaction, curiosity, challenge, or genuine enjoyment of the activity itself

• The activity itself is the reward (inherently rewarding

Extrinsic Motivation

• External (comes from outside the individual)

• Gaining a separate outcome, earning tangible rewards, or avoiding punishment

• Separate from the activity (external incentives or social pressure)

overjustification effect

• intrinsic motivation dies off when associated with high extrinsic reward

  • Kind of counterintuitive to what you would expect

  • Confuses our self-perception of motivation

    • Ex: athletes, musicians, actors get into their field because they love their work, but when they continue in the career and have to rely off of it for their income, they no longer want to do it because it becomes too stressful

social comparison theory

• when people are uncertain about their abilities/opinions, they compare to similar others

  • Young boys when asked to describe themselves in their self-concept were more likely to cite their gender as a part of who they are when raised in a mostly female household

    • If there were other boys or men in the household, their gender was a less distinct factor as to who they were

    • More likely to happen when no objective evidence is present

  • Social media!

cultural orientation for the self-other overlap

• Individualism: prioritizes independence, autonomy, self-reliance, standing-out

  • The U.S.!!!

• Collectivism: prioritizes cooperation across others and social harmony

• Not necessarily opposites

• Orientation can change depending on context

self-esteem

• an individual’s positive and negative evaluations of the self

  • Roughly stable over time

  • Often dips in adolescence

sociometer theory

• self-esteem is a gauge that monitors whether other people approve of us

  • Detects acceptance and rejection from others

  • Low self-esteem: social rejection

  • Sometimes self-esteem isn’t impcted by social cues (narcissism)

self-discrepancy theory

• determined by the match or mismatch between how we see ourselves and how we WANT to see ourselves

  • Yes (match): high self-esteem

  • No (mismatch): lower self-esteem

  • This is all very subjective

  • May also be related to anxiety and depression

terror management theory (tmt)

• the concept of death is scary!

  • When the brain has to start thinking about the possibility of dying, it might have a series of reactions to lesson the scariness to calm itself down

  • To cope, we construct worldviews about the meaning of life (and ourselves) to make ourselves feel more comfortable about death

  • Boosts in self-esteem can protect from death related anxiety

    • At least liking yourself along the way makes you a little less afraid about death

self-awareness theory

• self-focused attention makes our discrepancies more salient

  • Extended self-awareness → worse mood, higher depressive symptoms

• Halloween trick-or-treaters approached a candy bowl (take only one!)

  • In this study, they left out a bowl of candy with the sign that says only take one

  • Researchers were observing how the trick-or-treating children took candy to the bowl

  • Control group (just a bowl of candy with the sign) → 34% stole more than one piece of candy

  • Group with a mirror next to bowl → 12% stole more candy

Implicit egotism theory and its flaws

• internal, unspoken self-esteem

  • Word association task: positive traits are more quickly associated with the self

  • Pelham & colleagues: we like things similar to our own names

  • Places to live, careers, schools, friends

    • People are pretty likely to be friends with people with the same name

  • Dennis → dentist; Mike → Michigan

  • Simonsohn, 2011: those links are spurious

    • It seems like it’s supported by data, but it’s actually a false positive!!

    • Ethnicity bias: people within a similar ethnicity → similar names

    • AND more likely to date/marry/be friends

Self-impairment

• we make excuses for failures

  • We often do this when we don’t expect to be successful

  • “I wasn’t even trying”

  • Procrastination

  • Drug use, refusal to practice, set goals too high

Basking in Reflected Glory

• we show off our connection to successful others

  • The day after a team wins → more gear is worn around campus

  • “We won”

    • You did not personally play in the sport but you are associating yourself with the successful team

Upward comparison

comparing to those who are more successful/happy/fortunate

Downward comparisons

comparing to those who are less successful/happy/fortunate

upward vs. downward comparison

• Upward comparisons: comparing to those who are more successful/happy/fortunate

• Downward comparisons: comparing to those who are less successful/happy/fortunate

Spotlight effect

• we assume the spotlight is on us more than it actually is

  • Overestimate:

    • How many people notice us

    • Negative consequence of social blunders

Strategic self-presentation

• purposeful efforts to shape others’ impressions of us

  • Gain influence, power, sympathy, and approval

  • easily accomplished through social media

self-monitoring

• regulation of the self in response to social standards/situations

  • People may be low or high in self-monitoring

    • Flexible vs. always speaking their mind

  • If they are high in self-monitoring, they are more likely to change

    • Ex: if someone high in self-monitoring is swearing, and they realize they are in a group where no one else is, they will stop swearing