Y1 Social

the illusion of the self

our concept of individual selves that our in control of our destinies underpins most of our existence (from how we live to the laws of land)

the brain constructs itself on a moment by moment basis

how we treat others is based on the assumption they have a sense of self similar to our own (this is a huge policy)

everything in our inner lives is more than an elaborate construct of the mind (from visual perception to memories) - the self is another part of this illusion

the illusion is so ingrained and useful, it’s impossible to shake off

the self is an illusion we love

serves us well

similar to free will (that is regarded as an illusion to many)

as the objective possibility of free will erodes, our subjective experience of it remains unchanged

free will

the ability of conscious agents to be free to make their own decisions, free of any social, moral or political constraints

self-awareness

starts at an early age

first smile at 2 months

process starts from the moment baby first learns to mimic their parent’s smile and to respond empathically to others (not with the formation of first memories)

in a state of awareness, we evaluate and compare our current behaviour to our internal standards and values - like seeing us from an outside observer

the timing of self

sensory information reaches us at difference speeds yet appears as one moment

nerve signals need time to be transmitted and processed by the brain

our experience of the world resembles a TV broadcast with a time lag (which makes last minute censorship possible)

this is the same when our brains sometimes construct a present moment that never actually happened

conscious perception is not ‘live’

the self existentially

the brain is constantly constructing the feeling of inhabiting a body

we have unique, first person perspectives of the world

the self is not confined within borders of the body, it’s possible to ‘adopt’ a foreign object as your own (eg. rubber hand illusion)

experiments have shown how easy it is to ‘move’ a human center of awareness from one body to another

the rubber hand illusion

the brain integrates various senses to create aspects of our bodily self

the brain processes touch, vision and proprioception

touches are applied in sync to both a rubber hand the participant can see, and the real hand which is hidden behind a screen

the conflicting information makes the brain resolve it by taking ownership of the rubber hand

findings of this illusion

proprioception

the internal sense of the relative location of our body parts

sense of self

string of pearls model:

• our self is constant, has changing properties but remains unchanged

• like the thread running through pearls, our self runs through every moment of our life, providing a core and unity

• the absence of the ‘thread’ would be noticeable

rope model:

• our self is like the sequence of overlapping, short fibers (like a rope), as it’s the continuity of overlapping mental events

• contains no constant part we could identify with

sense of self seems to be limited to humans and the great apes

self-span

the time when the entity of ourself exists

earliest memory to death

Tibetan Buddhists

they still have a powerful sense of continuous identity that stretches from the past and into the future, despite their training and explicit claims that the ‘individual self’ is an illusion and cannot be separated from the surroundings

shows it’s not easy to defy the illusion of self, even if taught to do so

the believe the self ends at death, unlike other religions that preach the soul is eternal

this may account for their exaggerated fear of death

trichotomisation of the self

3 parts:

• individual self - defined by personal traits

• relational self - defined by relationships with others

• collective self - defined by group membership

the potential for developing different kinds of ‘selves’ all in the same person

our idea of who we are changes across time and is influenced by culture, context and others (society)

development of self

linked to language and communication with others

no self at birth, but developed over time through interaction

culture and social situations very influential

self-recognition forms around 2 years old, and slowly builds up to full self-concept

morality is viewed as central to self-concept, stronger than cognitive processes (eg. old friend you haven’t seen for years is now racist (moral transformation - don’t see him as same person), where as if his memory has worsened, we see him as same self

quality of the self

a desire to attribute good qualities to the self

social desirability effect - we want to be admired, noticed and seen to be good (more socially acceptable)

the spotlight effect

we tend to overestimate how much people are paying attention to us

Gilovich et al - students wore embarrassing t-shirts, only 22% of peers noticed, but they thought over 50% would

the illusion of transparency

the belief that our concealed emotions ‘leak out’ and can be seen by others eg. anxiety, fear, anger, attraction

Savitsky and Gilovich - student presentations

• 3 conditions - control, reassured, informed (of the illusion)

• informed condition did much better (higher speech quality and more relaxed appearance)

what affects spotlights and illusions

social environment (can affect self-awareness eg. only female in group of men)

self-concern (eg. agonising over clothes, but people notice this less than we think)

social relationships and roles (eg. how we know the person we’re talking to/their status compared to us)

functions of the self

self-knowledge - the way we understand who we are

self-control - the way we execute decisions

impression management - how we present ourself to others

self-esteem - maintaining positive views of ourself

self-knowledge

we know ourselves through introspection (looking inwards to examine inside information that we have about our feelings and motives) - our feelings can be hidden from conscious awareness though

observing our own behaviour

know ourselves by comparing us to others

2 factor theory of emotion

we infer what our emotions are in the same way we infer what kind of person we are

must experience physiological arousal then seek appropriate explanation for it

we use information in the situation to help us know the why

self-concept

the individuals belief about themselves, their attributes and who/what the self is

helps us organise our thinking

guides our social behaviour

the self has several departments (a multi-dimensional system)

the roles we play

the comparisons we make

social identities we form

cultures we are surrounded by

successes and failures

how other people judge us

self-schemas

the ingredients in self-concept

constructs that help us to store, retrieve and organise info about ourselves

strongly affect how we perceieve, evaluate and remember other people and ourself

contain knowledge about the self

from past generalisations

stored as cognitive generalisations

saliency is very important

• information congruent with our self-schema is processed quicker and accepted

• incongruent information is likely to be rejected

possible selves

a self you would like to be in the future

positive - belief you can make it

negative - no faith in ability

Markus and Nurius

self-reference effect

the tendency to process information related to oneself efficiently and quickly

the self affects memory (information relevant to self gets stored faster and is remembered well)

we instantly compare others behaviour/performance to ourselves

we tend to see ourselves as key players in tasks we had little role in

we overestimate how much others notice our behaviour etc

in deep conversations we immediately shift our attention at the mere mention of our name

self-discrepancy theory - Higgins

the actual self (attributes we possess)

the ought self (attributes we should possess)

the ideal self (attributes we would ideally possess)

discrepancy gets in the way between our actual and ought/ideal self

leads to disappointment, sadness, dissatisfaction and fear

social comparison theory - Festinger

people learn their own abilities/attitudes by comparing themselves to others

we socially compare when there is no objective standard to measure against and when they’re uncertain in an area

upward/downward social comparison - comparing yourself to people who are better/worse than you in a particular ability

we compare with anyone who is around at the time

• initial comparison is quick and automatic

• then consider the appropriateness of the comparison and how informative it is

cultural influences on self

western cultures - independent view of self

• identity is personal and defined by individual traits and goals

• personal achievement and fulfillment is important

• individualism

non-western cultures - interdependent view of self

• identity is social and defined by connections with others

• interdependence between people are valued, independence and uniqueness frowned upon

• groups goals, social responsibility and the common good is important

• collectivism - social identity traits

gender difference in culture and self

women higher in relational interdependence (close relationships) than men

men have more collective interdependence (group membership) than women

when asked to recall a positive/negative event, most women say their engagement day/death of a relative

• men say the day their sports team won a trophy/promotion

self-esteem

overall positive/negative self-evaluation and sense of self-worth

self-esteem bottom up appraoch

Crocker and Wolfe

person with sense of self-esteem dependent on doing well in school and looking attractive will feel high self-esteem when made to feel clever/beautiful

self-esteem top down approach

Brown and Dutton

people who value themselves in a general way (with high self-esteem) are more likely to value their looks, abilities and skills

self-efficacy

the internal belief in one’s capabilities to organise and execute the sources of action required to manage prospective situations

locus of control

a person’s belief about who/what is responsible for what happens

external - outside forces control life (luck, fate)

internal - person themself controls their life (hard work)

learned helplessness

the hopelessness and resignation learned when a human/animal perceives no control over repeated bad events

protect from this through self-determination and self-control

students engaging in daily self-control behaviours became more capable of self-control in other settings too

need for affiliation (NAFF)

need for intimacy is very important for wellbeing (verbal and physical)

need for affiliation = have innate need to compare = life in solitude would be impossible

need to belong is powerful, fundamental and pervasive motivation

importance of relating to others

attachments important for survival (in ancestors for hunting etc)

imprisoned/exiled people more at risk for depression - they report time goes by more slowly

death/the possibility of it strengthens the need to belong

children growing up with neglect are more likely to face depression, anxiety and aggression problems

belonging appears to have multiple strong effects on emotional patterns and cognitive processes

lack of attachments is linked to ill effects on health and wellbeing

ostracism

being ignored, excluded, made an outcast

people feel stressed, depressed, high rates of aggression, antisocial behaviour, disobedience, poor intellectual performance, self-destructive acts

attraction

across cultures - slim build considered beautiful in 5 cultures, medium build in 5 cultures and plump build in 18 cultures (1995)

across time - large body type used to be sign of good health, wealth and status (what we find attractive is always changing)

evolutionary perspective of physical attraction

attraction seen as a ‘male selection’ strategy

beauty = youth, health, fertility

Buss found men attracted to young attractive females and women attracted to older, established men to maximise reproductive success

this overemphasis of reproductive motivates ignores other motives/traits such as kindness, humour, approachability

social perspective of physical attraction

‘what is beautiful is good’ stereotype (halo effect)

eg. attractive women getting more lenient sentences, positively evaluating poor work if it came from an attractive person, unattractive institutionalised mental patients received more severe diagnoses and remained incarcerated longer than the attractive ones

stereotype evident in kids too - children rated attractive kids as more likely to be their friend

origins of the attractiveness stereotype

the ‘just world’ hypothesis

attractive people are better people

the ‘just world’ hypothesis

people get what they deserve

enables us to view our environment as safe and predictable

helps us get desired outcomes and avoid undesired ones

our bias towards attractive people is due to a complimentary bias towards ‘winners’ (because they are attractive, they must have better dispositions and deserve better fate)

being confronted with someone else’s misfortune reminds us that it could happen to us too - to deal with this threat we conclude the victim deserved what they got

attractive people are better people

people react more positively towards attractive people thus: reinforcing positive behaviour, raising expectations/more pressure to perform and raising their self-esteem

they end up adopting positive characteristics through favourable societal treatment

meta-analysis of attractiveness stereotype studies showed:

judgements on intelligence and adjustment not affected

honesty and concern for others not affected

attractive people seen as more vein and not concerned about others

attractive people are …

less likely to accept praise

harder to start/maintain relationships (jealousy issues, too many options)

rejected by same-sex friends

Dermel and Thiel showed participants pictures of people with varying attractiveness:

• asked them to judge how materialistic, vein, snobbish, committed to their marriages and sympathetic to others’ misfortunes

• attractive people received unfavourable judgements on all dimensions

theory driven approaches of psychological attraction

classical and operant conditioning of liking

attraction as misattribution of arousal

characteristics of other (praise, and agreement is everything)

similarity

complementarity

psychological attraction - classical and operant conditioning of liking

we like people who are associated with good things < - > obtain a reward by interaction

psychological attraction - attraction as misattribution of arousal

males on shakey/risky bridge condition rated a female as more attractive

physiological arousal cues may be subtle (eg. sunny/rainy day), but can have an effect on arousal and consequently feelings of attraction

psychological attraction - characteristics of others (praise)

we like those who like us and praise us

complicated concept as people need both positive and negative feedback

those with positive/negative self-concepts, prefer positive/negative feedback respectively (negative = truthful)

there is a higher level of commitment for couples who really know each other, including their flaws

psychological attraction - characteristics of others (agreement is everything)

agreement produces attraction

attraction produces agreement

psychological attraction - similarity

similarity attracts as it’s an ‘easy’ option

can quickly get along

eg. atheist and atheist, same race

more recently, relationships mix of characteristics

psychological attraction - complementarity

opposites attract

one person’s strengths complements the others weaknesses

eg. extrovert and introvert

phenomenon-driven approaches of psychological attraction

proximity

scarcity/uniqueness

secret relationships

psychological attraction - proximity

mere exposure effect (familiarity breeds liking/loving)

familiarity breeds predictability = greater comfort (uncertainty brings anxiety, a feeling best avoided)

greater proximity often reflects shared interest eg. meeting at the gym

psychological attraction - scarcity/uniqueness

playing hard to get, 2 theories explain this:

• cognitive dissonance theory - Festinger

• personal equity theory - Seta and Seta

both say that when one is to expend a great deal of effort towards achieving a goal, the goal increases in value, perhaps in part to justify the effort

psychological attraction - secret relationships

keeping relationships secret can increase arousal which can be misattributed

an attempt to suppress thoughts relating to the secret relationship (to keep it secret) can:

• create a massive rebound where the suppressed though comes back with force

• suppressing a thought can lead to excessive preoccupation, leading to more attraction

courtship rituals

in females, courtship found to be more important than physical attraction for gaining male interest

in males, the less ritualised and more original his approach is, the more likely a women is to accept it

phases of a relationship

-            Inclusion: an invitation to relate

-            Response: agreeing to relate

-            Care: concern for other’s welfare

-            Trust: support and care for each other

-            Affection: warmth and attachment, desire

-            Playfulness: delight in each other

-            Genitality: decision to engage in sex

brain in love

people in love have much lower activity in their frontal cortex - an area crucial to reason and judgement

evolutionary reason - ‘beer goggles’ theory

• suspension of reason makes coupling and hence procreation far more likely

social explanation - could be effective for same reason

• observe success and failure in mating and act accordingly

brain in love is similar to the brain on substances (similar brain areas light up during euphoria of coke)

body in love

emotional excitement raises the body’s cortisol levels causing racing heart and sweaty palms

oxytocin deepens feelings of attachment

vasopressin linked to trust, empathy and sexual monogamy

love taxonomies - Sternberg’s triangular theory

3 components: passion, intimacy, commitment

various kinds of love are reflected in different combinations of the 3 components

absence of all components = non-love

intimacy alone = friendship

passion alone = infatuation

commitment alone = empty love

passion builds then fades, intimacy and commitment continue to build

fluid nature of love

love styles not seen as stable traits

context dependent ideologies influenced by cultural and societal changes

these influence our ideas and expectations of love and relationships

marital dissatisfaction may be a consequence on unrealistic expectations of continued passionate love in relationships

we seek compatibility, intimacy and soulmates, not just passionate love

as life expectancy increases, so does a need for compassionate love

passionate love in initial stages

• overtime strong emotions evolve

• more stable, companionate love in later stages

measuring love

majority of studies are self-reported, snapshots of behaviour

they combine lay perceptions of love experiences with psychometric testing

most focus on the start/end of relationships

need longitudinal studies to fully understand role of love

what influences relationship satisfaction

internal dispositions - attachment styles

interpersonal processes - cost-benefit exchange models

positive processes

secure attachment type in relationships

easy to relate to other

likes closeness

feels secure in relationship

does not fear abandonment

comfortable with depending on partner, and vice versa

relationship consists of happiness, satisfaction, trust and emotional support

avoidant/insecure attachment type in relationships

very uncomfortable being with others

belief that love in transitory

belief that partner will leave at some point

worries about becoming dependent on partner, doesn’t want to

relationship consists of emotional highs and lows, lacks of closeness and fear of intimacy

anxious-ambivalent attachment type in relationships

desires closeness but believes partners doesn’t want to be close

fears abandonment

doubts partners feelings

is overly dependent on partner, wants to merge completely

relationship consists of emotional shifts, obsessive sexual attraction and jealousy

cost-benefit exchange models - social exchange theory

sampling - people consider potential costs and rewards of new relationship and compares it with other ones available

bargaining - as it develops, partner gives and receives rewards which tests whether a deeper relationship is worthwhile

commitment - as predictability increases in relationship, each partner knows how to elicit rewards from the other and costs are lowered

institutionalisation - norms are developed which establishes the patterns of rewards and costs for each partner

predicts satisfaction across cultures, but does not explain why people remain in relationships when they perceive inequity

cost-benefit exchange models - equity theory

outcomes of being in a relationship should be proportionate to the input (eg. love, emotional support, household chores, finances)

equitable outcomes are not necessarily equal outcomes - equity is a perception

inequitable relationships lead to feelings of discomfort

• partner contributing more feels annoyed

• partner contributing less feels guilty

inequity loop leads to distress = perceiving more inequity

predicts satisfaction across cultures, but does not explain why people remain in relationships when they perceive inequity

positive processes - role/important of intimacy

exchange models cannot explain compassionate love

people in happy, long-term relationships actually makes efforts not to calculate exchange benefits

self-disclosure - more disclosure of intimate aspects leads to more trust, companionate love and relationship satisfaction

overlapping selves - the more your self-concept overlaps with partners, the greater the relationship satisfaction, commitment and investment in the relationship

adopting ‘approach relationship goals’ - focused on the pursuit of positive experiences (intimacy, fun, quality time) they increase relationship satisfaction and positive emotions

perception that we are being understood - believing your partner knows your goals increases closeness, trust and relationship quality

ingredients in lasting love

ability to face and deal with conflict

supportive communication, realistic expectations and shared interests

commitment

appreciation of each other’s qualities

self-acceptance

companionship

sexual expression and variety

seeing partner as best friend

maintaining frequent positive interactions

relationship growth

individual and couple growth

overcome obstacles

view problems as challenges

negotiate and renegotiate wants and needs

accept each other as unique

conflict

early theorists viewed conflict as destructive and a negative force - supported by accounts of abusive relationships

• conflict engagement seen as signs of weakness/problems in a relationship

Gottman stressed that conflict is a very important component in a relationship as it can promote intimacy and closeness, adds balance to the opposing needs of partners and can contribute to happiness

conflict seen as critical events that can strengthen/weaken a relationship

constructive - force of change and growth leads to greater satisfaction and dyadic unity

destructive - painful, harmful and damaging to partners, leads to termination of relationship

just looking at conflict engagement is not a predictor of relationship satisfaction

constructive conflict management and effective resolution can determine whether it will help the relationship grow

arguing could be good if it is done fairly and skillfully as it can increase intimacy

a fair fight can have a lot of positive effects on the relationship - Brehm et al compiled a list of these effects

couples who mutually withdraw from conflict situations have a higher chance of later reporting to be unhappy/dissatisfied with their relationship

gain-loss hypothesis

total lack of negativity can lead to boredom and the diminishment/devaluing of positive events

4 main sources of conflict - Peterson

criticism

• can be misperceived thus triggering conflict

• includes verbal/non-verbal acts that are perceived as demeaning/unfavourable

rebuffs

• one partner does not conform to their partner’s demands and reacts in an undesirable/unexpected way

illegitimate demands

• unreasonable, extreme requests beyond relationship duties eg. asking to do all chores while they relax

cumulative annoyances

• little acts may initially go unnoticed until they become repetitive and irritating

groups are based on:

common experience

common characteristics/interests/values/beliefs

implicit social structure (eg. within families or friendship groups)

the social cure

social groups have a positive impact on individuals

process of social identification makes them meaningful and psychologically valuable

group identification - the subjective sense of belonging to one’s group

• connected to wellbeing, even after controlling for social integration

• meaningful group memberships have been shown to impact positively across all domains

the social curse

group membership and experiences have the potential of hindering group members, not helping

this phenomena has been identified into a multitude of contexts

• family support is a double-edged sword

  • supporting each other through tough times can lead to collective suffering

  • benefits of collective support likely to outweigh this burden however

group behaviour - social loafing

performance in groups can provide excuses

unnecessary effort to do something - others can do it mindset

groups can inspire to perform over and above usual efforts, but for some the temptation to loaf is too much

eg. group projects - you are as strong as your weakest member

review of 150 studies showed the tendency to loaf is stronger in men than women, because relational interdependence is higher in women

presence of others -> individual efforts cannot be evaluated -> no evaluation apprehension -> relaxation -> impaired performance on simple tasks/enhanced performance on complex tasks

why does social loafing occur

individuals making incorrect attributions about how labour is divided and wrongly adjusting their efforts accordingly

goals being set lower than they should be, leading to members making less effort

individuals’ unique contributions to the task are unidentifiable/not monitored, leading them to either become lost or deliberately hide in the crowd

social facilitation - audience effects

tendency to perform better on simple tasks, and worse on complex tasks, when in the presence of others and personally being evaluated

cockroach experiment:

• completed simple maze faster when other roaches watched

• completed complex maze slower when others watched

excel in behaviour - feed from it:

• shown in simple tasks

• physiological arousal

• can block out distractions

choke in behaviour - feel the pressure

• shown in complex tasks

• physiological arousal

• restricts range of attention

presence of others -> individual efforts evaluated -> alertness evaluation apprehension -> arousal -> enhanced performance on simple tasks/impaired performance on complex tasks

group decision making

access to more information and multiple perspective - does this guarantee a good decision?

groupthink process is faulty decision making, ideal consensus process is better

symptoms of groupthink: (terrorist groups etc)

• an illusion of invulnerability

• rationalisation of warnings

• unquestioned belief in the inherent morality of the group

• stereotyped view of enemy leaders

• pressure on group members who challenge the consensus

• self-censorship of misgivings

• illusion of unanimity

• emergence of self-appointed mindguards (protecting their leader)

counteracting groupthink

the leader should assign the role of critical evaluator to each member

the leader should avoid stating preferences and expectations at the outset

each member of the group should routinely discuss the groups’ deliberations with a trusted associate and report back to the group on their reactions

1+ experts should be invited to each meeting on a staggered basis – the outside experts should be encouraged to challenge the members’ views

at least one articulate and knowledgeable member should be given the role of devil’s advocate (to question assumptions and plans)

he leader should make sure that a sizeable block of time is set aside to survey warning signals from rivals

• group constructs alternative scenarios of rivals’ intentions

group polarisation

tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its member (money usually involved)

conformity/deindividuation - discussion typically strengthens the average inclination of group members  

the internet - social networking sites -> online identities (conspiracy theorists, terrorist groups) -> without face-face discussion= loss of inhibitions -> can increase polarisation

deindividuation

members of a group feel they have lost their personal identities and merged into the group/crowd and become anonymous

loss of responsibility

causes of deindividuation

psychological factors

weakening of inhibitions against harmful and undesirable actions

increase of adherence to group norms

increased responsiveness to external cues

situational factors

camouflage offers anonymity (or physical anonymity eg. masks)

• less aggressive shocks when dressed in a nurses outfit

• highlights importance of situational cues

• women disguised in uniform similar to KKK gave shocks double the duration, compared to those visible

effects of uniforms (Zimbardo)

group size

the larger the group the more anonymity

trick or treaters given the opportunity to steal candy

• when in groups and sure of their anonymity, the stealing went up threefold

conformity - the evil thesis

people ignore the morality of their actions

ordinary people transformed into oppressors

people follow rules ‘blindly’

people conform to rules handed down by authorities

do individuals blindly conform/obey commands

eg. milgram’s and zimbardo’s experiment

influenced academic research for decades with numerous attempts to replicate

became an ‘everyone knows’ fact

• a problem as it perpetuates the myth that people inevitably succumb to the demands of authority, however immoral the consequences

• tells us resistance is futile

eg. WW2 nazis put on trial for their crimes

• their defence was they were simply ‘following orders’

• they relied upon this in order to minimise their culpability and escape the death penalty

• orders were vague in germany, so if you were a true ‘believer’ in what the nazi’s stood for, you could use creativity to achieve the goals

• the ‘final solution’ was not a top down detailed plan - the general idea was handed down and Eichmann used his ‘creativity’ to implement it

Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment

did not give the guards direct orders, but gave them a general idea of how he wanted them to behave

Milgram’s obedience experiment

participants tried to avoid the situation - they laughed, talked and tried to argue their way out, but experiment did not allow any space for choice

participants torn between moral objections and the ‘experiment outcomes’

• were told ‘the experiment requires you to continue’

when told ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’, they then refused

study not about people who blindly obey, but about convincing people to believe in the importance of the experiment

people conform and obey by belief, not nature. these people act:

knowingly, not blindly

actively, not passively

out of choice, not by necessity

creatively, not automatically

modern day applications of conformity/obedience

people seen as engaged followers, not blind conformists

eg. people get convinced cults hold the answer to life - they believe the cause and actively follow (children of God - David Berg)

eg. ‘so called isis’ followers get convinced ISIS is working for the greater good - they follow knowingly

social beliefs

eg. why did this happen, who was to blame, could this be avoided, is it because we are killing the planet

come from our intuition, social and cultural influences, expectations, attributions

our mood and schemas affect this process

we expect certain events/behaviours (self-fulfilling prophecy)

we perceive and recall events using our culturally influenced ‘lenses’

we explain events by attributing them to people/situations

self-fulfilling prophecy

when someone’s actions align with their expectations, so their predictions become true

eg. looking at horoscopes

nocebo - example of belief being powerful

the placebo effects evil twin - expecting something negative, so more likely to experience it

means ‘i shall harm’ - introduced in contraposition to placebo (‘i shall please’)

understudied because of ethical constraints (introduction of nocebo responses induce negative expectations of symptom worsening)

studied via brain imaging, when patients were expecting negative outcomes

examples:

• patients told their sex drive will be affected after taking either beta blockers or hair loss pills reported experiencing more problems than the control group

• patients experience a host of side effects when taking a placebo if they are informed beforehand that side effects exist

conspiracy theories

influence how we behave

eg. health behaviours - less likely to vaccinate

social norms - example of belief being powerful

students mistaken beliefs about how much their peers study could be harming their exam performance

parents mistaken beliefs about how much other parents endorse anti-vaccine conspiracy theories could influence their vaccination intentions