social psychology exam 1

why are people motivated to deny attitude-inconsistent science?

because our ideologies color the way we view the world

confirmation bias (3)

* info that supports what we already believe about the world (our schemas) has a more privileged spot for us
* emerges from ***motivational processes*** (people are motivated to see the world in a particular way) and ***social processes*** (people are influenced by their surrounding to believe something)
* people have a tendency to generate reasons for the beliefs they hold. more time you generate reasons→ more times you convince yourself that you believe is actually true

what is social psychology? what is it based on?

* scientific study of people’s *thoughts, feeling* and *behaviors* in social situations
* scientific study of the causes and consequences of people’s thoughts, feelings and actions regarding themselves and other people
* based on empirical evidence and best interpretation of that data based on our knowledge about the world. systematic inquiry reduces/minimizes bias

impact bias

when estimating what a very specific thing’s impact will be in your life, you might *overestimate* the impact of the specific thing and not take into account other things that might impact your life

goals of social psychology (3)

* *reduce errors* in our explanations and predictions about human social behavior
* *produce explanations* that are most consistent with the *available* data: data might change, we might need to change our understanding of things along with it
* *produce interventions* that are effective

explain the concept of “the power of the situation”

people’s behavior is always a function of the field around them (introverted and extroverted people behave the same in a classroom)

kurt lewin

* father of social psych, associated with the concept pf the power of the situation
* situation can be ***psychological*** (imagined presence of other people/god/etc can impact our behavior) or ***physical***

assumptions of social psychology (4)

1. behavior = person\*situation
2. behavior depends on a socially constructed reality
3. behavior is strongly influenced by social cognition
4. behavior is vest understood through the scientific method

assumptions of social psychology: behavior = person * situation (+study about underestimating situation)

• strong situation = strong causes of behavior

• strong dispositions can override situational causes when situations are neutral or weak

• we know that people often underestimate the situation

• hypothesis: individual differences in personality should predict whether people should cooperate or compete.

• iv: people are asked to play a game. there are two strategies: complete or cooperate. how people behave is their choice. 2 types of people were recruited to the game (greedy vs. egalitarian). game was either named “community game” or “wall street game”.

• dv: tendency to cooperate or compete

• results: in the end, people playing “community game” were more likely to cooperate, and when playing “wall street game” people were more likely to compete regardless of the type of people they are

assumptions of social psychology: behavior depends on a socially constructed reality

* “construal” of situation: not what actually exists or is true, but what people perceive to exist or to be true
* how people think that the social situation is determines their behavior more than what the actual situation is

assumptions of social psychology: behavior is strongly influenced by social cognition

* social cognition: how a person thinks about and understands their social world. how they select, interpret, remember and use social information
* if you can understand how people think about the situation, you can understand why they behave the way they do

assumptions of social psychology: behavior is best understood through the scientific method

* explanations of human behavior (theories) are based on objective and systematic data
* not intuition, authorities, institutions or folk-wisdom
* explanations are not adopted unless they are supported by data
* explanations are constantly evaluated with respect to new data

theory-data cycle

* theory: statement or set of statements that describe general principles about how variables relate to one another, address the *why*
* hypothesis: specific predictions drawn from a theory, addresses the *what*
* if theory is correct, then people should value info more if it bolsters their political ideology
* research data: set of observations that are used to evaluate the accuracy of a theory
* collected according to predetermined and unbiased system

types of hypothesis

* causal hypothesis: one variable directly causes changes in another
* correlation hypothesis: levels of one variable are associated with levels of another variable (correlation isn’t causation!)
* in social psychology, we are primarily interested in causal relationships

basic logic of experiments & logic of random assignment

* population→ random selection→ sample→ random assignment→ control and treatment groups
* logic of random assignment: characteristics should be relatively equal between 2 groups in every other aspect except the independent variable. equivalence is created through random assignment. if differences are found, we can be relatively confident that the difference we see is due to the independent variable rather than pre-existing variables

recognizing and addressing limitations of science (5)

* science can’t help us understand everything→ we can’t perceive/measure everything, so complete understanding is impossible. science characterized by ***probabilistic understanding*** (on average, we can say that…)
* science is grounded in objectivity, humans who utilize it are not (always)→ 1. values influence questions being asked, 2. scientists stake reputations on research findings (outside pressures — seeking tenure is dependent on productivity, for example — might influence how scientists behave), 3. egos are involved, 4. methods employed aren’t always adequate and 5. replication and strong methods are critical

confounds

factors that undermine the ability to draw causal inferences from an experiment

correlation

measures the association between 2 variables, or how they go together

longitudinal study

study that follows the same group of individuals over time

quasi-experimental design

an experiment that does not require random assignment to conditions

culture

* customs, beliefs, values, symbols rituals, etc that are shared by a group of individuals who consider themselves to be a group
* provides s***ocially shared meaning*** (ways of understanding the world that people generally agree on), passed down through generations, is learned (our brains have evolved to do so)

characteristics of culture (5)

* ***flexible***, allowing for situational identities: within a given culture, we can possess different identities (student, sibling, athlete. allows us to flexibly interact in a broad array of situations)
* a ***product of cooperation***/***shared knowledge***
* ***cumulative*** in the sense that new knowledge is constantly being added
* ***systematic and generally predictable***: if we know a particular cultural setting that someone was brought up in, we might have a good idea of the kind of person they are
* an ***adaptive feature of our species***: development of culture is one of the most fundamentally significant ways in which humanity has solved problems of survival.

what does culture facilitate? (3+ types of culture)

* culture facilitates ***adaptation to natural environment***
* culture facilitates adaption to ***social environment*** (by shaping how we thinks about ourselves in relationship to other people):
* ***individualistic***: express own views, even at expense of social harmony
* ***interdependent self-construal***: define themselves by social aroles
* ***analytical mental style***: sensitivity to separation and contrast
* ***collectivistic***: value group harmony even at expense of one’s own personal views
* independent self-construal: define themselves by personality characteristics that make them different
* holistic mental style: sensitivity to connections and context
* culture facilitates metaphysical adaptation: complex systems of meaning comes into equation

cultural worldviews

* belief systems that explain where we come from (creation stories)→ meaningful context for understanding our place in the world
* explain what we are to do in order to be valued within our culture
* self-esteem: positive feelings that result from perception of adhering to cultural values
* explain how immortality can be achieved
* ***literal immortality*** (religious, physical body dies but there is a spiritual part that goes on living forever) and/or ***symbolic immortality*** (individuals contribute to culture, are recognized, create a legacy and their legacy is carried on)

fragility of cultural worldviews

* cultural worldviews require consensus and social validation to provide meaning and value. if consensus is fragmented in some way, the meaning and value of these views is put into question. __the more people who believe a cultural worldview is valid, the more validity is given to these theories__

ernest becker (3)

* self-consciousness→ awareness of mortality→ potential for anxiety/terror→ ***cultural worldviews*** (shared systems of belief that lend *order, purpose, and value to life*)
* the root of the difficulty of getting along with people from other backgrounds and our motivation to feel valued largely stems from our *capacity for self-consciousness.*
* humans are aware of the fact that they are mortal creatures, which is a psychological problem. *cultural worldviews* can resolve the problem of mortality

terror management theory

* on one hand, humans have a desire for self preservation. on the other, we are ultimately aware of our personal mortality. this conflict has the potential to cause terror, fear, and anxiety. there must be a psychological phenomenon that protects people from the constant psychological anxiety associated with awareness of mortality.
* this psychological terror is managed by *faith in the validity of one’s cultural worldview* and *belief that one is living up to standards of* value espoused by one’s worldviews

testing terror management theory (3,2)

* if cultural worldviews protects us against mortality concerns, then if you ask someone to reflect in their mortality, they should have an impulse need to defend the validity of their world view and they should have a motivation to live up to the standards of value that their world describes
* ***mortality salience hypothesis:*** if cultural worldviews and self-esteem protect against mortality concerns, then reminders of mortality should increase worldview defense and self-esteem striving
* ***cultural worldview defense***: the act of defending or bolstering the perceived validity of one’s beliefs
* ***self-esteem striving***: act of altering one’s behavior to be in line with cultural standards of value and worth
* __people are motivated to act in a way they deem their culture to value in order to deal with issues/concerns of mortality__

evidence for terror-management theory (2 studies, hypothesis+ variables+ results)

* hypothesis: activating thoughts of death should __increase liking for those who support one’s culture and decrease liking for those who oppose one’s culture__
* 2 ivs: mortality salience and food salience (asked to think about mortality or food) AND pro-america, america-neutral and anti-america perspectives (read an article from one of these perspectives)
* dv: asked participants how much they liked interviewee
* results: people who thought about food had no difference in the rating of their liking for interviewee. people who thought about mortality gave higher ratings for pro-usa, similar ratings for neutral and lower ratings of liking to those who expressed an anti-usa sentiment

\
* hypothesis: reminders of mortality should *increase self-esteem striving* or actions to adhere to culturally valued standards
* 2 ivs: mortality salience (death and public speaking) AND cultural standards of value (attractiveness). researchers tried to influence people’s perspectives on what they thought society deemed beautiful (tan vs pale)
* dv: self-reported intentions to tan
* results: people who thought about death were more likely to tan when told tanning is in and less likely to tan when told tanning was out, people who thought about public speaking had no difference

attitudes

a way of thinking or feeling about a target that is often reflected in a person’s behavior

* attitude targets include: individuals, concepts and groups

fundamental attribution error

tendency to emphasize another person’s personality traits when describing that person’ motives and behaviors and overlooking the influence of situational factors

discrimination

behavior that advantages or disadvantages people merely based on their group membership

prejudice

evaluation or emotion toward people based merely on their group membership

social attribution

the way a person explains the motives or behaviors of others

cross-cultural psychology/studies

an approach to researching culture that emphasizes the use of standard scales as a means of making meaningful comparisons across groups

cultural intelligence

ability and willingness to apply cultural awareness to practical uses

cultural script

learned guides for how to behave appropriately in a given social situation. these reflect cultural norms and widely accepted values

enculturation

uniquely human form of learning that is taught by one generation to another

self construal

extent to which the self is defined as independent or as relating to others

value judgement

assessment based on one’s own preferences and priorities about the basic “goodness” or “badness” of a concept or practice

statement test

* people are asked to describe themselves in “i am…” statements. this task require us to step outside of our personal experiences and to see ourselves as objects
* kinds of things that get emphasized become more complex as people grow older

self-recognition

self recognition begins around 18 months and is the foundation of self-awareness

william james

* the self is our thoughts - ***subject*** (knower, i, ego) and beliefs about ourselves- ***object*** (known, me)
* ***self-concept***: a person’s knowledge or beliefs about who they are, including traits, ***social identities*** (the sense of our self that involves our membership in social groups) and experiences. we develop a self-concept largely by thinking of ourselves as objects, putting our attention on ourself and forming an understanding of who we think we are
* ***social me***: what we know about ourselves from social relationships

self-concept structure (3)

* ***self schemas***: specific beliefs about the self that organize and guide the processing of self-relevant information.
* ***perceptions*** (what kind of qualities are associated with this role) and ***memories***
* schema is important because if you are in an environment that is relevant to a certain self, that information will be particularly accessible on your mind
* ***accessibility***: extent to which something in memory is easily retrieved
* greater accessibility→ greater influence on attention, memory, judgement
* situationally activated or chronically accessible
* ***accessible self-schemas:*** phenomenal self, working self-concept, spontaneous self-concept
* ***self-reference effect***: information about self is remembered particularly well

introspection

a way to access knowledge about ourselves. process by which people look inward and examine own thoughts, feelings and motives. turns out that people in general do not spend a lot of time doing it

limits to introspection and the accuracy of self-knowledge (reliance on lay causal theories+ planning fallacy+ affective forecasting errors)

* people don’t always have access to the reason we prefer what we prefer
* ***reliance on “lay” causal theories***: theories about the causes of one’s own feelings and behaviors; often we learns such theories from our culture. __these theories might seem plausible, but may not always be the cause of our behavior__
* ***planning fallacy***: routine underestimation of how long it will take to complete tasks


* ***affective forecasting errors***: we frequently have difficulty predicting the intensity and duration of our future emotions. when we predict how some experience will affect us in the future, we often overestimate. this is known as the ***impact bias***
* __introspection (though often useful) can be riddled with bias, our self concept and the people we think we are is often not consistent with who we actually are__

charles cooley and g.h. mead & reflected self-appraisals(2)

* ***reflected self-appraisals***: who we think we are is determined by how we think others see us
* other’s actual appraisals and reflected appraisals aren’t perfectly correlated. reasons: people often *soften feedback they give to others* (people feel a responsibility to protect each other’s sense of self). people *misconstrue/ selectively interpret feedback*

social comparison theory (festinger)

* __people acquire knowledge about who they are by comparing themselves to others, especially when no other objective information is available__ (ex- how tall are you is objective. the correctness of your opinion is not). festinger says that people are motivated to do so in order to self-evaluate
* downward vs. upward comparison (worse off vs better off)

morse and gergen’s social comparison study

• iv: applicants for a “part time job” come to interview. other applicant is a confederate. the confederate either looks extremely impressive and in another one they seem less impressive/professional.

• dv: participants are asked to complete a variety of measures including self esteem measure (the dv)

• results: people who saw impressive confederates had lower self esteem measures (depends on their environment and who is around them)

when and where do we compare?

* we compare in ***relevant domains*** (we compare ourselves to others only in things that we care about) and to ***similar others*** (the further away you are from someone the less utility/information that social comparison has)… but comparisons are often thrust upon us

blanton’s upward social comparison and improvement study

9th graders, their grades were recorded for 3 time periods. comparison target preferences were measured (which student do you compare yourself to?). the tendency to make upward comparison was associated with better academic performance→ it is motivating to have a target to work towards

directions of social comparison (5)

* we tend to have a bias towards downward social comparison because it allows us to maintain a positive view of the self
* benefit of upward social comparison: perception that you can actually control your ability to obtain the target. motivate you to do better
* costs of upward social comparison: lower self esteem
* benefit of downward social comparison: boosts self esteem
* costs of downward social comparison: might not motivate you to improve

self-esteem maintenance (3)

* self-esteem is the belief that one is a person of worth, positive feelings about one’s self
* shows *trait* and *state-*like properties: self esteem is generally stable but can fluctuate depending on the situation. always goes back to the “base line”
* acquired by adhering to standards that a person deems important
* people are motivated to secure and enhance their self-esteem: motivated to do things that protect their view of the self

terror-management theory and self-esteem

self-esteem buffers general anxiety and specific anxieties about mortality. threatening self esteem increases thoughts about death, activating thoughts of death increases self esteem striving, and increasing self esteem reduces negative consequences of thinking about death

unrealistic optimism

people see themselves as more likely to experience positive events and less likely to experience negative events

self-serving attribution bias

* tendency to make external attributions (attribute behavior to something other than ourselves) for own shortcomings and internal attributions (attribute behavior to ourselves) for own successes
* protects self esteem and supports healthy mental life

self-handicapping

engage in self-defeating behavior to protect self from public ridicule/negative evaluations (pre-emptive excuse). in a situation in which you feel you might fail, you might sabotage yourself in order to justify poor performance. this can actually cause the poor performance that is feared. this behavior might be explained by self-verification bias, to protect the self

berglas and jones’ self-handicapping study

• iv: study on drugs and intellectual performance. take test, have opportunity to take a drug, take test again. test condition (iv1)→ unsolvable vs solvable tests. all participants are given success feedback

• dv: choice of drug that would hurt or help performance on next test.

• results: 73% of those in the unsolvable condition chose the drug that would hurt their performance, and just 13% in the solvable condition

self-handicapping vs. learned helplessness

* ***learned helplessness***: feeling hopeless as a result of having no control over repeated negative events
* unsolvable test→ perceived lack of control→ learned helplessness→ give up or don’t try


* ***self-handicapping account***: people sabotage performance or reduce motivation in order to protect the self (not trying gives ready excuse)
* ***learned helplessness account***: people sabotage performance or reduce motivation because they don’t believe they can control outcome
* __after having initial difficulty, if test doesn’t threaten self: self handicapping or learned helplessness__

frankel and snyder’s learned helplessness study

participants completed an initial test (unsolvable vs solvable). participants told to complete another test (performance measured) that was either presented as extremely or moderately difficult.

* students told that it was moderately difficult (the self might presumably be at risk): those who completed a solvable test performed better than students who completed an unsolvable test.
* __if the self is not under threat, there is no evidence for a withdrawal of effort.__

linking the self to others

we identify very strongly with others if the view of them is positive

self-serving comparisons (2)

* ***basking in reflected glory (birging)***: taking pride in accomplishments of others by identifying strongly with them
* ***casting out reflected failure (corfing)***: distancing one’s self from close others or groups that are evaluated negatively

self-presentation

motivation to present yourself in a particular way

public self-consciousness

our awareness and concern with how other people are perceiving us

self-awareness theory (2)

* sometimes you pay attention to yourself as an object, and sometimes there are cues in the environment that triggers a state of self awareness, which then triggers self-evaluation (evaluate your current behavior against a set of standards you set for yourself). if you live up to the standard we experience positive emotions and are no longer self aware. if we perceive that we are not living up to the standard, that causes negative emotions, which either triggers us to change our behavior, change our standards, or flee self-awareness
* __when people are made self aware, their behavior should be more aligned with norms or standards that are set by society__

self-awareness theory studies (2)

* beaman et al.: halloween candy “please take one” sign. mirror vs no mirror. participants with self-awareness were less likely to take more than one candy
* diener and wallbom: hypothesis is that when people are made self aware, they will be less likely to engage in anti-normative behavior. participants took a timed intelligence test instructed to stop working at a bell, and responses after the bell were considered cheating. some had mirrors around them and some didn’t. people with mirrors were less likely to cheat

self-focused attention and consequences of evaluation

* participants randomly assigned to sit with a mirror facing them or a mirror facing away from them. for a list of traits, they rated how much they would ideally like to posses (***ideal self)*** and they actually do possess (***actual self***). from those scores you can calculate a self-discrepancy score (larger score= larger discrepancy). they rated a number of emotions that they have experienced
* how much does discrepancy predict the emotion they are experiencing?: high self awareness= strong correlation between self discrepancy and emotion

self-complexity

individual differences in the extent to which individuals have many different and relatively independent ways of thinking about themselves

self-concept clarity

extent to which one’s self-concept is clearly and consistently defined

self-awareness and self-consciousness

***self awareness*** is the extent to which we are currently fixing our attention on our own self-concept. when our self-concept becomes highly accessible because of our concerns about being observed and potentially judged by others, we experience the publicly induced self awareness known as ***self-consciousness***

commonsense psychology (5,2)

* associated with fritz heider
* people largely explain events in terms of cause and effect→ ***causal attributions***
* basic dimensions of causal attributions: explanation for why something is occurring in the world (what causes people to do things they do?)
* ***locus of cause***: internal (within person, actor) and external (outside the person, situation)
* ***stability of cause***: is this cause something that is relatively stable and will persist over time or is it an incidental cause that is just a one time experience?. each of the following attributions have different consequences
* __attributions we make influence how we interact with the social world__
* __culture provides explanations for much of what we do and thus in many situations we don’t have to engage in effortful attribution process because you already know what is going on__

correspondence inference bias

tendency to attribute a person’s behavior to internal attribute that corresponds to behavior. automatic, and leads to underestimation of situational causes (\*fundamental attribution error)

jones and harris’ correspondence inference bias study

* participants read an essay on castro’s cuba (pro vs anti)
* iv: 1/2 were told writer chose topic (choice), 1/2 were told writer was assigned topic (no choice)
* dv: what is writer’s real attitude towards castro
* results: : when participants think writer chose stance, people think that the real attitude=essay attitude. when people were told that writers were assigned to write the essay, participants saw the pro-castro writer as having a more pro-castro attitude than those who read the anti-castro essay__. people do not adjust sufficiently for the situation__

three stage model of attributions

1. ***observe and label behavior***
2. ***form internal/ dispositional attribution***: make corresponding inference, happens automatically
3. ***attempt to adjust for situational causes***: conscious step that requires motivation, effort and intention. only possible if people have time and energy to do it and are motivated to do it

gilbert et al.’s adjusting for situational causes study

* participants watched video of fidgety actor without sound but saw what the topic the actor was discussing
* iv: 1/2 believed it was anxiety provoking topic, 1/2 believed it was a relaxing topic AND while watching video participants either memorize words (cognitive load) or not give many instructions
* dv: how anxious do you think person is


* results: under normal conditions, people were more likely to adjust for the nature of the topic. when watching a person under cognitive strain, they see the person as possessing anxiety as a trait regardless of situation.

cultural differences in attribution biases

*individualistic cultures* are more likely to show correspondence inference biases when situational cues are salient (is situational cues are invisible cultures are equally likely to attribute). *interdependent cultures* emphasize dispositions equally, but emphasizes situations and interaction more than individualistic

social cognition

focuses on the basic mental processes that affect how people construct an understanding of the world (and themselves); how we think about and perceive our social world

gestalt principle (3)

• people construct reality, the mind actively pick info and creates order.

• two systems for thinking:

  • system 1: experiential, fast, automatic, nonconscious intuitive. internal attribution

  • system 2: cognitive, slower, controlled, rational, conscious, deliberative- override dispositional attribution by thinking of the situation. override internal attribution and apply situational context. situational attribution

schemas (2)

* schemas: mental structures stored in memory that organize prior knowledge (a mental model). influence what we *notice*, *think about*, and *remember*, contain knowledge about other people, ourselves, roles, events. make social life easier. all information in a schema becomes readily available to our brains if the schema is activated
* __schemas ground learning in the sense that we interpret new social information through the lens of existing knowledge__

development of schemas: accommodation

update the content of schemas with new conflicting information (change schema)

development of schemas: assimmilation

alter new information to align with our preexisting knowledge (maintain schema)

cultural grounding of schemas

cultural beliefs guard us from tmt so we are motivated to maintain our beliefs in order to cope

confirmation bias study

* phase 1: participants made judgements about the price of 175 different real estate listings, is the actual market higher or lower than displayed price? after each judgement they wagered money on how accurate they think their judgements are (0-60 cents)
* phase 2: viewed listings again under fMRI scanner and were reminded of their judgement and wager, and then received info about another “participant’s” judgement and wager (created randomly to agree or disagree with actual participant’s judgement). participants then input their wager
* result: confirming opinion makes us even more confident in our original belief (**social consensus**). relative to no opinion, when we encounter disconfirming opinion, we don’t change our confidence in our original opinion. heightened sensitivity to confirming information and lower sensitivity to disconfirming situation

overconfidence bias

tendency for people to be more confident in their judgements than their actual accuracy merits. (ex- 80% confident and 40% accurate)

top down processing (3)

* filters and interprets environmental stimuli in light of preexisting knowledge and expectations, actively construes stimuli
* **accessibility**: extent to which schemas are activated in memory
* schemas become available chronically due to repeated past experiences, temporarily because it’s related to a current goal, or temporarily because of our recent experiences
* **priming:** process by which schemas or concepts are made accessible in our mind

cohen’s study on schemas and their impact on what we remember

participants watch a video of husband and wife, told that the wife is a librarian or a waitress. items in video aligned with schemas (stereotypes) for both librarians and waitress→ participants told that the wife was a librarian remembered more librarian consistent information, and participants told that wife was a waitress remembered more waitress consistent information

higgings et al.’s study on priming

• list of words to memorize

• (iv): negative traits (reckless, conceited) and positive traits (adventurous, self-confident),

• dv: people were asked to form an impression from a description of “donald”

• results: positive prime resulted in positive impression, negative prime resulted in negative impression. gestalt principle)

shariff and nerenxzayan’s perception study

• iv: sentence scrambling task (priming procedure). activated concepts of god vs. no prime

• dv: assigned role of giver in economic task, can take and keep as many coins as like but keeping for self will take away from other participant. amount of coins taken is measured

• results: people with no prime take more, people with god prime take less

  • religious priming doesn’t reliably participate non-religious participants suggesting that priming depends on the cognitive activation of culturally transmitted info

judgmental heuristics

mental shortcuts people use to make judgements quickly and efficiently

availability heuristics

heuristic we use to make decision quickly. if examples are readily available (easy to access) in our minds/memory then we judge things as more likely

cognitive fluency

subjective ease of processing information. when things feel easier to generate we judge them as more likely to happen

schwartz et al.’s cognitive fluency study

• iv: participants were asked to list times when you have been assertive or unassertive (provide 6 to 12 examples)

• dv: how assertive are you.

• results: when people only listed 6 assertive, they thought of themselves as more assertive. when people listed 12 unassertive, they are more likely to say they are not assertive

representativeness heuristic

ignores base-rate info (likelihood that anyone in the population is active in all groups being considered). mental shortcut whereby people classify something based on how similar it is to a typical case

illusory correlation

when two things seem to go together because one is representative of the other, instances when they co-occur are likely to be very memorable

counterfactual reasoning/thinking (+ positive & negative counterfactual)

• act of mentally undoing an event and thinking about what might have been. the easier it is to mentally “undo” the outcome, the stronger our emotional reactions are

  • “if only i had answered that one question differently, i would’ve passed”→ additive counterfactual

  • “if only i hadn’t stopped to buy a donut, i would’ve avoided missing the bus” → subtractive counterfactual

covariation principle (3)

a given behavior is more likely to have been caused by the situation of that behavior covaries/changes across situations. determined by

• distinctiveness of info: if behavior occurs when a situation is present but not when it is not present

• consensus information: situation creates behavior in most people

• consistency of info: situation always produces the behavior

reconstructive memory bias

we remember things thar match out current beliefs better than those that don’t, and we reshape those memories to better align with our current beliefs

attitudes

evaluative reaction to something or someone, exhibited in one’s feeling, beliefs, or intentions. attitudes don’t always predict behavior, but attitudes based on direct experiences are better predictors of behavior

three components of attitudes

• emotional: affect. attitudes reflect feelings towards an object, presence of object arouses some degree of positive/negative emotion. emotional aspects of attitudes are not always rational/logical. often experiential/intuitive.

  • mere exposure effect: we tend to have more positive attitudes to things the more we are exposed to them. more familiar = the more we like it

• cognition: beliefs. attitudes are also based on people’s beliefs about the properties of an attitude object. sometimes based on relevant facts, but not always (e.g. heuristics, confirmation biases)

• behavioral: self- perception. evaluations associated with general tendency to approach vs. avoid. approach→ motivation directed towards positive. avoidance→ motivation directed away from negative

chen and bargh ‘s behavioral components of attitudes study

• participants asked to classify a series of objects as positive or negative (beer, cancer, anchovies)

• iv: incongruent (push positive and pull negative) and congruent (push negative pull positive)

• dv: measured response speed

• results: people were faster when the response was congruent with attitudes