Social Psychology

What is social psychology?

“The scientific study of the way a
person’s thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors are influenced by the real or
imagined presence of others”

Is social psych scientific?

Yes.

-own experiences, folk-wisdom
inconsistent and unreliable
–we’re not very good information-
processing machines

what does social psych test?

assumptions on which common
sense rests

What does social psych focus on?

Individuals

What is social psych concerned with?

influence!!!
–not just directly (e.g., post secret)

Is social psych based on behavior?

not just behavior
–thoughts, feelings too!! (subjective
experience)

when did people first study social
influence systematically

Triplett 1898 [FRENCH DUDE]

-Finds that kids who wind fishing lines with friends are more successful than kids who wind fishing lines alone.

but it wasn’t until 1930s-40s …

–dominant perspective: Behaviorism
–then a major world event

One Impact of the War

• researchers flee to US, bring
training in GESTALT Psychology
• leads to first major theme:
• Subjectivity of the Situation
–emphasize how people
construe social situations

Second impact of the War

• revelations about atrocities created
interest in new research areas like
prejudice, obedience…
• leads to second major theme:
• Power of the Situation
–people underappreciate impact of
context on behavior

Observational Method

• researchers observe people and
measure behavior
• focus is on description!!
– e.g., ethnography, archival research
• Limitations: observability, rarity,
paucity)

Correlational Method

• two variables systematically
measured; relationship assessed
– calculate correlation coefficient (r)
– two important dimensions
• focus on prediction!!
– e.g., survey research

What are the benefits to correlational method?

– study when intervention difficult
– efficient
• also limitations
– accuracy, causal ambiguity (you cant assume causality from correlation)

Experimental Method

• Ps randomly assigned to different
groups, one or more variables
thought to have causal effect
manipulated
• focus: determining CAUSALITY

Experimental method

Hartman 1969

showing kids films with different endings, one ending is bad and one ending is good. Kids who see the aggressive film will have a higher shock.

Operational definition

–specific way variable manipulated or
measured

How do we know cause/effect?

random assignment to condition

–equal chance of being in any
condition; ensures groups ~equal at
start

How do we know cause/effect?

manipulation of IV

–vary IV so Ps exposed to different
treatments
–Because equal at start, groups should
differ only in terms of manip

Internal validity

• extent to which cause and effect
can be inferred from experiment
• high when researcher confident
effect on DV caused by IV

-Ex. Hartman study letting kids choose their film, which violated random assignment

• random assignment guards against
confounds: variables that co-vary
w/ IV

Internal validity study

Latane and Darley 1968

Practiced a woman having a seizure in an online headset conversation.

-Noticed more people connected on the headset convo meant less help

-More bystanders present will cause people to help less

Latane and Darley

• because Ps had equal chance to
be in each condition (i.e., random
assignment) causal inference can
be made, internal validity high
• even w/ random assignment, not
sure Ps same in all conditions
• determine probability (p value)
that results due to chance

External Validity

• disadvantage in most experiments
–by gaining control to randomly assign,
rule out extraneous variables,
situation can become artificial
• as such, experiments often low
in external validity
–extent to which results generalize to
other situations/people

two types of realism

mundane realism
psychological realism

mundane realism:

extent to which experiment similar to real-life

psychological realism:

extent to which psychological process
triggered in experiment similar to
psychological processes occurring in
real life

Internal vs External validity

• often want to test theory, not see to
whom theory applies
• if can’t draw conclusion from study,
nothing to generalize!

Managing External Validity

• replication
–repeat study w/ different Ps, settings,
and operationalizations of variables;
statistically combine data w/ meta-
analysis
• field research (e.g., Latane & Darley, 1970)
–but no matter how (dis)similar study
is to “real life” still only one context
• cross-cultural research

random sampling helps generalize
results, increases —————

external validity!!!!!

random assignment establishes causality, increases

internal validity!!!!

1st part of 20th century saw psychology
dominated by

behaviorism- and remember, behaviorist don’t want to get in peoples minds!

social psychology (is/is not) concerned with
mental events?

IS!

What is social cognition?

• how people select, interpret,
remember, and use social information
to think and form inferences
• sometime use CONTROLLED thought…
• but often think AUTOMATICALLY…
– relatively less effort, intent, awareness, or
control

Schemas

• mental structures that organize information
• “loose theories” based on experience
• include knowledge about concept, relations
among cognitions about it, specific examples
• can be about self, others, roles, events…
• influence what we notice, think about, and
remember

More on schemas…

• often functional
– help make sense of “blooming buzzing
confusion” of world (everything is competing for your attention)
• which schema depends on accessibility
– chronic and temporary (chronic is more likely to come to mind that others due to frequent use over time)

“priming” (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977)

Randomly assigned some people the word “moon”, picked tide as the laundry detergent brand (prime a person with a concept,

Schemas Lead to the Misperception of Reality

• schemas may lead us to see things
that aren’t there
– “shooter bias”
• guns vs. other objects
• correct decisions rewarded;
incorrect decisions punished

Schemas—

Correl et al., 2002

How people will shoot a gun based on your skin color, black is more likely to have a gun on them based on bias so that the participant (likely white) will shoot. But its the same for black particippants as well.

Schemas Difficult to Disconfirm

• confirmation bias
– engage in positive testing strategy; seek
information that supports expectations
• perseverance effect
– bring to mind evidence consistent w/
feedback; later draw on evidence that’s
most available

Confirmation bias

Snyder & Swann, 1978

We look for info to prove we are right, not to prove that we are wrong. Participants are given a set of 10 questions, told to pick 5 of those questions to tell if a person is an introvert. The person will choose the 5 questions that lean toward the right answer. But the questions are biased and the answers are pre-answered.

perseverance effect

Ross et al., 1975

Warning signs for suicide, shown 25 notes, told that some are real and some are fake. The participants were told to determine which is which. Some participants are told they got 24/25 correct and some are told they got 13/15, then they are told that all the notes and the whole experiment is fake. Then asked “how well would you do tmr with real notes” responses based on feedback.

Schemas Create Own Reality

• self-fulfilling prophecy
– have expectation
– behave toward target in way
consistent with expectation
– target adjusts behavior to match
expectation
– Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968

Rosenthal & Jacobson, 1968

children's performance was enhanced if teachers were led to expect enhanced performance from children. By the same token, if teachers were led to expect lower performance from children, then the children's performance would be diminished.

Judgmental Heuristics

• cognitive “rules of thumb” or mental
shortcuts
–another form of automatic thinking
• help reduce time and effort in forming
judgments
–also useful, also can lead to bias!

Availability Heuristic:

How easy does it come to mind?
• base frequency judgments on how easy
information comes to mind
• usually makes sense
– easier to come to mind, probably more
common and more important
• but sometimes it doesn’t!
– Schwartz et al., 1991

Schwartz et al., 1991

Participants named a time that they behaved “assertively”; generate either6 or 12 examples. People who listedd 6 examples saw themselves as more assertive because it came to mind easier. People who listen 12 examples saw themselves as less assertive because its more difficult to name 12 examples than it is to name 6.

Representative Heuristic

“like goes with like”
• people often judge probabilities by
the degree to which A resembles B
–members of category should resemble
category prototype, effects should
resemble causes that produced them
–consider the following…

Representative Heuristic example…

• Linda is 31 years old, single, outspoken, and very
bright. In college she majored in philosophy. As a
student, she was deeply concerned with issues of
discrimination and social justice and participated
in antinuclear demonstrations
Which is the most likely alternative?
– Linda is a bank teller
– Linda is a bank teller and active in the feminist
movement

Representativeness in Astrology and
Psychology…

• is personality influenced by sign under
which person born?
–capricorns (goats)
• tenacious, hardworking, and stubborn
–leos (lion), virgos (virgin),…
• (Freudian) psychology?
–if dreams of snake is man troubled by
his sexuality?

Anchoring Heuristic

“taking things at face value”
• people use what’s available as starting
point, and insufficiently adjust from this
anchor
– how many African nations are members of
the United Nations?

Anchoring and Adjustment

Tversky & Kahneman, 1974

• effects remain when monetary incentives
or extreme anchors are given
• not just numbers!
• may explain perseverance effect
• …and the “false consensus” effect

False Consensus Effect

• tendency for people to think their
attitudes, preferences, and choices are
relatively common
– Ross, Greene, & House, 1977
• Repent!

Ross, Greene, & House, 1977

The word “repent” on a sandwich board, asked if people would rather do this or boring research. Ask how many people would agree. 651; sandwitch, 251;research

Automatic vs Controlled Thought

• certainly there are times when our
thoughts are controlled
–conscious, intentional, voluntary,
and/or effortful
• but even when we try to control
thoughts, automatic tendencies may
prevail!

Thought Suppression

• Can you control your thoughts?
for the next 60 seconds, do NOT think
of a white bear

Successful Thought Control requires…

two processes:
–suppress unwanted thought by
searching for distracters. This is the
controlled, operating process
–also must remember what we’re trying
to suppress. this is an automatic,
monitoring process

Successful Thought Control

• with sufficient cognitive resources, two
processes work together to produce
successful mental control
• if capacity reduced, can’t search for
distracters, but automatic search for
content want to suppress continues
• result is ironic reversal – become hyper-
sensitive to thought wish to suppress!

Wegner & Erber, 1992

• task: say a related word out loud,
while concentrating on or not
thinking about the word “house”
hill, home, bus, child, roof, little, brick
• do so under low or high time
pressure

More on Thought Suppression

• when mental capacity restricted,
thoughts people try to suppress may
become hyper-accessible!
• shown in variety of domains,
including sexist beliefs, stereotypes,
and even emotions!

Counterfactual Thinking

• mentally changing some aspect of
past as way of imagining what might
have been
–most likely after negative events and
close calls
–easier to imagine alternative, more
intense emotional reaction

Social Perception

• how we form impressions of and
make inferences about other
people
• non-verbal communication
–communication between people
that does not involve content of
spoken language

Basic Channels of
Non-Verbal Communication

• facial expressions
– 6 basic emotions represented clearly
• anger, fear, happiness, sadness,
surprise, & disgust
– seem universal
• Ekman & Friesen, 1971

Ekman & Friesen, 1971

Tribe determining facial expressions of college students, also asked to demonstrate and have college students guess and match expressions.

Basic Channels of
Non-Verbal Communication

• eye contact
–“windows to the soul”
–if avoided, may infer dislike,
shyness, or unfriendliness
–is continuous eye contact “gazing”
or “staring”?

Basic Channels of Non-Verbal
Communication

• body language
–position, posture, and movement of
our bodies…
–gestures (emblems – body
movements w/ specific meanings in
a culture)
• direct verbal translation, known by most in
group, have effect on recipient

Basic Channels of Non-Verbal
Communication

• paralanguage
–variations in speech other than
verbal content
• voice pitch, loudness, rhythm,
inflection, hesitation…

Putting the Channels Together

• often get info from multiple
channels
• accurate w/ little information
– “thin slicing”; Social Interpretations Task
• usually > accuracy w/ more
channels
• but not always…

Detecting Deception

• can we tell when others lie?
• often “nonverbal leakage”
– subtle changes in liars’ facial
expressions, body postures or
movements, and certain nonverbal
aspects of speech

what to look for…

• micro-expressions
• inter-channel discrepancies
• nonverbal aspects of speech
– pitch of voice may rise, hesitate more
• eye contact
– blink more, low or high contact

Detecting Deception: the Experts

• Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991
–four professional detectors
• police detectives, US customs agents,
trial judges, secret service
–all performed at chance levels, less
one!

Ekman & O’Sullivan, 1991

Nurses watch videos of pleasant stuff that randomly show gross things and then try to see who is lying based on reactions

Detecting Deception:

Less is Often More
• worse at detecting lying when…
–we receive more information
• Zuckerman et al., 1981

Zuckerman et al., 1981

they argued, the search should be for the kinds of thoughts, feelings, or psychological processes that are likely to occur more or less often when people are lying compared with when they are telling the truth and for the behavioral cues that may be indicative of those states. They then delineated four factors that could be used to predict cues to deception: generalized arousal, the specific affects experienced during deception, cognitive aspects of deception, and attempts to control behavior so as to maintain the deception.

Detecting Deception:

Less is Often More
• worse at detecting lying…
–the more motivated we are to detect
it!
• Forrest & Feldman, 2000

Forrest & Feldman, 2000

Showed to see how is lying based on videos that they are shown

Causal Attribution

• often want to understand why
someone acted the way they did
• process through which we identify
the causes of others’ (and our
own) behavior

Causal Attribution:
Asking “Why” Questions

• When?
–after negative events
–after unexpected events
• Why?
–Heider thought people naïve
psychologists, motivated by need to
predict and control environment

Causal Attribution:
Asking “Why” Questions……

• Heider also thought people make one
of two types of attributions – internal
(located in person) or external
(located in environment)
• people tend to prefer internal
attributions
– e.g., Why did Joe fail his social
psychology exam?

Causal Attribution:
Kelley’s Covariation Model

• People think like social psychologists:
examine multiple instances of
behavior across time and situations
– goal: see how potential cause and effect
go together (“co-vary”) over time
– use 3 types of information to validate
tentative causal attributions

Covariation Model: 3 Types of Info

• Consensus– extent to which others behave same way toward same stimulus as actor

• Distinctiveness– extent to which actor behaves in same way to different stimuli

• Consistency– extent to which behavior b/n actor and stimulus is same across time and
circumstances

internal attribution

made when
consensus and distinctiveness low,
but consistency hen is high

external attribution

made when
consensus, distinctiveness, and
consistency are all high

Kelley’s Model: Was He Right?

• people don’t use consensus as much
as expected
• people don’t always have the
relevant information (e.g.,
consistency)
• and there’s this one little bias…

Correspondence Bias

• tendency to infer that people’s
behavior corresponds to
(matches) their disposition
• leads to fundamental attribution
error
–overestimate extent to which
behavior due to disposition while
underestimating the situation

Fundamental Attribution Error
Ross et al., 1977

• How (and when) did Mary, Queen
of Scots die?
• Gestation period of the African
Elephant?
• In what year was the Komodo
Dragon discovered?

Why Does FAE Occur?

• situation often unavailable to us
• perceptual salience – people stand
out
• anchoring and adjustment
– automatically characterize behavior as
internally caused
– with effort, attention, etc. we may correct
• Gilbert et al., 1988

Gilbert et al., 1988

In Experiment 1, subjects observed a target behave anxiously in an anxiety-provoking situation. In Experiment 2, subjects listened to a target read a political speech that he had been constrained to write. In both experiments, control subjects used information about situational constraints when drawing inferences about the target, but cognitively busy subjects (who performed an additional cognitive task during encoding) did not. The results (a) suggest that person perception is a combination of lower and higher order processes that differ in their susceptibility to disruption and (b) highlight the fundamental differences between active and passive perceivers.

Actor/Observer Difference

• tend to attribute others’ behavior to
internal causes, but explain own
behavior in terms of situational forces
• why?
– Informational differences
– perceptual salience - now we’re what’s
invisible! (not situation!)

Other Influences on Attribution

• Motivation
–Self-serving Bias
–Belief in a Just World

• Culture
–Independent (individualistic) vs.
Interdependent (collectivist)

Generalizing to Other People
“they’re all sophomores!”

• …and they are “WEIRD!”
• this external validity requires
random samples from population
of interest. Is this a problem?
–maybe psychological processes
universal?
–if varies, important in an of itself!
–And depends on what trying to do!