set 1--social psych

experiment

want to manipulate/ measure groups

subjective perspective

a perspective influenced by a personal view; an opinion

objective perspective

perspective that does not contain personal beliefs, feelings, emotions, or opinions. Does not tell more than what can be inferred.

experimental perspective

correlation between ice cream sales and drownings, between playing video games and actual violence

mechanistic perspective

people as google search engine, search in parallel

cab drivers

hippocampus is the location of the brain known for memory.

It has three regions (anterior, body, posterior L +R).

In cab drivers, it was larger in the posterior, smaller in the anterior.

This is linked to navigation.

Only problem: don't know if hippocampus becomes larger or already was larger

social psychology

an attempt to understand and explain how the thought, feeling, and behavior of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others (Gordon Allport), understanding the subjective experience (Wegner and Gilbert)

sociology

studies some of the same questions, but at a population level, not an individual level

personality psychology

emphasizes person-level explanations: traits, individual differences

social behavior

-schooling fish, flocking birds

Separation → steer to avoid crowding local others

Alignment → steer towards the average heading of local others

Cohesion - steer to move towards the average position of local others

People adhere to rules that are followed in response to actual, imagined, or implied behavior

ex: babynames
-leads to cycles across generations, favorites surprisingly out of nowhere, sound alike trends, product names, company names

separation (social behavior)

steer to avoid crowding local others

alignment (social behavior)

steer towards the average heading of local others

cohesion (social behavior)

steer to move towards the average position of local others

power of situations

Studies show people tend to rely on person explanations, not situational explanations when situations explanations actually have a bigger influence than we think

person explanations

The person is mean

Person is racist, sexist, elitist

Person is competitive

situation explanations

Person is in a hurry

Person misheard what you said

You remind the person of someone who once hurt him, her

Asch Study

Effects of Group Pressure on the Modification and Distortion of Judgments

Which line is the same length as the standard line?

Everyone in the experiment is a confederate except for the subject

40% of subjects give the wrong answer

If there is one dissenter ( gives another answer, doesn't have to be correct), subject less likely to go with the majority

Three quarters conformed to the erroneous majority at least once

People might actually follow the crowd then stick to what is right in order to avoid disapproval by the majority.

False Confessions

Kassin and Kiechel

Participant falsely accused of ruining experiment by pressing ALT key

Person supposed to sign a letter to take the blame

2x2 experiment (speed (fast, slow), witness (yes, no))

Type fast + witness \=

100% false confession

Second part of experiment in hallways

Type fast and witness group
100% signed it

65% internalized it → admitted to it

35% confabulation → will come up with details to support what they did do → false confession

Type slow and no witness
Only 35% signed, no internalization or confabulation

automaticity

things we are moved by with feelings we have little control over

Fudge dog poop, sterile cockroach dipped in orange juice, something with poison sign on it

Wont eat or drink, even though they are all fine

Reaction first (gross), then cognition (why) come after

When playing darts with a photograph of a face, more accurate with a criminal face than a beautiful face, even when they are being paid to play

Absence of Insight

Not sure why we do what we do

Maier (Absence of insight)

told people to tie two ropes together, but the two of them do not reach

He tried to give them hints

They do not recognize the solution comes when the experimenter set them swinging

People don't know where the mental insight comes from

Fluency

people prefer easily processed information

Fluency (absence of insight)

Alter and Oppenheimer

Stocks and how they sell as a function of if tag is pronounceable

After one day of trading $1000 invested in stocks with fluent names yielded $112 more than $1000 invested in stocks with disfluent names

People prefer information they can pronounce

Although, if you ask people, they will say it does not matter

Elephant with a rider

Haidt

Human mind \= elephant with a rider
Lots of automatic/ subconscious events that happen due to well learned habitual things

Some conscious habitual things too
The two work in concert

An emotional/automatic/irrational side (the elephant)

An analytical/controlled/rational side (its rider).

Ex: rider choosing to stop for lunch (intentional), elephant stops because it is spooked (unintentional)

scientific analysis

Unconscious processes

Causation vs. correlation
-Violent media and violent behaviors
-Dont know whats causal

Situation manipulation

pursuit of counterintuitive

Science vs. intuition

People agree with opposite sayings

Ex: too many cooks spoil the broth, many hands make light work

folk psychology

theories we develop about why people behave the way they do ( with no scientific knowledge)

Many of our most strongly held folk theories or intuitions fail to give complete answers to questions and others are just plain wrong

hindsight bias

the tendency for people to exaggerate how much they could have predicted an outcome after knowing that it occurred (aka i knew it all along)

Intuitions are not necessarily bad
Ex: when setting up your friend, what are you looking for

Scientific method

theory, hypothesis, operationalization, measurements, data analysis and interpretation

theory

a model of interconnected ideas and concepts. It explains and predicts

Can come from new technology, practical problem, curiosity, serendipity, surprising observation, sharing ideas & data, scientific literature

hypothesis

a tentative question or answer to a question waiting for evidence to support or refute it

Must be falsifiable - Is it positive to answer the question in the negative (with a no)

operationalization

way of defining psychological variables so they can be measured or manipulated

Need participants (aka subjects), IN, and DV

independent variable

Conditions

treatments/ manipulations

dependent variable

depends on what participants do

measurement

objective observations or measurements

research designs

archival, survey, correlational, experiment

archival (research designs)

Patterns in existing data using data that has already been connected

Ex: look at murder statistics

survey

Asking opinions

ex: Southern more likely to agree it is okay to fight someone when insulted

correlational

Come in already in a group

experiment

In a lab

Ex: Long hallways, asking participants to put survey in a mailbox

Lined with filing
cabinets, blocked to get to mailbox

IV: insulted, yes or no
DV, how long until they move away, asked to give a negative story

correlation vs. group comparisons

Correlations range between -1 to +1

Absolute value indicates the strength of relationship

Higher \= stronger relationship

Lower \= weaker relationship

0 \= no relationship

correlational Research

Does not necessarily mean that you are using a correlation to examine your results

Were the conditions created/ imposed by the experimenters? Or did they occur "naturally"? → if the latter, it is correlational

Within Subject Experiment

One group of individuals → all the same

Can see attitude change → no random assignment

Two measures for each individual

Treatment: observation one, manipulation, observation two

Limitation: subject can guess what you are doing, then they may change their behavior

Between Subject Experiment

Two groups of subjects

Experimental group and control group.

Do NOT manipulate control group

Differences between groups

Limitation: may be hard to measure change in experimental group

External Validity

can you generalize to real life

Aspects that limit this: small sample size

Internal Validity

can you draw the conclusions you'd like to based on the experiment you conducted

Threats to internal validity for within subject design

Observation 1 might sensitize subjects to manipulation

Observation 1 might sensitize subjects to observation 2

Some even other than manipulation may occur between observations (artifact)

Threats to internal validity for between subject design

Randomization may fail

Some difference other than manipulation may occur between the groups (artifact)

artifacts

any variable other than the manipulation that influences the difference between observations

can be experimenter related, participant related, or deisgn confounds

experimenter related (artifacts)

ex: Kind vs. curt experimenter

Intentional experimenter related artifacts
-Fraud, diederick stapel

Unintentional Experimenter related artifacts
-Expectancy effects → expectation relates to how they perform

participant related (artifacts)

Volunteer bias

Evaluation apprehension

Sensitivity to experimental demand


ex: Early vs. late term subjects

Design confounds (artifacts)

ex: Length of stimuli

The Hawthorne Effect

Studies of environmental conditions at work

Any chance increased productivity

Attention, not lighting, this was not an intended effect

Hawthorne Effect

the tendency of some people to work harder and perform better when they are participants in an experiment. Individuals may change their behavior due to the attention they are receiving from researchers rather than because of any manipulation of independent variables.

participant motives and experimental demand

the good subject, the faithful subject, the negativism subject

good subject

(+ hypothesis): Is this what you want

Not good if not spontaneous behaviors

faithful subject

(+ truth as he/ see sees it) : let me tell you how it really is

If they feel obligated to tell some truth

negativistic subject

(- hypothesis)

experimental demand

Most influential when
(1): hypothesis is revealed explicitly
(2) manipulation is obvious
(3) Observation/ measures are obvious

How to avoid:

Camouflage what you are doing

Have implicit measures
-Candid observation
-Reaction time
-Physiological measure
-More exotic measure
ex: Ovulatory cycle effects on tip earnings by lap dancers

reliability

Consistency/stability or dependability

Results should be correlated

theoretical experiment

to be replicated, context not necessarily, no interest in other determinants, intended to be generalized

applied experiments

not to be replicated, context always important, interest in all determinants, not intended to generalize

theoretical oriented study example

Speeding in Selma Texas

People speed up once they are out of view of the cop

Ex: 75 → 65 → 85

Speed Trap not having intended effect

Reactants → people want to push back

Application Oriented Study

Was the Synanon Church Libeled?

Compared attitudes toward Sayanon in people who read one of two articles

Studies in San Antonio Tx vs. Fresno Ca

Want to move → people unhappy

Libel → harm due to language
Just for use in this one case

statistics

When is a result Significant?
Sample size
Effect size (not normalized)
Variability

Note: significant is not the same as effect size

Significance means the results are not due to chance

Ex: can one tell if milk is put into the tea before or after pouring the tea

Significance

Sample size
Effect size (not normalized)
Variability

replication

Bargh, Chen and Burrows

The automaticity of social behavior

Participants unscramble sets of 5 words into 4 sentences

Some get sentences priming old age stereotype (old, grey, forgetful, retired, wrinkle, florida)

Participants are then surreptitiously timed walking away from the study

Walked lower if completed with elderly words

Not able to be replicated

ethics of social psychology research

Nuremberg Trials

Ex: told people they were homosexual, military syringe study

Nuremberg Code (ethics)

Physical Risks

Risks to Privacy and confidentiality

Deception and Physical Risks

Remedies (ethics, nuremburg code)

IRB (independent review board)

Informed consent

cost/ benefit ratio

Debriefing - given explanation of participation

two forms of debriefing

(1) For scientific purposes
-Funnel debrief
-Start with broad question

(2)For participant/ ethical purposes
-Purpose of deception

Debriefing and Impression Perseverance

Participants judge 25 pairs of suicide notes

Asked which one is real, which one is false

Participants given false feedback after each pair

Some told they got 10 correct, some told they got 17 correct, some told they got 24 correct even though this was not true

Were told they were lied to, then when they were asked to estimate the percentage they got correct, there was a positive slope

Those who had been lied to at high numbers estimated they got more right

Therefore, something about false feedback is sticking and influencing how they grade themselves

False Feedback

Wegner, Coulton, & Wenzlaff

It is very hard to disregard, even knowing it is false

Told they are given false feedback ahead of time

Briefing yields same influence as debriefing

Ethics of Writing

Not taking credit for ideas that are not your own; giving clear credit where it is due

Plagarism

Lazy writing

Citation

Milgram Experiment

Motivated by Holocaust

Psychiatrists predicted 1/10 of 1% of people would go all the way

More than 50% actually go through with it

Couldn't replicate this today and say you have no other choice

Laugh due to uncomfortable nature
Money did not affect the results
Key: said they did not have to take responsibility

Debrief after, met learner and sent results

independent variables (milgram experiment)

Proximity of the learner

Closeness of the authority

Prestige of the setting

dependent variables (milgram experiment)

amount of shock administered

Speed of response

Duration of the shock

learner to teacher

Different room

Across wall, have microphone

1.5 feet from teacher

Touching, holding down

Obedience decreases as these go down

experimenter to learner

In the room

Met, left on phone

Not in the room, tape recording

Decrease in obedience

Lesson from Milgram experiment

Germans not inherently bad

Proximity to pain your causing makes it more preventable

Cost - participants think they are inherently bad

Yale Attitude Change Group

Rosie the Riveter

How to get women to take over jobs during the war

Experiments on mass communication

Hovland, Lumsdaine, Sheffield

One sided communication
-When not contemplating

Two sided communication
-When skeptical, deep processing
Present counterargument

One sided communication is not as effective as two sided when people are more educated

one sided communication

When not contemplating

two sided communication

When skeptical, deep processing, present counterargument

attitude (Hoveland)

An implicit approach or avoidance response

attitude

expressed as a variety of opinions

Opinion is eternal/ superficial but there is something deeper that underlies attitude

where to attitudes come from

Some are inherited, we are born with them or born with a disposition to develop them

Some come from experience
-Individual experience
-Cultural experience

Monozygotic twins answer questions more similarly than dizygotic twins → suggests there is a heritability component

Genes, attitudes, and behavior

Genes regulating dopamine affect financial risk taking and tendency to exploit vs. explore

People with the low activity MAOA gene (warrior gene) were more aggressive toward provoking a confederate

A gene that regulates oxytocin makes people more empathetic

A gene that regulates vasopressin makes men more bonded to their romantic partners

Ludivico technique (classical conditioning)

Pairing a positive or negative stimulus with a neutral item to make it good or bad

Pavlov's Dog (classical conditioning)

Condition signal \= bell, conditioned response \= salivation

Unconditional signal \= meat powder, unconditioned response \= salivation

Dopamine Neurons and Reward

Coding expectation

Monkeys
No prediction, reward occurs → dopamine spike w reward

Reward Predicted, reward occurs → dopamine spike with signal

Reward predicted, no reward occurs → no spike with reward after CS

Dip if no reward

prepared learning (classical conditioning)

Both experience and inheritance
When we come into the world, we are ready to learn and hold onto negative associations of some things. We learn negative associations of all things but hold onto some more than others. When we learn to fear something it sticks

Afraid of snakes spiders, not curling iron or stove when more people have negative experiences with those

prepared learning experiment

Prepared → snake or spider

Unprepared → bird or butterfly

Zapped for one condition

Look at palm sweating

Still afraid of snake/ spider after extinction

First Order Conditioning

Wuh - shock

Zof - no shock

Pairing of stimulus with unconditioned signal that naturally produces attitude

higher order conditioning

Wuh \= happiness, peace, sunshine

Zof \= death, ugly, hate

Pairing of stimulus with unconditioned signal that has acquired an attitudinal response by prior conditioning

Opens cultural floodgate

Acquired attitudinal response

Pages Critique (of word experiment)

Hypothesis and experimental demand are obvious

Asked participants if they
(1) knew the hypothesis of the study
(2) were trying to help the experimenter

Only those who said yes to both showered higher order classical conditioning

Zanna

Shock conditions
(1) light \= on, dark \= off
(2) dark \= on, light \= off

During rest period, participants can take part in a separate study or read magazines

Aesthetic preference test: rate decisions of museum, curator who wants to display
(1) light, colorful, artist A
(2) Dark, strong, artist B

If shocked in light, want option 2, if shocked in dark, choose light

Post Experimental check on knowledge of connection between two studies

Subliminal Conditioning

Krosnick, Betz, Jussim, Lynn:

People are not aware

People see 9 photos of a target person

Each photo is preceded by 13 milliseconds of exposure to a positive or negative UCS

Personality ratings of target person (friendly, honest, humorous, polite) were more positive in positive conditioning group

In general: effect of subliminal stimuli are weak and transient

Mere Exposure Hypothesis

People come to have positive attitudes toward those stimuli which they are frequently exposed

Mere Exposure

Zajonc

Propinquity and attraction
Ex: black bag
Attitudes shifted from negative to positive

Mirror Image Preferences: Mita, Dermer, Knight

Reversed facial images and the mere exposure hypothesis
People prefer how they usual see things

Self: reflection in mirror
Others: way we would see them

Turkish word studies

Enanwol, kadriga

More times one saw the word, the more positive they thought it was

Same phenomenon with chinese characters