PL3105 Lecture Notes PDF

Lecture 1 Social psychology is an attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others how people look understand their social surroundings Participant Artifacts Demand characteristics: know...

Lecture 1 Social psychology is an attempt to understand and explain how the thoughts, feelings and behaviour of individuals are influenced by the actual, imagined, or implied presence of others how people look understand their social surroundings Participant Artifacts Demand characteristics: know what the researcher wants and change their behaviour → spoils the experiment Evaluation apprehension: participants afraid of people viewing them negatively WEIRD = Western, educated, industrialised, rich and democratic → tend to generalise, but this is only a small population, choose represented participants Limited Generalizability: Many psychological studies use samples from WEIRD populations, which can limit the generalizability of findings to other cultural or socioeconomic groups. This means that research conclusions based on WEIRD samples may not apply to people from non-WEIRD backgrounds. Cultural Bias: The focus on WEIRD populations can lead to cultural biases in psychological theories and models, which might not account for diverse ways of thinking, behaving, and perceiving the world found in other cultures. Lecture 1 The core challenge of social psychology is to balance internal and external validity Internal validity the degree to which an experiment accurately measures what it claims to measure within the controlled setting. High internal validity means that the experiment is well-constructed, with clear cause-and-effect relationships, and confounding variables are minimised - often requires tightly controlled conditions, which can make the experiment less realistic and reduce external validity External validity refers to the extent to which the findings of an experiment can be generalised to real-world settings, different populations, and other situations. Evaluation apprehension A human tendency to try to look better/fear being evaluated - The anxiety that they feel - More about participants’ internal emotional state - Altering their behaviour due to anxiety about how they will be judged or evaluated Demand characteristics cues or clues in an experimental setting that might influence participants to behave in ways they believe are expected or desired by the experimenter. - These characteristics can skew the results of an experiment - Provide socially acceptable answers, or predict what the experimenter is looking  - Stem from participants’ understanding of the aims or goals of the study Milgram experiment - Administering electric shocks Chapter 1 Folk wisdom the collective knowledge, beliefs, and practices that are passed down through generations within a culture or community. This wisdom is often rooted in everyday experiences, observations, and oral traditions rather than formal scientific inquiry. But social psychologists want to know which of the many possible explanations is the most likely Gestalt psychology we should study the subjective way in which an object appears in people’s minds (the gestalt, or whole) rather than the way in which the objective, physical attributes of the object combine - Holistic perception of a group in social setting - We don't just analyse individual actions; we consider the context and the bigger picture when understanding social situations. Construal The way in which people perceive, comprehend, and interpret the social world 2 basic human motives: 1. Self esteem motive: the need to feel good about ourselves → might distort perception to protect self esteem  2. Social cognition: the need to be accurate. Subjective construal the way each of us as an individual interprets what we see around us in the world, leading to naive realism The goal of social psychology is to identify psychological properties that make almost everyone susceptible to social influence, regardless of social class or culture. - Importance of cross-cultural research Fundamental attribution error The tendency to overestimate the extent to which people’s behaviour is due to internal, dispositional factors and to underestimate the role of situational factors FAE: Focuses on the general mistake of not considering situational factors enough, leading to over-attribution to the person’s character.  Correspondent Bias: View behaviour due to the disposition (characteristics), discount situational factors Naive realism The conviction that we perceive things “as they really are,” underestimating how much we are interpreting or “spinning” what we see - E.g. letting their beliefs colour their opinion → if other ppl see an opinion different from us, THEY are biased - the need to feel good about our decisions can fly in the face of the need to be accurate, and can have catastrophic consequences Self-esteem people’s evaluation of their own self worth, the extent to which they view themselves as decent, good and competent - human beings are motivated to maintain a positive picture of themselves, in part by justifying their behaviour, and that under certain specifiable conditions, this leads them to do things that at first glance might seem surprising or paradoxical. (to fit in) - Self esteem does have negatives → in-group favouritism (prejudice, discrimination) Social Cognition How people think about themselves and the social world; more specifically, how people select, interpret, remember, and use social information to make judgments and decisions Chapter 2 - Research Hindsight Bias The tendency for people to exaggerate, after knowing that something occurred, how much they could have predicted it ­before it occurred - Look for reasons why that event has occurred, even if we were unsure at the start Researchers base off previous research, older theories can still be refined Ethnography The method by which researchers attempt to understand a group or culture by observing it from the inside, without imposing any preconceived notions they might have Note: cognitive dissonance, e.g. of the world ending but didn't and she believe that god is sparing earth Field Experiments Experiments conducted in natural settings rather than in the laboratory → increase external validity Meta-Analysis A statistical technique that averages the results of two or more studies to see if the effect of an independent variable is reliable → very reliable Social psychologists have the dilemma of ensuring internal validity but making it generalisable to other situations and people Basic research to find the best answer to the question of why people behave as they do, purely for reasons of intellectual curiosity Applied research is geared toward solving a particular social problem. Lecture 2 - The Self Mirror recognition test Somatoparaphrenia a delusional belief whereby a patient feels that a paralyzed limb does not belong to his body → cannot recognise only the left side of the body Try to insert a thought into people’s minds I-Spy experiment Choosing figures on a computer screen, need to recall and choose which object they identified previously Memory can be influenced by the illusion of control. Even though the participant’s actions were subtly manipulated, their memory of the experience may distort the facts, making them think they had full control. memory is often reconstructive rather than a perfect recording Thought precedes action → thought influences our perception of control and memory Several factors contribute to why people might misremember: 1. Attention: If people are only briefly exposed to an object or scene, they may not fully encode the details into memory. Limited attention, distractions, or competing tasks can affect how much is remembered. 2. Memory Decay: Short-term memories, especially those not given much attention, can fade quickly. Over time, people might forget specifics or confuse details with other memories. 3. Suggestion: When people are subtly or overtly suggested to have seen something (as in the "I Spy" experiment), their memory can become distorted. They may create a false memory of the object based on the  suggestion, especially if it fits into the context of what they expect or believe they saw. 4. Expectation and Schema: Our brains often fill in gaps based on past experiences and expectations. If a person is asked about an object that fits the general context of the scene, they may "remember" seeing it even if it wasn't actually there. Self-Awareness Theory The idea that when people focus their attention on themselves, they evaluate and compare their behaviour to their internal standards and values - If they doing something bad, then they feel bad - How to change? → change behaviour, or flee Subjective self awareness Interacting with the world as the subject, not thinking about yourself much - Attention is directed outward Objective self awareness You are an object in your social perception, you are aware of yourself → how others see me, and i see myself - Highly aware of themselves and their thoughts The mirror example illustrates objective self-awareness well. For subjective self-awareness, consider 'flow' states in sports or creative activities, where self-consciousness fades. To promote SSA, one can meditate or engage in flow activities. Flow states, characterised by deep absorption in a task, naturally induce SSA as attention is directed outward to the activity rather than inward toward the self. Examples: Engaging in sports or physical activities, Creating art or music, Solving complex problems or puzzles, Participating in immersive video games, etc. Egocentric self Self enhancement: people overestimate themselves and their abilities → the tendency to maintain self esteem - People generally want to view themselves in a positive light → maintaining and boosting their self esteem Self-reference effect: People remember things better when it is related to the self Self-serving bias: seeing one's self with an overly positive view in order to enhance or maintain self-confidence and esteem Spotlight effect: people don’t really notice you as much as you think Chapter 5 - The Self Self-Concept The overall set of beliefs that people have about their personal attributes - Children’s self concept is concrete - As we get older → become psychological states Independent view of the self - Defining yourself based on your own thoughts , feelings and actions AND NOT OTHERS Interdependent view of the self - r/s to other people, behaviour is determined by the thoughts, actions and feelings of others ⭐Self perception theory - When feelings are ambiguous, look at behaviour and situation to determine - Schachter-Singer two factor theory of emotion - people first experience physiological arousal and then seek an appropriate explanation for it → heart palpitations, then ask yourself whether you like the person or not - Bridge example - Emotions are made by the self-perception process Overjustification effect - an external incentive, like a reward, reduces a person's intrinsic motivation to perform a task they already enjoy → intrinsic decreases overtime This scenario illustrates the overjustification effect, where providing an external reward (in this case, $5) for an activity that someone is already doing for intrinsic reasons (enjoying playing loud music) can reduce their intrinsic motivation. When the reward is removed, they may no longer feel motivated to engage in the activity. Therefore, once you stop paying them, they are likely to stop playing the music, as the external incentive is gone, and the intrinsic motivation has been undermined. Not all rewards are bad How the agent perceive the reward to be → what is the reward signalling - ‘Person’ is trying to control me Task-Contingent Rewards - Rewards that are given for performing a task, regardless of how well the task is done Performance-Contingent Rewards - Rewards that are based on how well we perform a task Social Comparison Theory - The idea that we learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people Social Tuning - The process whereby people adopt another person’s attitudes - Can happen unconsciously Looking glass self - How we believe others perceive us Implementation Intentions - People’s specific plans about where, when, and how they will fulfil a goal and avoid temptations Ego depletion - impairs the ability to control oneself later on Impression Management - People try to get others to see them as they want to be seen IM strategies Ingratiation - the act of gaining favour or acceptance through deliberate effort Self-handicapping - The strategy whereby people create obstacles and excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task, they can avoid blaming themselves 1) Behavioural self-handicapping Involves actively sabotaging one's performance to increase the likelihood of failure. → using these obstacles to explain failure instead For example, an athlete might sabotage their performance by sleeping late before a big game. 2) Reported self-handicapping Reported self-handicapping doesn’t always have to involve lying, but it often involves exaggerating or misjudging the true impact of external factors. The person may genuinely believe their excuse, even if it’s not as significant as they present it to be. The ultimate goal, however, remains the same: to avoid taking personal responsibility for failure and to protect their self-esteem. Involves making excuses for poor performance without actually lowering the chances of success. For example, a student might claim they performed poorly on an exam because they weren't feeling well. Chapter 4 - Social Perception The study of how we form impressions and draw inferences of people and WHY they behave the way they do  - Use observable behaviour, subtle cues and quick impressions Encode - express Decode - interpret The six universal emotions, which are widely recognized across different cultures. (Happiness, Sadness, Surprise, Anger, Fear, Disgust) Affect blends Facial expressions in which one part of the face registers one emotion while another part of the face registers a different emotion - Makes decoding difficult - Same expression can have different meanings in different contexts Display Rules Culturally determined rules about which nonverbal behaviours are appropriate to display - E.g. men cannot cry, but woman can Emblems Nonverbal gestures that have well-understood definitions within a given culture, usually having direct verbal translations, such as the OK sign - But each culture has their own, and others might not understand In some instances, as with the expression of major emotions, the conclusions people draw from these bits of social data are fairly consistent across cultures. In other instances, as with eye contact, personal distance, and gestures, the same nonverbal information is interpreted differently by people in different parts of the world. First impressions First impressions are formed in less in 100 milliseconds Thin slicing Drawing meaningful conclusions about another person’s personality or skills based on an extremely brief sample of behaviour → actually useful → based on first impressions When people are unsure about the nature of the social world, they use schemas to fill the gaps in. Schema Mental shortcut; providing additional info Primacy Effect When it comes to forming impressions, the first traits we perceive in others influence how we view information that we learn about them later → bad traits being told first, impression is bad Belief Perseverance The tendency to stick with an initial judgement even in the face of new information that should prompt us to reconsider - First impressions are hard to remove Attribution Attribution theory: we try to determine why people do what they do in order to uncover the feelings and traits that are behind their actions Internal/Dispositional The inference that a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person, such as attitude, character, or personality External/Situational The inference that a person is behaving a certain way because of something about the situation he or she is in, with the assumption that most people would respond the same way in that situation Covariation Model note the pattern between when the behaviour occurs and the presence or absence of possible causal factors - To decide whether a behaviour was caused by internal (dispositional) factors or by external (situational) factors - consistency, distinctiveness and consensus - People usually use highlighted ones - Usually don't have complete information Fundamental Attribution Error The tendency to overestimate the extent to which other people’s behaviour results from internal, dispositional factors and to underestimate the role of situational factors Perceptual Salience what we notice seems like the reasonable and logical cause of the observed behaviour, as we cannot see the situation Perceptual Salience refers to focusing on noticeable attributes of behaviour while excluding the situational context. Two-Step Attribution Process (need more effort for external judgement) Analysing another person’s behaviour first by making an automatic internal attribution and only then thinking about possible situational reasons for the behaviour - WHY? > first step occurs quickly, second step requires time and effort Step 1 - Internal Attribution (Automatic): You see a coworker snap at someone during a meeting. Your immediate thought is, "Wow, they’re rude and short-tempered." Step 2 - External Adjustment (Effortful): Later, you remember that they recently mentioned dealing with a sick family member. You revise your judgement to: "They’re probably stressed out because of personal issues." Self-Serving Attributions Explanations for one’s successes that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one’s failures that blame external, situational factors Just-World Belief (self–serving) A defensive attribution wherein people assume that bad things happen to bad people and that good things happen to good people - reassure ourselves that we will remain immune from such tragedy - E.g. victim blaming Bias Blind Spot The tendency to think that other people are more susceptible to attributional biases in their thinking than we are Cultural differences - North American and some other Western cultures stress individual autonomy - East Asian cultures tend to stress group autonomy → more holistic thinking Cross-cultural differences in social perception do not appear to be inborn; rather, we arrive in this world with a flexibility of thinking style that is moulded over time by cultural (and other) influences. Lecture 3 Counter-attitudinal behaviour → internal justification External motivators (shame) are less effective than internal motivators (guilt) at affecting behaviour change Chapter 6 - Cognitive Dissonance The discomfort that people feel when they behave in ways that threaten their self-esteem Reducing dissonance 1. By changing our behaviour to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition. 2. By attempting to justify our behaviour through changing one of the dissonant cognitions. → buying plastic is not a big deal 3. By attempting to justify our behaviour by adding new cognitions Understanding dissonance: human thinking are not rational, but rationalising  - Rationalising their actions to fit their beliefs Consequences 1. Distorting likes and dislikes - Convincing oneself that the decision they picked is better than the other one Post-decision Dissonance Dissonance aroused after making a decision, typically reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative and devaluating the rejected alternatives 2. Permanence of the decision - The tougher the decision, the more dissonance one experience - The more permanent and irrevocable the decision, the stronger is the need to reduce dissonance 3. Creating the illusion of irrevocability - Increases dissonance, increases the motivation to reduce it Lowballing An unscrupulous strategy whereby a salesperson induces a customer to agree to purchase a product at a low cost, subsequently claims it was an error, and then raises the price; frequently, the customer will agree to make the purchase at the inflated price Why it works 1. Commitment 2. Anticipation 3. Already here (effort) → other places will only be slightly higher Justification of Effort The tendency for individuals to increase their liking for something they have worked hard to attain - Rather, if a person chooses to go through a demanding or an unpleasant experience to attain some goal or object, that goal or object becomes more attractive External justification A reason or an explanation for dissonant personal behaviour that resides outside the individual (e.g., to receive a large reward or avoid a severe punishment) - E.g. Dress is ugly, but already altered it and cannot refund - E.g. external social pressure or significant benefit Internal justification The reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g., one’s attitude or behaviour) - E.g. reasons for lying about the dress is minimal, look harder for positive things to reduce dissonance - Has a much more powerful effect on long-term values and behaviours EJ and IJ comparison External justification allows people to maintain their original attitudes by attributing the behaviour to outside factors, minimising cognitive dissonance without significant internal change. Internal justification involves altering one's attitudes or beliefs when external factors are insufficient, leading to a change in internal reasoning to align behaviour and attitudes. Counterattitudinal Behavior Acting in a way that runs counter to one’s private belief or attitude Counterattitudinal Behaviour - Prejudice attitudes and more - Thinking that they are bad people can justify cruelty (in war) - PTSD: caused by veterans not able to reduce their dissonance of killing children - Justifying immoral acts → if everyone had a chance, they would also cheat in the test Insufficient punishment The child is refraining from doing something he wants to do, and although he does have some justification for not doing it, that doesn’t seem strong enough to explain his compliance insufficient punishment can change behavior over time, but it requires internal justification to do so, and the change tends to be more long-lasting because it is rooted in the person’s own reasoning, not just an external consequence → happen over time - Avoiding temptations Toy experiment - One group harsh punishment, other small punishment - The group with the harsh punishment increased desire to play with the forbidden toy  - However, the group with small punishment had to CHANGE THEIR INTERNAL JUSTIFICATION → decided that the toy was not attractive anymore, and didn’t play with it over time too → because external justification is small, internal justification is higher - If want child to stop doing something temporarily → use external → the inner desire of wanting to play with the toy is still there - If want child to change their attitudes → small reward/punishment will lead to more permanent effect When the punishment is small, the child still faces a conflict between their desire to play with the toy and the mild consequence they would face. Since the punishment is not severe enough to justify their avoidance of the toy externally (e.g., "I'm not playing with the toy because I’ll get in big trouble"), the child starts to reframe their internal reasoning to resolve this discomfort. In other words, the child might think, "If the punishment is small, why am I not playing with the toy? Maybe it’s because I don’t actually want to play with it." This shift in internal thinking helps them reduce the cognitive dissonance they feel and leads to a lasting attitude change, where they genuinely lose interest in the toy. On the other hand, if the punishment is harsh, the child can easily justify their behaviour externally ("I’m not playing with the toy because I’ll be in serious trouble"). In this case, there's no need for them to change their attitude towards the toy internally, so they continue to desire it, even if they don’t act on that desire. Hypocrisy Hypocrites judge others more harshly than do people who have not committed the same unethical acts, and they present themselves as being more virtuous and ethical than everyone else - See more evil in others, more righteousness in themselves Hypocrisy Induction Making people aware of the dissonance between what they are doing and what they are preaching to others - Those who made the video experienced the highest dissonance Dissonance across cultures - Children want to be like their peers, elders want children to be like them - This conflict often creates enormous dissonance in the children because they love their parents but do not embrace all of their values. Mills’ experiment Cheaters: Children who cheated faced dissonance between their action (cheating) and their belief (that cheating is wrong). To reduce this discomfort, they changed their attitudes to be more lenient toward cheating, effectively justifying their behaviour internally. Non-Cheaters: Children who resisted cheating had their beliefs (cheating is wrong) reinforced, as this aligned with their actions (not cheating). This strengthened their anti-cheating attitudes With a small external justification (small reward/low punishment), participants will do internal justification Self-Affirmation Theory (cognitive dissonance) - Not easy to quit smoking/convince oneself The idea that people can reduce threats to their self-esteem by affirming themselves in areas unrelated to the source of the threat - E.g: even though i smoke, I am a great cook - Affirming competence in other aspects UNRELATED to the threat Self-Evaluation Maintenance Theory Want strangers or friends to do well? The idea that people experience dissonance when someone close to us outperforms us in an area that is central to our self-esteem. This dissonance can be reduced by becoming less close to the person, changing our behaviour so that we now outperform them, or deciding that the area is not that important to us after all Only when these 3 conditions are met 1. We feel close to another person (strong ties?) 2. He or she is outperforming us in a particular area (domain relevant?) 3. That area is central to our self-esteem Reducing this dissonance 1. Distance ourselves from the person who outperforms us, deciding that he or she is not such a close friend after all 2. Change how relevant the task is to our self-esteem (e.g. guitar not important to us anymore) 3. Change their performance relative to the other person’s - Try to be better - If cannot, try to undermine your friend’s performance so that it is not as good as yours, (e.g. purposely leaving out key details to sabo them) Narcissism The combination of excessive self-love and a lack of empathy toward others Terror Management Theory The theory that holds that self-esteem serves as a buffer, protecting people from terrifying thoughts about their own mortality - People with high self esteem are less troubled about their own mortality → place value of achievements, success → feeling valued → feel more secure about existence - But too much self-esteem → narcissist → not good To recap, having high self-esteem is generally a good thing to the extent that it makes people optimistic about their futures and work harder for what they want in life. There is a form of high self-esteem, however, that is quite problematic—namely, narcissism—which, as we have seen, is extreme high self-regard combined with a lack of empathy toward others. The best combination is to feel good about ourselves but also to be able to learn from our mistakes and to look out for and care about others Overcoming dissonance - Can be counter-productive if it solidifies negative values and behaviours - Be aware of it, consciously pause self-justification to reflect on actions Quiz 1) When does “saying become believing”? a. When you claim to have an opinion that differs from your true beliefs for no strong reason. b. When what you say is what you believe. c. When someone forces you to say something you don’t believe. d. When you’re paid a lot of money to lie. 2) Which of the following statements is true about cognitive dissonance? a. People experience more dissonance when they unconsciously perform an attitude-inconsistent behaviour. b. People experience more dissonance when the attitude-inconsistent behaviour was freely chosen. c. People experience more dissonance when they are coerced to perform an attitude-inconsistent behaviour. d. People experience more dissonance when they receive huge amounts of money for performing an attitude inconsistent behaviour. However, cognitive dissonance tends to be stronger when someone knowingly and freely chooses to act against their beliefs (as in option b), since the person is directly responsible for the decision. In situations where the behaviour was unconscious or unintentional, the dissonance may be there, but it might not be as intense since the person can partially attribute it to a lack of awareness at the time. Tutorial 1 Implicit self-esteem a person’s automatic, unconscious, and often involuntary evaluation of themselves. It reflects deep-seated, internal feelings of self-worth that individuals may not be fully aware of. Operates below the surface of conscious awareness. Can differ from a person’s outward or verbal expression of their self-esteem.  It can influence automatic reactions, such as how people feel in social situations or respond to failure without them realising it. It’s typically measured indirectly, using tools like the Implicit Association Test (IAT), where people are unaware that their self-esteem is being assessed. Example: A person might claim that they feel confident (explicit self-esteem), but implicitly, they might react poorly to criticism or shy away from challenges, indicating low implicit self-esteem. Explicit self-esteem This is a person’s conscious and deliberate evaluation of themselves. It represents the thoughts and feelings about self-worth that individuals are aware of and can easily express. Can be measured through self-report questionnaires Characteristics: Aware and deliberate. Can be influenced by how people want to present themselves (e.g., socially desirable responses). More aligned with how individuals verbally express their self-worth. Example: Someone with high explicit self-esteem might say, “I feel good about myself,” but this doesn’t necessarily reflect their deeper, unconscious beliefs. Lecture 4 How do emotions arise 1. Common expressions 2. Biological function 3. Social function - We feel sad that's why we are crying - Feeling physiological arousal then feel emotions - That’s the essence of emotions - James lange theory James Lange Theory 1. You see a bear.  2. Your heart starts racing, and you begin to tremble. 3. You interpret those bodily reactions and feel the emotion of fear. Cannon-bard We process the stimulus, which then leads to emotion One does not cause the other 1. You experience the emotion (fear). 2. Your body reacts physically (increased heart rate, sweating, etc.). Goal attribution refers to the process of assigning or inferring the goals and intentions behind an individual's behaviour or actions - Babies getting surprised when the ball still jump over even when there is no wall anymore Goal Attribution in Social Psychology: In everyday life, when people observe others’ actions, they often make assumptions about the goals or motivations driving those actions, even when those goals are not explicitly stated. This is part of attribution theory, where we try to explain why people behave in certain ways, either by attributing their behavior to internal factors (their goals, intentions, personality traits) or external factors (the situation, external pressures). Key Components: 1. Intentionality: People often assume that behaviors are driven by an intentional goal, especially in ambiguous situations. We tend to think that actions are purposeful and reflect someone’s internal desires or objectives.  2. Causal Attribution: Goal attribution is closely linked to causal attribution, where people try to determine the cause behind an action. For instance, if someone helps another person, we might infer that their goal was altruistic, or alternatively, that they wanted something in return. Tutorial 2 HARKing → Hypothesising after the results are known Tutorial no.2 covers HARKing (Hypothesizing After the Results are Known), which is an author's behavior to 'present a post hoc hypothesis as if it were made a priori (before knowing the results)'. If you haven't heard of this then wait until your 2nd tutorial and revisit this post. Why is it a bad behavior in scientific research, other than for being a 'lie'? There are several reasons: Inflating Type I errors: When researchers create hypotheses based on data patterns they’ve already seen, there is a higher chance of capitalizing on random noise rather than discovering genuine effects. This increases the likelihood of Type I errors (false positives). ○ Example: A researcher conducting a large-scale personality study looks at 100 different behaviors to find correlations with extroversion. After reviewing the data, they find that people who wear red shirts on Fridays score higher in extroversion. Without pre-planning this hypothesis, they include it in their paper as if they predicted it. In reality, this result could just be a statistical fluke from looking at so many variables and falsely inflating the likelihood of finding a significant effect. Hinders theory development: HARKing can mislead others into thinking that a theory is more predictive and accurate than it is, making it harder for the field to correct itself and refine theories over time. ○ Example: A researcher examining social media’s effect on self-esteem doesn’t find a direct relationship. After analysing the data, they find that people who use social  media for over 3 hours per day have lower self-esteem, so they change their hypothesis to reflect this subgroup. Presenting this as a pre-existing hypothesis could prevent others from seeing the result as exploratory, leading future research down the wrong path, or basing conclusions on incomplete theory development. Replicability crisis: By presenting data-driven hypotheses as a priori, because of two reasons listed above, findings are often less robust in actuality and less likely to replicate in future studies, contributing to the broader problem of non-reproducibility in science. ○ Example: A researcher studies the relationship between diet and cognitive performance. Initially, they don’t find significant results. However, after some data mining, they discover that people who eat blueberries have improved memory. The researcher rewrites the paper as if they predicted the blueberry effect, when in fact, it was data-driven. When other researchers try to replicate the study focusing on blueberries, they fail to reproduce the effect because the original result was based on chance rather than theory, contributing to the replicability crisis down the line. To summarise, HARKing is not just problematic because it's dishonest, but because it can severely undermine the integrity of scientific research. By distorting the scientific process, it introduces noise into the literature, making it harder for real effects to be identified and replicated. Over time, this poisons the well of knowledge, so to speak, slowing down progress in fields that rely on accurate, transparent, and reproducible findings. Thus, maintaining the distinction between exploratory and confirmatory research is critical for the credibility and advancement of science. The hypothesis might not be very solid File drawer problem - Blaming the publishers  - Results are not succinct enough - Selective reporting of findings - Alot of unpublished manuscripts - People only see the good sides, effect might be very small as people don’t see the other ‘failed’ studies Solution: publish all work Scientific transparency Lecture 5 ToM goes beyond just empathy or compassion. It involves understanding that others have mental states different from our own. However, your point about the challenge of truly appreciating perspectives outside our own is valid and relates to broader questions in social cognition. The development and application of ToM likely involves both innate cognitive mechanisms and learned social skills. Extent of ASD and ToM is complex and varies - often narrows with age but doesn't typically disappear entirely Simulation Theory - Another way of social inference Simulation theory proposes we understand others' mental states by simulating their perspective using our own mind as a model; it's a cognitive process for understanding others, not just comparing behaviours. Key points are: 1. It's not always about comparison, but using our mental processes to model others'. 2. Mismatches don't necessarily create mystery, but prompt adjustments to our simulation. 3. Simulation theory is one approach within Theory of Mind My thoughts are your thoughts My actions are your actions Your perspective is my perspective Quiz recap Quiz 1 - Demand characteristic Quiz 2 Quiz 3 Quiz 4 - High consensus - High distinctiveness also correct → he always enjoys action movies but this time he didn't - Basic emotion theory → emotion has evolutionary purpose Quiz 5 Chapter 9 - Group Process (influence in social groups) Group Two or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other - Joining forces with others → accomplish objectives that would be more difficult to meet individually - Survival advantage  - Need to feel distinctive from those outside of the group → ppl are attracted to smaller groups within the school - Define who we are - Establish social norms Social norms Which behaviours are acceptable, some of which all members are expected to obey The implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviours, values, and beliefs of its members Varies from group to group When violated, shunned by other groups Social Roles Shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave - How people who occupy certain positions in the group should behave - People know what to expect from each other - But people can get so far in a role that they lose their personal identities e.g. prisoner experiment (guards got too into their roles) - Milgram obedience study Group Cohesiveness Qualities of a group that bind members together and promote mutual liking - The more cohesive the group is, the more likely it is that they will stick together and recruit like-minded members - Sometimes, optimal performance is compromised → maintaining group relations > finding good solutions - Just because a group is cohesive does not mean that it is performing at the optimal level - Diverse groups might perform better due to diverse experiences Group diversity how diverse a group’s composition is - Usually operate in ways that encourage similarities Social Facilitation When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance can be evaluated, the tendency to perform better on simple tasks and worse on complex tasks - Easy task (with people watching): faster - Difficult task (with people watching): slower People and animals do worse in the presence of others when the task is difficult Presence of others causes arousal 1. Alertness - possibility that he/she will ask us to respond - people are less predictable 2. Concerned with other’s evaluation of them - evaluation apprehension - fear of being judged - presence of others who are evaluating us 3. Distraction - Difficult to pay attention to 2 things at once - Social and nonsocial sources too Take exam in a classroom, but learn new material on your own Social Loafing When people are in the presence of others and their individual performance cannot be evaluated, the tendency to perform worse on simple or unimportant tasks but better on complex or important tasks - Cannot be evaluated → blending in with the crowd - Performance in a group cannot be identified - Becoming relaxed can improve performance on complex task → opposite of social arousal - Stronger in men than women - Stronger in western than asian cultures → asians: interdependent sense of self Relational interdependence the tendency to focus on and care about personal relationships with other individuals - Women higher than men Deindividuation The loosening of normal constraints on behaviour when people can’t be identified (such as when they are in a crowd)  - Committing crimes together, that they won’t do on their own 1. Makes people feel less accountable - Reduced likelihood that they will be blamed for their behaviour 2. Increases obedience to group norms - Act according to group norms > social norms in the group - Might not lead to aggressive behaviour, depending on what the group norm is 💃🪩 3. Thrives online - People feel less inhibited about what they write because of anonymity - Reduction in common civility - Reminding of other influential norms and own unique personal identity could help Question: Deindividuation is strongest when people are in a group and their individual identities are less salient. In this condition (d), participants entered with others and weren't asked for names, maximizing anonymity and group influence. Deindividuation often reduces prosocial behavior by lowering personal accountability and increasing adherence to perceived group norms. Without individual identification, participants may feel less personally responsible to help. Entering alone (option b) wouldn't produce the same level of deindividuation, as the group context is crucial for this effect. While we can't know others' choices for certain, deindividuation theory predicts this condition would result in the least helping behavior. Process Loss ( 👎problem-solving) Any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving group members might not try hard enough to identify the competent members overreliance on someone incapable most competent person might find it difficult to disagree with others Failure to share unique information Transactive Memory The combined memory of a group that is more efficient than the memory of the individual members Groupthink A kind of decision process in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner emphasised consensus over critical evaluation highly cohesive isolated from contrary opinions ruled by a directive leader Group Polarisation The tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of their members - Risky decisions made more risky - Cautious decisions are more cautious - Individuals are usually unaware of the effects → believe that beliefs remain unbiased Great Person Theory The idea that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation - Little support for this theory Transactional Leaders Leaders who set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them Transformational Leaders Leaders who inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals Contingency Theory of Leadership The idea that the effectiveness of a leader depends both on how task or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control the leader has over the group Women break the glass ceiling during times of crisis, where risk of failure is high Social Dilemma A conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone - E.g. pay what you wish restaurant - Beneficial to the individual, but not the group Tit-for-Tat Strategy At first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trial  - willingness to cooperate, unwillingness to be exploited if the partner is selfish Chapter 8 - Conformity and Obedience Conformity A change in one’s behaviour due to real or imagined influence of other people Informational Social Influence Relying on other people as a source of information to guide our behaviour → conformity → believe that others’ interpretation of an ambiguous situation is correct - E.g. milgram’s experiment → obeying ‘legitimate’ authority → DIFFICULT TO SWITCH midstream (fast-paced too) Private Acceptance Conforming to other people’s behaviour out of a genuine belief that what they are doing or saying is right - Might also be publicly conformed, but also privately maintained that belief - Personal views changed? Public Compliance Conforming to other people’s behaviour publicly without necessarily believing in what the other people are doing or saying - Don’t want to stand out from the crowd or look stupid - Occur for reasons beyond fitting in or gaining approval Conform to informational social influence when: 1. Situation is ambiguous - In ambiguous situations, the more important the decision is, the more someone will conform for informational reasons. 2. Situation is a crisis 3. When others are experts Normative conformity/social influence the tendency to conform to the expectations or behaviours of a group in order to be accepted or liked by others, rather than because one truly agrees with the group's actions or beliefs. - Subset of public compliance - Desire for social acceptance and avoiding rejection - PUBLIC COMPLIANCE WITHOUT PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE - E.g. milgram experiment → but ‘seeing their peers disobey made it much easier for the actual participants to disobey too’ Asch’s Line Judgement Task - Normative social influence  - we often underestimate the power of normative social influence - the desire to fit in and be accepted is part of human nature, whether or not we’re willing to admit it - If behaved non-normatively, people might ignore you, or get you to change Social Impact Theory The idea that conforming to social influence depends on the group’s importance, immediacy, and the number of people in the group 1. Strength: How important to you is the group? 2. Immediacy: How close is the group to you in space and time during the attempt to influence you?  3. Number: How many people are in the group? As the size of the group increases, so does the normative pressure it exerts, but each additional person has less of an influencing effect Idiosyncrasy Credits The tolerance a person earns, over time, by conforming to group norms; if enough credits are earned, the person can, on occasion, deviate from the group without retribution - By earning idiosyncrasy credits through consistent conformity, a person like Alex can deviate from group norms at times without losing the group's trust or respect. - E.g. being late as a hardworking student Allies - When there is an ally who agrees with your alternative viewpoint, then it is okay to stick out In Japan and Germany, people value conformity within their own groups rather than with strangers, especially in artificial settings like experiments. Similarly, British participants conformed more when they identified with the group (e.g., psychology majors) than with outsiders (e.g., art history majors). Conformity is stronger when people feel connected to the group. Minority Influence The case where a minority of group members influences the behaviour or beliefs of the majority Injunctive Norms What people think of what behaviours are approved or disapproved of by others - What they should do in given situations - College students overestimate injunctive norms Descriptive Norms People’s perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behaviour is approved or disapproved of by others - What they actually do → they know that it is bad, but it is not made salient to them IN is more powerful than DN → parking lot and littering example Hypocrisy induction: getting them to sign petitions and make them mindful about water conservation → something that they are not actively doing → PREACHING what they are NOT PRACTISING Boomerang effect If people are below the average of a bad behaviour, then they might be obliged to increase their bad behaviour to fit in with the norm (backfired) The Milgram Study The Role of Normative Social Influence - Normative pressures make it difficult for people to stop obeying authority figures - They want to please the authority figure by doing a good job. The Role of Informational Social Influence - The obedience studies created a confusing situation for participants, with competing, ambiguous demands. Unclear about how to define what was going on, they followed the orders of the expert. - They continued to follow the norms of “obey authority” and “all in the name of science” even when it was no longer appropriate to do so - It was difficult for them to abandon these initial norms because of the fast-paced nature of the study, the fact that the shock levels increased in small increments, and their loss of a feeling of personal responsibility W8 Lecture Quiz 1. In conforming behaviour, there are two types of influences. One is normative influence, and the other is informational influence. The following scenario describes one of these two types of influences. Imagine you’re at a park and you see a group of people all  standing on one leg, staring at the sky. You have no idea why they’re doing it, but you decide to join them, thinking they must know something you don’t—maybe there’s a rare bird or a celestial event happening. What's an incorrect description about this type of influence? The main social motive behind the phenomenon is the motive to belong (as opposed to, the motive to understand). It occurs in an ambiguous situation. Asch's line study is NOT a typical example of information influence. It happens when we believe others’ interpretation of the situation may be more correct than ours 2. What are all CORRECT statements about behavioural mimicry? i) Behavioural mimicry can make you like the mimicker more, when you're the target of mimicry. ii) Behavioural mimicry can induce helping behaviour in the target of mimicry. iii) We sometimes mimic another person in front of us without awareness. all i-iii only i only ii only iii only i and ii only i and iii only ii and iii 3. Meet Priya: a student who is perpetually under the cosmic cloud of anxiety when it comes to her skills in astronomy. Her worries not only gravitate towards her test scores but also about how her peers might perceive her astronomical capabilities. One day, she finds herself in the midst of an experiment. Alongside a group of fellow students, they're tasked to compete against another group, and, to Priya's dread, it involves solving astronomy questions. Each participant is tasked with answering five questions individually, which to Priya, seem as vast as the universe. The experimenter gives an assurance: individual scores will be cloaked in secrecy. The scores will be cumulatively compared between the two groups (Scenario A). Now, envisage another theoretical situation: All elements are identical to Scenario A, however, post-test, the astronomer’s curtain is pulled back, revealing everyone's scores to all team members within the group. After completion, the experimenter declares that all scores will be shared amongst team members (Scenario B). 1) Can you predict the trajectory of social processing that will most likely define Priya's experience in each scenario (A and B respectively)? 2) And in which situation will she perform better? Hint: Reflect upon our lecture where we explored the varying degrees of behavioural performance on a task in the presence of others. The theories of social facilitation and social loafing hinge on a pivotal assumption: people traverse through tasks optimally with the 'just-right' amount of pressure and arousal. Keep in mind the diagram model of social facilitation and social loafing, visually representing these processes. Scenario A=social loafing; Scenario B=social facilitation; Scenario A Scenario A=social loafing; Scenario B=social facilitation; Scenario B Scenario A=social facilitation; Scenario B=social loafing; Scenario B Scenario A=social facilitation; Scenario B=social loafing; Scenario A W9 Lecture Quiz W10 Lecture Quiz The CORRECT statement is: In a long-term relationship, individuals can serve as external memory aids to each other. This concept is known as "transactive memory," where partners remember different types of information or tasks for each other, enhancing their collective memory and supporting one another in daily life. Here’s why the other options are incorrect: "Negative affect, but not positive affect, in marriage predicts success in a relationship" is incorrect because both negative and positive affect play important roles in relationship success. Positive affect is often crucial for relationship satisfaction, while certain types of negative affect can harm a relationship. "Playing hard to get likely works well" is also incorrect. Research generally suggests that while attraction principles include beauty, proximity, and reciprocity, "playing hard to get" is not reliably effective and can sometimes create mixed signals or reduce interest. "Criticism, Defensiveness, Stonewalling, and Contempt predict whether a couple will stay together next year" is misleading. While these behaviours, known as the "Four Horsemen," are indeed strong predictors of relationship issues, they are linked to long-term relationship deterioration rather than specifically predicting next-year outcomes. Chapter 7 - Influencing thoughts and feelings Attitudes Evaluations of people, objects, and ideas 1. Cognitively Based Attitude (LOGIC) - An attitude based primarily on people’s beliefs about the properties of an attitude object - considering pros and cons → not emotional  2. Affectively Based Attitude (FEELINGS) - An attitude based more on people’s feelings and values than on their beliefs about the nature of an attitude object → even if there are cons - People’s feelings about topics are more on their sense of values than cold, hard facts - Not to paint an accurate picture of the world, but to express and validate value systems (1) do not result from a rational examination of the issues, (2) are not governed by logic, and (3) are often linked to people’s values (e.g. religion), so that efforts to change them challenge those values Classical conditioning An emotional response is repeatedly paired with a neutral stimulus that does not, until the neutral stimulus takes on the emotional properties of the first stimulus - Feeling love when going to grandma’s house, smell of laundry becomes associated with love Operant conditioning Behaviours we freely choose to perform become more or less frequent, depending on whether they are followed by a reward or punishment - Getting scolded for smth, then won’t do it again next time  3. Behaviorally Based Attitude (BEHAVIOURS) - An attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an object - Self perception theory: people don’t know how they feel until they see how they behave Explicit Attitudes Attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report → what they outwardly claim - Rooted in recent experiences Implicit Attitudes Attitudes that exist outside of conscious awareness → involuntary, unconscious, uncontrollable → inner thoughts - Rooted in childhood experiences Attitude Accessibility The strength of the association between what they feel when they see an attitude object, and whether that reaction is fast or slow Degree of experience with that object (hands-on) Without much experience (through reading) More direct experience, more accessible their attitude, more likely their spontaneous behaviour will be consistent with that attitude How quickly and easily an individual can retrieve an attitude or opinion about a particular object, issue, or person from memory when prompted Theory of planned behaviour (deliberate) When people have time to contemplate how they are going to behave → the best predictor of their behaviour is their intention 1. Specific attitudes → create a clearer link between beliefs and actions, which strengthens the intention and makes behaviour more predictable 2. Subjective norms → how others they care about will view their behaviours → might be influenced by how other people think 3. Perceived behavioural control → how easy it is to perform that behaviour → e.g. wearing condom during sex In summary, TPB is about predicting deliberate, planned actions based on multiple factors, while attitude accessibility is about the immediacy of one’s feelings toward an object, often influencing automatic or spontaneous responses. Social influence Persuasive Communication A message advocating a particular side of an issue Yale attitude approach Component Description Source Characteristics of the persuader that impact persuasion, including credibility, attractiveness, and expertise. Message The content and structure of the message, which includes clarity, emotional appeal, and one-sided vs. two-sided arguments. Audience Characteristics of the audience receiving the message, such as initial attitudes, motivation, and ability to process information. Elaboration likelihood model (ELM) Central Route to Persuasion Listening carefully to and thinking about the arguments presented - Personal relevance - Attitude is long-lasting and resistant to change Peripheral Route to Persuasion Swayed by more superficial/peripheral cues - (1) Length of communication, (2) Attributes of communicator (e.g. attractiveness) - Lesser ABILITY AND MOTIVATION to pay attention - Attitude change is temporary and susceptible to further change Fear-Arousing Communication Persuasive message that attempts to change people’s attitudes by arousing their fears - Must pair with specific actions to take - Fail if they are too strong → overwhelm them, cannot think rationally Heuristic–Systematic Model of Persuasion Attitude change: either systematically processing the merits of the arguments or using mental shortcuts or heuristics - E.g. “Experts are always right” and “People who speak quickly must know what they’re talking about.”  - Emotions can act as heuristics (how do you feel about xx) → but sometimes it is difficult to tell where our feelings come from → might make mistakes and make a bad decision If an attitude is cognitively based, your best bet is to try to change it with rational arguments; if it is affectively based, you’re better off trying to change it with emotional appeals The Heuristic-Systematic Model is about selecting the appropriate type of argument based on how you think your audience will process the information: Heuristic route: Use simple, cognitive shortcuts (like credibility, emotion, or social proof). Systematic route: Use strong arguments based on logic, reasoning, and evidence. Thus, it’s not just about the arguments themselves, but about choosing the right approach based on the audience’s processing route. Physical environment can play a part in attitude change too HSM vs ELM Advertisements Subliminal Messages Words or pictures that are not consciously perceived but may nevertheless influence judgments, attitudes, and behaviours - Not just visual, can be auditory - BUT turns out it has no effect IRL, but lab settings yes - More familiar names (starbucks etc) will let people choose them more than others Different cultures can have different influences (emphasis on family culture etc) Personal relevance is important Resisting Persuasive Messages Attitude Inoculation Making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position - Thinking about logical pros and cons of an argument - Inoculated people → less likely to change their attitudes → had time to think about limitations and can research more Peer Pressure Not in response to logic, but emotional appeal Reactance Theory Feel their freedom to perform a certain behaviour is threatened → unpleasant state of resistance is aroused → reduce by performing the prohibited behaviour - Ppl want to do the opposite Chapter 11 - Prosocial Behaviour Altruism The desire to help another person even if it involves a cost to the helper Kin Selection The idea that behaviours that help a genetic relative are favoured by natural selection Norm of Reciprocity The expectation that helping others will increase the likelihood that they will help us in the future Social exchange theory affects helping → even feeling guilty for not helping is self-interest All helping stems from self-interest → true and not true Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis The idea that when we feel empathy for a person, we will attempt to help that person for purely altruistic reasons, regardless of what we have to gain - If no empathy, then social exchange theory comes in (costs and benefits) Summary 1. Helping is an instinctive reaction to promote the welfare of those genetically similar to us (evolutionary psychology). 2. The rewards of helping often outweigh the costs, so helping is in our self-interest (social exchange theory). 3. Under some conditions, powerful feelings of empathy and compassion for the victim prompt selfless giving (the empathy-altruism hypothesis). Gender Difference Males: chivalrous and heroic Females: nurturing and caring and to value close, long-term relationships -> volunteer, social support Simpatía range of social and emotional traits, including being friendly, polite, good-natured, pleasant, and helpful toward others - Feel more empathy to in-group - Help out-group for social exchange theory (smth for us) → religious people are no more helpful - Religious people might even increase hostilities towards outgroup people “Feel good, do good” - Using cheerful music to manipulate, or letting them find a coin before pretending to need help - Feel happy, more likely to help Which of the following is not a reason why being in a good mood tends to increase prosocial behaviour? a. Good moods make us view situations more positively, and thus we are more likely to give people the benefit of the doubt. b. Helping prolongs good moods. c. Good moods make us pay more attention to the possible rewards for helping. d. Good moods increase how much attention we pay to ourselves, which makes us more likely to act according to our values. “Feel bad, do good” - Feeling sad, motivated to engage in activities to feel better → want to uplift mood - Feeling guilty: good deeds cancels out bad deeds Which of the following is true? a. People with high scores on tests of altruism are not that much more likely to help another person than people with low scores. b. People with high scores on tests of altruism are much more likely to help another person than people with low scores. c. If a person has an altruistic personality, then they are quite likely to overcome situational pressures preventing them from helping someone. d. The genes for an altruistic personality have been identified by evolutionary psychologists. Personality, gender, culture, religion, and mood all contribute a piece to the puzzle of why people help others, but they do not complete the picture. To understand more fully why people help, we also need to consider the social situation in which people find themselves. When will people help? 1. Urban Overload Hypothesis The theory that people living in cities are constantly bombarded with stimulation and that they keep to themselves to avoid being overwhelmed by it 2. Resident mobility People who lived in the same place for a longer period of time help more - Experiment: group that stayed together helped each other more 3. Number of bystanders Bystander Effect: The finding that the greater the number of bystanders who witness an emergency, the less likely any one of them is to help Pluralistic Ignorance The case in which people think that everyone else is interpreting a situation in a certain way, when in fact they are not - each group member is reassured because they assume that everyone else knows more about what’s going on than they do - “They are not worried, so i shouldn’t be” - event is ambiguous → people in groups will convince each other that nothing is wrong → pluralistic ignorance Diffusion of Responsibility Number of witnesses 🔼, each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help 🔽 - Need to target attention to one person Prosocial video games and songs will increase helping - increasing people’s empathy toward someone in need of help - increasing the accessibility of thoughts about helping others Overcoming bystander effect 1. Know that other bystanders also don’t know information → bystander intervention programmes 2. Reminding that it is Important to overcome inhibitions and not ‘freeze’ 3. Increasing volunteerism - Overjustification effect: less intrinsic motivation with external incentives - Encourage ppl to volunteer while making it a choice for them instead of compulsory → will volunteer next time Chapter 10 - Attraction and Relationships Propinquity Effect (proximity) The finding that the more we see and interact with people, the more likely they are to become our friends Mere Exposure Effect - The finding that the more exposure we have to a stimulus, the more apt we are to like it - Causes propinquity to work Similarity is needed Opinions and personality characteristics Interests and experiences Appearance Genetics - Perceived similarity works better than actual similarity → feeling similar → creating beliefs even when they don’t exist - More important for serious, committed relationships Composite faces The “averaged” composite face was more attractive because it had lost some of the atypical or asymmetrical variation that was present in the individual faces - features that appear to be of average size and dimension → combining many faces together to make one - The power of familiarity: produces one face that looks typical, familiar, and physically attractive - Physical attractiveness has benefits Halo Effect A cognitive bias by which we tend to assume that an individual with one positive characteristic also possesses other (even unrelated) positive characteristics Men tend to favour reproductive capability while women favour men with resources Triangular theory of love 1. Intimacy (closeness and connectedness) 2. Passion 3. Commitment over time Social Exchange Theory The idea that people’s feelings about a relationship depend on their (1 and 2) perceptions of its rewards and costs, (3) the kind of relationship they deserve, and (4) their chances for having a better relationship with someone else Reward Cost Outcome Comparison level Comparison Level People’s expectations about the level of rewards and costs they are likely to receive in a particular relationship Comparison Level for Alternatives People’s expectations about the level of rewards and costs they would receive in an alternative relationship - But need to consider another factor: Investment Model how much they have invested in the relationship that would be lost by ending it Tangible things, such as financial resources, possessions, and property Intangible things, such as the emotional welfare of one’s children, the time and emotional energy spent building the relationship Sense of personal integrity that will be lost if one gets divorced In short, to predict whether people will stay in an intimate relationship, we need to know (1) how satisfied they are with the relationship, (2) what they think of their alternatives, and (3) how great their investment in the relationship is. Critic on social exchange theory Equity Theory The idea that people are happiest with relationships in which the rewards and costs experienced by both parties are roughly equal Exchange Relationships Relationships governed by the need for equity (i.e., for an equal ratio of rewards and costs) Communal Relationships Relationships in which people’s primary concern is being responsive to the other person’s needs Midterm recap 1. Benjamin franklin - Make the other person do him a favour → borrowing a valuable book → induced compliance → especially when they cannot justify the condition → paid $1 or $20 to lie → when they are paid $1, their attitude become more positive → cannot justify the lie so they change their attitudes → $20 → justify the lie to the money 2. Social self → CAUSE OF BEHAVIOUR - Attribution theory → explain how you explain others or your own behaviour when there is no strong reason  - self-perception theory explain how people infer causal behaviour when no strong reason exist - Both explain how you attribute others people - No strong initial attribution about that person → self-perception theory - Self-awareness theory → talking about comparing behaviours to internal values Attribution vs self-awareness vs self perception theory Attribution has internal and external Self-perception is about determining attitudes from behaviour (volunteering) Self-awareness is looking into a mirror, noticing mismatches about behaviour and values (put mirror when stealing) 3. Intro and method → scientific approach is preferable  - Folk wisdom - Common sense is focused on situation and not personality - Nothing useful can be learnt - Science has tested and debunked folk wisdom → false → some are true → attractiveness lecture → “birds of the same feather flock together”/”opposites attract” - Folk wisdom and common sense are filled with contradictions 4. Horror movie → heart racing, muscles are tense → exercise also same mechanisms → deduced that you are feeling excited in gym - James lange has NO context → same bodily theory should lead to the same emotion Schachter-Singer two factor theory of emotion - people first experience physiological arousal and then seek an appropriate explanation for it → heart palpitations, then ask yourself whether you like the person or not - Same emotions → different interpretation → two-factors combined leading to one emotion Cannon-bard We process the stimulus, which then leads to emotion One does not cause the other 3. You experience the emotion (fear). 4. Your body reacts physically (increased heart rate, sweating, etc.).  - Perception leads to information processing then bodily reaction - Perception → brain → bodily reaction → emotion James lange - Deterministic reaction - These set of physiological reaction → interpret it as fear - Different pattern of physiological reaction 5. Least related to the physical layer of the self → sense of self in action - Rubber hand illusion - Touches it own face with orange stain looking in the mirror - Feels as if they move the cursor→ i-spy - Somatoparaphrenia Chapter 14 - Happiness Affective Forecasting The extent to which people can predict the intensity and duration of their emotional reactions to future events Locus of control a personality trait that describes how much a person believes they can control the events in their life Peak-End Rule People remember the peak instant and the last instant → must end well W12 Quiz Chapter 3 - Social Cognition Social Cognition How people think about themselves and the social world; more specifically, how people select, interpret, remember, and use social information to make judgments and decisions Automatic Thinking Thinking that is nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and effortless Schemas Mental structures people use to organise their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects and that influence the information people notice, think about, and remember - Can help for confusing or ambiguous situations Accessibility The extent to which schemas and concepts are at the forefront of people’s minds and are therefore likely to be used when making judgments about the social world 1) past experience → constantly active and ready to use in ambiguous situations 2) related to a current goal 3) our recent experiences → priming scent of cleanliness increases the degree to which people trust strangers and their willingness to help others - Mind connected to the body → feeling tired, less likely to help - physical sensation activated a metaphor that influenced judgments about a completely unrelated topic or person (e.g. holding hot drink, warm person) Automatic goal pursuit Our non-conscious minds that choose the goal for us, basing the decision in part on which goal has been recently activated or primed Priming The process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait, or concept - E.g. read newspaper about mental illnesses, see a goofy guy and think that he is mentally ill Self-Fulfilling Prophecy The case wherein people have an expectation about what another person is like, which influences how they act toward that person, which causes that person to behave consistently with people’s original expectations, making the expectations come true - Different from self-handicapping, which is setting up excuses as a backup - But for SFP, the person doesn’t intend to confirm the belief; it just happens as a result of their behaviour aligning with their expectations E.g. Josie has a hard time making friends with Britishers because she believes that they are conceited and unfriendly. So when she meets a British man at a party, she is discourteous and unpleasant toward him. He, in turn, acts cold and hostile toward Josie Judgmental Heuristics Mental shortcuts people use to make judgments quickly and efficiently Availability Heuristic A mental rule of thumb whereby people base a judgement when it is easily accessible or memorable → whichever comes to mind first E.g. People tend to overestimate the risk of shark attacks because of media coverage, even though the actual risk is low. - we often lack firm schemas about our own traits Representativeness Heuristic (stereotype) A mental shortcut whereby people classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case - For example, a hiring manager might assume a candidate with tattoos is unsuited for a job - Can lead to prejudice Base Rate Information Information about the frequency of members of different categories in the population - the % of a population that has a specific characteristic Culture and Social Cognition - Content of our schemas influenced by culture Analytic Thinking Style A type of thinking in which people focus on the properties of objects without considering their surrounding context; this type of thinking is common in Western cultures Holistic Thinking Style A type of thinking in which people focus on the overall context, particularly the ways in which objects relate to each other; this type of thinking is common in East Asian cultures (e.g., China, Japan, and Korea) Controlled Thinking Thinking that is conscious, intentional, voluntary, and effortful - Only one at a time - Need mental energy Controlled Thinking and Free Will There can be a disconnect between our conscious sense of how much we are causing our own actions and how much we really are causing them. Sometimes we overestimate the amount of control we have, and sometimes we underestimate the amount of control we have. But the more people believe in free will, the more willing they are to help others in need and the less likely they are to engage in immoral actions such as cheating Counterfactual Thinking Mentally undoing the past, as a way of imagining what might have been - Conscious and effortful → taking up mental energy - think about what you could have done differently in the past The easier it is to mentally undo an outcome, the stronger the emotional reaction to it → almost passed an exam by one mark  - Can be beneficial if it focuses on how they can control their fate and motivation Planning Fallacy The tendency for people to be overly optimistic about how soon they will complete a project, even when they have failed to get similar projects done on time in the past - Underestimate how much time it will take, due to other factors Chapter 13 - Prejudice Prejudice A hostile or negative attitude toward people in a distinguishable group based solely on their membership in that group; it contains cognitive, emotional, and behavioural components  - Might distort facts to support their belief Stereotype A generalisation about a group of people in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members - A type of schema - Based on experience and what we learn - Stereotypes can be positive/negative (cognitions) Discrimination Unjustified negative or harmful action toward a member of a group solely because of his or her membership in that group Hostile sexism Involves negative beliefs about women, such as thinking they are incompetent, unintelligent, or overly emotional. It can also involve the belief that men are superior to women. Benevolent sexism Involves positive attitudes toward women in traditional roles, such as thinking they need protection and idealising them. It can also involve the belief that women and men have complementary traits and roles. Prejudices can be suppressed (For various reasons) Implicit Association Test (IAT) A test that measures the speed with which people can pair a target face (e.g., Black or White, old or young, Asian or White) with positive or negative stimuli (e.g., the words honest or evil) reflecting unconscious (implicit) prejudices - But it might reflect cultural norms than individual prejudices - The IAT reveals implicit biases, which can influence subtle behaviours like eye contact, reflecting unconscious attitudes more accurately than overt actions or statements Social Identity Threat The threat elicited when people perceive that others are evaluating them as a member of their group instead of as an individual - Feeling devalued of your identity - Do badly in tests if they think about their cultural or ethnic background, as they might feel pressured to uphold certain standards - E.g. female engineers doing poorly Reversing Social Identity Threat 1. Drawing on an identity that has a counter-stereotype ought to help performance → like thinking that they are all students instead of male vs female 2. Self affirmation Institutional discrimination when an organisation's policies or practices systematically disadvantage certain groups of people - social barriers create a lack of opportunity for these groups that makes their success unlikely Social Identity The part of a person’s self-concept that is based on his or her identification with a nation, religious or political group, occupation, or other social affiliation Ethnocentrism The belief that one’s own ethnic group, nation, or religion is superior to all others - ‘Us vs them’ In-Group Bias The tendency to favour members of one’s own group and give them special preference over people who belong to other groups; the group can be temporary and trivial as well as significant Out-Group Homogeneity The perception that individuals in the out-group are more similar to each other (homogeneous) than they really are, as well as more similar than members of the in-group are - ‘They’ are all alike Blaming the Victim The tendency to blame individuals (make dispositional attributions) for their victimisation, typically motivated by a desire to see the world as a fair place - Just-world belief - “If the Jews have been victimised throughout their history, they must have been doing something to deserve it.” Most people who are in dominant positions in their society do not see themselves as being prejudiced; they regard their beliefs about the out-group as being perfectly reasonable Realistic Conflict Theory The idea that limited resources lead to conflict between groups and result in increased prejudice and discrimination - Robbers Cave experiment: competition over resources lead to conflict among groups - conflict is inevitable when groups compete for scarce resources The contact hypothesis social interactions between social groups would reduce prejudice Extended contact effect simply knowing an in-group member has out-group friends is sufficient to reduce prejudice  - Cross group friend Media contact 1) Parasocial contact: getting emotionally connected to and invested in certain characters or celebrities from other social groups 2) Vicarious contact: ingroup member interacting with an outgroup member, such as in a television show But contact can backfire, like in extreme intergroup violence, mere contact does not seem to reduce prejudice and can even make it worse Reducing Prejudice Both groups are of equal status Both share a common goal that generates awareness of their shared interests and common humanity The contact involves intergroup cooperation Their contact is supported by law or local custom (social norms) Interdependence The situation that exists when two or more groups need to depend on one another to achieve a common goal that is important to each of them Jigsaw Classroom A classroom setting designed to reduce prejudice and raise the self-esteem of children  - Place them in small multiethnic group, learn ⅙ of the material and teach it to the rest of the class - Make them dependent on other classmates rather than competing with them Chapter 16 - Law Encoding The process by which people attend to information in their environment and transform this sensory data into a mental representation Limited by: 1. Nature of the situation 2. The time they have to observe the situation 3. Under stress? 4. Unexpected situation? 5. Poor viewing conditions Eyewitness flaws 1. Stress → worse memory 2. Focus on weapon > features of person (look @ gun vs eyes) Own-Race Bias The tendency for people to be better at recognizing faces of their own race than those of other races Storage The process by which people maintain in memory information they have encoded from the environment Reconstructive Memory The process whereby memories of an event become distorted by information encountered after the event occurred - Memories can get mixed up Source Monitoring The process whereby people try to identify the source of their memories - Misleading questions can change memories Retrieval The process by which people recall information stored in their memories Factors that influence performance who is administering the test the instructions given to the test-taker other response options available for each question Process-of-elimination guessing How to properly conduct lineups - Confidence is not always a sign of accuracy Eyewitness confidence 1. Responding quickly → but not always accurate 2. Post-identification feedback Recovered Memories Recollections of a past event, such as sexual abuse, that have been forgotten or repressed False Memory Syndrome Remembering a past traumatic experience that is objectively false but is nevertheless accepted by the person as true - abuse is not usually repressed - it can be dangerous for therapists to repeatedly encourage clients with no memory of abuse to consider the possibility that they were victimised Story Model The theory that jurors try to fit the evidence they hear at trial into a coherent story, and ultimately reach a verdict that best fits the story they have created Wrongful convictions - Leading questions by police → cause them to confess even though they did not commit the crime - Psychological fatigue - Solution : video-tape both (perceptual salience might occur if only tape one) During deliberations, jurors with minority views are often pressured into conforming to the view of the majority; thus, verdicts usually correspond to the initial feelings of the majority of jurors