PSY 124 Introduction to Social Psychology PDF

1 Sept 5. Intro to social psychology Social brain hypothesis – our brains evolved to promote social connection, which was adaptive - Social connections give us better mental and physical health, l...

1 Sept 5. Intro to social psychology Social brain hypothesis – our brains evolved to promote social connection, which was adaptive - Social connections give us better mental and physical health, lengthen our lives, prevent early aging Social psychology: the scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context. scientific study → scientific method vs folk wisdom individuals → person-level, not society think, feel, behave → wide scope, not narrow social context → influence by/on others; real or imagined - People who have social connections live longer, happier, lower stress, better mental & physical health - Support system, more meaning, less isolation, experiences, connections to high institutions, active community, stimuli input, - People who read more have better understanding of empathy - People are less likely do something if they are paid to - People would be more likely to do something cruel if pushed to do so - Connecting with someone similar to you is more true than opposites attracting I knew it all along phenomenon: some findings seem like common sense but are actually the opposite Cultural psychology: All social psych research has a cultural context Not recognized until 1990s onward Culture: system of enduring meanings, beliefs, values, assumptions, institutions, and practices shared by a large group of people Individualistic vs collectivist focus Independent vs interdependent self-concept I am a part of tmu vs. i am a tmu psych student  2 Research methods Learning it will make you a better consumer of information You will develop a baloney detector Start with a hypothetical question or idea Start with Question Gather info & plan Design your study Theory: an organized set of principles used to explain observed phenomena - precise, efficient, explain all observations Hypothesis: explicit, testable, falsifiable prediction about what you will observe - based on theory Conceptual variables – the general topic, concept, idea (e.g., mood) - How would you measure age, height, depression in correlation to friends, attractiveness, creativity Operationalization: making the general specific – how are you defining and measuring the variable? Construct validity – degree to which you are actually measuring (or manipulating) what you intend to - How do you quantify empathy? How can we measure empathy? Are you measuring what you think you are measuring? Measurement Self-report – ask people to report their feelings, thoughts, beliefs, and actions. Pros: convenience, consistency Cons: social desirability, sensitive to changes in wording and scales, subject to memory distortion, dishonesty Observational research: watch actual behaviour. Pros: avoids social desirability and memory errors Cons: people may change beh if know they are observed Inter-rater reliability: level of agreement between multiple people on the same behaviour or measure. Why? Archival Research: Study existing documents or records to find patterns related to your variables of interest. e.g., crime reports, charitable giving, public surveys pros: good external validity, generalizability cons: no control over data collection, observer bias, random sampling FMRI- measure part of the brain that blood flow is active in Correlational research measures the association between variables that are not manipulated by the researcher Correlation coefficient (r )– number that represents how strongly related two variables are; ranges from -1.0 to + 1.0  3 Pros: can study topics ethically, view trends Cons: directionality, 3rd variable problem, correlation is not causation Experimentation: Gold standard for finding cause and effect 1) Random assignment to condition 2) Independent variables – what is manipulated 3) Dependent variables – what is measured Results: Internal reliability: degree to which the study is designed to make a cause-effect conclusion Confound: some unintended factor that influenced the results, varies with the independent variable Double blind: neither participant nor experimenter knows condition; avoids experimenter expectancy effects External reliability: would these results be found in different circumstances? - Repeat experiment, was the experiment tampered with (drop of participants) Experimental realism – was the study real and engaging for the participant? Mundane realism – does the study resemble the real world? - Meta analyses and lit reviews - Replication crisis and open science- proof of what was going to be studied, then published, pre-registered study Research ethics Research Ethics Boards- lawyers, psychologists, looking at the risk Informed consent/Debriefing- bribing is not consent, consider the vulnerability of population - Debriefing: telling participants what study was for - specific for after to avoid change of behaviour Deception & Confederates Funding and Conflicts  4 Sept 12. The social self Affect Behavioural Cognitive Self-Concept: the total sum of a person’s beliefs about their own attributes (like a library), made up of schemas - Like a library - Made up of schemas - malleable Self-schema: specific beliefs about yourself (like a book), you have many self-schemas; guide the way we think about things - Like a book that goes into a concept library - Guide the way we think about things - The way we act in social world Affective forecasting: predicting how you would feel in response to future events - You forget that you will have supports or hardships - You focus on only one thing & not other events Behavioural forecasting: predicting how you would act in a given situation. - We are not good at understanding reasons for our own behaviours - We underestimate the profound power of a situation Bem (1972) – you learn about yourself by watching your own behaviour. Self-perception theory: when internal cues are hard to see or interpret, we will look at our behaviour to understand ourselves Intrinsic motivation – engage in an activity because you enjoy it Extrinsic motivation – engage in activity because of reward/punishment - Can operate in same time Overjustification effect: when intrinsic motivation decreases when an external reward is provided - Experiment: play w markers Group 1. Kids play w markers Group 2. Offered a reward for colouring Group 3. Received unexpected reward - Told to colour again - No reward vs. unexpected reward still spent time colouring - Expected reward did it less  5 Social comparison theory: people evaluate their abilities and opinions by comparing themselves to others (Festinger, 1954) - Upward social comparison – compare to someone more successful - Ex. comparing tests, scores, pay - Downward social comparison – compare to someone less successful - Social media Autobiographical memory: memory of your own personal history - Distorted to inflate your achievements - Accomplishments, humour, emotional attachment to experiences - Focus on positive memories - Childhood… - Recency effect, with exceptions- recall more recent things more accurately - Flashbulb memories- certain world events- where we were personally Culture & self concept Individualistic – values independence, personal achievements, being unique, distinct Collectivistic – values interdependence, group cohesion, modesty - Different kinds of groups perception to things - Independent view vs. interdependent Where does the self concept come from? Introspection, Self-perception, Social comparison, Autobiographical memories, Culture Self esteem Self-esteem – an affective component of the self, made up of positive and negative self-evaluations, mostly stable over life, 8 different domains - Domains: academic, appearance, morality, romantic relationships, socially acceptable State vs. trait self esteem - Trait is generally more stable Sociometer theory – people are inherently social and want approval from others; self-esteem is related to how much we are accepted (Leary & Baumeister, 2000) - If you were rejected by everyone, you’d likely feel down ab it Self-Discrepancy Theory (Higgins, 1989) Who you are right now (actual self) - I'm trying tbh, but I know I care Who you ought to be (duties, responsibilities, obligations) - Dedicated, selfless Who would you like to be ideally? (ideal self) - More at peace with myself, less destructive  6 If these things differ, your self esteem will be lower- idk ab that for me Self-awareness theory: when you are made aware of yourself, you compare yourself to a high standard—usually reduces self esteem - mirror, bright lights, images of eyes - Cop driving by, being watched - aware of others perception & such changing behaviour - Halloween- bowl of candy w mirror- less kids took candy vs. no mirror Two outcomes: - Change behaviour to meet standards - Withdraw from self awareness (avoidance, self-medicating) - Use of some psychological escape to not face what you know you’re aware of Self enhancement tricks Better than average effect – tendency to believe that you are better than most people at various abilities - Vs. imposter syndrome Self-serving beliefs/bias – tendency to take credit for success and make excuses for failures Self handicapping - engaging in actions that will sabotage your performance Self-regulation: process by which people control their thoughts, feelings, desires, and behaviour to achieve a personal/social goal - limited resource that can be depleted Self-presentation: process by which you try to shape what other people think of you (and what you think of yourself) - aka “impression management” - Court, school - Strategic - to get power, influence, sympathy, approval - Goals: ingratiation, self-promotion Self-verification – the desire to have others see us as we truly perceive ourselves to be - People select and accept personality feedback that confirms what they believe about themselves, even if it is negative - Can conflict with self-enhancement motivation when self-concept is poor/negative Self-monitoring: tendency to regulate behavior to meet the demands of the social situation High self-monitors: have many selves to choose from, see it as pragmatic and flexible Low self-monitors: less concerned about what others think of their behavior, see selves as principled and honest  7 Sept 19. Person perception Thin slices – process of making quick inferences about the traits and characteristics of a person with minimal information Impression of person infl. by: - baby faced vs mature- more competent but less sweet - emotional display (happy- more approachable vs angry- unfriendly) - Facial expression is adaptive- how we act based on expression in front of us - perception We also perceive situations – this can influence person perception - cultural scripts (culture of honor, face)- based on where you are - event scripts (e.g., first date)- what you’re meant to do in a given situation - How we would perceive sm out of the ordinary. Ex. blasting music when walking into an exam - what is appropriate/expected in that situation?- public vs. private behaviours Mind perception: process of attributing human-like mental states to things and people 2 dimensions: A) Agency- it can do something by itself / for itself- doll. Tea party! B) Experience- project experience onto objects - car. exhaustion! Non-verbal behaviour – actions that reveal a person’s feelings without using words - Facial cues, body language, gaze, eye contact, vocal cues, emblems - Six basic emotions recognized worldwide: happy, sadness, anger, disgust, fear, surprise - Emojis – to show these in writing - Punctuation over text & email Deception Detection Can you tell when a person is lying?- body language, eye contact, abruptness, comparative to how they tell the truth, overcompensate, changing story, fidgeting, nervous laughter, pitch We are actually no better than chance! There are no cues for deception but there may be auditory cues - Lying requires cognitive effort- creative vs. memory  8 Attribution theories: attempt to explain how people interpret the causes of behavior - Fritz heider - Ex. person late for work- how do we decipher the reason why - Someone cutting in line- reason behind why someone does something is different to what we perceive it to be Internal attributions: (“dispositional”) infer that behaviour was result of the actor’s internal disposition & traits - How they feel, fear, stress External attributions (“situational”) infer that behaviour was the result of the situation or social context & pressures - Ex. Ttc was down, wife was in hospital Correspondent Inference Theory (Jones & Davis, 1965) Correspondence bias: The tendency to assume that someone’s behaviour corresponds to their internal disposition Consider: - Freedom of choice- what do we actually choose - What behaviour was expected? - Anticipated effects? Covariation Model (Kelley, 1967) Three sources of “covariation” information: how to access behaviour 1. Consensus – how do other people behave toward this stimulus? 2. Distinctiveness – how does the actor respond to other stimuli? 3. Consistency – how often does this behaviour happen around this stimulus? Ex. karen is having lunch at a restaurant and is unhappy with service & wants to talk to the manager, why is she doing this? - Consensus: are other people complaining about service? - Distinctiveness: is it just this restaurant? - Consistency: does she complain at this restaurant every time? - She the problem! Jones & Harris (1967) - Fidel castro: old president of Cuba Question: How sensitive are we to situational pressures on others? Independent variable 1: Tone of essay (pro-Castro or anti-Castro) Independent variable 2: Author’s choice of topic (free choice or assigned) Dependent variable: What do you think the author really feels about this topic?  9 Attribution errors 1. Fundamental attribution error: tendency to overestimate personal factors & underestimate situational factors on behaviour 2. Actor-observer bias: overestimate role of personal factors when evaluating other people, but not when evaluating your own behaviour 3. Ultimate attribution error: personal factors explain your good outcomes; situation explains poor outcomes (can extend to ingroups) Attribution Biases Two ways to process information: - System 1: quick, easy, automatic - System 2: slower, controlled, effortful Heuristic errors - Availability heuristic: tendency to estimate the likelihood that an event will occur by how easily we can think of instances of it- how often its happened in the past - False consensus effect: overestimate the degree to which other people share your opinion- believe everyone perceives things as we do bc we believe thats the correct way of thinking - Base rate fallacy: insensitivity to numeric base rates/odds- likelihood of something based on probability or something Counterfactual thinking: tendency to imagine alternative events or outcome that might have happened but did not - Causes regret or relief - Catastrophic thinking - Ultimate attribution Just world beliefs: tendency to think the world is a just place; bad things do not happen without cause…?????? Who tf thinks this Confirmation bias: tendency to seek, interpret, and create information that verifies your existing beliefs Belief perseverance: maintaining beliefs even after they have been discredited - We only want to hear what we already believe Impression formation Information integration theory: our impressions are based on a weighted average of the person’s traits - Central traits: exert a powerful influence on impression - Negativity bias: negative traits are more informative  10 - Implicit personality theories: how traits thought to cluster Primacy effect: words presented early in a sequence influence the interpretation of information presented later. Asch (1948): parts told a person is either: “intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious” OR “envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious and intelligent” - harrold shipman: doctor & murderer! Self-fulfilling prophecy: process by which your expectations about a person lead them to behave in ways that confirm your expectations (works for the self as well!) - Perceivers behaviour towards the target→ targets behaviour towards the perceiver→ perceiver’s expectations - Ex. you are less intelligent vs. you are more…. Expectations became behaviour (randomly assigned) Sample exam question The concept of the availability heuristic is illustrated when you A. Choose to watch a movie because you like its poster design B. Refuse to buy a drink that you think is overpriced C. Have trouble deciding where to eat dinner D. Fear airport travel because you heard about a crash last year