PSY 152 Exam 2 Notes PDF

Lecture 11 What is an attitude? An attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person, place, thing, or event Gordon Allport (1897-1967) “The most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social psychology” Attitude Structure: ABC Model of Attitudes Affective comp...

Lecture 11 What is an attitude? An attitude is an expression of favor or disfavor toward a person, place, thing, or event Gordon Allport (1897-1967) “The most distinctive and indispensable concept in contemporary social psychology” Attitude Structure: ABC Model of Attitudes Affective component A person’s feelings / emotions about the attitude object ○ E.g., I crave chocolate Behavioral (conative) component The way the attitude we have influences how we act or behave ○ E.g., I will purchase a candy bar when I’m at the store Cognitive component A person’s belief / knowledge about an attitude object ○ E.g., I believe that chocolate is unhealthy Attitude Strength: Strong vs Weak Strong attitudes are (Krosnick & Petty, 1995) 1. Resistant to change 2. Stable over time 3. Influential on cognition 4. Influential on action Attitude Strength Attitude feature related to strength (Howe & Krosnick, 2016) ○ (refer to slides) Attitude Functions Object-appraisal function Knowledge function ○ Helps make sense of the world Instrumental function ○ Helps avoid pain and receive reward Value-expressive function Demonstrate and maintain long-term standards and orientations Social-adjustive functions Signals interpersonal priorities, sensitivity to others, and getting along with people Dual Process Model of Attitudes Explicit attitudes Conscious, easy to report Implicit attitudes Automatic, leak out in behavior Attitude Assessment Self-report measures Feeling thermometer Likert scale ○ Pros Easy to measure Straightforward results predict overt behavior ○ Cons Influenced by self-presentation concerns Might not pick up implicit attitudes Behavioral measures Implicit Association Test (IAT) Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne et al., 2005) ○ Pros  Assess implicit attitudes Hard to manipulate Predict covert behavior ○ Cons Merely assess cultural beliefs? Malleable Psychological measures Skin conductance Facial eletromyography (EMG) Cardiovascular EEG fMRI ○ Pros Assess implicit attitudes ○ Cons What do the measures mean psychologically? Affect, cognitive, behavioral tendencies? Attitudes Predicting Judgements and Behavior MODE Model (Fazio, 1990) Motivation and Opportunities as Determinants LOW motivation and opportunity to think deliberatively = judgments/behavior influenced by automatic (implicit) attitudes HIGH motivation and opportunity to think deliberatively can override automatic (implicit attitudes) Persuasive Communication Chain of cognitive responses McGuire’s necessary conditions for a persuasive communication to influence behavior Elaboration Likelihood Model (Petty & Cacioppo, 1981, 1986) (Refer to slides) How do we evaluate what we do and don’t want to believe? Motivated inference (Kunda, 1987) Self-serving generation of causal theories ○ Generate theories that view our own attributes as leading to desirable outcomes Self-serving evaluation of causal theories ○ People are reluctant to believe evidence relating their attributes to undesirable events Pay attention to the methods that Kunda used to test her research questions!! Motivated Skepticism (Ditto & Lopez, 1992) Differential decision criteria for preferred and nonpreferred conclusions Lecture 12 Historical context Keyboard/mouse as input, storage devices for processing and storage, computers as outputs Emotions were not a focus of the original information processing approach ○ First book on social cognition acquisition, retention, retrieval Definition of cognition expanded over time ○ Add implicit associations, motivations, emotions Types of Affect Affect ○ The experience and expression of pleasantness/unpleasantness Emotion ○ Affect triggered by a particular object Scared by a tiger, e.g. Mood ○ State of affect that may not have a particular cause Not knowing why you feel down Usually more prolonged than an emotion Because- can remove stimulant that is causing emotion Discrete vs Dimensional Models Discrete emotions ○ Primary emotions (basic or core emotions)- felt by all animals Evolved, automatic reactions to ecological challenges E.g., anger, disgust, fear, happiness, sadness, and surprise ○ Secondary emotions (complex or social emotions)- most likely only felt by humans Require self-reflection and self-evaluation (this is why other animals don't feel them) Often involve mental representations of the mental states of other people E.g., embarrassment, shame, guilt, pride Discrete vs dimensional models of emotion Dimensional models (graph of emotions) ○ Circumplex model of affect (Russell, 1980) Valence pos/neg Arousal activated/deactivated Feelings do not require cognition (1923-2008) Mere exposure effect ○ People develop a preference for things simply from being exposed to them ○ "Preference need no inference" You can have emotions that are completely divorced from cognition ○ Zajonc exposed participants to foreign Chinese characters, then asked them how much they liked them. Those who were exposed to the same one over and over again will choose those. But they didn't even know that they saw them multiple times How can affect influence cognitions? Affect-as-information (Schwarz & Clore, 1983) ○ Study where they called people in different cities where they knew what the current weather was and asked them a bunch of questions  General happiness- higher where it's sunny Desire to change- higher where raining Life satisfaction- higher where sunny Failed to be replicated!- maybe not true How can affect influence cognitions? Positive mood related to less effortful processing (Worth & Mackie, 1987) ○ Mood induction Positive- Surprise! You won a dollar. Neutral- have you ever participated in a lottery? ○ Persuasive communication Should the gov. Intervene to minimize acid rain? Communicator: expert or not Argument quality: strong vs weak ○ Mood is a heuristic- should we engage in more effortful processing or not? ○ People in positive moods distinguish less between weak and strong arguments- do not partake in effortful processing because they're feeling good! People are more inclined to stereotype in a positive mood (Bodenhausen et al., 1994) ○ Mood inductions Positive- happy memory Neutral - neutral memory ○ Judge the guilt of a fellow student Stereotype- consistent information in the description No stereotype-consistent information ○ Much more likely to say that the student was guilty if there was stereotype consistent information and participant was in a good mood This is the participant relying on the given information and not having to partake in effortful processing! ○ When held accountable, they were less likely to use the stereotype consistent information When we are held to account, we are motivated to use effortful processing People who are happy can use effortful processing, just don't when they feel like they don't have to Possible reasons for less effortful processing and more stereotyping when in a positive mood 1. Informational explanation Positive mood signals that are not necessary to process deeply 2. Motivational explanation Effortful processing is a buzzkill  Positive mood can lead to more creativity (Isen et al., 1987) ○ Divergent thinking Positive mood inductions ○ Watching funny movie clip or giving them candy ○ Then, Duncker's candle task- those in positive mood were much more likely to figure it out Remotes associates test ○ Mower, atomic, foreign, BLANK Power is missing word ○ People in good mood were much more likely to figure it out Mood can increase accessibility of mood-congruent information (bower, 1981; Isen et al., 1978) ○ Happy or sad mood, recall pleasant and unpleasant things from their lives ○ In happy mood, much better at recalling pleasant memories Anticipating future emotions Wilson et al. (2000) (study 1) ○ Affective forecasting Predicting one's affect/emotions in the future ○ Durability bias Overestimation of emotional reactions to future events ○ Focalism Focus too much on the consequences of a salient event and do not take into account the influences of other likely events Brought students into lab, got students thinking about a football game with their rival, anticipate emotions if they won or lost the game ○ How would you feel on the days proceeding the game? (Sat, sun, mon, tues, etc.) ○ Control- feel more relatively the same ○ Diary (write about other things happening in your life)- forces people not to engage in focalism Because you are writing about the other things going on in your life, you're focusing on other things going on in your life as well Even if their team won, their happiness would go down quicker in diary setting *What does study 3 tell us that we are not able to discern from study 1?  Asks how much people will think about the game AND about other things happening in their life for the preceding days Asks about their happiness on the day of the actual football game- experienced it in real time! *How does Study 4 test the affective competition hypothesis and the distraction hypothesis? According to this distraction hypothesis, people who think about future events moderate their forecasts because they believe that these events will occupy their thoughts and reduce thinking about the focal event. According to this affective competition hypothesis, it is not a reduction in predicted thought about the game that mediates the change in affective forecasts, but people's belief that the affect triggered by other events will nullify the affect caused by a football victory or loss. ○ In Study 4: The purpose of Study 4 was to test these mechanis manipulating the valence of the events that people rated on their diary questionnaires. As in the previous smdies, participants were asked to predict how happy they would be after an event in the future. Prior to making these forecasts, people received one of two different versions of a diary manipulalion. One was similar to the manipulation used in Studies 1 and 3, which asked people to rate how much time they would spend on positive, negative, and neutral activities. The other asked people to think exclusively about neutrally valenced activities such as cooking. Lecture 13 What is impression formation? Traits (dispositions) Distinguishing characteristics Impression formation The process by which individuals perceive, organize, and ultimately integrate infomration to form a unified and coherent impression of another person Is impression formation elemental or holistic? Example: Andy Traits associated with Andy:  A. Competitive B. Intelligent C. Generous D. Energetic E. Honest Impression= A + B + C + D + E (elemental) or thinking about all the traits holistically as they relate to each other Holistic/Gestalt Perspective Visual perception The color red against orange or purple- context matters! Composite face task Gestalt would believe that the impression is a hollistic view of all traits Asch's (1946) impression formation study Solomon Asch (1907-1996) Study about 2 different people, all traits about each were the same just one was warm and one was cold ○ Found that even though both people were the same besides cold and warm, they were rated drastically differently- all traits are interpreted as they effect each other In another study, used polite and blunt instead of warm and cold ○ Both people were rated the same, DID NOT affect ratings! Central traits Characteristics that when altered change the impression ○ E.g., warm, intelligent Another study- Asch Changed the order of traits when read to participants ○ This affects ratings!! Primacy effect Tratis have greater influence on the overa;; impression when they are learned first ○ Later traits interpreted in relation to the traits that are first learned Critiques of Asch Julius Wishner Published critique of Asch Key thing to remember: "A trait is central for those traits correlated with it and peripheral for those traits uncorrelated with it" ○ These traits included on rating scales, thought that they seemed to be pretty correlated with whether someone is warm or cold- maybe Asch's central traits only came about because of his rating scales Zanna and Hamilton Used Asch-type paradigm ○ Tried to figure out if warm and cold or industrious and lazy were central traits ○ In rating scales, they included traits that were intellectually desirable or intellectually undesirable Warm and cold did not really seem like central traits anymore Were only central traits when scales included traits that were socially desirable or undesirable Warmth and Competence as universal dimensions Rosenberg et al. (1968) Fiske et al. (2007) Argued if we boil everything down to whether someone is warm or cold or intelligent or unintelligent, then that can explain the emotions that we feel towards them Found: ○ Warm and incompetent: pity ○ Cold and incompetent: contempt ○ Warm and competence: admire ○ Cold and competence: envy Online vs memory-based judgements Are impressions different when people have a goal to form an impression when they are learning about a person vs forming an impression from existing knowledge in memory ○ Hastie & Park (1986) When you have a goal to form an impression, you are going to form one in a Holsitic manner like what Asch studied  ○ Tie everything back to the first trait that you learned about the person Also possible that you just encounter this person, and do not have the goal to form the impression ○ Then, someone asks what you thought of them ○ You need to think about the traits that you associate with him since you don't have an impression, maybe remember the last traits that you learned about him before you parted ways last time (recency effect on memory) Online impressions Primacy effect, integrative Memory-based impressions Availability ○ Recency effect, traits incongruent with preexisting schemas that are available to you Most of the time people are forming impressions online – we can't help it! Forming impressions of individuals and groups Entitativity (Hamiltion, Sherman, & Lickel, 1998) Seeing social targets as possessing unity and coherence ○ Low entitativity (LE)- a drunk at a bar (individual) or a group waiting in line at a grocery store (group) ○ High entitativity (HE)- businesswoman (individual) or a military unit (group) Individuals are typically assumed to have HE ○ HE → online ○ LE → memory-based Spontaneous Trait Inferences Winter & Uleman (1984) Inferring traits from behavior automatically ○ Even when we do not have a conscious goal to do so Read a bunch of sentences that depict people doing memorable things ○ Semantic cues to help recall the sentences (phone, books, crops) ○ Dispositional cues to help recall the sentences (rude, helpful, bigot) Whether people recall sentences better when given semantic or dispositional?  ○ Dispositional- because trait spontaneously encoded in memory when the sentences were learned (was not intentionally forming an impression when reading sentence) How does categorical information influence impressions? Continuum model of impression formation (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990) We are cognitive miesers! We use stereotypes to form schemas ○ Categorize someone (is person of minimal interest or relevance? No-stop, yes-continue), allocate attention, confirmatory categorization, (if unsuccessful) recategorization, (if unsuccessful) piecemeal integration, piecemeal-based affect and cognitions and behavioral tendencies, possible public expressions of response (see diagram on slides) ○ If further assessment of target is required, start over at allocating attention Lecture 14 Help with video: Heuristics- assumptions Discrete emotions- fear, etc. Secondary emotions- embarrassed, etc. Spontaneous trait inferences- infer from behavior that she was absent minded, even tho he does not always think about her as absent minded What is an attribution? Attributions Causal explanation for other people's actions and mental states Kamala example Claims that she is in favor of the Second Amendment- attribute the cause of this statement to the fact that she wants votes and may not actually be happy about gun rights Correspondent Inference Theory Jones and Davis (1965) Perceivers aim to identify intentions underlying behaviors with the purpose of inferring actor's dispositions that will be robust across situations Correspondence between behaviors and traits is more likely to be inferred if the actor is judged to have acted… ○ Freely Gun to their head- not speaking freely ○ Intentionally ○ In a way that is unusual for someone in the situation ○ In a way that does not usually bring rewards or social approval Goal is to figure out when people infer dispositions and traits from certain behaviors Fundamental Attribution Error People are not good at qualifying dispositional attributions based on situational information! ○ Error is that we see someone behave a certain way and we infer dispositions from that behavior regardless of whether we should or not ○ over/underestimate someone The Covariation Model (Kelley, 1967) Ralph tripped over Joan's feet! ○ Is he a bad dancer? According to Kelley, Ralph is the "person" and Joan is the "entity" When thinking about how to make an attribution…. Kelley (1967) How do people validate their attributions? ○ Distinctiveness Is the person's behavior different across situations? E.g., Does Ralph trip over other people's feet? If yes, then it is low in distinctiveness ○ Consistency over time Does the person behave the same way in the same situation over time? E.g., has Ralph tripped over Joan's feet previously? If yes, then it is high consistency ○ Consensus  Do other people behave the same way? E.g., Do other people trip over Joan's feet? If yes, then high in consensus See slides for table of examples- from the combos, we create attributions Problems with the Covariation model 1. Assumes extensive knowledge of the person 2. Assumes a deliberative and rational thinker Models of the Social Thinker Consistency seeker (1950s-1960s) Drive to reduce discomfort from cognitive discrepancy Naive scientist (1970s) Rational analysis - emergence of social cognition Cognitive miser (1980) Limiting processing capacity Motivated tactician (1990s) Capable of careful processing if necessary Activated actor (2000s) Nonconscious processing is pervasive Spontaneous trait inferences Behavior → trait inference Behavior: receptionist steps in front of old man…rude ○ Etc. Gilbert's Three-Stage Model Gilbert (1988) 1. Categorization stage a. Perceive the stimulus configuration i. Identify the actor, entity, and behavior that unfolded 2. Characterization stage a. Attribute dispositional qualities to the action  3. Correction phase a. Use situational and other information to discount the disposition i. Is this accurate? Maybe something that occurred could explain the behavior? Gilbert claims that categorization and characterization phases are automatic and we could even be unaware of it Correction phase is controlled Pay close attention to methods used in reading Are attribution effects universal? Most studies conducted on WEIRD undergrads People in East Asian cultures tend to be more attuned to context ○ East Asian more likely to describe background info surrounding photos of fish ○ WEIRD in western cultures- tended to focus on differences on images with planes, while eastern cultures focused on background towers and background info Culture and attribution Journalists writing in English make more dispositional attributions than those writing in Chinese ○ In one study, Morris & Peng 1994 content-analyzed newspaper articles ○ Mass-murder described in newspaper English-language newspaper about Chinese mass-murder was much more likely to make dispositional attributions, same for American mass-murder in English Chinese paper was less likely to make dispositions Editorial articles require more effort to write than sports articles U.S. journalists make dispositional attribution more when articles do not require cognitive effort-sports ○ Hong Kong journalists do not show this patternc ○ 2nd stage in Gilbert's model- when mindlessly plugging in info, American papers were acting just as Gilbert would expect (making many attributions), but Hong Kong did not- Gilbert's model is not universal Lecture 15 How Does Mind Perception Develop? Newborns Look longer at direct versus averted gaze Imitate facial expressions Are attentive to voices, but do not alter their affect or attention when people stop interacting with them Within 2 months Infants focus attention on the eyes and mouth of other people and show distress when an interaction partner ignores them At around 6 months Able to discriminate facial expressions By 9 months (perhaps earlier) Engage in joint attention, that is, use vocal utterances, eye gaze, and motor cues to indicate and perceive shared interest in an object Soon after first birthday Demonstrate social referencing, such as using emotional cues from a parent to know whether to approach or avoid an object Between 1-2 years Able to combine info about a person's gaze and emotion to infer that person's goals Differentiate between the self and others, evidenced by an ability to recognize their image in photos and mirrors At around 2 years Produce language and use it to communicate emotions The accumulation of these social cognitive skills leads to the emergence of theory of mind Theory of Mind Recognition that other people can have beliefs and desires, which are represented in the mind but might be different than one's own Emerges around 4 years of age  ○ Linguists, attentional, and motor demands of the tasks used to assess it might mask earlier development of this ability The "False Belief" Test: Theory of Mind Box of crayons actually filled with crayons, they think other child will also say candles if they are younger than 4~ Pass the test = understanding that the other person has a mind of their own and know that the person will think there are crayons in the box (or almond in the cup when its really in the hat) Autism and Theory of Mind- Simon Baron Cohen Children with autism didn't pass the False Belief test in study- dolls with marbles in box Strategies For Mind Perception Ames (2004) Projection ○ Use one's own thoughts to determine what another person is thinking Stereotyping ○ Use categorical knowledge to determine what another person is thinking If perceiver similar to target: Projection > Stereotyping If perceiver dissimilar to target: Projection < Stereotyping What are the dimensions of mind perception? Gray et al. (2007) Agency ○ Intention, planning ○ Capacity for blame Experience ○ Sensation, emotion ○ Capacity for pain Autism  Agency- NO Experience- YES Psychopath Agency- YES Experience- NO When do we see minds when they aren't there? Anthropomorphism Attributing human traits, emotions, or intentions to non-human entities ○ Example: Heider & Simmel (1944)- attributing emotions to shapes saying that they are "aggressive" or "scared' When people are lonely, they anthropomorphize to a greater extent ○ Dogs, crazy cat ladies Citizens United vs. FEC A 2010 Supreme Court ruling that corporations have the same free speech rights as individuals People ascribe agency more than experience to groups (Knobe & Prinz, 2008) Hits on google… ○ "Microsoft believes, intends, decides…" ○ Not really "Microsoft feels happy, feels pain,..." Group-member mind trade-off Groups of people don't always have the same mindsets (blondes vs. marine corps) People are perceived as low warmth and low competence Elicit disgust Dehumanized more than other people Dehumanization Perceiving a person or group as lacking humanness Infrahumanization Perceiving members of an outgroup as lacking uniquely human attributes relative to members of an ingroup ○ Primary emotions (e.g., anger, happiness)  Ingroup and outgroup ○ Secondary emotions (e.g., pride, regret) Ingroup ONLY Lecture 16 What is the self? Internal attentional focus Mind wandering Self-generated thoughts and feelings The homunculus Feels like a little person in our head guiding our thoughts and actions If the homunculus is in charge, then who controls the homunculus? Not to be confused with the… ○ Somatosensory (cortical) homunculus Physical representation of body in the brain Self-concept Collection of beliefs about ourselves Working self-concept The currently accessible aspects of the self that influence ongoing thought, feelings, and behavior Sensory memory → short term memory → long term memory → working memory then moves to short-term Self-schemas (markus, 1977) Qualities of self that are certain ○ Nodes (dr. Ratner to good father, terrible singer, tennis player) ○ He is self-schematic for parenting, singing, and tennis player Self-complexity Number of self-aspects a person has and the amount of independence among those self-aspects  ○ High self-complexity can be very adaptive- LeBron James- if he has low self complexity/ONLY thinks as himself as a basketball player, then after 1 bad game he will experience lots of negativity Possible selves Future oriented concepts of the self ○ Hopes, fears, goals, and threats ○ Selves that we would like to become or fear becoming ○ Possible selves guide how we select situations and social roles Self-discrepancy theory Actual self ○ How you view yourself Ideal self ○ Who one wants to be Ought self ○ Who one thinks one should be Influenced by other's expectations Actual: ideal discrepancy → depression Actual: ought discrepancy → anxiety Self-construal Whether people represent themselves as primarily distinct from or integrally connected to others Self-esteem Our evaluation of ourselves ○ Explicit self-esteem Conscious, easily reportable ○ Implicit self-esteem Non-conscious Self-efficacy The belief in one's ability to exert control over one's motivation, behavior, and social environment Self-relevant motivations Need for accuracy Accurate self-assessments enable us to anticipate circumstances and control our future Need for consistency Cognitive dissonance theory (Festinger 1957) ○ We seek to resolve psychological inconsistencies Smoking even though they know it causes cancer- feel the need to resolve it Self-verification theory (Swann 1983) ○ We desire for others to view us as we see ourselves Putin putting out photos of him looking macho on a horse Need for improvement Demonstrated by Markus's work on possible selves ○ Beating a high score, e.g. Need for self-enhancement Positive illusions (Taylor &Brown 1988) ○ self -perceptions are falsely positive and somewhat exaggerated 50% of marriages end up in divorce, but it won't happen to me! Motivated inference (Kunda, 1987) ○ Self-serving generation of causal theories Generate theories that view our own attributes as leading to desirable outcomes ○ Self-serving evaluation of causal theories People are reluctant to believe evidence relating their attributes to undesirable events Dunning-Kruger Effect ○ Low ability individuals overestimate their ability Reasons: Not aware of own lack of skill Unable to see the extent of their inadequacy Do not accurately recognize skill in others Only become cognizant of their lack of skill after training for that skill Balancing our self-relevant motivations Self-control Marshmallow Test Kids decide to have 1 marshmallow now or 2 later  Is it sometimes rational to not delay gratification? ○ Taking immediate reward is not always a bad thing ○ Unreliable group- told they can have more art supplies instead of old crayons if they wait, but experimenter comes back and says they actually don't have the supplies. But now, they can either have 1 marshmallow or wait for 2, and the kids in unreliable group will most likely just take the first one because there is no guarantee for the 2 marshmallows ○ Kids with food insecurity or uncertain living conditions will most likely take smaller, guaranteed reward- these conclusions are better than older experiments that claim that children who take first marshmallow will grow up to deal with drug abuse and bully others Ego Depletion Self-control is a limited resource ○ Study with cookies, radishes, or no food ○ Then wait and try unsolvable line tracing task ○ Those in radish condition persisted much less than cookie group and no food group Indication that those in radish condition had already used all their self control and will power- so they give up quicker Questions about ego conditions ○ Is this the same as fatigue? ○ Can beliefs overcome the effect? ○ Can motivation overcome the effect? ○ Does the effect replicate? Rather controversial How can we successfully enact self-control? Tasty donuts 1. Situation (enter living room or ask husband to hide them) 2. Attention (look away from donuts) 3. Appraisal (think: calorie bomb!) 4. Response (resist donut) Lecture 17 Need to Belong Need to belong (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) Fundamental desire to give attention to adn receive attention from others Sociometer theory Self esteem is a gauge of how much we are being included and excluded Social Rejection Cyberball (Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000) Game- participant sees ball being passes back and forth Other two people eventually start passing to each other and exclude participant ○ Told other two people are actual people This causes intense social exclusion feeling in participant ○ We can create social situations that mimics social exclusion we feel in every day life Social Relationships and Wellbeing Social isolation in monkeys (Harlow et al., 1965) Orphan monkey separated from mother at birth Wire mother that feeds it, cloth mother that does not ○ Goes to wire mother with food first, then goes to cloth mother for 18 hours to cuddle ○ Creates fear, runs to cloth mother ○ Prefers comfort over food ○ Early experience and environment is critical for infants Social Relationships and mortality risk Holt-Lunstand, Smith, & Layton (2010) Public health- lack of close relationships can do more harm than drinking and smoking Alone vs Loneliness Alone Physically separate from other people Lonely Craving social connection ○ Can be lonely even if you're surrounded by others How do close relationships influence us? The Relational Self (Andersen & Chen, 20020) Aspects of the self associated with relationships with significant others (Romantic partners, parents, friends) ○ Self knowledge linked in memory to knowledge about significant others ○ Can be both contextually and chronically activated Context- Location that reminds you of significant other ○ Includes motives and self regulatory strategies when relating to significant others Relational Schemas (Baldwin et al., 1990) Cognitive structures representing regularities in an interpersonal relationship Priming relationship schemas: My advisor and the pope are watching me from the back of my mind ○ Study 1 IV: Grad students subliminally primed with disapproving advisor or smiling postdoc DV: How good are my research ideas? ○ When primed with approving face- rated their ideas as better than when primed with disapproving face ○ Study 2 IV: Catholic students subliminally primed with a disapproving Pope or Robert Zajonc DV: Self evaluations ○ First see face, then watch sexually suggestive videos ○ Then, rate self evaluations ○ Pope face first- rated lower Social cognitive model of transference (Andersen & Berk, 1998) Experiencing past relationships in present Inspired by Freudian theory Experimentally testable social cognitive approach Transference paradigm Session 1: Describe a significant other (SO) (i.e. good cook, red sox fan, caring father, construction worker) Session 2: (at least two weeks later) presented with descriptions of unknown people ○ One of the novel targets resembled the SO (Red sox fan, good cook) ○ Measure reactions to the new people Some of the common findings: ○ Assume characteristics of SO apply to target that resembled SO ○ Expect the SO resemblance target to act like the SO  ○ SO resemblance target activates working self concept/self evaluations associated with the SO Derogation of attractive alternatives (Simpson et al., 1990) People in relationships devalue the attractiveness of an objectively attractive potential partner ○ Helps maintain their current relationship Study: ○ Men and women (all heterosexual) viewed people in magazine ads ○ Those who were currently dating someone, would rate those in ads less attractive than those who were not currently dating Second study: ○ Heterosexual participants ○ Some in exclusive and non-exclusive relationships ○ Rated people who had been pre-rated as objectively attractive ○ Rated young/opposite sex, young/same sex, older/opposite sex Only devalue attractiveness when someone is actually a potential partner (opposite sex, "type") Derogation of attractive alternatives (Karremans et al., 2011) Unlikely to be due to self-presentation concerns- not just to look good in front of researchers that is sometimes questioned about previous study Study: ○ Participants presented with 1 of 2 faces ○ Pre-rated faces (1 is unattractive and 1 is attractive) ○ Then, shown greyscale faces and pick which one looks like the faces they were asked to recognize ○ Grayscaled faces and then superimposed visual noise (making pixels darker and lighter- distorts features of the faces) ○ Allows researchers to have a sense of what participants think the original face looked like ○ Averages faces together of each one participant picks ○ Can create visual renderings of what the participants thought, then have next group of participants rate those in attractiveness ○ People in relationships end up derogating the attractiveness of the person who is less attractive than that of the more attractive person ○ This study removed attractive element and therefore supported the original study that people see others as less attractive when they're in a relationship Attraction and mate selection Physical attractiveness Powerful influence on likability ○ Affects other social judgements Halo effect (positive attributes hang together) Facial beauty Average faces are preferred (Langois & Roggman, 1990) ○ Deviations from average could suggest a genetic mutation Symmetry marker of health and reproductive fitness ○ Prototypes stored in memory are averages We prefer familiar objects b/c they resemble prototypes Average faces rated more attractive than unique faces Waist-to-hip ratio (WHR; Singh, 1993) When heterosexual males are shown photos of women- they prefer WHR of 0.7 Men perceive a correlation between WHR and youth, reproductive status, and health True for all body sizes Implicit and explicit attitudes towards relationship partners Participants who faced high barriers to exiting (BTE) their relationship Negative association between relationship satisfaction and automatic attitudes Study: How high are barriers in relationships? Implicit attitudes towards relationship (IAT)? Explicit attitudes (conscious, self reporter)? How satisfied were they in the relationship? Found: ○ People who had low barriers to exit, if they had negative implicit attitudes, then they had low reported relationship satisfaction ○ People who had medium barriers, similar pattern but not as much of a positive relationship between IAT and self reported satisfaction ○ High barriers to exit, regardless of implicit attitudes, think about relationships more positively (most interesting finding) Reading Built on this finding Experimenters tested newlyweds' marital satisfaction over four years Newlyweds' automatic (implicit) but not conscious (explicit) attitudes predict change in marital satisfaction over four years What did conscious attitudes predict? Can you think of alternative reasons why conscious attitudes might not predict change in marital satisfaction? Relationship Partners Change us Over Time Michelangelo phenomenon (Rusbult et al., 2009) Our partners "sculpt" our personalities and sense of self ○ Affirming partners can help us achieve our ideal self Encourage us to pursue our goals and support us Lecture 18 Social Ecological Model Intrapersonal → interpersonal → institutional → community → systemic Intrapersonal level ○ Internalized racism ○ Stereotype threat ○ Embodying inequities Interpersonal level ○ Overt discrimination ○ Implicit bias What do we mean by prejudice and stereotypes? Prejudice - Affect An evaluation of someone or a group of people (often negative) related to their membership in a particular group Stereotype - Cognition A belief or association about a group or a person due to membership in that group Discrimination - Behavior Behaving differently towards people because of their group membership How do these concepts relate to the ABC Model of attitudes? What's the role of need to belong? Social identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979) People seek a positive social identity to maintain their self esteem Us vs them: The minimal group paradigm Participants consider individual faces and the group share salient group identity (i.e. white males) Then, asked to do a task (Dot estimation test) ○ Estimate number of dots, then told if you are over or underestimator Then, told which of the faces are over or underestimators ○ Can now categorize them (some share participant's group membership and some do not) Tajfel shows that we want to perceive ingroup positively ○ People give more resources to their ingroup like overestimators if that matches participant's category ○ More likely to say you like overestimators more if you are also categorized as one Ratner- ingroups are rendered and rated as more attractive Competition and intergroup relations Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif & Sherif, 1953) Robbers Cave Study ○ Competition over resources ○ Favor ingroup but don't see outgroup negatively necessarily ○ When limited resources are involved, then hostility comes out Stereotype Content Stereotype content model (Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007) 1. Warmth: Friend or foe? ○ Disliked - liked 2. Competence: Able or unable? ○ Not respected - respected Liked and respected (high warmth, low competence) ○ Disabled ○ Older people Disliked and not respected (low warmth, low competence) ○ Homeless ○ Drug addicts ○ Poor Liked and respected (high warmth, high competence) ○ Middle class ○ Christian ○ Heterosexual Disliked and respected (low warmth, high competence) ○ Jews ○ Asians ○ Rich Dehumanization and infrahumanization Dehumanization Perceiving a person or group as lacking humanness Infrahumanization Perceiving an outgroup as lacking uniquely human attributes relative to an ingroup ○ Primary emotions (e.g., anger, happiness) Ingroup and outgroup ○ Secondary emotions (e.g., pride, regret) Ingroup ONLY Blatant dehumanization The "Ascent of (Hu)Man"  Asking about target group and where they fall on ape → human scale ○ Europeans, japanese, australians: seen as closer to full human ○ Muslims, mexican immigrants, ISIS members: seen as less than full human Stereotype formation Information processing bias Illusory correlation (Hamilton & Giffor, 1976) ○ Observers more attentive to distinct stimuli ○ Co-occurrence of two distinct stimuli should particularly grab attention and result in greater encoding in memory For white suburbanites: Interactions with Black people are rare Crime is rare Learning Cultural stereotypes ○ Knowledge of stereotypes held in the culture ○ Don't have to believe them Personal stereotypes ○ Stereotypes that you believe The persistence of outgroup negativity Fazio et al. (2004) BeanFest study ○ Participants told they will encounter the beans and decide if you want to eat them or not (figurative- digitally on computer ○ Eat a good bean- positive points, bad bean- negative points ○ Beans varied in shape and amount of speckles- don't know which is good or bad ○ Someone who participated before you will tell you about the beans Tells them about circle bean with few speckles They are good (or bad), eat them whenever you can (or stay away) [depending on group] ○ This begins to form stereotype in our brains- we have not personally encountered them yet and are already forming thoughts about them Found: ○ Sometimes the advice that they got was wrong and would end up being good/bad instead  Correlates to judging someone before they meet them ○ Beans are negative., told positive, you eat them right away and then learn they're bad, and stop eating them ○ Beans are negative, told negative- stay away and tend to stay away ○ Beans are positive, told negative- never approach them, never learn that they're actually good ○ Beans are positive, told positive- continue to eat them This is why negative stereotypes about outgroups persist!!! ○ We don't have personal experience when we form stereotypes based on what other people say Implicit vs. explicit racial bias Civil rights act (1964) Law that made it illegal to discriminate based on race and ethnicity Egalitarian values ○ Belief that everyone should be treated equally Explicit racism ○ Explicit prejudice and discrimination ○ Was "going down" reportedly but still instances of bias that POC were reporting Implicit racial bias ○ Association between racial group and negative stereotypes Perceiver can be unaware of this bias and/or have difficulty controlling its expression Shooter bias Correll et al., (2002) Reading for this week Paradigm ○ Press "shoot" when you think a photo that is flashed contains a person holding a gun Found: ○ When individual was unarmed, they took longer to press "don't shoot" when person was black ○ Quicker to press "shoot" when person was black ○ Mistakes: when individuals were unarmed, participants were more likely to make the mistake of shooting an unarmed black person  When individuals were armed, participants were more likely to not shoot a white person Results in summary: ○ Faster to shoot armed black individuals ○ Slower to not shoot unarmed black individuals ○ Making more mistakes in actually shooting unarmed black individuals and not shooting white armed individuals 1. When are effects shown in reaction times versus errors? 2. What is the role of personal stereotypes versus cultural stereotypes? 3. Who shows the shooter bias?