PSYB10 Midterm 2 Lecture Notes PDF

lOMoARcPSD|47283328 PSYB10 - Midterm 2 Lecture Notes Psychology (York University) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected]) ...

lOMoARcPSD|47283328 PSYB10 - Midterm 2 Lecture Notes Psychology (York University) Scan to open on Studocu Studocu is not sponsored or endorsed by any college or university Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Lecture 5: Attitudes Name-Letter Test: How beautiful do you find each letter of the alphabet? Implicit positive self-attitude is defined as ○ [self’s rating for own initials] - [rating of these same letters by others] Just as we have evaluations of certain preferences/likes/desires on food, clothes, and other people we can have these evaluations applied to us We can ask people “how much do you like yourself, your name, appearance?” ○ Runs into many issues: People have the desire to please manipulate/deceive Manage their impressions Not offering a true view Instead, use a behavioral measure (implicit measure) (at a level not entirely conscious/aware) Results: People tend to like the letter their name begins with more than the average rating of that letter given by the class. Why? ○ Maybe because of the mere exposure effect: the funding by which the more person is exposed to something, the more they tend to like it Therefore individuals are exposed to their name more often and therefore like it more ○ People generally have a positive self-evaluation of themselves, and this characterizes a person’s evaluation which tends to rub off on features that make up this person (name, clothes, friends) ○ Belongs to the person (“is mine”), intrinsically valuable/rewarding/pleasurable, therefore greater preference due to mere ownership effect. Mere ownership effect: the finding when something is called “mine” they begin to attribute a value/reward/pleasure to that thing if it belongs to oneself/part of one’s identity. ○ This finding has been extended to other domains: That people generally tend to pick careers/mates/companies to work for that match the initial to their name Ex: proportion of people working for a company with a matching initial Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Result: For just about every letter of the alphabet people tend to gravitate toward companies with a matching initial The company could be looking for people that match the name When you start a business the name revolves around your name Reflects an implicit attitude: since we like the names we seek out companies to work for that match our name/career/future spouse Implicit egotism: they attach their identity which rubs off to various life choices who they marry/where they work… Moral Decision-Making: Trolley Switch Dilemma vs Trolley-Bridge Dilemma An impersonal vs a personal choice Trolley-switch dilemma (impersonal): A trolley is coming down a track, on its way to killing 5 people unfortunately tied up on the track. Fortunately, your next to a lever if pulled can divert the trolley and can kill 1 person but save 5. Would you pull the lever? Trolley-bridge dilemma (personal): A trolley is coming down a track, on its way to killing 5 people unfortunately tied up on the track. Fortunately, you happen to be on a bridge next to a very large man who if you push over the bridge will fall down and die but stop the trolley and save the 5 people. Would you push this man? Why is it that we are likely to pull the lever in the first scenario but avoid pushing the man in the second scenario? ○ The second one feels more personal, has a stronger emotional impact, therefore, less likely to push the man ○ In the second case, it feels like you're the direct cause of the person's death whereas in the first case you're merely an accomplice. Which changes the effect of how you evaluate the scenario The outcome of both scenarios is the same (save 5 people and kill 1) Attitudes have a very strong emotional foundation, based on an affective, emotional, intuitive understanding or appraisal of some event. Organ Implant dilemma: as a surgeon, do you harvest the organs of one relatively healthy person to provide for 5 other dying patients of yours? The Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex (VMPC) and the Somatic Marker Hypothesis: People who have a lesion to this region perform quite differently on the trolley problem. The somatic marker hypothesis that our attitudes and preferences and decision-making more broadly come from our ability to use body signals of emotion EX: Do you want broccoli or chocolate cake for breakfast? ○ You think through the benefits and costs between them ○ The Somatic Marker Hypothesis states you have an emotional affective reaction when you think about broccoli or chocolate cake and your brain integrates your bodily responses to this emotion to guide that decision-making The ventromedial prefrontal cortex is the key region that allows us to use emotion to guide our decision-making, our attitudes, preferences Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 VMPC plays a part in people’s decision-making using somatic markers (somatic means body signals, temperature, states) People use their bodily signals to deliberate dating decisions People use body sensations to pair with emotional attributes to different decision outcomes Linking body sensations to emotional effects and determining affective value Damage to the VMPC reduces the impersonal vs personal or eliminates that emotional punch ○ More likely to say that they will push the man off the bridge (less sensitive, and less vulnerable to the emotional reaction they may experience when thinking about pushing the man off the bridge. The emotional punch of the personal dilemma doesn’t have that much of an effect The patients make decisions through more abstract, indifferent thinking In most domains of decision making our brain uses emotional reactivity to shape our beliefs, feelings, preferences, and attitudes. The Emotional Dog and its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Model of Moral Judgements The idea here is that human decision making including how we arrive at our attitudes about stuff is like an emotional dog. The dog is driven around by its emotionality (nose) and its tail follows around wherever it happens to go. Eliciting Situation → Intuition/Emotion → Judgement → Reasoning Eliciting situation: drinking soup from a completely cleaned toilet bowl Intuition/Emotion: instinctive emotional reaction (moral dilemma) Judgment: Yes or no I will eat from the toilet bowl Reasoning: construct an explanation as to why the judgment is correct This model essentially flips the order of the process in that we should arrive at a decision or attitude. Rationality is like the tail of the dog it follows the emotional reaction wherever it happens to go Human decision-making operates the same way, we are pulled around by our emotions but we use rationality to justify the decisions we arrive at through emotions. ○ Rationality does not determine for the most part what we like and what we prefer/choose. ○ Rationality and reason are used to explain decisions that we’ve arrived at through emotion Would you slap your father for $100,000? ○ The vast majority of people said no ○ We experience an instinctive emotional reaction of disgust Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ We use reasons to justify and explain the decision we arrived at through emotion Moral Dumbfounding: The notion when people are asked to provide an explanation for their decision making they are often unable to in a clear or articulate way. Our attitudes are largely constructed on the bases of instinctive emotions, and intuitions rather than careful rational analysis. Reasoning occurs to invent an explanation for the non-moveable judgment (that one has already made). Reasoning happens after rather than before. The emotional dog and its rational tail: the dog runs freely, and its tail has no choice but to follow the dog Morality is the dog, and reasoning is the tail - doesn’t do anything helpful but follow the dog around. Evidence: ○ Moral dumbfounding - occurs when people hold powerful moral attitudes about something but can not provide a good way when pressed carefully to provide a reason. Regardless of this, they don’t change their original position. ○ Many cases in which people’s emotional capacity and not their reasoning capacities determine their moral behavior. E.g Psychopathy - psychopaths have perfectly good reasoning abilities. They know it’s morally wrong to kill others and yet they do it anyway. Their behaviors reflect a lack of emotion toward others suffering rather than their reasoning potential. Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: Explicit attitudes are those that which we can verbally report “What do I think about Justin Trudeau, Myself…etc) ○ Positive evaluation about yourself (confident, intelligent, attractive) Implicit attitudes are those that remain obscure and hard to articulate and put into words. Humans can hold attitudes about something on both an explicit/implicit level. ○ Evaluations are more nuanced, negative elements, self-critical, insecure, and vulnerable Someone’s explicit attitudes can be directly opposed to their implicit attitudes How can researchers measure implicit attitudes? Tony Greenwald, and Mahzarin Banaji came up with a way The Implicit Association test (IAT) A way to assess automatic associations ○ Assesses the ease with which 2 concepts are associated (e.g. good/bad and self/other) ○ How much do you like yourself (x, y, z) ○ Uses reaction time as a measure of a person's evaluation. ○ Gets people to categorize the relevant target into good/bad domains ○ The more easily and quickly someone can categorize their name into a good scenario compared to a bad one that reflects a kind of association in their mind of self and good rather than self and bad Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 What is an attitude?: A stable “evaluation” of something Brains response in placing some kind of value on a specific event, person, stimulus Construct some kind of value on yourself, career, fashion Value can be good or bad that we apply to domains in our life Attitudes are part of a broader set of phenomenon in humans called “Affect” Affect has to do at a broad level with the good versus bad distinction ○ EX: the brain has the ability to feel good or bad in response to weather, music… This goodness or badness response can operate in different domains such as “sensation” ○ EX: going outside and feeling the warmth of the sun on your skin feels good, when your driving down the highway and feel the breeze of wind in your hair, when someone pinches you it feels bad (these are bodily responses) Another domain which affect operates is “emotion” ○ EX: seeing something disgusting on your way to campus, when someone makes a remark about your haircut or jeans that you don’t like when feeling sad when not getting into med school, or getting rejected by a romantic partner ○ Have a cognitive story Another domain that affects operations is “attitude” ○ Attitudes are relatively stable (persistent over time) goodness, badness responses ○ Where is the disgust u may feel in response to seeing something disgusting on your way to campus shortlived will feel disgusted, however, seconds later feel normal. Attitudes are long-lasting How do you feel about climate change and capital punishment…. Components of an Attitude: Affective: emotional value, feelings (good/bad) Cognitive: Meaning attached to the goodness/badness feeling, reasons/facts that affect the evaluation ○ Why do you like Justin Trudeau, why do you dislike NHL? Behavioral: Attitudes are thought on some level to predict behavior, and how it affects our actions ○ If you feel good about Justin Trudeau you’re most likely to vote for him, if you dislike the NHL then less likely to buy hockey tickets A Key Aspect of an Attitude ○ Discriminating between good/bad Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ Requires emotional component ○ Needs affective value The Affective component affects Cognitive Assessment and vice versa. Sometimes we form an affective attitude that leads us to make cognitive assessments to fit our affective attitude. Come up with reasons (cognitive assessment) to fit their affective attitude or rationalize their feelings Attitudes predict behavior, but not directly. Many influences on a person’s behavior, and attitudes are one of them Example: Police Brutality ○ Affective value: security, illicit feelings of disgust or fear ○ Cognitive value: why are they good or bad? What reasons make police bad? Do we want less or more of them ○ Behavioral Value: more likely to engage in behaviors to sign petitions for police reform Where does affective value come from?: Affective value only arises from the way our brains perceive and interpret objects around us Evaluation is not like putting something in front of a mirror (it does not reflect the value that is already inherent in an object), it is more like painting it (Value is constructed by the mind and brain). Affective Value arises from perception. Value is a product of our brain. It is constructed and produced. Famous quote by Shakespeare: There is nothing either good or bad, but thinking it makes it so. Evaluation: evaluation is not reflecting on an object, but constructing the value of an object, or *painting* it on an object/situation/person, etc. Ventral Pallidum Damage: Only known region of the brain where damage to it changes animals liking response to something sweet to a disliking response. ○ EX: if you take a rodent and damage its ventral pallidum and you present this rodent with something sweet like sugar, where it shows a liking response to it, it will then show a disgusted response to it ○ Works with the nucleus accumbens in the reward pathway Damage to the ventral pallidum leads animals to think a sweet substance is disgusting; this also leads humans to report loss of pleasurable emotions Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Therefore the pleasant in sweet is not in the substance, but in our brain Therefore, by changing the way the brain is configured, we can change its affective value. Note: ventral pallidum - Part of the brain’s reward circuitry. The only part of the brain where damage seems to reverse the affective value of a substance; turning it from pleasant to unpleasant. Reverses the affective value of things that are pleasant, that stimulate the ventral pallidum. This leads people to report a loss of pleasure in feeling Animals also cannot recognize otherwise positive properties Necessary for survival, things you need to survive are naturally preferred by the body, but damage to this can lead animals to feel dislike towards food/water Two core motives for evaluation: To be right To feel good - Motivated to represent the world as is - Wanting to see the world as a better place - hedonic motives - Motivated to be correct, to find the truth - what is true will not always make people to feel good - Allows people to predict how things will be - We form evaluations as a means to in the future in a manner to accomplish their regulate emotion goals - e.g. better than average effect - people inflate their skills in comparison to others; optimistic bias - believe their future is going to be more positive then is actually justified by reality. overestimate good outcomes and underestimate negative outcomes These core motives can contradict each other, and when they do, people resolve the conflict in creative ways. Where does affective value come from: Evolution: Psychological tendencies that enhance the animal’s ability to survive and reproduce can become more and more common in the population This principle applies to the way we form attitudes towards things in the world e.g. what we find attractive in mates, when a person’s behavior disgusts us, when a person betrays our trust and breaks the social contract, shared feelings of fear towards snakes or pleasure towards sweets, etc. These feelings facilitate the need for survival and reproduction in us ○ EX: Researchers find a blind person with spider phobia despite not having seen a Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 spider. Why does this happen even without visual exposure? Humans have learned to fear spiders in ancestral environments because it promoted survival. We as a species have pre-programmed attitudes towards things or behaviors as a form of survival Evolution makes traits that help survival and reproduction become more common A reason is -- evolution has naturally selected individuals who feared the spiders and therefore lived longer and avoided them. ○ EX: someone was born with a mutation in their genome that prevented them to feel fear in response to snakes/spiders, that mutation would not have made it far. Due to that person will not have a great job of surviving/producing Evolution shows how judgements are shared between members of species Personality: Personality shows how judgements differ from individuals within a species Due to genetic and experience factors Big 5 personality traits: OCEAN ○ Openness to experience ○ Conscientiousness ○ Extraversion ○ Agreeableness ○ Neuroticism 2 of these traits are linked to political orientation (liberal vs conservative) These traits not only predict a person’s behaviour but it also predicts their attitudes on various things in the world. Certain of these personality traits influence a person’s political orientation Research shows a person’s political orientation can be reliably predicted through genetics, even if imperfect. About 40% of a population’s political orientational differences are caused by genetic factors. Research shows : ○ Liberals tend to be higher in openness to experience ○ Conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness ○ Conservatism involves the preference to keep the things the way are and remain to tradition. Conscientiousness about the desire of predictability/order/structure will lead people to resistant to change ○ Liberals are linked with opennes to experience predicting positively Attitude is generally due to genetic differences ○ EX: A classic study from 2005 looked at 1000s of twins taht compare monozygotic (identical twins) against dizygotic (non-identical twins) in their attititudes to specific themes, topics in society Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ Tried to estimate how much of a role gene plays for specific attitudes ○ If Monozygotic twins show a stronger correlation on something such as capital punishment then dizygotic also do. ○ The difference between the correlations between them show the differences in genetic makeup (impact on genes affect on attitudes) ○ Results: The correlation for monozygotic twins are greater than dizygotic twins for each of these categories known as heritability value (due to genetic makeup) Also true for religiosity: 40% of religiosity in people is influenced by genetic factors. Culture and Social norms: Not within a person but outside a person (in society, culture) Changes in moral values: ○ in the 16th century, it was common to burn people (“witches”) at a stake if accused of witchcraft due to small factors such as a change in weather. ○ In the 18th-19th century, it was common to own slaves (abuse, use for economic gain). Today we look back to these times in moral horror, showing how much our collective moral sense has changed. Why such a dramatic change? ○ A common game was to nail a cat to a board tie your hands behind your back and headbutt the cat to death. The aim was to do without getting your eyes scratched out ○ The way we get out meat such as pigs are treated horribly caged up, ripped away from parents, etc Slow change in social norms: people’s own judgments are influenced by what others think Also affect sexual morality: extra-marital sex vs pre-marital sex ○ What is permissible versus not permissible in terms of sex ○ Women's disapproval of extra-marital sex: having an affair outside of marriage and pre-marital sex: having sex before marriage Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ People have become more accepting (gone down) of pre-marital sex, although thoughts of extra-marital sex remain the same. ○ Why: Social conforming- the tendency to think and behave as others do. E.g. perception of drug use: early coca-cola drinks were made from the plant used to make cocaine (the coca plant), and many people saw nothing of it ○ Views on marijuana have changed ○ Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, talked openly about his relation with cocaine and uses. People’s moral understanding and fundamental sense of good and bad can be heavily influenced by social standards. Early and recent experiences: Attitudes we form are shaped by some personal history, which can be short-term (immediate prior experiences) and long-term (how we were treated by our parents decades ago) Attachment theory: Relationship with our parents can affect our romantic relationships as well Parents’ relationship with their children can also affect how they treat their own children. Our past experiences with individuals or objects shape our future experiences with similar or the same things. A parent/primary caregiver and child relationship’s attachment style influences a child’s future attachments, especially romantic relationships. A parent’s method of discipline for their child, shows how their childhoods were and if it was marked by aggression or abuse. Mere exposure effect: more exposure → more liking Recent experiences can also experience attitudes. The mere exposure effect influences liking for not only faces but for other things as well, including food items. Mere exposure effect: can also occur with objects: juice preferences increase with mere exposure ○ EX: Individuals were presented with a novel juice (juice nobody was exposed to before) over the course of 10 sessions. ○ The liking for the juice increased with each exposure. ○ The changes in liking were accompanied by changes in a particular region in the brain known as the reward circuitry (nucleus accumbens & ventral tegmental area) ○ Observed thru F-MRI which region in the brain plays a role in the increase of liking: the ventral tegmental area (where dopamine neurons originate), activities in this region predicted likings of the juice as a result of the mere exposure effect Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Summary of Where does Affective Value come from: It is a combination of various inputs from evolution, experiences, personality, and social norms. Value is a brain construct We decide and choose, unconsciously or consciously what we assign value to and make judgments, in a matter of seconds, with various inputs that stretch back across time and our experiences or society. Brain Parts: ○ Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA): where dopamine neurons generates Dopamine plays an important role in how we reward ourselves How does the brain assign affective value?: The Amygdala: (tiny structure yet plays a large role) When amygdala is damaged significantly impairs to learn what to fear ○ EX: someone who was mugged in an alleyway will still continue to walk by the alleyway Rapidly assigns salience (importance/significance) to environmentally significant events When damaged, individuals have trouble assigning significance to objects Fear conditioning: associating fear with objects due to their association with other threatening objects ○ e.g. Little Albert: was learned to fear a neutral object because of the loud noise ○ Damage to the amygdala causes individuals to fail to associate fear even if paired with fearful events/cues ○ Nucleus Accumbens: Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Reward circuitry, the pathway to experience pleasure Associated with finding things pleasurable Receives dopamine (originate in VTA) input from the ventral tegmental area, and projects to nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex, together very important in assigning positive value to things The nucleus accumbens is the most activated for things we find pleasurable/rewarding Activated when: ○ Sexual cues ○ Attractive faces ○ Individuals anticipation money ○ Intensely pleasurable music ○ Drug addicts being exposed to said addicted drug ○ Social pleasures; when learning about disliked/envied people experience failures ○ In non-human animals, like rats the nucleus accumbens affects mother-infant bonding These things are likely to activate the nucleus accumbens ○ In one study, people were presented with scenarios where someone they envied had misfortune as activity in their nucleus accumbens was measured. Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 It was found that the more Schadenfreude (malicious joy) a person admitted to experiencing, the more the activity in their nucleus accumbens Schadenfreude: feeling pleasure at the misfortune of other people You lead people to dislike somebody, some competitive instinct, then you lead them to believe that person is going through some downfall Study by Takahashi et al: Nucleus Accumbens Responses to Reward Read descriptions of people participants envied having a misfortune. Results: Positive correlation Nucleus Accumbens response to rewards: ○ Study: Can brain activity be used to predict choice? ○ Can we use that to predict whether if someone will buy something ○ Brian Knutson et al: Can brain activity predict the choice to buy or not to buy? ○ People saw pictures of real-life products with a value associated with them (price), and had to decide whether they buy or not buy the product ○ This is answering a core question: can attitudes predict behavior? ○ Purchase decisions can be predicted by activity in the nucleus accumbens ○ High activity → buying ○ Low activity → not buying ○ Nucleus Accumbens activity leads to assigning → subjective value ○ You can reliably predict whether a person will purchase a product by how strongly their nucleus accumbens activates when they are first exposed to it Assigning Positive Affective Value: Wanting Liking Motivational; The desire to experience a The enjoyment from experiencing a rewarding stimulus (anticipatory pleasure) rewarding stimulus (consummatory pleasure) How badly you want a reward, craving/desire How you will feel when you get a reward, Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 satisfaction Want chocolate is a desire If you like chocolate is the satisfaction when you eat it These two can be felt separately: produces interesting consequences on a person’s attitude However the bridge between them can fall apart Wanting: anticipatory pleasure ○ Largely driven by the neurotransmitter dopamine ○ Monkey experiment: Electrodes attached to monkeys reward centers in the brain. Has been deprived of fluid for some time. Every now and then it's given a burst of juice such that it finds it pleasurable/rewarding. Monkey’s dopamine response was assessed while being given a juice (reward) ○ When the juice appeared spontaneously, dopamine (reflects pleasure) levels spiked (reward not predicted) and then repeated ○ Dopamine is not tracking the response to the reward but tracking its anticipation for the reward to come ○ When researchers trained the monkey to expect the reward (juice); as it was presented in specific cues (blue square was shown on screen) ○ If it seen a red square it expects that the juice will come with 75% probability ○ If it seen a blue square it expects that the juice will come with 50% probability Dopamine increased when the cue was presented which predicts the reward, and not the reward: learned association between cue and reward; dopamine reflected the anticipation of the reward, not the reward itself. Dopamine that's released helps us anticipate what pleasurable thing awaits us in the future and drives motivation to pursue that thing. ○ You can show that the amount of dopamine released in response to the reward depends on how strongly the cue predicts the reward. 0% cue predicts reward (predictive power): no dopamine increase 25% cue predicts reward (predictive power): dopamine spikes were stronger 100% cue predicts reward (predictive power): strongest spike Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 As the monkey becomes increasingly certain that certain cues will produce a reward, dopamine responses increase for the cue All 3 monkeys showed the same results ○ Dopamine release also scales with the magnitude of the reward: The larger the reward, the more the increase in dopamine rewards. ○ Collectively: an animal’s ability to anticipate future rewards, to generate desire or wanting for it based on cues in the environment is driven by dopamine activity. ○ Dopamine activity tracks both the predictive power of the cue and the magnitude of the reward. Liking (Consummatory pleasure): ○ Produced by a different set of Neurotransmitters: Endogenous opioids (enkephalin) Endogenous cannabinoids (anandamide) - named after the Sanskrit word ananda meaning bliss ○ Wanting and Liking is indeed separable even though we tend to like what we want (“I like that chocolate, therefore, I want it”) ○ These are neurotransmitters that addictive drugs like heroin (exogenous opioid that interacts with the brains opioid receptors) and marijuana (reacts with the brain’s cannabinoid receptors) mimic. ○ These drugs work by Activating liking systems designed to respond to the natural rewards in our environments (food, sex) ○ You can manipulate these neurotransmitters in non-human animals - Increasing anandamide expression in rats leads to an increase liking of sugar in rats. Wanting and liking are independant; can selectively change an animal’s liking/wanting without changing the other If enhanced dopamine activity: ○ no change in liking responses, but dramatic changes in wanting (increased wanting - animal will work harder to get stimulus) If depleted dopamine activity: ○ changes in wanting (Reduces, will not work for reward), but show normal liking responses (no change) when given rewarding stimulus Possible to increasingly want something, even if liking remains normal (happens with drug addicts), or we can like something we don’t want Drug addicts crave their drug over time, wanting it more (becomes mores sensitive to drug) and more until it consumes their life, but may even show lesser liking (or not changing) over time These means attitudes may be more complex Or someone wanting their ex but not liking them Neurotransmitters can be enhanced, dopamine increase can increase wanting and motivation for goal achievement, but not affect liking responses Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Berridge & Robinson Study (2016): In addiction we have seen the want for a drug grows more and more but the liking remains same over time Sometimes, the liking or enjoyment of the drug even decreases People usually want what they can’t obtain: research study: ○ Experiment: Lusting while Loathing study by Litt, Khan & Shiv. ○ Researchers blocked participants from a prize they desire → increased participants’ wanting for the prize but decreased their liking for it → willing to pay more to obtain, but when did get it, they wanted to trade it away ○ Under certain circumstances, people can adopt conflicting attitudes. They can desire something that doesn’t appeal to them all that much. ○ Researcher studied the hypothesis: people want something they cannot have ○ Participants were blocked from getting a reward in the control option ○ Participants paid more or worked harder to get that reward ○ But after achieving the reward they were more likely to trade it away ○ Their liking for it decreased ○ People can adopt conflicting attitudes, desiring something that doesn’t appeal to them that much Midterms and the Meaning of Life: A midterm doesn't have any intrinsic value but has intense emotional value (relief, disappointment, joy, etc) How do these mere pixels on a screen or blotches of ink affect our emotional value? Midterm Core Personality Life Experiences Social Norms Motives/Evolution Neuroticism (may Early and recent Social conformity Fear (of failure or become easily experiences (norms and values disappointment of disappointed) influenced by other parents) (attachment theory: a people) Openness to student may have Curiosity experience (become only had conditional Emotional Contagion curious to love from parents => (how you feel about Belongingness (a understand new trying to do well on midterm can be Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 desire to belong) ideas) the midterm can be influenced by how for the past: receiving others feel about it Extraversion (may love from parents as well) value belongingness through good grades) differently than an introverted person) How Does Feeling Arise? The hard problem of consciousness: Why do humans/animals have feelings? (when you put your feet on the floor a feeling of sensation) Brain is a physical organ made of electrical chemicals (inside) The world “out there” (out of brains) is ultimately made up of meaningless/physical particles (atoms, chemicals, electrical forces etc) The world “in here”, the same as above But when the “outside” comes in contact with the “inside”, then there’s meaning, value, feeling, sensations (brain perceives an apple, perceives red) Hard problem of consciousness: Consciousness arises from physicals processes that are empty of meaning themselves Development of self from meaningless meeting meaningless Cognitive Dissonance: Proposed by Leon Festinger People do not like inconsistency in minds or behaviour ○ When two different thoughts are conflicting you experience a state called dissonance People have a fundamental motive to be consistent and preference for consistency People want to feel as if their various thoughts and behaviours match and agree with each other, and that their thoughts match their actions When this is challenged, people experience dissonance (feels bad) People then find a way to reduce it ○ E.g. You love a partner and have been in love for 10 years. You then lie to your partner about something, which causes dissonance in you [I love my partner =/= I am lying to them (inconsistent)] The way that people try to reduce dissonance is often counter-intuitive (leads to results they don’t anticipate) Reducing Cognitive Dissonance: Three approaches: 1. Change one of the dissonant cognitions → revise attitude - Maybe I don’t love my partner that much 2. Add a new cognition → I have a good reason for lying to them even though you love them 3. Change your behavior → I will stop lying to them (not easy to do) Consequences of Cognitive dissonance: Justification of Effort Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 When people put effort into something without a clear reason for doing so, they get dissonance I worked hard on this activity =/= I did not enjoy the activity For instance buying a table from IKEA, worked 8 hours to build it but didn't like it very much [why did I spend so much time on something I don't like, produces dissonance (a change in how people value in what they created] Can’t change the behavior so people change the cognition How to reduce the dissonance? Finding a way to justify the effort The Ikea Effect: in a study, participants were asked to make a DIY origami swan ○ Prediction-As a result of putting more effort into the task, people will come to value it more ○ They put in a lot of effort, and when the researchers offered that they could buy the product once they were done, the participants were more likely to buy it as the value of that piece increased as a result of their effort. ○ Researchers compared two groups: Group 1: people are given materials and an instruction sheet to create origami Group 2: Same origami given to them but made by experts (better quality than ones people made themselves) When asked which one you would pay for more (keep), people tend to prefer the ones they created even though the expert ones are better quality. Because of cognitive dissonance: people invest all this time and energy to create and to justify the work they created they upregulate the value they place on the item ○ What Amateur builders were willing to pay for their own origami matched what other people were willing to pay for experts' origami. ○ The second study showed that people when people put more effort into the products, they were willing to pay for their origami regardless of if they finished it or not. ○ Result: When people invet time and energy into making something they end up valuing it more Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Post-decision Dissonance: After making a decision that they feel indifferent about, people reduce dissonance by evaluating their choice ○ EX: if you were to choose between to parts of a city to live you will eventually choose one and after some period of time have a “What if” feeling on if u chose the other option rather than the one you chose ○ This “what if” feeling is the idea of position-decision dissonace (negative emotionality) ○ Will have to surpress this feeling to get on with their lives Free choice paradigm Rank the 6 pictures from most to least liked => choose b/w 3 and 4 => participants chose 3 cuz they have chosen it before When people make a decision b/w multiple options, they come to increase their evaluation (change the value) on the chosen option rather than the rejected one. Like the thing they picked more and like the thing the rejected even less Changeable vs Unchangeable Decisions Paradox of choice: having more choice will lead to less satisfaction (“what if feeling”) Post-decision dissonance is stronger when they can’t reverse a decision ○ EX: Sarah is shopping at two stores for a laptop, both stores have the same laptop same price, etc ○ Store A: return policy within 60 days ○ Store B: no return policy (sale is final) → more dissonance → more motivated to reduce dissonance → would learn to value the laptop from here more when she has no option to return it ○ She would be more satisfied with her purchase when she doesn’t have a choice than when she does Study: gilbert and ebert ○ Looked at how photography students evaluated their products - their photographic pictures/prints ○ In one condition, they were asked to choose prints with the opportunity to reverse their choice Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ In the other condition, their choice was final ○ They were asked if their preference depended on the opportunity to change their choices, and participants generally said no ○ They believe that having the opportunity to change or not change isnt a difference ○ After 3 days, when people are picking the photograph under the unchangeable scenario there is an increase in liking, whereas there is a decrease in liking under the changeable scenario ○ People’s preference for the chosen print increased in the unchangeable condition compared to the changeable condition - this effect lasted over time ○ In a subsequent experiment: researchers found that although people want to have the option to reverse their choices, this often backfires as people end happier and more satisfied when they don’t have the option to reverse their choices The Paradox of Choice: - Under some circumstances we might be more happy when not given choice to change something about our life, freedom is restricted/limited - Freedom is the absolute foundation of modern society - also the foundation of what we would consider to be a good life - “Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” - Findings on post-decision dissonance suggest: Under some conditions, when there is freedom of changing minds, they don’t experience strong cognitive dissonance, therefore the powerful psychological mechanisms aren’t turned on, which leads to lesser happiness. When people can’t change their minds, then their minds change the reality for them through cognitive dissonance leading them to value their current situation more. Lecture 6: Conformity Social Influence: We tend to underestimate the power of other people in altering our behaviour Social Influence: a change in a person’s thoughts, feelings, or actions that is due to another person, either real or imagined ○ Can target any aspect of a person’s psychology (e.g., cognitions, emotions, behaviour) ○ Other people can be real (flesh in blood in front of you) or imagined (cannot see physically, living in your thoughts/imagination EX: thinking of what to wear to work by thinking what your peers would wear) ○ How others influence our actions ○ Social influence occurs both in the presence/absence of people (as long as you’re imagining that there are people present) Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Three Major Kinds of Social Influence: Conformity: changing one’s thinking, feeling, or behaviour to be consistent with another person or group ○ E.g., picking jeans based on judgement of whether someone else will like it Compliance: responding favorably to an explicit request by another person ○ E.g., agreeing to babysit for a friend, will you take my shift to work Obedience: changing one’s behaviour in response to the demands of a more powerful person/authority figure ○ E.g., getting pulled over while driving and agreeing to show license to police officer, following order The boundaries between these categories are fuzzy… all social interactions involve some degree of ambiguity ○ Any interaction can fall into conformity/compliance /obedience at any given time ○ EX: the prof says can you turn off the lights Feels like compliance as it is a request Also feels like authority as it is the prof which could be obedience 1] Conformity: Everybody Else is Doing It Social conformity affects many aspects of our lives (e.g., clothes, haircuts, names, etc.) ○ Mushroom haircuts use to be cool (slow but shift consensus) ○ What we wear ○ Our taste in what is fashionable changes depending on social conformity ○ Popularity changes across decades (slow shift in conformity) Social conformity also influences the meanings of words and how we communicate (how we tie sounds/symbols to meaning) ○ Language is a set of arbitrary symbols that mean specific things EX: cat refers to a thing, has a meaning everyone agrees If by cat it refers to one thing and someone else believes it means something else then the word cat loses its value as a linguistic device ○ The meanings assigned are only useful to the extent that people agree on the meaning ○ People wont know what Google is 30 years ago ○ The word “awful” means something terrible/bad but back in time it means “full of aw” (means the opposite) Changes in Moral Values ○ Our fundamental sense of goodness and badness is constantly in flux ○ Historical practices that were accepted before are no longer accepted now Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ People rely on the values of others to shape their own values Conformity is also exhibited by other species ○ A group of small fish form a large “bait ball” to avoid a predator ○ Mate choice copying: occurs when the probability that individual A chooses individual B as a mate increases, when A observes B being picked by others Seen in fruit flies, rats, and humans ○ These show that social conformity is maybe an evolutionary adaptation Facilitated survival and reproduction Fish ⇒ bait ball helps survival by avoiding predators Mate choice copying ⇒ social information used to pick mates to reduce the time, energy, and strategy needed to select a mate (a preferred individual means that they are a high quality mate) Conformist tendencies may have helped in the tasks of survival and reproduction EX: Asch’s Line Judgements ○ Participants performed simple line test ○ Given 3 lines and a target line; choose the line that is the same length as target line ○ People did this under scenarios of social pressure ○ In experiment: only one real participant, six confederates (other actors in on the experiment ○ Confederates say choose the wrong answer ○ Result: Alone, participants made fewer than 1% errors; with group pressure, 37% of answers were wrong ○ This varied by individual, but only 25% of participants stayed independent throughout I.e., 75% of people gave an obviously incorrect answer and went with group pressure ○ Informational conformity: Sometimes we go along with a group because what they say convinces us that they are right (that you can benefit from other peoples information) ○ Normative conformity: conforming because we are afraid that the group will disapprove of us if we are deviant (want to go along because you want to be liked by them) People like those similar to them Asch circumvented this by having participant write down their response instead of reciting it verbally Caused conformity to drop by ⅔ ○ Asch’s study shows that people will deny what they see and submit to group pressure Allows us to see the conditions that increase/decrease conformity Normative Conformity: the need to be liked ○ “Norm” = group “rule” or belief about how members should act in certain context ○ Occurs when people go along with the group in order to be liked by the group EX: A professor says a joke you dont find funny, yet you see others laughing (you did not find it funny yet you went along) Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ People tend to like others who are like themselves So people match themselves to other people in order to be liked by them Called “normative” because it involves conforming to “norms” (social rules that govern group behaviour) ○ Driven by our need to be liked by other people ○ Doesn’t always operate consciously; operates on an instinctive and on conscious level (e.g., clapping) ○ Two kinds of “norms”: injunctive vs. descriptive Injunctive Norms: the “should” rules that are explicit and well known Official laws, rules policies; the explicit values of a social group People only conform to these normas all the time ○ EX: should the death penalty be abolished?, should abortion be legal/illegal? Descriptive Norms: reflect what people actually do, not the “hard rules”. “What is” the case EX: you walk into a restaurant with everyone shat turned around (backwards), as a result you do the same Often unspoken and simply inferred e.g., U of T students wear U of T sweaters These two norms can conflict E.g., a place with a “no food.drink sign,” but most people there are eating Injunctive norm is conflicting with descriptive norm These two norms can clash with each other EX: injunctive norm: at a funeral people should not laugh. Now imagine you walk into a funeral and you see everyone laughing. Injuctive norm and descriptive norm conflicting Informational Conformity: the need to be right ○ Our decisions and judgements are always made under a cloud of uncertainty ○ We rely on the fact that other people have information that we don’t ○ We can use other people’s information to reduce the uncertainty in our own decisions and make correct responses EX: walking down a forest with 4 friends, then 2-3 of them start running a direction. As a result you start running. This is because at an unconscious/instinctive level you feel as if they have information about the environment that you do not Maybe they seen a snake/threat EX: Facebook altered the news feed of 61 million people to manipulate social conformity and did this in the domain of voting. In the US elections facebook randomly picked 61 million users and presented them with 1 of 3 conditions. In one condition (control) participants were not shown anything special (had their facebook news feed, no change) Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 In the informational message condition: facebook shoed its users a number describing how many people voted in the elections up to the point (run on tally) In the social message condition: facebook added one feature to the informational message scenario, but also displayed who in their own friends list voted in the election including their face, name, etc. Result: Those who were given the social message condition were 2%(a lot considering 61 million people) more likely to vote than those given the informational message condition. Compared to the control condition condition those in the social message condition were about 0.3% (roughly 400,000 votes) more likely to vote A second reason that we need social psychology even when they're not radically counterintuitive, social processes can be very subtle. Conducted a study to try to answer the question is your own emotional state going to depend on the emotional states of those in your friends Is how good/bad your feeling influenced by how good/bad your friends happen to be feeling/displaying on their facebook feeds at the time. A study recently conducted by Facebook looked at a process called emotional contagion. Emotional Contagion: A process which has to do with the automatic and involuntary spread of emotional states from one person to another. Facebook and Cornell University conducted a (highly controversial/unethical) research study to understand whether emotional contagion can operate within large-scale social networks (i.e. no face-to-face interaction between people). Considered to be one of the largest experiments with human participants (700, 000 users) Because an emotional state of a person can be expressed through writing online, what Facebook did is that they manipulated the news feed of a large number of randomly selected Facebook users. People in the experiment did not know this manipulation was happening In one experiment, the news feed was filtered to have less positive content versus positive content not reduced, and in the second, the news feed of other users was filtered to have less negative content versus negative content not reduced. The research question was “if you were exposed to less positive content from your friends, do you post less positive content yourself?” and “if you're exposed to less negative content from your friends, do you post less negative content yourself?” Using an algorithm, Facebook conducted the experiment… Dependent Variable: User’s own emotional state operationalized as percentage of words in his/her status update that were positive or negative. In total, over 3 million status updates were analyzed Results: Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 POS: When positive content was reduced versus not reduced, status updates of users also became comparatively less positive. POS: When negative content in the news feed reduced compared to not reduced status updates of the users became more positive. NEG: When positive content was reduced, compared to not reduced status update became more negative NEG: When negative contact was reduced compared to not reduced status updates became less negative. Facebook states they shown emotional contagion comes and borrows from the theme of viruses. Just like a virus is contagious, jumps from person to person, emotional states are also contagious over social networks where it jumps from person to person Maybe the user is not sad they are posting good/bad news so Ill do it too Principles of Social Conformity: (1) Conformity can lead to private acceptance (not just public compliance) ○ Public compliance: whether people are merely changing external behaviour to match how they appear with others on the surface In the Asch experiment when the person gives the wrong response but mentally continue to believe their own independent correct response ○ Private acceptance: people internally adopt the group opinion/consensus of the pressuring/influencing group. Changing your own mind (think/fee/perceive) ○ Conformity can change private acceptance in addition to public compliance ○ Zaki et al. (2012): Social Conformity and Private Acceptance Participants presented with male and female faces Phase 1: participants had to rate the attractiveness of a face on a scale of one to seven Then given feedback on how peers rated the face Trials ⇒ shown that peers rated that face as 2 points more/less/equal attractive that participant’s rating (you gave a 4 yet your peers gave a 6) Participants led to believe that feedback was from strangers 180 trials, social feedback only shown for 2 seconds, feedback (presumably) from complete strangers Phase 2: saw 180 faces again and had to indicate rating of attractiveness a second time (30 mins later with brain imaging FMRI) Researchers wanted to see if conformity changes both outward behaviour and internal judgements Examined activity in nucleus accumbens (involved in assigning positive value, pleasure/reward) Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 A person’s valuation of facial activity would be reflected by nucleus accumbens activity (The more attractive the person thinks the face is, the more activity in nucleus accumbens) Result: Participant ratings of a face became higher after exposure to feedback that other people had rated the face to be more attractive that originally (vice versa if they saw that the face was rated more negatively) However, feedback that other people had rated the face to be less attractive impacted the participant ratings of the face greater. Bad > Good Negatives events carry an urgency (you need to act now sense) Nucleus accumbens activity: ○ Peer rated higher ⇒ greater NA activity ○ Peer rated lower ⇒ lower NA activity Shows that NA activity in response to facial beauty is shaped by exposure to social feedback Shows that social conformity changes BOTH PUBLIC COMPLIANCE AND PRIVATE ACCEPTANCE (2) Conflicting with group opinion can produce an error-like response ○ Learning that one’s views are different from the group norm evokes an error-like response ○ If they do not conform their brain treats that like an error/mistake The mind sounds an internal alarm if one is inconsistent with the group ○ Klucharev er al. (2009): Facial Attractiveness Participants completed same task as in Zaki et al. (2012) ⇒ independent judgements about faces, then presented with social feedback Key question: what happens in the brain when a person first learns that their opinion is different from group opinion? Rostral cingulate cortex ⇒ increased activity when there is conflict with group rating vs. when there is no conflict would launch an error response (“oh shoot” response). Detects error Plays a role in people’s monitoring of internal conflict Active during Stroop paradigm and when people learn that their opinion is different from the group norm ○ The Stroop effect refers to a delay in reaction times between congruent and incongruent stimuli. The congruency, or agreement, occurs when the meaning of a word and its font color are the same. For example, if the word “green” is printed in the color green. Incongruent stimuli is just the opposite (slower response/more errors) Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Results: When participants learned they were in conflict with the group (non-conforming), the brain seemed to launch this error like response (“oh shoot”) When participants learned they were in agreement with the group (conforming), the brain (cingulate cortex) was silenced May show that brain is automatically tuned to identify when we deviate from group norms, and then immediately initiates processes that lead us back to becoming consistent with group again ○ Automaticity of social conformity People differ in the extent to which they experience internal conflict when they deviate from group norms Some experience a lot of conflict, so they are more driven to conform to the group (prevents conflict) Other experience little/no conflict, so no motivation to conform ○ (These differences have not been tested) (3) Conformity can alter preferences rapidly ○ Changes in private acceptance can occur very quickly ○ Brain decides quickly if it will conform or not ○ Faces paired with social feedback One condition (ordinary face trial): participants led to believe that peers only judged the faces as “ordinary”. Was shown an average looking face with an actual peer rating. Second condition (attractive face: low peer-rating trial): participants led to believe that peers only judged the faces to be “less attractive”. Was shown a highly attractive face with a reduced peer rating Third condition (attractive face: high peer-rating trial): participants led to believe that peers judged the faces to be “highly attractive”. Was shown a highly attractive face with an increased peer rating Conformative pressure changed participants’ judgements Person’s judgement of a face is quickly altered EEG ⇒ high temporal resolution; can measure brain activity every millisecond (every millisecond tells a different story) Compared to FMRI where you can only sample the brains activity on the order of seconds (typically 2s). EEG can measure at a very fine timescale How quickly does the brain become sensitive to socia feedback (that your friends think differently from you) Showed that social conformity begins to alter neural responses to face perception within the first 200-300 ms from when the face was presented (very rapidly). The brain differentiates between the high and low peer ratings. What Affects Levels of Conformity?: Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Conformity is not a constant; it in/decreases across time, people, and situations Situational Factors ○ Ambiguity & Relative Lack of Expertise EX: if you and your friends went out and are deciding what movie to watch. The level of ambiguity is high because nobody has a clue. More likely to rely on conformity The more unclear the proper way to behave is, the more people will rely on others Ambiguity is much more likely to influence informational conformity that normative conformity When a situation is ambiguous, you lack information about it, so you rely on others’ opinions Lack of expertise: when you lack expertise/knowledge on something, you’re more likely to fall back on what other people are saying ○ Group Size How big is the group doing the influencing? Standley Milgram, Bickman, & Berkowitz (1969) Confederates stared up at a building for no reason Numerous passersby started looking up too Conformity increased as a function of group size (The larger the number of confederates staring up, the more passersby looked up too) Plateaus at a certain point As group size increases so does conformity but with an important caveat (not linear) ○ Uniformity Everyone in the group is in full agreement. If there is a single person who does not fit in then the groups’s uniformity has been broken. One person breaking the mold can help to reduce conformity “Ally” in Asch study ⇒ suggests that not conforming (if stuck with your own judgment) to a group might influence others to do the same Group conformity may be maintained by a false illusion of consensus Breaking this consensus helps dissolve illusion of uniformity ⇒ gives others psychological freedom to differ Is Conformity a Force for Good or Harm? Conformity can be seen as an evolutionary adaptation Conformity is useful to survive (deriving information/collaboration with people) Not conforming will cause some conflict/clashes The man who did not solute (not sure why he didn’t solute) But is also responsible for human atrocities (e.g., in Nazi Germany) Following the crowd without thinking can give people a “moral license” to behave in their worst way (e.g., mob violence) Recent research examined whether conformity pressures can be used toward positive goals Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Are people more likely to behave generously when they see others behaving that way? ○ Facebook displays the donations to charities made by user’s friends Idea is that exposure to the donations made by people in your social network will increase likelihood that you will also donate ○ Stanford study (Nook et al., 2016) Stingy norm: participants saw that others had not donated/only small amount; generous norm: participants saw that others donated a lot People in generous norm condition donated around double the amount donated by those in stingy norm condition Conformity can also be used to increase voting behaviour ○ Randomly selected FB users either saw nothing (control condition), raw number of FB users who voted (informational message condition), number and pics of friends who voted (social message condition) ○ Social message condition ⇒ led to more voting behaviour (2% increase in self-reported voting) 2] Compliance: Just Say Yes The “Business” of Compliance The goal of compliance is to receive a favorable response to a request ○ Salespeople ○ Fundraisers ○ Telemarketers ○ Advertisers ○ Dating/romance? Compliance has no intrinsic moral status ○ The nature of the request can be ethical/unethical/neutral Cialdini’s Tricks of the Trade (Robert Cialdini) Felt being manipulated from doing requests Trick 1: Reciprocity ○ When you do someone a favor, they will feel obliged to return it (if you offer it first) ○ Mint experiment: Restaurant servers providing mint with the bill 1 mint ⇒ tip increased by 3-4% 2 mints ⇒ tip increased by 9-12% 1 mint + “apparent thoughtfulness” (server returns with another mint and says it’s because the customer is special) ⇒ tip increased by 25% Trick 2: Consistency and Commitment ○ Foot in the Door: easier to get someone to agree to a larger request if they already agreed with a smaller, related request ⇒ to maintain consistency If they have already agreed to a smaller request, they agree to the Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 larger request in order to see themselves as consistent ○ Friedman and Fraser (1966) Asked homeowners if they would put a large billboard about driving safety on their lawn Baseline (without any manipulation) 17% said yes With a “foot in the door” condition ⇒ 76% compliance ○ 2 weeks before the billboard request, people were asked if they support safe driving and if they would put a tiny sticker about safe driving in their house (fridge) ○ This implicitly committed the person to be an active supporter of safe driving ⇒ made them more likely to agree to the larger request AGAIN: The “food in the door” condition is motivating a person’s desire to see themselves as internally consistent in their values and behaviours People like consistenty ○ American Cancer Society (ACS) called community members and asked about their attitudes towards volunteering (are you the type of person to volunteer) “How likely do you think you would be to spend 3 hours collecting donations for a non-profit?” ○ ACS calls 3 days later and asks them to volunteer ⇒ volunteerism increased by 700% 3] Obedience: I Was Just Following Orders Obedience Nuremberg Trials ○ WWII and the subsequent claims by those who carried out the Holocaust ⇒ they were “just following orders” ○ During WW2, the Nazi killed a lot of people, and at the end, Hitler killed himself, but many other officers and people involved were caught and brought to trials to question why they killed all those people. ○ Their response was that they were just obeying orders. Although we may think of this as a lame excuse to evade guilt, obedience is a very strong force and can lead normal people to do shocking things. ○ “The Banality of Evil” ⇒ claims that evil is unremarkable and commonplace Hannah Arendt: proposed that evil committed by Nazis was not due to their character, but that they were ordinary people led to do extraordinary things due to extraordinary circumstances Stanley Milgram (1933-1984) ○ Hypothesized that the German cultural style included a deference to authority ⇒ carry out Holocaust ○ Wanted to know why people did these things that us people would called autrocious Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ Plan was to test hypothesis in US then compare to results to be obtained from Germany ○ Predicted that Germans would show higher obedience; Americans used as baseline ○ Tried to recruit ordinary people from the New Haven community in the US ○ Ages 20-50 Milgram’s Obedience Studies (1963) ○ Participants reported for a study they believed was on learning ○ The real subject “randomly” assigned to be teacher, and the confederate (actor, was in on the experiment) to be the learner ○ The teacher was asked to give progressively intense shocks to the learner for each error What proportion of the participants would administer the highest intensity of shock even though they know clearly the learner is in pain At some point “learner” pleads to stop/says has a heart condition If participant/teacher wants to stop, experimenter says they must continue ○ Key Finding: Fully 65% of participants actually gave the highest level of shock This dropped to 10% if there are two other confederates who rebel ○ Showed Milgram that there is no cultural style specific to Germans that make them more obedient; most Americans will also obey ○ “When I was debriefed, explained what had happened, I was horrified. Really, really, horrified. They kept saying, ‘You didn’t hurt anyone, don’t worry,’ but it’s too late for that... You’ve given shocks. You thought you were really giving shocks, and nothing can take away the knowledge of how you acted. There’s no turning back.” ○ “Is the obedience observed in the laboratory in any way comparable to that seen in Nazi Germany? The answer must be that while there are enormous differences of circumstance and scope, a common psychological process is centrally involved in both events.” ○ Study caused much stress in participants; they were disturbed by how they acted Many participants developed serious mental illnesses (PTSD) after the study Lecture 7: Group Influence What is a group and how do they interact with each other? Is it possible for people to change their attitudes about an enemy group? Can you change your feelings towards an enemy group? Can we promote peace in the Middle East? War between Israel (Jews) and Palestine. The role of attributions ○ Can these groups change their feelings towards each other Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 One potential approach is we can make different attributions for people’s behaviours ○ Attributions can be: Dispositional (person’s behaviour reflects their internal characteristics) Situational (person’s behaviour arises due to situational forces around them) ○ The authors in this study built their hypothesis on the insight that if you were to attribute the enemy groups behaviour to situational causes rather than dispositional causes (viewing the attacks or insults of the enemy groups as being a product not of the groups inherit character, not because they are bad people, but rather to their social circumstances This would change how you viewed the group ○ People have a fundamental attribution error = they tend to make dispositional attributions rather than situational ones (believe that another person’s behaviour arises because of their character rather than situational forces) ○ But these attributions may be flexible… One experiment tried to change how Israeli’s and Palestinians attributed the enemy’s behaviour ○ Researchers had Israelis or Palestinians read an article that they believed was written by a leading psychologist (tried to establish credibility); the article presented one of two arguments: One on hand, it argued that enemy’s behaviour arises due to dispositional causes, therefore remains fixed and unchangeable On the other hand, it argued that enemy’s behaviour comes about from situational causes, and therefore is malleable ○ After reading the articles, participants were asked to indicate their feelings about the groups and asked how much they agree with the following statements on a 1-5 or 7 scale: “All Jews/Palestinians are evil by nature” “All that Jews/Palestinians really want is to annihilate our homeland” “Jews/Palestinians should never be trusted” Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 ○ Findings show that across 3 studies when people read the situational attribution article compared to the dispositional attribution article (Dispositional → Situational), it led to less negative attitudes towards enemy group which in turn predicted greater willingness to compromise for peace If such attitudes can be pushed away easily in a positive direction, can they also be swayed in a negative direction? Crime and punishment: Altering beliefs about free will can change attributions ○ If you believed someone did something through free will, you would be making a disposition attribution (internal). ○ If you stop believing in free will (something outside of them social environment/genetic history), it becomes hard to hold a dispositional attribution therefore a situational attribution In one type of study researchers tried to change people’s belief in free will ○ Then they examined the impact of this by a participant’s judgment about how severely someone should be punished for a crime Free will did not exist scenario: is an illusion, no such thing versus a neutral scenario Manipulated free will differently: had people undergo training in neuro science or another academic domain such as geography. The more you learn about the brain the less likely you will believe in free will because the more you will be exposed to behaviour/decisions/feelings are the product of processes that you do not control Participants read a hypothetical scenario about a person who had committed a crime and had to indicate how long this person should be sent to jail (did this after experimenters tried to manipulate their belief in free will by exposing them to content that argued that free will either existed or not) Prediction that if you go from a disposition → situational attribution (from believing that somebody behaved from free will to behaving to courses/sources outside of their control), you would less likely to punish this person ○ Participants who were led to believe that free will did not exist were more forgiving in their judgements towards these hypothetical criminals (gave lenient prison sentences) Group polarization: How do groups influence us when we are apart of a group compared to being alone? General pattern in which being in a group and interacting with its members tends to push people towards a more extreme position in their thinking, judgements, and behaviours ○ More extreme position than they held alone, by themselves ○ However groups can also do the risk adverse (more cautious) ○ Groups tend to amplify the initial inclination of the members of the group Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 If the initial inclination is leaning towards risk adverse then being in a group will make them more risk adverse If the initial inclination is leaning towards risk prone then being in a group will make them more risk prone Myers and Helmut Lamm definition: The average post-group response will tend to be more extreme in the same direction as the average of the pre-group responses; groups amplify people’s initial inclinations ○ Risk-taking behaviours (e.g if you’re naturally a risk taker and you are put in a group with other risk takers, this characteristic will be amplified) Also occurs with moderately cautious people. ○ Attitudes on social and moral issues (should we legalize death penalty/drugs?) ○ Jury decisions ○ Person perception (how attractive/kind/trustworthy you find somebody?) Group polarization: influences and causes: Moderating factors: ○ Group composition: polarization is stronger when groups are homogenous (similar/alike); members are seen as likeable, and friendly; physical closeness (closely seated) ○ Presence of an outgroup: polarization is stronger when exposed to an outgroup (EX: bring a bunch of UTSC students are told to decide how much money they are willing to invest in some risky venture that could benefit UTSC. The students are beginning in a position where they are in slight risk proness (inclined to making a riskier investment). Now they are introduced to an outgroup to these students (now not independently), physically seated near waterloo students. If these UTSC students make the decision in the context of a competing outgroup they will show an even bigger shift towards risk taking/risk prone) ○ Initial position: polarization is stronger when initial position is more extreme (vs neutral). The more risk prone UTSC students happen to be the more more risk prone they’ll become. Causal factors: ○ Persuasive arguments: members move towards the stronger, more persuasive argument ○ Social comparison: people’s desire to be liked (rather than their desire to get the best information) so they adopt the most dominant position (to fit in) A 3rd possible cause: The crowd-emotion amplification effect: When in a group and trying to form an impression about the group’s overall position our attention is most likely to be captured and biased by the most emotionally arousing signals in that group; (the most emotional cues will be dominant in our brains) results in overestimating the level of emotionality in that group Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Researchers presented participants with groups of faces (groups ranging in size from 1 face – 12 faces) ○ Faces in each group differed in the level of emotionality ○ For instance, showed a group of angry faces that differed in levels of anger and also showed a set of happy faces separately ○ Participants’ job was to try and figure out the average level of anger displayed in the group So, researchers had the true average level of anger of the group and the participants’ subjective estimate of average level of anger Participants used a dial to indicate how much emotion there is in the group of people ○ If crowd amplification effect if true, you would predict that the participant’s estimate of group anger would be higher than the true average level of group anger ○ Data showed that as group sizes increased, the more the participants overestimate the level of emotionality in the group (therfore conforming to an illusion) ○ Crowd-emotion amplification effect is greater for angry faces than happy faces For a long time, the dominant view has been that being immersed in a group brings the worst in people. It makes them do extreme things that they would not have done if acting alone. How Does Feeling Arise? People interacting with each other can produce psychological phenomenon that cannot be reduced to one person: ○ Two introverts each with low self-disclosure (shy, keep things private) in a romantic relationship become highly disclosive between each other (tell each other stuff about themselves they normally wouldn’t share) ○ High self-disclosure rises in the interaction Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Good descriptions of this view come from writing of Gustav Le Bon, who authored “The crowd; A study of the popular mind” He states that in a crowd, a man is a barbarian, a creature acting by instinct Lebon proposes that humans have ugly instincts that are released in a group setting (negative) There is evidence for this negative view: ○ People tend to act more aggressively in crowds than acting alone Suggests that we all have instincts and impulses that push us towards aggression, but these are normally controlled by self regulation ○ When in a group, these constraints loosen up leading us towards ‘bad’ behaviour De-individuation: The process where people lose their self consciousness in the middle of a group Less “individual” Being in a group leads to a loss of self-control that pushes us to partake in aggressive, ‘bad’ behaviours In a study, researchers examined whether people are more likely to behave immorally when in a group vs alone: ○ Used trick-or-treating during Halloween to ask whether children are more likely to steal candy and money when in a group ○ Researchers placed candy and money in full view of children and secretly observed their behaviors, and examined under which conditions children are more likely to steal ○ Found that stealing was higher when children were anonymous compared to when their identity was clearly visible Stealing was also higher when children were in groups compared to when being alone (feel of guilt is spread towards the whole group rather than just alone) Highest rates of stealing were found when both these factors converged Changes in self-consciousness as the cause of de-individuated behaviours: These negative impacts of group presence is driven by de-individuation When in groups, people blend into it and the usual psychological boundaries that separate the self from the environment begin to collapse Research shows that changes in self consciousness do in fact change a person’s moral behaviour ○ If you put people in a situation and make it easy for them to do something immoral, then many would go ahead and do it ○ But if you add a simple mirror in the room so the person observes themselves and therefore increasing self-consciousness, then immoral behaviour decreases De-individuation: Downloaded by Feronia ([email protected])  lOMoARcPSD|47283328 Immersion in group → reduced self-consciousness → uninhibited behaviour (acts people regret) Is de-individuation inherently negative?: It is not, as it may produces positive consequences The effect of de-individuation may depend on what is occurring in the group more broadly Some research shows that when the group is engaging in pro