Social Exam 1 PDF

FIND GOALS FOR EACH STUDY CHECK FOR PRACTICE QUESTIONS Exam 1 Social Cognition: The Basics What is social cognition? An approach that merges social psychology with cognitive Social psychology Scientific study of how people's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors...

FIND GOALS FOR EACH STUDY CHECK FOR PRACTICE QUESTIONS Exam 1 Social Cognition: The Basics What is social cognition? An approach that merges social psychology with cognitive Social psychology Scientific study of how people's feelings, thoughts, and behaviors influenced by actual, imagined or implied presence of others Cognitive psychology Study of mental processes (perception, thinking, learning, memory) Social cognition examines social psychological questions with a focus on mental processes that lead to behavior Context- social situation ○ Physical context Physical location Psychological context- one’s current mood, experienced emotions, motivational states Stimulus -Something that elicits a response (person, object, idea) Dual Process Theory People process information in two different ways: automatic and controlled ○ Automatic Thinking is unconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and cognitively effortless; often operates based on cognitive association Sometimes referred to as system 1 processings (thinking fast)  ○ Controlled Thinking is conscious, intentional, voluntary, and requires cognitive effort and resources to function efficiently-based on logic and language System 2 processing- Thinking slow Tasks done by system 1 ○ Math problems like 2+2=? ○ Make a “disgust” face in response to something gross ○ Drive a car on an empty road Tasks done by system 2 ○ Answer 36x42=? ○ Monitoring behavior in social contexts ○ Focusing on road in bad snow storm The law of least effort ○ People tend to prefer the least demanding option/course of action (of all available options) to accomplish goals System 1 often produces intuitive appealing answers; and those answers guide behavior and thinking unless System 2 expends enough effort to check AND correct System 1’s conclusion Dual process theory in social cognition ○ Persuasion: elaboration likelihood model ○ Attitudes: MODE model ○ Cultural cognition: analytic vs holistic thinking Accessibility and Mental Representation Social cognition researchers are often interested in mental representation: ○ Mental content- what we know ○ Mental organization- how is it organized in memory Schemas- cognitive structures that organize memory and influence social perception and judgment ○ Ex- primary effects in impression formation- the initial information we learn about someone influences how we evaluate later information about the same person Rick: Pessimistic – unhappy – persistent – sentimental – generous Morty: Generous – sentimental – persistent – unhappy – pessimistic What schemas do we apply? Depends on: ○ Availability Whether or not some particular knowledge is actually stored in memory ○ Accessibility The activational potential of available knowledge  Greater accessibility means it is more likely to be used in information processing (and more likely to guide behavior and thought) Chronic accessibility-concepts or schemas that are always highly accessible Ex-Extroverted person has concept of being social always accessible Knowledge must be available for it to be accessible Persuasion Persuasion ○ The Elaboration Likelihood Model What are attitudes? Tendency to evaluate an object, person, or idea in a more favorable or unfavorable manner ○ Valence- positive or negative Indifference or ambivalence Persuasion The process of changing one’s attitude toward something Elaboration likelihood model-dual process model that posits persuasive communication can cause attitude change via two professing routes: central and peripheral ○ Elaboration refers to the amount of effortful thinking and critical analysis engaged in when processing persuasive messages. ○ This level of elaboration determines whether the central or peripheral route of persuasion is used. ELM Attitude change depends on extent of elaboration ○ Peripheral route processing- little to no elaboration (automatic processing) regarding persuasive message Operation of processes at the low end of the continuum determines attitudes ○ Central route processing- effortful thinking (controlled processing) and though generation regarding the persuasive message Operation of processes at the high end of the continuum determines attitudes Considers arguments, internal consistency, and logical flow of points. Importance of Distinction  ○ Attitudes changed through central route processing tend to be stronger and more long-lasting compared to those changed through peripheral route processing. ○ Central route processing involves more critical thinking, which helps in forming stronger mental connections and influences long-term attitudes. ○ Peripheral route processing typically leads to more temporary and less stable attitude The ELM assumes that when making an evaluative judgment, the default goal is to determine how good or bad the object truly is. ○ More motivation and ability results in greater central route processing ○ Ability Distracted while attending to messages? Available cognitive resources? ○ Motivation Matching effects-makes message self relevant by matching a characteristic of the audience with a characteristic of the message or message’s source Ex- for you feeds on social media ○ Need for cognition- personality trait that reflects the extent to which one enjoys effortful thinking Factors Affecting Elaboration Ability to Elaborate ○ Cognitive Resources Requires mental capacity to engage in critical thinking. Example Trying to engage in detailed analysis while distracted or mentally fatigued is challenging. ○ Distraction Engaging in multiple tasks or being distracted reduces the ability to focus on the message. Example Doing homework while watching a debate makes it difficult to process the debate content thoroughly. ○ Mental Fatigue Exhaustion from prior cognitive tasks limits the ability to engage in further mental effort. Example After a long day at work, discussing complex topics may be difficult due to mental exhaustion. Motivation to Elaborate  ○ Personal Relevance Higher motivation is achieved when the message is personally relevant or impactful. ○ Involvement Greater involvement increases the willingness to invest cognitive effort into processing the message. Valence of generated thoughts depend on message quality ○ High quality→ more positive thoughts ○ Low quality→ more negative thoughts Attitude change depends on valence of generated thoughts ○ Positive thoughts predominate → positive attitude change ○ Negative thoughts predominate→ negative attitude change When processing is effortful (central route processing) When elaboration is LOW peripheral factors affect persuasion ○ Ex- source cues, one’s mood Attitudes changed through more central processing are stronger than attitudes changed though more peripheral processing ○ Positive Thoughts If a message is perceived as high quality, it leads to positive thoughts and a more favorable attitude. ○ Negative Thoughts If a message is perceived as low quality, it leads to negative thoughts and a less favorable attitude. ○ Attitude Change The ratio of positive to negative thoughts following central processing determines the overall attitude change. Positive thoughts lead to a more positive attitude, while negative thoughts lead to a more negative attitude.  ELM suggests that any one variable can work in multiple ways and sometimes produce opposite outcomes Simple cues that do not affect attitudes that are reported on deliberative measures often still have an impact on attitudes that are assessed with measures allowing for little thinking Real world applications Although both high and low thinking processes were associated with a reduction in the extremity of prejudiced attitudes, the reductions in prejudice produced by high thinking processes were more persistent and resistant to subsequent attacks than equivalent changes produced by less thoughtful mechanisms. Attitude strength Largest criticism of attitudes research- inconsistent attitude- behavior correspondence Attitudes vary in strength According to ELM-strong attitudes are attitudes that ○ Are durable Resistant to persuasion Stable (consistent over time) ○ Have impact Predictive of behavioral information Metacognitive model ○ Associated with ELM ○ Posits that attitudes consist of evaluate info (positive vs negative) and validity tags (ie, metacognitions) ○ Metacognition-understanding of one’s own thoughts  ○ A theory in psychology that explains how people's thoughts about their thoughts — or "metacognitions" — influence their attitudes, beliefs, and subsequent behavior. Emphasizes that it's not just the content of one's thoughts (i.e., what people think) that matters, but also how they think about those thoughts ○ Thought confidence is a metacognition that refers to a sense of how valid one's thoughts seem. Self validation hypothesis ○ Thoughts generated while elaborating only affect attitudes if those thoughts are deemed valid by the actor “Do I hold this attitude with confidence?” Am I conflicted in how I feel about this?” Attitudes toward xxx ○ → certainty ○ →mortality ○ → ambivalence Attitude strength Attitudes attributes that predict attitude strength: ○ Ambivalence Extent to which view something simultaneously ○ Certainty/confidence ○ Moralization ○ Importance ○ Self definition Other attributes by Luttrell and Sawicki article ○ Accessibility ○ Knowledge ○ Elaboration Importance Attitudinal importance- attitudes that actor believes are personally important to them ○ Greater importance predicts stronger attitudes More important attitudes are more resistant to persuasion Nostalgic attitudes are characterized by greater importance resulting in greater attitude behavior correspondence Self definition Attitudes that the actor believes signal something about their self concept to others ○ Greater self definition predicts stronger attitudes ○ Similar to but distinct from attitudinal importance  Reflects value expressive function of attitudes Attitudinal ambivalence Attitudinal ambivalence-having both positive and negative reactions to the same object ○ Objective ambivalence Degree to which people report having both positive and negative evaluations; sometimes called potential ambivalence Ignoring all negatives, how positively do you feel about this? Ignoring all the positives, how negatively do you feel about this? ○ Subjective ambivalence Psychological experience of felt conflict or indecision toward an object; sometimes called felt ambivalence To what extent do you feel indecision about this? To what extent do you feel mixed feelings? To what extent do you feel conflicted about this? Emotional Objective and subjective ambivalence are typically highly positively correlated ○ Different in culture contexts Greater ambivalence predicts weaker attitudes Ambivalence consequences Ambivalence can influence information processing (Jones et al 1997) ○ Negative relationships between feeling ambivalent and certainty/confidence As ambivalence goes up, certainty goes down If seeing both sides of an issue, not sure what the right way think about it is Lower confidence→ more controlled processing of information More controlled processing = elaboration, which translates better attitude behavior consistency (stronger attitude) Ambivalence personality How do individual differences relate to ambivalence? ○ Preference for consistency is positively associated with discomfort holding ambivalent attitudes You want your opinions and feelings to align without sense of contradiction -this gets in the way ○ Mindfulness negatively associated with discomfort for holding ambivalent attitudes ○ Need for cognition positively associated with holding ambivalent attitudes  People predispositionaly enjoy thinking -more likely to expose self to lots of information Ambivalence -culture Dialectical thinking ○ Style of thinking wherein people tolerate and accept apparently contradictory information More prevalent in east asian cultures than western ○ See world and universe as constantly changing and world then contradicts Dialecticism and ambivalent attitudes (Luttrell 2022) ○ Past research showed in western cultures having an ambivalent attitudes (obj amb) results in feelings of discomfort (subj amb) ○ Current research: does this relationship generalized cross cultural? Prediction: greater dialecticism should attenuate the relationship between objective and subjective ambivalence Study 1- individual differences in DT among american P’s ○ Results: P’s that thought more dialectically were not as bothered (subj amb) by holding very ambivalent (obj amb) attitudes Study 2- cultural differences (american vs taiwan) ○ Results: taiwanese P’s were not as bothered by holding very ambivalent attitudes compared to americans Discussion In what ways might ambivalence make decision making harder? Can ambivalence ever be a positive experience? ○ If can be positive-if helps you to be fair minded (politics) Blinded by wistfulness: on how nostalgia strengthens attitudes-Togans and McConnell Goal: Examine how the ambivalent emotion of nostalgia strengthens attitudes via shaping the metacognitive properties of nostalgic attitudes Hypothesized that nostalgic attitudes should be more: ○ Positive ○ More certain ○ More important ○ Less ambivalence (objective and subjective) Experiment: Nostalgia vs. Control ○ Study 1: Reflect on favorite song vs. listen to novel K-Pop song ○ Study 2: Reflect on nostalgic song vs. listen to novel English language song ○ Study 3: Reflect on nostalgic TV show vs. Reflect on recently started TV show ○ Study 4: Reflect on nostalgic song vs. Listen to someone else’s nostalgic song  Results – Nostalgic attitudes are characterized by: ○ Greater positivity ○ Greater importance ○ Less objective ambivalence ○ Lower ambivalence and greater importance mediate nostalgia’s relationship on behavioral intention Despite nostalgia being an ambivalent emotion, it results in most positive evaluations, which motivates more approach behavior (e.g., more likely to watch nostalgic show, less likely to skip nostalgic song) ○ Inconsistent evidence for nostalgia impacting certainty and subjective ambivalence Finds evidence that nostalgia strengthens our attitudes via importance but not self identification-why? ○ Valuable but doesn’t necessarily say about who we are as a person Attitudinal Moralization Attitudinal moralization- extent to which one believes their attitudes as being a reflection of their core moral beliefs ○ Greater moralization predicts stronger attitudes Merely perceiving a moral basis for an attitude strengthens it (Luttrell article) ○ Study highlights that three are not necessarily “moral issues” but whether the individual perceives the issue as moral Moralized attitudes more stable over time Moralization influences consumer purchasing (luttrell) ○ Study 1- correlational Participants perceived moralization toward different products and purchase intention of each product Results- moralization significantly predicted purchase intention (even when controlling for other attitude attributes like certainty) ○ Study 2- experimental Participants reflected on eco friendly house cleaners; randomly assigned to be told their attitudes reflected morals or practical concerns; then reported purchase intentions Results- participants assigned to be told their attitudes reflected morals reported greater likelihood to purchase the product ○ Results- Naturally held opinions or artificially -see pattern-attach sense of morality to attitudes, more like it will drive behavior Moralization differentiates disliking from hating (Petrus) ○ Testing two competing hypotheses  Intensity hypothesis- hated attitude objects will be rated as more negative than disliked ones, implying that hate is an extreme form of dislike Morality hypothesis- hated attitude objects will be rated as more morally relevant than disliked ones, indicating hate is linked to moral beliefs Object violating a key moral principle ○ Study 1-experiment Participants rated (attitudes, moralization) objects they hated, extremely disliked, liked, and loved Results- hated objects were equally negative as disliked objects, but hated objects were associated with greater moral concern ○ Study 2- naturalistic language use Compared online forum postings on complaint websites vs hate group website Predicted that hate group website postings would contain more moral language Examined using LIWC- text analysis tool that counts the frequency of words in different word categories Negative word ex- bad, terrible, awful Moral word ex- right, wrong, justice, evil Results- both groups featured equal levels of negative language, but hate group websites had more moral language Morality hypothesis is supported ○ Not all negative attitudes are created the same Moralization results in interpersonal intolerance (Wright) ○ Goal: Examined how moralized attitudes influence how we interact with others who hold opposing views ○ Participants reported attitudes and perceived moralization toward various topics, then were told they’d be working with a partner for next activity ○ Participants were first presented with an attitude statement from their partner that argued against the participants perspective; brought into room with an empty chair that had their partner’s backpack on it ○ DV: how closely the participants placed their chairs next to their partner’s chairs ○ Results- more moralization predicted farther distance away from partner Example of being around people with same political views Challenging Moral Attitudes With Moral Messages-Luttrell Three hypotheses  ○ Moral-matching hypothesis predicts that moral (vs. nonmoral) appeals would be especially persuasive for audiences with more morally based attitudes. By directly targeting the core basis of recipients’ attitudes, a message can be more effective. ○ Moral-strength hypothesis predicts that the more people’s attitudes are based in morality, the more they will resist persuasion, regardless of the nature of the message. When people perceive that an attitude reflects their core moral principles, they tend to experience it as an absolute truth and thus maintain their position when challenged, resisting change in the face of social influence and nonmoral persuasive arguments ○ Moral-rejection hypothesis, whereby moral (vs. non-moral) arguments that oppose an existing attitude may be even more objectionable when that attitude has a highly moral basis. People may be especially offended when moral attitudes are challenged with moral appeals, so moral conviction may be associated with even more resistance in the face of such arguments. Results ○ Moralized attitudes are more resistant to change This was only the case for messages making nonmoral arguments. ○ For messages appealing to moral concerns, attitude moralization was no longer associated with resistance. ○ The statistical interaction between degree of moral attitude basis and type of message delivered was consistent with the moral-matching hypothesis: Relatively moralized attitudes changed more when faced with moral (vs. practical) counterattitudinal messages. How does the paper challenge the assumption that moral attitudes are more resistant to persuasion? ○ Focus on metacognitive moral piece -work around even if not able to change moral perceptive Just talking in same language could help with persuasion How might the findings influence how we craft public health messages, political campaigns, etc? ○ If message morally matches correct audience-strengthen More effective than practicality ○ Attack others moral issues This is right and wrong instead of substance of the issue  How can moralization contribute to spread of misinformation and explained via the ELM (central vs peripheral routes of persuasion) ○ Moralization based on emotion mostly and spread from that then facts How might moralized opinions explain people’s reactions to social happenings? (supreme court rulings, etc) ○ More personally impacted, stronger opinion Attributional Certainty Certainty Attitudinal certainty- subjective sense of conviction with which one’s attitude si held; also referred to as attitudinal confidence Certainty has two underlying factors: clarity and correctness (Petrocelli et al., 2007) ○ Clarity- subjective sense that one knows what one’s attitude is “How certain are you that you know what your true attitude on this topic really is?” ○ Correctness- subjective sense that one’s attitude is correct and valid “How certain are you that your attitude toward this topic is the correct attitude to have?” Greater certainty predicts stronger attitudes Clarity and correctness serve unique roles in attitudinal advocacy (Cheatham & Tormala) ○ Advocacy- intentionally trying to get others to hold the same beliefs as oneself ○ Predicted that correctness is more likely to be predictive of persuading intentions, whereas clarity is more likely predictive of sharing one’s opinion with others If you believe your opinion is the correct one, this should motivate you to engage in behavior to make desire a reality Make other people share the same correct view ○ Experiment Manipulated opportunity to express attitudes towards mandatory community service program for undergrad students No expression condition: Participants did not have a chance to express their attitudes (low certainty) Expression condition: Participants reported attitudes 5 times using different scales (giving them chance to consolidate their opinion; high certainty) Participants ten reported attitudinal certainty (correctness, clarity) and intentions to persuade others and share opinion  Results: correctness and clarity both predict sharing intentions, but only correctness predicted persuasion intentions Greater opinions more predictive of behavior but how you go about it-how certainty manifests ○ If believe correct, try to persuade other people What doesn’t persuade you makes your attitude stronger? (Tormala & Petty) ○ Experiment Resisting a strong vs weak counterattitudinal message Afterward, participants listed counterarguments to persuasive message, reported certainty Results: Participants who believed their attitudes resisted strong persuasion attempts became more certain of their attitudes (ie. “I resisted the convincing message → I’m right → I’m confident”) Believing someone has “won” an argument (via resistance) results in even greater certainty; sometimes convincing arguments can backfire Certainty and Emotion Emotions can influence our perceptions of certainty (Tiedens & Linton, 2001) ○ Emotions vary in their appraisals of certainty Emotions that foster certainty- disgust, happiness, anger Emotions that foster uncertainty- fear, hopefulness, surprise ○ Feeling certain results in more peripheral route processing (ie. lacking motivation to elaborate) ○ Prediction: Experiencing emotions associated with appraisals of certainty should result in less elaboration ○ Experiment IV #1: Induced emotions w/ appraisals of (un)certainty IV #2: Peripheral cue: expert or non-expert DV: Attitude toward policy ○ Results Participants induced to experience emotions associated with certainty were more likely to be persuaded by the peripheral cue Certainty and Elaboration Thoughtfulness heuristic- attitudinal certainty increases when one believes they’ve done a lot of thinking about their opinion (Barden & Petty) Discussion Tormela et al- Time spent thinking impacts certainty ○ Hypothesize  Fast evaluation will foster greater certainty because fast evaluation in this context implies that an attitude is easily accessible and thus diagnostic or valid, ○ Predict An interaction pattern whereby slow evaluation promotes attitude certainty under formation focus and fast evaluation promotes attitude certainty under expression focus. Fast evaluation should foster greater certainty, whereas an alternative view suggests that slow evaluation should foster greater certainty. ○ Study 1 Hypothesis that the effect of PED on attitude certainty would depend on whether people assessed how they formed or how they expressed their attitudes. Manipulated participants’ focus on attitude formation versus expression IV Evaluative focus Perceived evaluation duration. DV Attitude certainty. Results When the focus is on formation, perceiving slow evaluation appears to produce greater certainty because it heightens perceptions of rational thought underlying the attitude. When the focus is on expression, perceiving fast evaluation promotes greater certainty because in this context fast evaluation induces the perception of greater ease of retrieving and reporting one’s attitude. Thinking fast results in certainty when expressing opinions, but thinking slow results in certainty when forming opinions Cognitive Dissonance Theory Cognitive Dissonance -People experience a state of discomfort when they hold two inconsistent cognitions or behaviors in a counterattitudinal manner ○ Example- a smoker who recognizes smoking is unhealthy Dissonance reduction- process of resolving the inconsistency triggering dissonance Several methods of dissonance reduction ○ Change a thought or behavior  ○ Add additional thoughts (ie. rationalization) ○ Trivialization The act of making something appear less important, serious, or difficult than it actually is ○ Distraction/misattribution Bring something else to mind ○ Self affirmation Recognizing and assessing the value of one’s self concept; explain how people adapt to info that threatens the self concept Bringing things important to mind and fixating ○ If feeling discomfort, increasing self positivity, reaffirming what makes you you, makes inconstancy go away Self concept model of dissonance ○ The contemporary perspective of dissonance ○ Posits we experience dissonance when we think or behave in a way that is counter to our positive, moral, competent self concept Implication of self concept is what distinguishes dissonance from general ambivalence Known triggers and consequences of dissonance: ○ Justification of effort affect- people’s tendency to attribute value to an outcome which they had to put effort into achieving Example- hazing/rites of passage ○ Ben Franklin effect- people are more likely to have positive attitudes toward people whom they do favors for (Jecker & Landy, 1969) Experiment- participants participate in game to win money; after game done one of three things happens: Ps asked by experiments to return money Ps asked by secretary to return money Nothing All Ps reported their attitude toward experimenter Results: Ps reported more favorable attitudes toward the experimenter if they did them a favor Hypocropy, Misattribution, and Dissonance Reduction (Fried and Aronson) Goal: Wanted to know if hypocrisy is truly a form of dissonance Hypocrisy paradigm ○ Have Ps publicly advocate for something positive (eg. recycling, wearing condoms) ○ Make salient for Ps past transgressions inconsistent with pro attitudinal advocacy (eg. not recycling, not wearing condoms)  Experimental design ○ All Ps made public speeches about the importance of recycling ○ IV 1- induced hypocrisy vs not ○ IV 2- opportunity to misattribute vs not ○ DV- # of phone calls Ps volunteered to make on behalf of a recycling organization ○ Results: Ps who induced to feel hypocritical but lacked the opportunity to misattribute made more phone calls than Ps in other conditions; hypocrisy is a form of dissonance Do GPs elicit cognitive dissonance? Self-Conscious & Moral Emotions Emotions as cognitions Social cognition of emotion Classification of emotions ○ Self-conscious emotions ○ Moral emotions Lazarus Cognitive Relational Motivational model ○ Emotions stem from appraisals (cognitive) about the person environment interaction (relational) specifically as it relates to one’s goal attainment (motivation) ○ Emotions are cognitive in nature and rooted in different evaluations making over a social situation What is going on as it relates to our goals ○ If two people draw same appraisal, should experience same emotion How does emotions influence behavior? ○ All emotions associated with specific behavioral action tendency- schema for how one should behave based on appraisal Positively valenced emotions motivate approaching behavior Negatively valenced emotions motivate avoidance behavior Emotion classifications Basic emotions Self conscious emotions Moral emotions Self conscious emotions Self conscious emotions (vs basic emotions) ○ Require self representation and self awareness ○ Develop later in life ○ Lack universal nonverbal signal (expect for pride) Pride ○ Emotion based on appraisals of accomplishment, success, and power  Action tendency: single accomplishments, tout status, reinforce valued behavior Only self conscious emotion to have universally recognized nonverbal expression 2 signals ○ Superman pose arms in air, power pose hands on hips Embarrassment ○ Emotion felt following engaging in perceived social transgression in front of others Action tendency- escape situation and/or apologize Guilt ○ Emotion felt when one perceives a specific behavior they have done transgresses a personal, moral value regarding harm Action tendency- apologize, remedy harm Shame ○ Emotion felt when one perceives the self as having transgressed one’s ideals or aspirations Action tendency- hide from scrutiny Differences between embarrassment, shame, and guilt? ○ Differ in intensity (embarrassment < guilt < shame) ○ Transgressions that elicit guilt/shame more morally based than those that elicit embarrassment ○ guilt/same do not require an audience to perceive the transgression Moral Emotions Moral emotions are emotions linked to the interests or welfare of society, or at least persons other than the actor Moral emotions classified based on whether: ○ The emotion is triggered by disinterested elicitors (someone other than the self) ○ Emotion promotes prosocial behavior Is it motivating to want to help other people Four families of moral emotions ○ Self conscious emotions Emotions that motivate us to engage in moral behavior or not to engage in immoral behavior Embarrassment, guilt, and shame -motivated not to experience these negative affective states by not engaging in immoral, negatively appraised behaviors  Pride- motivated to experience this emotion by engaging in upstanding moral behavior that we can signal to others ○ Ex: “I voted” stickers on election day and post it ○ Other suffering emotions (compassion and Other praising emotions (awe, gratitude) Emotions that orient people toward helping others Compassion- based on appraisal for underserved suffering; motivates actor to assist those in need Awe- based on appraising the self as “small” and less significant compared to some stimulus; prompts creator concern for others needs over personal needs Ex: experience a solar eclipse associated with people using more prosocial/collective language (we, us, care, together) ○ Other condemning emotions anger, disgust, contempt Emotions that motivate people to reprimand those who are perceived as engaging in immoral behavior Disgust- orients actor away from disgusting (immoral) stimuli ○ Signals to others that stimulus is immoral; sets up implicit “reward” system for those that avoid the stimulus Anger -most prototypical moral emotion; orients actor toward source of immoral behavior in attempt to rectify any caused harm Understanding Anger as a Moral Emotion (Landmann and Hess) Goal: Tested three competing hypotheses to understand third party anger ○ Moral outrage hypothesis ○ Empathetic anger hypothesis ○ Interaction of others outcome and moral outrage Study 1- moral violations in banking ○ Investigated third-party anger in the context of investing money ○ Assessed altruistic punishment and cooperation in economic decisions. ○ Participants read fictitious newspaper article ○ IV #1- moral violation (mild vs severe) ○ IV #2- others outcome (mild vs severe) ○ DV#1-emotions (anger and compassion) ○ DV#2- appraisals (moral violation, others outcome) ○ Results Moral outrage hypothesis was supported- feelings of anger were predicted by appraisals of moral violation, but not others’ outcome  Anger for a third party is solely based on perceptions of moral violations, regardless of perceived suffering of the third party Moral appraisals were affected by the manipulation of moral violation only The bank assistant’s behavior was appraised as more morally wrong when he knew about the risk of the equity fund What is the self? Self- collection of knowledge stored in memory about oneself based on their past experiences (behavior, thoughts, emotions, goals) Mental representation of the self ○ Self concept- what we believe to be true about ourselves ○ Identity- traits and characteristics, social relations, roles and social group memberships that define who one is Self, self concept, and identity nested within each other Multiple self aspects framework Multiple self aspects framework ○ Theoretical model of how the self concept is represented in memory ○ Posits that the self concept is composed of multiple, context dependent self aspects; each self aspect is associated with attributes (e.g traits) Self complexity Self complexity- If self concept composed of multiple self aspects that are associated with different attributes, then we can examine how complex people’s self concepts are Fewer self aspects, more attributes shared by self aspects→ lower self complexity More self aspects, fewer attributes shared by self aspects → higher self complexity Multiple Self-Aspects Framework  MSF useful for explaining: ○ How we respond to self relevant feedback ○ How the self moderates emotional experiences ○ How we navigate resolving cognitive dissonance McConnell, Rydell, and Brown (2009) Method ○ Ps who had a “student” self aspect vs Ps who did not ○ Ps evaluated 24 inkblot images as a “personality test” then received bogus feedback targeting a student self aspect (e.g “you are not very intelligent”); Ps reported mood after Results: Ps that had a “student” self aspect experienced mood changes consistent with the valence of the feedback; Ps who did not have “student” self aspect did not experience mood changes ○ Same effects occur when a self related attribute is targeted instead McConnell, Brown, Strain, Rydell (2009) Method ○ Wanted to investigate whether known predictors of well being had more pronounced effects for people lower in self complexity (i.e affective spillover) Study 1- social support (positively associated) Study 2- negative life occurrences (negatively associated) Results: In all studies, predictors of well being were more predictive of well being for Ps low in self complexity ○ Suggests low self complexity is double edged sword, as feedback of any kind results in the amplification of the resulting affective response Self complexity explains how people wrestle with dissonance affect (Brown & McConnell) Two competing hypotheses (based around Ps w/ low self complexity) ○ Pure attitude bolstering hypothesis predicts that because hypocrisy should promote greater attitude bolstering, those lower in self-complexity following the induction of dissonance would feel the most self-directed negative affect and thus show more attitude bolstering than those greater in self-complexity, who themselves should show some degree of attitude bolstering relative to people who do not experience any hypocrisy at all. ○ Mixed response hypothesis Although many people reveal attitude bolstering in the wake of dissonance, those who are lower in self-complexity may feel overwhelmed by the especially intense negative effect that results  from their hypocrisy and look for an immediate response to eliminate their especially strong negative affect, leading them to weaken their attitudes (i.e., shift them to be more consistent with their acknowledged transgressions) rather than to bolster their attitudes. Method ○ Ps first completed self complexity task ○ IV #1- hypocrisy (induced to feel hypocritical or not) ○ IV #2- self affirmation (ability to affirm self concept or not) ○ DV: level of attitude change Results ○ Mixed response hypothesis supported Ps with low self complexity who did not self affirm weakened their attitudes ○ Those greater in self-complexity showed more attitude bolstering following hypocrisy, whereas those lower in self-complexity responded by weakening their attitudes to be more in line with their transgressions. ○ Cognitive dissonance (in the current work, triggered by hypocrisy) does not produce similar responses in all individuals. Instead, the organization of the self-concept in memory appears to play an important role in determining how people respond to inconsistencies between their behaviors and beliefs. Because of spillover, experience intense emotional reactions ○ Didn't have opportunity to alleviate, had to make inconsistency go away and to do that they change their attitude The Self and Secrecy Secrets Secrecy- act of intentionally withholding or concealing information from others, typically due to external pressure ○ Role of intention (motivation) is what distinguishes secrecy from general desires for privacy What are common secrets? (Slepian) ○ Method Surveyed 200 Ps and asked them to identity if they had any secrets cross 38 different secret categories ○ Top down approach ○ When do we think about our secrets? Concealment contexts- contexts that are relevant to concealing intention (e.g social interactions)  Interpersonal concealment-actively preventing a conversation partner from learning a secret, results in monitoring, expressive inhibition, and alteration of speech Non Concealment contexts- contexts unrelated to concealing intention (e.g alone in private) Mind wandering-attention shifts from current tasks to unrelated thoughts Secrets and wellbeing Is keeping secrets harmful for wellbeing? (Slepian 2017) ○ Method Ps disclosed personally held secrets and reported how often in last 30 days they thought about them In non concealment contexts In interpersonal concealment contexts ○ Ps also reported extent to which their secret has affected their wellbeing ○ Results: keeping secrets harms wellbeing But the relationship is mostly attributed to frequency of mind wandering to secret and not due to frequency of having to actively conceal the secret Can confiding our secrets in others reduce harm to wellbeing? (Slepian 2019) ○ Ps disclosed both confided and unconfided secrets and for both types reported: Perceived social support  Coping efficacy- how well they felt they were handling the secret, how in control they felt Well being Mind wandering and concealment ○ Results: Confiding secrets results in better well-being, and this is due to social support increasing coping efficacy, which in turn lowers mind-wandering frequency Positive secrets Positive side of secret (Slepian 2023) ○ Goal: examine the effects of positive secrets ○ Hypothesis: positive secrets more likely to be kept for intrinsic reasons and result in higher levels of energy than negative secrets Define positive secrecy as the intention to keep positive information unknown to one or more others ○ Method of study 3 IV: valence of secret (positive vs negative vs unspecified) DV 1: motivation (intrinsic vs extrinsic reason for keeping secret) DV 2: energy DV 3: well being ○ Results Positive secrets more likely to be kept for intrinsic reasons, negative secrets for extrinsic reasons Positive secrets result in greater energy and vitality ○ Energizing effects of positive secrets mediated by level of intrinsic motivation  Implications ○ Not all secrets are bad/harmful ○ Motivation for keeping the secret plays a role in shaping its impact on wellbeing In what ways are guilty pleasures and secrets different? Self Esteem Self esteem- evaluation we make of ourselves ○ The self as an attitude object Theories of self esteem Contingencies of self worth (Crocker and Park) ○ Individuals self esteem stems from perceived success, failure or adherence to standards in domains that are important to the individual ○ Not about having high vs low self esteem, but where we stake our self esteem ○ Seven common CSW of college students Love and support from family God’s love Competition Virtue Others approval Appearance Academic competence ○ Measured using contingencies of self worth scale (CSWS) Crocker et al-Implications of CSW for self esteem ○ Senior students applying to grad school completed the CSWS; for next 2 months they accessed a web page when they received acceptance/rejection letter and reported self esteem Results: the more students based self esteem in academic competence, the more their self esteem increased on days they got acceptance letters Impact of events on self esteem depends on relevance of those events to ones CSWs Senior students completed the CSWs; Ps also responded to an open ended question asking what getting into grad school means for them Results: placing greater value in academic competence = getting into grad school reflects academic abilities and reputation (fixed mindset)  Placing lesser value in academic competence = getting into grad school reflects opportunity for growth/improvement (growth mindset) ○ CSW implications for motivations We self select into settings/circumstances That provide an opportunity to succeed in domains of high CSW In which our CSWs are valued/shared Sociometer theory (Leary) ○ Self esteem is an indicator of one’s relational value to others; drops in self esteem warn us that our relational value is low or declining Self esteem and belonging are psychological needs-proposed evolutionary framework ○ Leary et al (1998) Ps rate various behaviors in terms of How they’d feel if engaged in behavior Degree to which behavior would lead others to reject them Results: the more people think their behavior would lead others to reject them, worse they feel about themselves after performing behavior Our behavior is tied to our underlying motivation to feel like we belong ○ The Invalidity of Disclaimers About the Effects of Social Feedback on Self-Esteem-Leary Goal: examine validity of claim some people “don’t value others approval Experiment 2 Sampled Ps who claimed they do not care about others approval IV: feedback manipulation (positive vs negative social feedback) DV: self esteem Results: Ps in negative feedback condition reported in lower self esteem (despite previously espousing they didn't care about others feedback) ○ Suggests CSW alone is not sufficient to explain self esteem Attitude strength (DeMarree)