PSYC2017 Lectures 23-28 PDF
Document Details
Uploaded by BrighterWilliamsite5570
Tags
Summary
These lecture notes cover topics in social psychology, including prejudice reduction strategies, like direct and indirect intergroup contact, and social influence tactics. The text also explores topics such as cognitive processes and how they relate to attitudes and behaviours. The document's focus on social psychology makes it appropriate for an undergraduate psychology course, though it doesn't appear to be a past paper.
Full Transcript
■ No reduction in explicit measures ● No impact on conscious biases ● But greater concern about racial discrimination COGNITIVE RE-CATEGORISATION ● ● REDUCING CONTROLLED EXPRESSION ● rejudice reduction strategies less likely to be beneficial P for people with extrem...
■ No reduction in explicit measures ● No impact on conscious biases ● But greater concern about racial discrimination COGNITIVE RE-CATEGORISATION ● ● REDUCING CONTROLLED EXPRESSION ● rejudice reduction strategies less likely to be beneficial P for people with extremely high or low levels of prejudice Common ingroup identity strategy (assimilation) ○ Eg. First Nations + Anglo = Australian Dual identity strategy (integration) ○ Subgroup identity and common ingroup identity ○ Don’t need to relinquish who you are, your differences ○ Eg. First Nations + Anglo —> differences (subgroup) and commonalities (common ingroup) + Australian environment (shared) DIRECT INTERGROUP CONTACT DIEC PROGRAM ● ● ● llport’s Contact Hypothesis: interaction between racial A groups can reduce prejudice ○ ‘Facilitating’ conditions ■ Equal status ■ Cooperative rather than competitive ■ Common goal ■ Support from authority to establish norms of acceptance ■ Time (Pettigrew added 5th condition) ○ Stronger correlation between high contact and low prejudice when Allport’s conditions are met (r = -.29) Research studies ○ Sherif’s created conflict then a superordinate (shared) goal which required working together ■ → reduced conflict ○ Aronson and Gonzalez “jigsaw cooperative classroom” reduced prejudice when they had to work together to solve a puzzle ○ White looked at friendship dyads, more asian friends meant less prejudice What happens when direct contact is not possible due to physical and psychological barriers? ○ Indirect contact INDIRECT INTERGROUP CONTACT ● ● Extended contact ○ Knowing ingroup members that have outgroup friends and learn positive attributes ■ → lower outgroup prejudice ○ Reading about positive outgroup members ■ → more positive attitudes ● Even in young children Imagined contact ○ “Imagine meeting a stranger that is an outgroup member and you learn some interesting and unexpected things about them, list these things” ■ → Decrease anxiety, increased future contact, reduce prejudice ○ Does not produce long term effect ● ● LONG-TERM REDUCTION OF CONTROLLED PREJUDICE ● ● T o determine causes of attitudes and behaviours Little current literature because of money and publishing fast SOCIAL INFLUENCE ● ● S ocial influence = compliance + conformity + obedience Tactics of social influence ○ Reciprocation ○ Liking ○ Commitment and consistency ○ Authority ○ Scarcity ○ Social validation ○ Unity COMPLIANCE ● ● ● PSYC2017 DIEC: Integration of Dual identity and electronic-E-contact ○ 9 week classroom intervention in both minority and majority high school students ■ Indirect, via the internet chat room ○ Long term interception measures ■ 2 weeks, 6 months and 12 months ○ Involves cooperation and superordinate/common goal Results: ○ Short-term: decreased outgroup anxiety and increased knowledge ○ Long-term: decreased outgroup bias for Muslim students ompliance = change in beliefs, attitudes or behaviour as a C result of external pressure People often respond automatically to compliance requests ○ More compliant when a reason is given (because…) Heuristics have power over our actions, causing us to comply 23 RECIPROCATION ● ● ● ● We feel obliged to repay what other give to us ○ Even when favour is unwanted/unrequested ■ to build relationships ○ Even when value or domain of favours are different ■ Feels uncomfortable to be indebted to someone ■ to not be rejected by the group Field experiment: sending Christmas cards to strangers ○ 20% of cards back ○ Receivers felt the urge to reciprocate Lab experiment: favour of coke then return favour back of paying for tickets ○ Liking also affected amount of tickets bought ○ Tickets bought regardless of liking when initial favous done ETHICAL: give information or concessions first CONCESSIONS ● ● The door-in-the -face-tactic ○ If someone makes a concession, we should reciprocate by making a concession too ■ Eg. coming back with a second offer that is lower, we should go higher to reciprocate or say yes ○ Socially beneficial to accept concession ○ Compliance higher using this tactic The that’s-not-all-tactic ○ Make request then immediately offer bonuses or discounts ■ Viewed as a concession ○ Reciprocate by buying ● SIMILARITY ● ● ● ● ● ● eople tend to comply with people they know and like P Factors influencing liking ○ Physical attractiveness ○ Similarity ○ Contact and cooperation ○ Conditioning and association ETHICAL: genuine similarities and complements PHYSICAL ATTRACTIVENESS ● ● ● e tend to like things and people that are beautiful W Halo effect = when one trait is used to make a judgement about someone as a whole ○ Experiment: attractiveness → competent, moral, smart, sociable, etc. ○ “What is beautiful is good” stereotype Biassed attributions ○ Example: a beautiful person does something… ■ Good → internal attribution ■ Bad → external attribution PSYC2017 e like similar others because of similar qualities, W validation of beliefs and smooth interactions Field experiment: More willing to give a dime to make a call when dressed similarly (as a hippie or not) ○ Same for signing a petition Lab experiment: more likely to critique long essay when same birthday Manipulators try to create link with us (real or fake) The chameleon effect = Mimicry ○ Field experiment: mimicking order back to customer —> bigger tip CONTACT AND COOPERATION ● ● ● LIKING ● ● Attractiveness effect on… ○ Work ■ Earn more money ■ More likely to be hired ○ Politics ■ Receive more votes ○ Criminal justice system ■ Avoid jail time ■ Plastic surgery —> less 2nd sentence ■ Jury will rule in favour ● ore exposure to a person, more positively we feel M towards them ○ The mere exposure effect ○ Exception when initial negative opinion Stronger when people are unaware of exposure ○ Lab experiment: subliminally exposed to people, agreed more with person (ie. persuasion) Exposure effect on… ○ Politics ■ More exposure → more votes ○ Advertising ■ More platforms → more sales Cooperation can result in feelings of liking ○ Ben Franklin effect = Friends though cooperative act ○ Cooperation can be magnified CONDITIONING AND ASSOCIATION ● e like people who are associated with positive feelings W and events ○ Classical conditioning UNITY ● Shared identity of the manipulator and the target ○ Any strong and deep identities ○ Examples: ■ Family ■ Ethnicity ■ Region 24 ● ● ■ Social identity Allows for more influence ○ But varying evidence findings ETHICAL: genuine shared social identities ● ● eactance theory = when freedoms restricted, react by R wanting the item more than before Lab experiment: change in quantity in cookies → more favourable ○ Social demand for cookies CONSISTENCY AND COMMITMENT PRINCIPLES OF ETHICAL COMPLIANCE ● ● ● umans desire to be consistent with actions, statements H and beliefs ○ Relatively efficient heuristic ○ Field experiment: consistent with statement saying they would to volunteer The foot-in-door- tactic ○ Tendency to comply with a large request after agreeing to a smaller request first ■ To appear consistent ■ Otherwise possible cognitive dissonance ■ Self perception theory: act to maintain self-image ○ Field experiment: more likely to put big sign after saying yes to small sign The low-ball tactic ○ Two-step technique ■ Step 1: secrues agreement ■ Step 2: changes request ● Eg. revealing hidden costs ● ● ● Guilt = a non-ethical principle ○ Make people feel guilty for not complying with you Humans often operate mindlessly ○ Thus can be manipulated, often with several simultaneous techniques ETHICAL: genuine scarcity SOCIAL COGNITION ● andur’s social cognitive theory: triadic reciprocal B determinism model AUTHORITY ● ● e tend to comply with experts or authority to help us W decide how to behave ○ When we feel ambivalent or in a ambiguous situation ○ Informational social influence ETHICAL: establish credentials CORE PROCESSES OF SOCIAL COGNITION ● SOCIAL VALIDATION ● ● ● e look to other people for cues on how we should think, W behave, feel ○ When we feel ambivalent or in a ambiguous situation ○ Actions of others validate our own ○ Normative social influence Field experiment: reusing towels “help save planet” vs “others will reuse” ○ More towel reuse with social validation claim Quantity = quality heuristic ○ Eg. number of people in a cafe, tip jar, best-selling book, laugh tracks, social media likes ● ● ● Attention ○ Limited attention capacity ○ Environment and people influence our focus of attention —> influences impressions of ourselves and others Interpretation ○ Social behaviours can be interpreted in different ways depending of various factors ■ Eg. Gender, upbringing, region, political views Judgement ○ Involves uncertainty ○ Best we can do with the information we have to work with Memory ○ Memories of our judgements, attention, interpretation and general experience can influence our judgements SCARCITY GOALS OF SOCIAL COGNITION ● What is rare is valuable ○ Short supply = desirable ○ Items or time PSYC2017 ● Competing goals ○ Mental efficiency ■ Good enough decisions with little effort 25 ○ ● COGNITIVE STYLES ● ● ● ● ● ○ Accurate judgements ■ To avoid potential costly mistakes ○ Protection of self-image As goals change, people develop different cognitive styles to achieve them onsistency seeker: attempts to maintain consistency C across behaviours and cognition ○ Eg. Cognitive dissonance theory ■ Dissonance created when inconsistent ■ Negative drive state: drive to change cognition and behaviour to solve dissonance ○ Research shows tolerance to inconsistency in our lives, little motivation to avoid dissonance ■ Only high on preference for consistency (PFC) support consistency seeker Naive scientist ○ Attribution theory: people are motivated by need to forcoherent viewof the world and gain control of the environment ○ We like a predictable world where we can attribute behaviour tointernal/dispositionalor external/situationalcauses ○ What to understand causes of theirs and others behaviours ■ We gather evidence to tests a hypothesis ○ Every effortful and rational Cognitive miser: cognitively efficient, problem solvingin the most simple ways ○ Limited cognitive resources and demand for fast and efficient processing of information ○ Useheuristics(shortcuts) but these may case errors in judgements ■ Stereotypes ■ Confirmation bias ● To confirm existing beliefs ● Causes echo chambers and filter bubbles (eg. on social media) Motivated tactician: approach changes depending on motivation and situation whether to use effortful or efficient processes ○ Choosebetween default/automatic state (cognitive miser) or more controlled when judgements are important (naive scientist) ○ Requires significant self-regulation ■ Requires cognitive processing Activated actor: considers the role of theenvironmentin behaviour ○ Goal-based actions are not entirely deliberate, but situationally activated ○ Environment contains cues that affect how we response, even if not conscious of influence PSYC2017 nlike the cognitive miser, we don't ignore U information to save energy, this information highly influences our decisions AUTOMATIC NONCONSCIOUS PROCESSES ● ● T houghts, feelings and behaviours influenced by factors we are unaware of or without intent ○ Priming ○ Implicit bias ○ Stereotyping ○ Confirmation bias Features of automatic processing ○ Unintentional ○ Unawareness ○ Uncontrollable ○ Inefficiency PRIMING ● ● ● riming = exposure to a stimuli which influences P judgements and subsequent responses, entirely out of awareness ○ Prime causes activation of social representations (schema) which activate thinking and behaviour ■ Activation of nodes Types of priming ○ Supraliminal: awareness of stimulus ■ Eg. Word fragment and sentence completion tasks ■ Social, affective and behavioural priming ○ Subliminal: no awareness of stimuli ■ Millisecond presentation of stimuli ■ Social, affective and behavioural priming Social priming in making judgements ○ Priming influences ambiguous information ■ Eg. reckless or adventurous schema primed → ambiguous person → rating of person ○ Other variables (eg. schema of gender) can affect priming SCRAMBLED WORD VS WALKING SPEED ● ● Bargh et al. experiment ○ Participants could not establish link between word scramble task and walking speed ○ Significant difference between prime and no prime Doyen et al. replication ○ More participants (high power) ○ Less objective; used automated timers rather than experimenter ■ Expectation of researcher plays a role in walking speed ○ No significant difference 26 ○ ● ● wareness of prime, no awareness of primed A behaviour, no awareness of link Lynott et al. replication of hot vs cold pack (Bargh) ○ Feelings towards someone when primed with temperature ○ Three failed replications of basic findings Implications: be cautious of… ○ Experimenter’s expectations ○ Participant’s awareness ○ Type of measurement ○ Need to be direct replication ● ● ● ● ● EGO DEPLETION ● ● CONTROLLED PROCESSES ● ● ● ● ● Features of controlled processing ○ Intentional ○ Awareness ○ Controllable ○ Efficiency Self-regulation is alining thoughts, emotions and behaviours with desired outcomes ○ Requires monitoring ○ Requires ability to delay gratification Multiple brain regions control self-regulation We have fixed resources and capacity to self-control ○ Harder to inhibit doing things later in the day ○ Muscle metaphor ick a distractor to focus on P Postpone the thought to an allocated time Cut back on multitasking Exposure Meditation ● Ego depletion = depletion of self regulation ○ Occurs due to limited capacity Can be replenished by glucose, prevents depletion when taken before task 2 Baumeister’s experiment ○ Task 1: causes depletion of energy ○ Task 2: measure performance after depletion Meta analysis contrary evidence: ○ Unable to replicate ○ Does the concept exist or do the tasks between studies need to be more consistent? REPLICATION CRISIS SOLUTIONS ● ● ● se extract same methodology in replication U Large sample size for statistical power Pre-register to ensure study is publish even if not significant EXPERIMENTS OF SELF-CONTROL ● ● TRANSFERABILITY arshmallow experiment: Ability to self-regulate at M preschool predicted intellectual performance in high school The stroop effect: reaction time and error rate ○ Inhibition of reading word instead of stating colour ● IRONIC PROCESSING ● ● ● Not thinking about something is achieved by: ○ Intentional processing: stay focused to not think of white bear AND ○ Ironic monitoring process: to ensure though is suppressed When under cognitive load, more we try to suppress something, the more we think of it ○ Automatic processes take over Wegner’s experiment: don't over shoot the ball into the hole while playing golf ○ The rebound effect ○ With cognitive load → less overshoot ○ Without cognitive load → more overshoot AFFECTIVE PROCESSES ● ● STRATEGIES FOR SUPPRESSION ● Build self-regulation ○ Each time you self-regulate, it takes energy (short-term fatigue), but it gets easier (long-term strength) PSYC2017 Muraven experiment ○ Phase 1: measured time holding hand grip ○ Phase 2: thought suppression task ○ Phase 3: participants asked to log posture or mood regulation or food in a diary (2 weeks) ○ Phase 4: phase 1 and 2 repeated ■ Better at suppressing thoughts when posture or mood regulation ■ Can be transferred Mood ○ ○ ○ ○ Affect ○ ○ ○ ast and present dependant P Low intensity Long-term Without cause (thus, little cognitive content) urrent dependant C Self-reported experiences Positive or negative emotions AFFECT AND COGNITION ● ● ffect and cognition are reciprocally related A Affect can bias our decision making ○ Emotions can override facts 27 ○ FORGAS’S AFFECT INFUSION MODEL ● redicts the degree of affect infusion into judgement P varies ○ Most likely to influence in complex and unanticipated situations ○ More cognitive effort → more affect ○ Influence is on a continuum ● COGNITIVE DISTRACTION HYPOTHESIS ● POSITIVE VS NEGATIVE AFFECT ● ● Positive affect (ie. happy) ○ Promotes creativity, flexibility, integrative thinking ○ Poorer accuracy Negative affect (ie. sad) ○ Promotes attentiveness, accommodation thinking style, reduction in judgemental errors ■ Adaptive advantages ○ Better accuracy S tudy: wrote about happy vs neutral event then read assault and rate guilt ■ Results: Happy → more stereotyping when rating guiltiness Conclusion: positive affect → more judgement errors appy people have less capacity for information H processing because thinking about happy events ○ Thus, use more heuristics, shortcuts and stereotypes AFFECT AND WORKPLACE BEHAVIOURS ● rganisational Citizenship Behaviours = helpful and extra O tasks work ○ Positive vs neutral affect did not effect OCBs ○ Perception of workplace as fair or unfair did PRIMING AND MEASURING AFFECT ● ● Inducing/priming affect ○ Reading or writing mood statements ○ Watching video ○ Imagining ○ Hypnosis Measures ○ Heart rate ○ Skin conduction ○ Positive and Negative Affect Schedule (PANAS) ■ Subjective measure ■ Emotions within the past week MOOD AND MEMORY ● ● If we learn something in a particular state, we can remember better if in the same state Bower’s Affect Priming Model ○ Material is linked to mood ■ Spread of activation (affect nodes) ○ Ie. more likely to be recalled when mood congruence MOOD AND JUDGEMENT ● ● ● F eelings as information regarding life quality and attraction to others Schwarz and Clore ○ Study: called on rain or sunny day ■ Prime: asking about weather ■ DV: life satisfaction ○ Results: Weather only influenced judgements when not asked about it ○ Conclusion: if source of affect is irrelevant to target evaluation → no influence on judgement Bodenhausen et al. PSYC2017 28
