Intro to Social Psychology Exam Review PDF

**EXAM ONE Intro to Social Psychology REVIEW** *"First of all, beings in a situation, we cannot be distinguished from our situations, for they form us and decide our possibilities."* J. P. Sartre **What is Social Psychology?** It is a science that studies the influence of social situations; special emphasis on how we view and affect one another. How we THINK ABOUT, INFLUENCE AND RELATE to one another: +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ | Social **Thinking** | Social **Influence** | Social **Relations** | +=======================+=======================+=======================+ | - How we perceive | - Culture and | - Helping | | others and | biology | | | ourselves | | - Aggression | | | - Conformity | | | - What we believe | pressure | - Attraction/Intima | | | | cy | | - Judgements | - Persuasion | | | | | - Prejudice | | - Attitudes | - Group dynamics | | +-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+ - Lies at the **boundary with sociology** (study of people in groups/societies) - Social Psych focuses **more on individuals** (within groups/societies). - Often uses **more experimentation.** - **LESS individual differences** focus than **personality psychology.** - YOUNG science (since first experiments in 1898); European origins - Did not take current form until 1930's; WWII major impact **So, what do we study? Some examples:** - How social beliefs can be self-fulfilling (Pygmalion effect, attribution errors, self-fulfilling prophecy) - How most people will obey authority without questioning it (conformity, dissolution of identity, bystander effect, etc.) - Helping yourself (individualistic) vs helping others (collectivist/altruistic) motivations for b**ehaviour.** **Common thread: How people view and affect one another.** Attitudes and beliefs, conformity and independence, love and hate. **Major themes of Social Psychology:** *"Behaviour is a function of the person and the situation*." Kurt Lewin, 1952 Within the thinking -- influences -- relations framework we converge at **Application.** **Thinking:** We **construct** social reality; our **intuitions are powerful** but perilous. **Influences:** **Influences** shape behaviour (exterior), **dispositions** shape behaviour (interior) **Relations:** Social behaviour is also **biological** (e.g. **evolutionary**). Relating to others is a **basic need** (see Maslow) A diagram of social psychology Description automatically generated **On Constructing Social Reality:** - We have an urge to **explain** and **attribute behaviour** to in **internal** *(frequent)* or **external** (*less frequent)* cause; it makes it seem **orderly, predictable and controllable**. - Western vs Eastern culture will play a role in level of individual "determinism" - How does our **intersectionality** of current **selves** in various **situations** affect how we **interpret** (and **are interpreted**) in the social world? - **We are all "intuitive scientists;"** constantly interpreting and explaining behaviour (self and others) to suit our needs. - **Beliefs about the self also matter**; attitudes influence emotion and action. **Our Social Intuitions are powerful...but often suck:** - Intuitions shape fear, impressions and relationships. - We have a nonconscious, intuitive mind (system 1) at work; we don't often realize this. - **Automatic processing**, **implicit memory**, **heuristics**, **spontaneous trait inference**, **instant emotions** and **nonverbal communication** are part of this. - **We operate on parallel, two-level processes at all times ("dual processing")** - **System 1:** unconscious, speedy, efficient, runs on minimal info & assumptions/prior experience/generalities. "Fast and frugal." - **System 2:** slower, more conscious, less prone to bias and systematic errors. "Costly, but more accurate." - We often **"misperceive"** (as well as **"miswant"**); fail to perceive how our OWN expectations/mental set shape our **evaluations.** - Trust memories more than we should - Misread our own minds (denial of the obvious) - GOAL: fortify thinking! *"People's tendency toward uncritically believing what they are told, their instinct for self-preservations, and their desire to be a part of a group could be used by a leader (or aspiring leader) to manipulate the populace to support them"* (Machiavelli) **Social Influences Shape Our Behaviour:** *"We are social animals."* Aristotle *"People, are above all, malleable."* Markus, 2005 - **Relationships** are a large part of being human. - **Powerful situations can overwhelm good intentions**; group atrocities and group altruism. - **Culture** is part of what defines us. National, regional, SES, education, sex, marital status, aesthetic preferences, cat or dog person, night owl vs. morning lark...it all defines us. - **Individualism (Western) vs Collectivism (Eastern)** mindset as well as cultural variability play a huge role. - **Personality disposition INTERACTS with social influences** **Social Behaviour is Biologically rooted:** - "deep **biological wisdom" (evolution**, drives, survival!) - **Nature and nurture TOGETHER** - "How does **natural selection** predispose our actions and reactions? - All **psychological events are also biological events**. Neurobiology is relevant! (e.g. hormones have a huge impact on social behaviours). - We must consider both **under-the-skin (biological) and between-skins) social influences.** - We are **biopsychosocial** organisms. **Relating to others is a basic need:** - Fitting in is **crucial;** relating to others a source of joy, comfort, stress and pain. - Social aggression is often **exclusionary or ostracism.** - Our relationships can help for the **basis of [our self-esteem]**; it is a reading of how accepted we feel by others. ("Looking glass self.") **The Principles of Social Psychology applies to everyday life:** - Can be **applied:** - Know ourselves, influence people - Social justice, health, wellness, pro-social behaviours - A set of strategies for answering questions -- objective and quantifiable facts. - **Values enter social psychology:** - Research topics reflect social history (e.g. see Milgram in wake of WWII). - Values differ across time and cultures; theory of "social identity" (Europe, Asia) "Individual psychology" (America); Canada and Australia draw on both. - NOT purely objective; human involvement and interpretation guarantees biases. - Shared culture/assumptions may mean biases go unchecked (see rampant sexism in sciences). We take for granted **social representations** (Augoustinos & Innes, '90; Moscovici '98/'01) -- CALL THAT CRAP OUT. **Hidden Values in Psychological Concepts:** - Implicit -- psychology is not objective. - Researcher's own values play into their theories and judgements (value judgements are presented as facts.) - Forming concepts -- a place for hidden values - Labelling -- language is value-laden - **The naturalistic fallacy;** Sliding from a description of *what is* into a prescription of *what ought to be.* - Implicit values aren't always bad, just human. Human thinking always involves interpretation. A good reason for diversity in research. ***Q: Is Psychology Merely common sense?*** Social psychology faces two contradictory criticisms: 1\. It is trivial because it documents the obvious. 2\. It is dangerous because findings could be used to manipulate people. **Common Sense is:** - Not factually based (intuition) - Based on incomplete knowledge/understanding - Often wrong - Sounds "truthy" but fails to hold up to reality - Lacks nuance - Conventional wisdom can have elements of truth, but there can be many competing claims - Usually oversimplified - Not actually terribly common - Is usually right **after the fact.** - **The hindsight bias: "See? I knew it all along!"** Anything can seem like common sense once you already know the result. Duh. - People are NOT good at identifying the causes of their failures (crap attributions) - What is obvious NOW was probably not obvious THEN. **Research Methodology:** **Forming and Testing Hypotheses** - **Theory:** an integrated set of principles that explain and predict observed events. Scientific Shorthand. The [theory of gravity] [accounts for the fact that my keys fell] on my foot when I dropped them. - **Facts:** Agreed-upon statements that we observe; the theories summarize and explain the facts. - *"Science is built up with facts, as a house is with stones, but a collection of facts is no more a science than a heap of stones is a house."* Jules Henri Poincaré - Theories also provide testable predictions called **hypotheses,** which serve several purposes: - Allow us **to test theory** upon which they are based (or **DISPROVE IT**, according to Sir Karl Popper) - **Give direction** to research; **suggest new ideas.** - Their **predictive features** make them very **practical** (e.g. usefulness of theory of aggression is predicting when to expect aggression and how to control it). - **Operationalization:** we must translate general descriptions and principles into specific variables that can be manipulated/controlled and tested. We have to develop **operational definitions that are valid** for the theory we are trying to demonstrate. **Good operationalization is:** - Specific (not too vague; clearly demonstrates theory proposed to be tested) - Reliable (measurement is consistent) - Valid (internal, external, experimental) - Has ecological validity (generalizable) **A good theory (and there are often COMPETING THEORIES) accomplishes:** - It summarizes many observations - It makes clear predictions - It confirms or modifies the theory - It generates new avenues for exploration - It suggests implications and practical applications *Discarded theories are not necessarily false, they are **replaced by newer, better models**.* **Correlational Research: Detecting Natural Associations (relationships) but NOT inferring causes:** - When two things go together it is tempting to see correlation as causation - **Correlation allows prediction**, but **no inference to cause in any direction** - E.g. correlation between drinking diet soda and obesity (which causes which? Or is it a third variable, so no causal relationship (illusion)? - Another: High self-esteem as predictor of academic success. Which was does the relationship work? Or is there a third variable? (When controlled for SES and intelligence, the effect disappeared). - **Correlational coefficient** -- *r --* the degree of relationship (or strength) between two factors from -1.0 (perfect negative) to 0 (none) to 1.0 (perfect positive) - **Positive** -- an increase in one variable is correlated to an increase in the other - **Negative** -- and increase in one variable is correlated to a decrease in the other - **Zero** -- no correlation (may be a u-curve or other kind of relationship, or just none). - Correlational research **over time is LONGITUDINAL** research; **time-lagged correlations can reveal a sequence of events** - **Statistical treatment** can extract confounded variables. **Surveys:** - Obtain **representative group** through **random sampling; everyone has an equal chance of being included.** - 1200 participants = 95% confidence of describing the population accurately with error margin of 3%. (alpha \<.05, beta \>.03) - **Polls do not predict voting**; only describe public opinion (among those sampled). - **Evaluating Surveys**: - **Unrepresentative Samples** (can be affected by sampling method or route of delivery, or attrition/low response rate). How closely the sample represents the population matters. - **Order/timing of questions** (sequence effects, bias effects) - **Response options** (too open/limited or unrepresentative/not valid for concept; open to social desirability/lying; may need to use implicit measures) - **Wording of questions** (tone and diction can be too suggestive or biased; acquiescence effects or influence). - **Prior knowledge** of issues, test, subject matter; can also interfere with accuracy. **Experimental Research: Cause and Effect** **Experimental Research: Takes place in controlled conditions (e.g. lab); designed to allow inferences into causation through control.** - Constructed situations that simulate important features of daily life. - **CONTROL**: Vary only one or two factors (**independent variables)** at a time allows researchers to **pinpoint changes** in the **measured (dependent) variable.** - Distinction between correlational and experimental research is Control and the degree to which they allow us to infer causation: ![A diagram of a research process Description automatically generated](media/image2.jpeg) Example: Social psychologists who studied the established connection between television viewing and children's behaviour. *Do children who watch violent television programs tend to be more violent than those who watch few?* - *Observed in a lab in controlled conditions* - *Had clearly defined IV and DV's ("aggressive acts")* - *Findings: Indicated that televisions can be one cause of children's aggressive behaviour.* **The TWO magic ingredients**: - **Control** (we try, but often can't perfectly control all factors; random assignment can help improve control). - **Random assignment** -- "the equalizer" (each participant in the sampled population has an equal chance of being assigned to any condition so as to eliminate subject differences/individual differences; on paper, all conditions/groups are equal). The groups \*only vary on one factor\* - the independent variable. This helps us infer cause and effect. - **Not all situations allow for true experimental manipulation (e**.g. sex; often ends up as "quasi-scientific experiment") or because of moral, practical or ethical considerations (go for correlational/observational research). **Replication: Are the results reproducible?** - If another researcher carried out the same experiment, would they get the same results? - Replication studies are important...they should pay. :-/ - Replication crises in psychology - Aggregated data from multiple studies is even better! - Replication = confirmation - Be open! Publish your data! - Meta-analyses of existing studies (5+) are also very useful. **Ethics of Experimentation:** - Experiments do not need to mimic real life **("mundane realism"** ) to be valid - Nor do they need to make participants suffer! - But it should have **experimental realism.** Should evoke realistic psychological processes. - E.g. small electric shocks can functionally simulate real aggression. - Sometimes deceit is necessary to hide researcher predictions; but only as minimally as possible and temporarily (see debrief) - Deceit is often used to inhibit demand characteristics; "good subject" or "social desirability" - Researchers can also be blinded to inhibit demand characteristics. - DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? Is there another way to do it? - University Ethics Committees/Institutional Review Boards have principles (e.g. APA and CPA both do; see Canada's Tri-Council Ethics certificate). - Informed consent (ongoing) - Deception only used when justified, and in a limited capacity - Foresee possibility, Prevent harm and Protect from harm - Confidentiality/anonymity - Debriefing, questions - Fair compensation - Prevent fraud (researchers); transparent data, reports, good description - Special considerations for First Nations and Indigenous communities; contact must be established FIRST and control must be conceded to group. **Generalization to life:** - Be cautious - Experiments are simplified, controlled reality - WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) participants dominate research - Too many college and university psych students! - Sometimes results can be replicated across populations, and sometimes they cannot! **PART ONE: SOCIAL THINKING** **CHAPTER 2: THE SELF IN A SOCIAL WORLD** **Spotlights and Illusions:** - **The spotlight effect;** we feel others are paying more attention to us than they really are. We see ourselves at centre state, overestimating the extent to which other's attention is aimed at us. - **The illusion of transparency:** We feel our own emotions keenly, and think we are "transparent" when are self-conscious that we will be evaluated negatively by others. We are unhappy and we know it, our face will surely show it. **But we are actually opaquer than we realize!** - **People rate themselves more harshly than others;** what we think ought to be apparent to others (i.e. nervousness, anxiety) often isn't. See work by Savitsky and Gilovich (2003)**.** - **We overestimate the visibility of our social blunders and public mental slips.** - **Social surroundings affect our self-awareness.** (When we feel "different" from the group, we notice how we differ and others reacting to our difference. E.g. being the only white girl in a Nicaraguan market. Being the only woman in a room full of men). - **Self-interest colours our social judgement**. We attribute problems to others, and successes to ourselves. - **Self-concern motivates our social behaviour:** We self-monitor (sometimes obsessively) over appearance and behaviour in an effort to control impressions. We will adjust our behaviour accordingly. - **Social relationships help define the self.** We have varying "social selves" (masks). How we think of ourselves can be inked to the role we are acting at the moment; when the role changes, the self-concept can change too. Loss of a role or "failure" at a role can cause us to feel overall more uncertainty about our identity. - **TRAFFIC BETWEEN SELF AND SOCIETY RUNS BOTH WAYS!** **Our sense of self:** - Organizes thoughts, feelings, actions. - Enables remembering the past, assess our present, project our future - Behave adaptively **Behaviour:** - Often not consciously controlled but automatic and unselfconscious. - Self enables long-term planning, goal setting, restraint. - The Self imagines alternatives, makes social comparisons, manages reputations and relationships. - "the Curse of the Self" can sometimes impede a satisfying life; - Pruning egocentric preoccupations at centre of major religions and philosophies. - E.g. "Yoga is the journey of the self, through the self, to the self." A person\'s body with different colored squares Description automatically generated **\ ** **Self-concept: WHO AM I?** **At the center of our worlds; our sense of self** -Most sense of self is located in the right hemisphere; medial prefrontal cortex; the sense of self is "stitched together" and becomes more active when you think about yourself. Elements of your self-concept - **Schemas** -- **mental templates by which we organize our worlds**; self-schemas are the "descriptors" we use to think of ourselves (I am smart, I am well-dressed, I take no shit, etc.) - **Self-schemas affect how we perceived remember and evaluate others** and ourselves. We are more likely to recognize others that have characteristics similar to ourselves (if being athletics is part of my self-schema, I will notice others that are also athletic, recall info related to that more quickly, welcome information that is consistent with that self-schema). **How do we make social comparisons?** - **Social comparison;** others around us help define the standard by which we evaluate ourselves (rich, poor, smart, dumb, etc.) We **compare** ourselves with them, consider how we differ and then **benchmark our performance** against them. - Explains why we tend to think **we are great if everyone around us is average** (big fish in small pond). - We can take pleasure in other's misfortunes when we envy them (we compare poorly); *schadenfreude.* - Often these comparisons are based on **incomplete information.** See **SM** for examples of FOMO and "**seeing everyone else's highlight reels."** People on SM tend to believe that other people are happier and have better lives than they do. This can be a source of **depression.** - Can also diminish satisfaction when we **increase status and begin to "compare upward."** We **raise the standard** by which we compare ourselves and others. - When facing **competition**, we often protect shaky self-image by **perceiving the competitor as advantaged** (rather than just "better than us."). **Other People's judgements** - When others think well of us it helps us think well of ourselves. - **Praising people for specific concepts** ("**being a helper**" or "being a caring soul") helps us fold this idea into our self-concept; it **becomes part of the identity** (opposed to just "helping" or "caring"). - **Stereotype threat** (low expectations in certain domains like math and science for women) may cause them to **"disidentify" with those realms**. **The Looking-glass self** - Sociologist Charles H. Cooley (1902) ; updated by George Herbert Mead (1934) - **How we think others perceive us becomes a mirror for perceiving ourselves.** - **What matters** for **self-concept** is not how others **\*actually see us,\*** but **\*how we imagine they see us.\*** - Because **people tend to praise more openly and often than they criticize,** we may have **artificially high self-image**. (e.g. people tend to see themselves as more physically attractive than they actually are). - Likewise, if we grow up in **abuse** and **hear nothing but negative**s, we will have **artificially low self-image.** - Our self-esteem corresponds to how we see ourselves on **traits we believe are valued by others** (e.g. attractiveness, fitness...no one cares about your Scrabble prowess). **Self and Culture -- Western vs Eastern concepts of the self** +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ | **Western** | **Eastern** | +===================================+===================================+ | **Individualistic** | - **Collectivist** | | | | | - Becoming an adult means | - Indigenous | | becoming **self-sufficient;** | | | separate from family**. | - The **Interdependent self** | | Self-reliant.** | | | | - More **self-critical, | | - Define one's personal | self-effacing** | | **independent self.** | | | | - **Focus less** on **positive | | - Believe in **power of | self-view** | | personal control** (to a | | | delusional degree). | - Less to say **"I am"** type | | | of identity statements. | | - Self is "centre" of universe | | | | - **Say "I" less overall** | | - "main character energy" | | | | - **Communal** | | - Affluence, mass media, | | | **capitalism**, all supports | - Focus on **entire image | | this | (perception); holistic view** | | | | | - Innovation and service | - Communism or socialism | | industry over manufacturing | | | | - View things in terms of | | - "Bootstraps" | **relationships to one | | | another and environment**. | | - **Uniqueness** | | | | - Do as others do | | - "My dreams" | | | | - Language is for | | - **Increasing globally** | **communicating with | | | others.** | | - Focus on **central figures | | | (perception)** | - Value **tradition, shared | | | practices.** | | - **"Express yourself!"** | | | | - Downplay **personal choice** | | - Language is for | and **"freedom.\"** | | **self-expression** | | | | - **Belonging** | | - **Independent self; Distance | | | self from others; "distinct" | - **Integration** | | and separate.** | | | | - Gain **social approval** | | - **"I"; individual | | | achievements** | - Have **many "selves"** for | | | their various **social | | - **Despises conformity** | roles** | | | | | - **Personal -- defined by | - **"permeable" self-** | | individual goals** | incorporates others | | | | | | - **Interdependent self is | | | based on social memberships** | | | | | | - **Harmonize and support** | | | community | | | | | | - **WE; group goals and | | | solidarity** | | | | | | - **Despises egotism** | +-----------------------------------+-----------------------------------+ However.... - **Oversimplified** view - Highly dependent on individual and cultural **variations** - **Still important** concept for understanding cultural differences. - **All cultures becoming more individualistic (since new century)**; see pronoun use and song lyrics, "unique" names. - **The chicken or egg** argument; which came first, the individualism or the expression of it? **Collectivist culture and Self-esteem** - **Collectivist --** self-esteem tends to be malleable and context-specific; **variations** or **"selves." Persist more when failing -- less tied to self-value. Make comparisons in ways that facilitate improvement (upward).** - **Positive emotion** tied to **social engagement; feeling close to others, friendly, respectful.** - **Conflict tends to be between groups.** - **Individualist --** enduring across situations; **"One true self"; more personal, less relational. When identity is threatened, they feel angrier and sadder. Persist more when succeeding, success = self-esteem (downward social comparison).** - **Positive emotion** tied to disengaged sense of **feeling effective, superior and proud.** - Breeds more **conflict between individuals.** - **When exposed to individualist beliefs, easterners do become more individualistic.** **Self-Knowledge** **"Know thyself."** Ok, we try. But how well do we do? We often thing we have everything "within" us that we need to know, however, our **"inside information"** is often **wrong.** **Predicting our behaviour** - We are pretty crappy at this. What we want, what we will do and how we will perform are often totally contradictory to our predictions. - We **underestimate** how long it will take to **complete a task** (the **planning fallacy**) - This is in part because we remember how long it took last time poorly. - Be more realistic! And accurate! - Same with budgeting **Predicting Future Feelings** - To some extent we know how we will feel about certain events, but often we **mispredict our responses.** - Greatest issue is **predicting intensity and duration** of **future emotions.** - **Predicting hunger, sadness and happiness**...we are all pretty crappy at this. - Intuitive theory; "we want, we get what we want, we are happy." No. In reality we often **"miswant."** We are often disappointed by reality. - **Impact bias;** overestimating the enduring impact of emotion-causing events (good or bad!) We **focus** too much on the **a) event** (winning the lottery, losing a hand) and **overlook b) everything else** (overall social situation, successes, failures, etc.). - **Nothing that you focus on will make as much difference as you think.** - People neglect the **speed and power of their coping mechanisms;** rationalizing, discounting, forgiving and limiting emotional trauma. We adapt incredibly quickly! - **Major life events can be less enduringly stressing than minor everyday irritations** (which don't activate our defenses). **The Wisdom and Illusion of Self-Analysis** - Our intuitions about what has influenced us and what we will feel or do are often **dead wrong.** - **BUT** when the cause of behaviour is **conspicuous and the correct explanation "fits,"** our self-perception will be more accurate. When causes are **obvious to others**, they are **obvious to us too**. - Much of our thinking is **below the level of conscious awareness**. We are more aware of the **results than the process.** - **Analyzing our feelings** can make our **judgements less accurate! (Wilson, 1989)** - **[Dual attitudes]: Our automatic, implicit (system 1) attitudes and our controlled explicit (system 2) attitudes.** - **Self-reports** are often **untrustworthy.** Ugh. Errors in self-understanding limit their scientific usefulness. - What is **honest** and what is **true** are **NOT THE SAME.** **What is the Nature and Motivating Power of Self-Esteem?** - We all want to bolster it, but **Can it be problematic?** - Is **self-esteem the sum or all our self-views** across various domains? Yes, there is evidence for this, **when the domains are important to our self-esteem**. - "Bottom up" theory of self-esteem is incomplete; those who value themselves in a general way (**high overall SE**) are more likely to **value particular abilities and qualities too.** Love the whole person, warts and all. - **Specific self-perceptions do have some influence**. ("I'm good at math" generally aligns with being good at math). Academic self-concept does predict performance. But it can also be a *self-fulfilling prophecy* (I try harder at things I think I am good at, and my success feeds the perception). - It is better for SE to **praise specific skills** rather than general qualities; they should reflect true ability and performance (You really improved on the last test) rather than unrealistic (You can do anything!). **True** and **specific** is best. - Having your **self-esteem falsely bolstered** by having sunshine blown up your ass can be disastrous. (Forsyth et al. 2007); the students who were bolstered **flunked the exam.** - We all, unfortunately, **tend to rate ourselves as "better than average" on most things**. **Self-Esteem Motivation** - **Most people** are extremely motivated to **maintain their self-esteem.** Prefer it over sex, food, alcohol or paycheques. Wow. - What happens when it is **threatened?** - **Conflict** - **Schadenfreude; misery loves other's misery** - SE threats occur among **friends; more threatening** than that of strangers. But with romantic partners, upward comparison is fine (my partner is part of who I am); it is integrated. - **Overall, SE level makes a difference**; **high SE people** react to a SE threat by **compensating (external; blame someone else**). **Low SE people** tend to **blame themselves (internalize it).** - **"Feelings are similar to a fuel gauge."** Self-esteem gauge alerts us to **threatened social rejection;** motivates us to **change our behaviour** to be more socially acceptable. Pain of rejection can **motivate self-improvement**, search for acceptance elsewhere. Can also serve as a **status gauge.** - Self-esteem tracks with how we view ourselves on traits [we believe are valued by others. ] - In the **West**, SE tracks more closely to **individual traits** (e.g. attractiveness) than **communal ones.** However, **society may value communal** traits more in **women than men** (**women are caring).** - It depends on whether we believe we have traits that make us attractive to others. - **Terror management theory** (Greenburg 2008); humans must find ways to **manage their overwhelming fear of deat**h. So...why strive for greatness over acceptance (often the case)? The **reality of our own death motivates** us to gain recognition from our work and values. But not everyone can achieve this. **Self-esteem is never wholly unconditional** (despite what parents say...you aren't a special snowflake). We must **continually** pursue self-esteem by **meeting/**exceeding social standards. Call it a "legacy" or whatever. - BUT actively pursuing SE can backfire; students whose **self-worth is too contingent on** **external sources** (grades, feedback( experience more **stress, anger, rocky relationships, drug abuse and eating disorders** than those whose SE was rooted in more internal sources like personal virtues. Ouch. - Seeking SE can **make us lose sight of what actually makes us feel good** about ourselves. Hiding your bad qualities and only drawing attention to the good ones can **make us less likeable** (less relatable/"real"). - When we focus on boosting Self Esteem, we leave ourselves open to more **criticism, have less empathy and feel more pressure** (less enjoyment of life). - **Embrace compassionate goals**; makes for better relationships. It's also good for self-compassion. **The Trade-Off of Low vs High Self-Esteem** - People **low in SE** are more vulnerable to **anxiety, loneliness, depression, Eds and self-harm.** - Make **less money,** more likely to **abuse drugs**. - Take a **pessimistic view**, especially when feeling threatened. - Fear of **abandonment** - Notice and remember **the worst in others** - **Complain/sulk** to get support; elicits negative reaction from partners. - More likely to **leave or be left,** especially if the other sees them in a "positive" light. - May be a **cause of depression** (not a result of it); perhaps third factor (ahem...neurodivergence). - Often a symptom of a **tough childhood.** - Trying **to artificially boost low SE with platitudes backfires**; it makes us feel **worse.** - Do **NOT want to "see the positive**" in negative events; **keep it real** please. Prefer "that sucks" over "look on the bright side." - Good things happen to people with **low SE? It's a fluke.** - Good things happen to people with **high SE?** **They deserve it, and savour it**. Self-serving perceptions are useful; believing we are better than we can lead to creating a **self-fulfilling prophecy** that can sustain us through difficult times. - **High SE** fosters **initiative, resilience, good feelings.** - BUT Hitler had very high self-esteem. As does Trump. Monsters often feel great about themselves. - High SE does **not cause better academic achievement or superior** work performance or make us more moral or ethical. - "the Effects of self-esteem are small, limited, and not all good." (Baumeister, 1996) - **Self-control is worth ten times as much as self-esteem.** **Narcissism** - High SE can be **problematic** when it crosses into narcissism/inflated sense of self. - More than just high SE; **fundamental differences** - **Narcissists think they are better than others.** - **Value achievements,** but **not caring for others** (most value both) - **Self-centredness leads to relationship problems** - Often part of **dark triad; Machiavellianism** and **antisocial psychopathy** - Narcissists are more likely to **retaliate against perceived slights** - **High SE and narcissism?** Very aggressive, most likely to retaliate/lash out. **"God help you if you cross them."** - May originate in being given **"special treatment"** in **childhood** (one factor). - **Often initially popular,** but it fades fast (don't have best interests of group at heart). - **Antagonism/aggression** defeats popularity - Seem to be **aware** of own narcissism! **Self-report nearly as good as 40 item measure**. - See themselves more **positively** than others; **admit** they are **arrogant and exaggerated**. - Make **good first impressions**; disliked in the long run. **Self-Efficacy** - **Bandura;** power of positive thinking on research into **self-efficacy (how competent we feel on a task).** - **More persistent, less anxious, less depressed.** - **Live healthier, more academically successful.** - Leads us to set **challenging goals and persist.** - Positively **predicts worker productivity**. - Leads us to **stay calm and seek solutions** (not ruminate on inadequacy) - **Competence + persistence = accomplishment.** - Self-efficacy, like self-esteem, **grows with hard-won achievement**. - **Similar to SE but different;** "I believe I can do something" (not liking yourself). - "You're special!" (crap effort at self-esteem building) "I know you can do it!" (self-efficacy reinforcement). - **Praise for the effort, NOT the results.** **What is self-serving bias?** - Most of us have good **"self-reputation"** and score ourselves in **at least mid-range** on self-esteem. North American self-esteem is above average. You can't all be above average! - **Self-serving bias -- a tendency to perceive oneself favourably**. Positive and Negative Events - People accept credit when told they have succeeded. - **Attribute success to ability and effort (internal traits);** attribute **failure** to **external factors (situational, bad luck, bad problem).** - Victories: It was us! We won! Loss: It was the ref! Bad call! - Situations that combine skill and changes are especially prone to this phenomenon; winners attribute success to skill and loss to chance. Athletes, politicians, CEOs. - **Self-serving attributions -- attributing positive outcomes to oneself and negative outcomes to something else);** a most potent human bias. - **Actives reward pathways in brain.** - Contribute to **conflicts;** marital discord, worker dissatisfaction, bargaining impasses. People tend to see themselves as more deserving of rewards/promotions than their peers too. - We are biased against **seeing our own bias; avoid seeing self-serving bias themselves but acknowledge** it in others; a "**bias blind spot."** - **We see ourselves as objective and everyone else as biased.** - People in **collectivist** (Eastern) **cultures** are **less likely to self-enhance** than others, particularly on "individualistic" traits. Not a universal. **Can we all be "better than average?"** - Self-serving bias appears when **we compare ourselves with others.** - On subjective, socially desirable and common dimensions, most people see themselves as better than average (hello shitty drivers!) - We see ourselves as being more ethical, more competent, more virtuous, more intelligent, more engaged in democracy, healthier, more attractive and better drivers. (facepalm) - Many believe they will **become even better (MORE above average)** in the future. - Common in **marriage**; each partner believes they carry more of the weight of chores/duties (we know the women are mostly doing this, NOT the men). - **Group member's** estimates of **how much they contribute** to a join task typically **sums more than 100%** (but in fact they put in **less effort**; see the **social loafing effect**). - **Stronger** for **traits that are subjective/difficult** to measure. (e.g. I am a better dancer than I am at math). - **Subjective qualities** allow us to define our own **"better than average."** - "I am athletic" does not equal "I am good at X sport" but I might be tempted to transfer my perceived abilities anyhow. - People truly believe their self-enhancing self-assessments. Hey man, don't let your assessment make an ass out of you and me! - Differences in assessments of responsibility are common; contrasting judgements may reflect normal cognitive processes rather than deliberate deceit (this is why you MUST assign tasks in a group). Unrealistic Optimism - Humans are more disposed to optimism than pessimism. - We perceive ourselves as **more likely to benefit from good things**, and **less likely to experience negative events.** (See the **"just world hypothesis"**) - **Illusory optimism** increases our vulnerability (because it is delusional); we **do not take sensible precautions** (wear a mask, wear a bike helmet, do up your seatbelt!)\\ - We can **undermine ourselves** (smokers who quit and believe they are above average in willpower are more likely to keep cigarettes around...relapse ahoy!) - **Optimism beats pessimism in promoting self-efficacy, health and wellbeing**. Belief in a happier future is more likely to create one (self-fulfilling prophecy) - Pessimists die sooner; more likely to suffer accidents and maladies. - Unrealistic optimists are happier, more satisfied with their lives and less likely to be depressed. Delusionality pays! - **Defensive pessimism** -- a dash of **realism can save us from perils of unrealistic optimism**. It anticipates problems and motivates effective coping. "Be prepared for danger while staying in peace." A bit of self-doubt can **motivate preparation** (like studying). Overconfident people tend to underprepare. - We tend to be **more optimistic when a test is hypothetical**; when the rubber hits the road, many are more accurate. - **Listen to criticism**; if two people independently give them the same piece of negative feedback, you should at least consider that it may be true. - We tend to **overestimate the extent to which others think and act as we do.** - Opinion; **we overestimate the extent to which others agree with us; the false consensus effect.** - "The sense we make of the world seems like common sense." - **Worsened** by echo chambers and bubbles created on social media. - When we **behave or perform badly,** we reassure ourselves that thinking it's **common.** - We **overestimate reciprocal desire**; bad news for women who don't want to be sexually assaulted. - "We don't see things as they really are...we see things as we are." - Happens when we **draw from a limited sample**, with **ourselves being the most prominent voice**. **We "project"** ourselves onto others. - We reinforce it by **limiting our social circles** to those who think like us/share our attitudes. - **False uniqueness effect**; matters of ability **when we succeed, we serve our self-image by seeing our talents and moral behaviours as relatively unusual**. (aka the "Hipster" effect; I was into this before it was cool, man). - **Our successes are exceptional, and our failures are norma**l. **Illusory Sense of Improvement** - **Temporal comparisons made with our own "past selves**" are **typically flattering to our current self** (when young, I think). - Maintain positive self-regard by **viewing distant selves negatively**, but **recent past selves positively**; creates sense of **"improvement."** - Is it a **developmental trend, or an illusion**? It seems it is more **wishful thinking** than reality. - Also perceive past selves as psychologically closer in time; negative past selves as more "distant." (Those popular in HS recall it like it was "yesterday." Oh yuck). **Summary:** - **Tendencies towards self-serving attributions, self-congratulatory comparison, illusory optimism, false consensus and an illusory sense of improvement are major sources of self-serving bias** (but apparently, they pay, so who cares?) ![A diagram of a problem Description automatically generated with medium confidence](media/image4.png) **Explaining Self-serving Bias** - **Why do people think they are hot shit?** - Errors in how we process and remember information about ourselves. - Multiple opportunities for **erroneous comparison**, **flaws in information processing** - Some level of **perceptual error** - **BUT** - Also, **self-serving motives** (we always have **multiple motives**) - Quest for knowledge: assess competence - Self-confirmation? Verify self-conceptions - Also motivated to enhance self-image - **The quest to increase self-esteem overall helps power self-serving biases.** **How do people manage their self-presentation?** Are self-enhancing expressions **always sincere**? Do people **hold the same feelings privately** that they express publicly, or is it just putting on "a brave face" while living with crippling self-doubt? - Self-handicapping; **sabotaging one's chances for success by creating impediments that make success less likely.** (Hey, I can't really fail if I never really tried, right?) **It can look like:** - **Reduce preparation** for important events - Give the **opponent an advantage** - **Perform poorly** at the beginning of a task to **keep expectations low** (in the case of many men, **"weaponized incompetence"**). - **Procrastination** as an excuse for poor performance. - It always provides a **handy external attribution for failure**, rather than attributing it to our actual abilities. It is **defensive and self-protective.** It is a way to deal with fear of failure, and one type of very consciously controlled "self-fulfilling prophecy." It protects self-esteem and public image when we can attribute failure to something other than ourselves. **Impression Management** - **Self-serving bias, false modesty and self-handicapping** reveal depth of concern for self-image; we are always **managing impressions because we are social animals** with an audience. The **desire for acceptance is so great** that it can lead us to **risk harming ourselves** in order to get it \*insert any number of self-destructive but "cool" behaviours here\* - **Self-presentation -- our wanting to present a desired image both to an external audience (others) and internal audience (ourselves).** - False modesty- the "humblebrag." (Does NOT work to convey humility or impress others. Do not try). - Balance; we try to look good, but **not** *too good*. Dog it up! - In true **collectivist cultures, modesty is a default st**rategy to avoid offending others. *Remove risk of offense, we all become self-enhancing egomaniacs.* - Familiar situations; self-presentation tend to happen without much conscious effort. - **Unfamiliar situations; it takes a lot of bandwidth to impress people**! We are acutely self-conscious, and also less modest than with people we know well. (Which is why those who "show off" to their friends reek of low self-esteem). - Putting your "best face forward" and make a positive impression, even on family, can make ourselves feel better though. - Social media makes everything worse by 1000%. "Impression management on steroids," especially harmful for young people. - So, it makes sense people will self-handicap or self-sabotage when failure might make them look bad. - We are also less likely to grandstand and inflate our behaviour when we can be called out by those who know us. - **Some people are inherently high in self-monitoring; they adjust their behaviour in response to external situations (hello there!)** - **They are more likely to conform to the group and express attitudes they don't actually hold. The self they "know" differs from the mask they wear in various venues. "Social chameleons."** Not necessarily as bad a thing as these guys makes it out to be. I suspect many of these people are ND's who are just hiding because their "real self" has been judged as "too weird" or "unacceptable" at the hands of NT's. - Apparently, we are more likely to be dissatisfied in our marriages and rack up more online connections. Again, classic ND. - Those **LOW in self-monitoring** are the **lucky IDGAFs**. They are more internally guided and more likely to talk and act as they feel and believe (me, at home). - Low SM -- boorish, High SM -- con artist. But most of us are between. - **False modesty** is a common strategy; we display **"lower self-esteem" than we privately feel** ("I did well, but it's no big deal.") - **Eastern cultures** -- self-presented modesty is valued, as a type of self-restraint. People exhibit less self-serving bias; **share credit for success and accept responsibility for failures.** **Summary:** **Two truths:** **The truth of self-efficacy** -- do not resign yourself to a bad situation; you must persist despite initial failure; exert effort without self-doubt. Self-esteem can be adaptive. **The truth of self-serving bias** -- positive self-esteem is helpful, but let's not get carried away here in defence mechanisms. This viewpoint fails to acknowledge bad things can happen to good people. You can't control everything, and that's ok. ***"No single truth is ever sufficient because the world is complex. Any truth separated from its complementary truth is a half-truth." Pascal*** **Chapter 3 -- Social Beliefs and Judgements** **Motivated reasoning** (gut-level support or opposition) powerfully INLUENCES how we INTERPRET EVIDENCE and view reality. Do people form opinions based on relevant evidence? Or do their opinions shape how they view the evidence? Differing responses to the same information illustrates how we construct social perceptions. We may do any or all of the following: **Judging** events by implicit rules, snap judgments, moods *(heuristics, stereotypes, system 1 thinking)* **Perceive** and recall events through filters of assumptions *(fallacies, attribution errors, biases)* **Explain** events with attribution *(internal or external attributions, implicit and explicit bias, justification)* **Expect** certain events, sometimes ensuring they happen *("just world" and "self-fulfilling prophecies)* **How do we judge our social worlds, consciously and unconsciously?** **Daniel Kahneman's "Two System" thinking** *("Thinking, Fast and Slow"):* **System 1:** functions automatically, out of awareness (intuiting, gut feeling); rapid, efficient, relies heavily on heuristics, stereotypes and fallacies. Fast, but often fraught with error. **System 2:** Requires conscious attention and effort; slow, effortful, takes time and deliberation, may deplete our resources. Likes to have "complete" information. **System 1 influences our thinking without our realization; this is called priming.** - **Priming:** The awakening or activating of certain associations. One thought, even without awareness, can influence another thought or action. Many priming effects are too subtle to be perceived! - **Subliminal priming;** a prime that is too brief to be perceived consciously, but it still enters the mind. An imperceptible image of word can prime a response to a later task. Was popularized through "subliminal" advertising in tv and movies. - Unnoticed scents can also prime us (scents, for example) and effect our later interactions (subjects exposed to a "fishy" smell were suspicious of each other and less likely to cooperate). ***Much of our social information processing is automatic. It is unintentional, out of sight, and happens without our conscious awareness -- relying on System 1.*** - Even physical sensations (due to **embodied cognition**) can prime our behaviour! (e.g. social isolation feels "cold," "dark" and "unstable.") When engaging with another, we often synch our movements and even brain activity to theirs**. Social** **cognition is embodied too!** Intuitive Judgements: What are our powers of intuition (immediate "knowing" with no reasoning/analysis)? - Some believe we should follow hunches and use system 1. Are intuitionists, right? Or should we **be skeptical**? **Self-described intuitive people are no more than others at intuitive tasks** (Leach & Weick). The Powers of Intuition WE know more than we know. Studies have shown that we have limited access to what is actually going on in our minds! Thinking is partly: - Automatic -- system 1 - Controlled -- system 2 - System 1 thinking occurs not "onscreen" but away, out of sight, "where reason does not go." Examples: - **Schemas** -- mental concepts or templates that intuitively guide our perceptions and interpretation of our experience. - **Emotional reactions** -- nearly instantaneous, before there is time for deliberate thinking. *(This is likely an evolutionary response designed to keep us away from predators; there is a neural shortcut from the sensory organ to the thalamus and then to the amygdala long before any conscious thinking happens!)* - **Expertise;** what seems intuitive may just be well-rehearsed/mastered information and skills. - **Snap judgements;** when we have little information about someone; can (surprisingly) beat chance at guessing what someone is like in some respects. Some things are, of course, recalled using system 2 (names, facts, etc.) But other things (skills, conditioned dispositions) are remembered implicitly with system 1. - **Blindsight** -- people who are partially functionally blind (damage to visual cortex) still can guess correctly the orientation of visual stimulus! - **Subliminal stimuli** -- can have intriguing effects (see study on Catholic women reading explicit literature, followed by an image of a stranger frowning or the Pope frowning; those who saw the Pope reported much lower self-esteem). (Baldwin et. al, 1990) - Many **routine functions occur automatically, unintentionally and without awareness.** - This **"delegation" to system 1** allows for **speed and efficiency** **The Limits of intuition** "Automatic thinking can make us smart" but the "brilliance of intuition" is doubtful. (Loftus and Klinger) - **No evidence** that commercial **subliminal** auto recordings **can "reprogram" our minds.** - Humans have an incredible capacity **for illusions -- perceptual misinterpretations, fantasies and constructed beliefs.** - **Illusory intuition** also affects how **we process, store and retrieve information.** - **Social psychologists study illusory thinking for what it reveals about normal information processing;** they are attempting to "map" everyday thinking and show the hazards. **Overconfidence** - Usually, we are unaware of our errors -- **overconfidence**. Intellectual conceit (I knew it all along!) will affect current knowledge and predictions of future behaviour. - Kahneman and Tversky studied overconfidence; most individuals were overconfident in their responses to difficult estimate questions; 30% of the time the answer was beyond the range of estimates they were 98% sure included the correct answer. They also identified an overly narrow range (**overprecision**). - **Overprecision** often influences us to arrive late, miss flights and bounce checks. We cut it too close! - People were terribly **overconfident and overprecise in their estimates of risk** during the height of COVID (and still are); most massively underestimate their risk, or even how many people have fallen ill or died. - **Incompetence feeds overconfidence (Dunning-Kruger Effect)**. You don't know what you don't know and [overestimate your abilities] or expertise when you [are ignorant or naïve of a subject, situation or profession] (which is why everyone loves to criticize experts). They wildly overestimate their skills and knowledge after limited experience and are [totally unaware of their ignorance]. It occurs on relatively "easy-seeming" (but not actually easy) tasks. On more obviously difficult tasks, people are less likely to engage in this kind of illusory thinking. - Ignorance of one's incompetence is dangerous; SO, If ignorance can beget false confidence...then are you and I unknowingly deficient?" - People may **give too much weight to intentions when predicting future behaviour**; intentions are actually a poor predictor. We underestimate all the other stuff (context, logistics, peer pressure, etc.) Some examples: - *Stockbroker overconfidence*; random fund portfolios perform about as well as carefully selected stocks. - *Student overconfidence*; those high in confidence (too high) tend to perform poorly. - *Underestimating time needed for a task* -- almost everyone does this; as said earlier, it is partly due to incorrectly recalling how long a task took in the past as well as unwarranted optimism. - WHY DOES OVERCONFIDENCE PERSIST? - **We like those who are confident**! They are reassuring! They appear more competent. And even when they are shown to be wrong, we still grant them status! **Confirmation Bias** - **Confirmation bias;** we are less inclined to seek evidence that might disprove or come into conflict with our currently held beliefs. For example: - People spend **more time reading articles consistent with their beliefs** or hypotheses - Sometimes people **aren't even willing to hear the other side** (it should be noted that "hate speech" is not "the other side" to any ethical issue. There are not always two sides). - People choose their news sources to align with their beliefs (**Ideological echo chambers**) - Even when a source is **less reliable**, people are **more willing to believe it if it affirms their beliefs.** - E.g. those who are anti-vaccine to do seek out factual information about vaccines, but anti-vaccine literature to support their delusions. - **Confirmation bias appears to be a system 1 "snap judgement**;" the default reaction is to look for information that is consistent with our presupposition. - Stopping and thinking a little -- aka **System 2** -- **makes us less likely to commit this error**. Slowing student's reading by putting them in low light conditions also slowed thinking and made students less likely to engage in system 1 "reactions" to articles about the death penalty (Hernandez and Preston, 2013). **Contemplation curtails confirmation** (bias). - It explains why our self-images are so stables; we seek elicit and recall feedback that confirms our beliefs about ourselves. **Remedies for overconfidence:** - One lesson is to **be wary** of other people's **dogmatic** (prescriptive) statements. Even if someone seems sure they are right/are confident, they may be wrong. **Confidence and competence are not the same.** - **Two techniques to overcome overconfidence bias:** - **Prompt feedback** (Lichtenstein and Fischhoff, 1980); groups who received more immediate feedback usually become better at estimating probable accuracy. - **Get people to think of one good reason why their judgements might be wrong.** Force them to consider disconfirming information. Because when people start to think an idea might be true, it begins to seem truer (even if it is not). **Heuristics: Mental Shortcuts:** Our **cognitive system is "fast and frugal;**" mental shortcuts **save time, effort and energy** (a.k.a. **System 1** thinking. These are **adaptive** (and mostly advantageous) responses with a **biological purpose**. However, in some places, [they make no sense.] - **Representativeness heuristic -- To judge something intuitively by comparing it to our mental representation of a category (aka a prototype).** We will often take a **mental shortcut** to the **most** "**representative" example that comes to mind.** We assume when we are speaking of a truck driver, they are male. We assume teachers must be pretty smart. After watching a news story about a plane crash, we believe air travel is more dangerous than it is (or that it is more dangerous than travel by car, which it is not). - Note that the **conjunction of two events** (Mina is a bank teller, Mina is a feminist, therefore Mina is a feminist bank teller) is **not more likely than either one of the events alone**. That's just probability. - **Availability Heuristic** -- We use examples that are readily available in our memory (and that are more vivid and easily recalled) as our mental model. **The more easily we can recall something, the more likely it seems.** There are more people who are killed by sharks than by horses, right? (No; many more people are killed by horses. But we don't think of horses as dangerous predators in the way we easily think of the shark in Jaws). - **This is the reason why a powerful anecdote will get more traction than data**; people can't "see" data in order (naïve statistical intuitions) to understand the likelihood of greater threat. So, we are study with climate change deniers (threat \#1) and are more afraid of the remote possibility of terrorism on Canadian soil (not really a threat, but it is less abstract and after 9/11, more vivid and easier to recall). **We end up fearing the wrong things.** - **This bias may make us more sensitive to unfairness**; our struggles are more memorable than our advantages. - **Our fears are driven not by data but by emotion and the availability heuristic**. - **BUT dramatic events can alert us to real risk**. E.g. a hot day or a large storm can prime people to believe more in climate change. **Heuristic** **Definition** **Example** **BUT May lead to...** -------------------- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Representativeness Snap judgements of whether someone or something fits a category Deciding "Marie" is a librarian rather than a trucker because our prototype of a librarian is a woman. Discounting other important info. Availability Quick judgements of the likelihood of events (How available/vivid in memory) Estimating teen violence after reading news report of school shootings Overweighting vivid instances and thus, for example, fearing the wrong things. **Counterfactual Thinking** - Easily imagined "cognitively available events" also influence our experience so guilt, regret and frustration. Imagining worse alternatives (at least it wasn't as bad as...) helps us feel better. Imagining better alternative can help us prepare to do better in the future. - **Counterfactual thinking is mentally simulating "what *might have been.*"** ("If only I had done x/y/z) - E.g. Bronze medalists (who can easily imagine finishing fourth) are ecstatic; meanwhile silver medalists (who can imagine winning) feel worse. - Happens when we can easily picture alternative outcomes - It underlies feeling of luck; we can easily imagine a worse alternative, and it makes us feel we have "good luck" ("bad luck" is things that events that did happen but might easily not have). - The more significant and unlikely the event, the more intense the counterfactual thinking will be (see sudden deaths, accidents...grief-stricken people often "rewind" the event to think of all the "what ifs" and "if I had only.") - Most people live with regret over things they \*didn't do\* than the things they did! Illusory Thinking - Illusory thinking refers to the way we easily correlate random events; we often see a connection (causality) where there is none. It is easy to see a correlation where none exists. - People easily misperceive random events as confirming their beliefs. (Crocker et al, 1986) - If we believe a correlation exists, we are more likely to notice and recall confirming instances. We ignore or forget all the times that unusual events do not coincide with our supposed "correlation." (much like confirmation bias). It happens often in: - **Gambling** -- gamblers often act as though they can predict or control chance vents ("wins" are skill while losses are "flukes" - **Stock traders**; the illusion of control and empowerment from choosing stocks breeds overconfidence and frequent losses after stock market trading costs are subtracted (Barber & Odean, 2001) - **People like feeling in control**; when they feel they have none, they **will act to create a sense of predictability t**hey will **form illusory correlations (or rules, like superstitions)** to override this feeling of helplessness. Regression toward the average (Keep this in mind for research methodology!) - We often fail to recognize this statistical phenomenon...most of us are pretty average at most things, and high performance is often unusual. - If the first score is "at the ceiling" the second score is more likely to fall back ("regress") to the average than push the ceiling higher. - When things reach a "low point" people will try anything that helps us feel we are "improving." And it is more likely to be followed by some improvement. But no matter what we do, most of us will end up somewhere near the average. - Nature operates in such a way that we often feel punished for rewarding others and rewarded for punishing them. Positive reinforcement for doing things right is usually more effective and has fewer negative side effects. **Mood and Judgement** - Social judgement involves efficient information processing, but also FEELINGS. Unhappy people tend to be more self-focused and brooding or ruminating. - **Depressed mood** motivates **intense thinking**; a **search for information** that makes one's environment more memorable**, understandable and controllable** (anxious people do this even more). - **Happy people** are more loving, trusting; the world seems friendlier, decisions are easier, **good news comes to mind more readily.** - **Bad mood can prime our recollections** of **negative events**; relationships seem to sour, self-image takes a dive, hope for the future dims, other people's behaviour seems more sinister. "Shadow of doubt" - **Memories and judgements change with the "colour" of their mood** (Forgas, 2007) - When viewing a video of yourself, if something makes you feel happy or pleased, you are able to detect more instances of yourself in that state of mind; skilled, poised, interested. But if you are in a bad mood, viewing the same video, you will see stiff, nervous, inarticulate version of yourself. It will "darken the mirror" you see yourself in. - **So, when we are emotionally aroused (angry, or even in a very good mood) we are more likely to make snap judgments and evaluate others based on stereotypes.** (Bodenhausen et al 1994) - **Moods subconsciously influence how closely we observe the outside around us;** negative mood improves attention and memory. **How do we perceive our social worlds?** People fail to appreciate the impact of their own **predispositions.** **Predispositions and prejudgements affect perceptions of information but so does after-the-fact recollection!** *"We respond to reality NOT as it is but to reality as we CONSTRUE it."* **Political Perceptions** - Are very much in the eye of the beholder! The **outcome of a debate** can **be interpreted** wildly **differently depending on which candidate you back**. Additionally, each side will view the opponent as being hostile to their side. - People everywhere view **media and mediators as biased against their position**. "there is no subject about which people are less objective than objectivity." (Poniewozik, 2003). - Tell someone you see bias, and you will show your attitudes. - Ambiguous information (or bipartisan) is more likely to fuel conflict or to feel threatening. So, people will always view their candidate in the debate has having "won" (yes, even Trump supporters. Especially Trump supporters). The bottom line; we view our social worlds through the spectacles of our beliefs, attitudes and values. Like a big, chunky, brightly coloured pair of glasses. **Belief Perseverance** - People who have a **prior "implanted falsehood"** ( a firm belief) will **be incredibly resistant to new information or changing their view.** - Once a person has conjured up a rationale for a false belief, it is very hard to demolish it. - This is called **belief perseverance.** - It's also why people **continue to believe** false information. - Even information that is **discredited** (like bad information on vaccines) **can resist education**; *in a study by Anderson, Lepper and Ross, people continued to believe their self-generated explanations about the superiority of risk-taking firefighters even when shown clear evidence to the contrary.* **People will believe the explanation that they generate (rationalize)** - It also shows that **the more we examine our theories and explain who they might be true, the more closed we become to information that challenges our belief ("sunk cost" effect).** - Our beliefs and expectations **powerfull**y affect how we mentally construe events. **Usually we benefit from** preconceptions (save energy!) BUT we can become **prisoners of our own thought patterns**. **Constructing Memories of Ourselves and Our worlds** - Our memories are **NOT exact copies** of our experiences that remain on deposit in a **"memory bank."** We re-construct them when we "withdraw" (recall) them; *we include corporal and sensory information too!* - We use our **current feelings and expectations** to combine **fragments of past information.** - When **manipulated** by a therapist, we can be **induced to produce false memories. "In the search for truth, the mid sometimes constructs a falsehood."** - Loftus (2003); when people witness event, receive misleading information about it and then take a memory test, the results find a **[misinformation effect] in which people incorporate the fake information into their memories.** Memory is corruptible. - This process affects recall of social and physical events. - Daniel Schacter also studied this. **Reconstructing past attitudes** - **W**e know attitudes change with time...but if they change, **HOW MUCH have they changed**? And are you aware they have changed? - People whose attitude have changed **often insist that they have always felt much as they now feel!** - They **falsely "remember" holding the same opinion** in the past that they hold now. - The speed, magnitude and certainty with which we "revise" memories to match current attitudes is striking. - Some people exhibit "**rosy retrospection**: they recall mildly pleasant events more favourably than they experienced them. We **minimize or forget the unpleasant, mundane, boring stuff** around the event. - As our relationships change, we **also revise our recollections of other people** ("Oh, I never liked him" because this person recently upset you). - **Unhappily married people** were found to think **"it was always bad"** while **happily married** ones had much **more positive impressions** of their partners. This could cause a downward spiral or distrust for rocky relationships. - **When memories are hazy, current feelings guide our recall.** *Again, we are wearing big, coloured glasses!* - **Fun fact:** *depressed people who get brow-furrow freezing Botox feel less depressed...because they can't express a frown anymore. Physical biology and the faces we can make also affects our mood and memories.* **Reconstructing Past Behaviour** - Memory reconstruction enables us to "revise" our own histories; we are more likely to recall ourselves doing more positive things (brushing our teeth more often, smoking less often) than we really do. - We have "totalitarian egos" that revise the past to suit our present views. - If we want to believe we have improved, we may misremember our past as being "worse" than it was to create relief against our current "improved" state. And yet most improvements are minor or average. But we will claim considerable benefit! **How do we explain our social worlds?** - We want to explain other people! Our judgements of people defend on how we explain their behaviour. - Depending on our explanation, we may **attribute behaviour to internal attributes** or **external causes. This is attribution theory.** **Attributing Causality: To the person or the situation?** - **Attribution theory** analyses **how we explain other people's behaviour** and what we **infer** from it. - We sometimes attribute people's behaviour to **internal causes (disposition or inherent trai**ts) or **external causes (context, situation).** - **Unhappily married couples are likely to accuse their partner of faults that are "inherent**" (internal attribution; "he was late because he's inconsiderate") rather than external, **while happily married couples are more likely to look at context and "externalize" problems**. (She was late because of heavy traffic) - **Men** are more likely to **attribute a woman's friendliness to attraction** (ugh). - **Misattribution is a huge problem**, especially when **men are in positions of power.** - Men's tendency to overestimate women's sexual interest wanes in long-term relationships. In fact, they tend to underestimate their partner's sexual interest. And it benefits the relationship! Inferring Traits - We often infer that other people's actions are indicative of their true intentions and dispositions. - Normal or expected behaviour actually tells us LESS about a person than unusual behaviour. - Spontaneous trait inference; the ease with which we infer traits; people often instantly, unconsciously infer a trait. - Exposure for 1/10^th^ of a second to a face can lead people to infer personality traits. **The Fundamental Attribution Error** - We often underestimate the influence of our social environment; our internal state depends on many contextual factors. Even a slight contextual change can make a huge difference (e.g. student in an 8 am class vs a 7 pm class). - We often fail to appreciate how much context matters! It is constantly underestimated, while we overestimate the effect of individual traits and attitudes. - The fundamental attribution error is this discounting of the situation/context (Ross, 1977); it has been shown in many experiments. - When asked to debate a position contrary to their own option, if it is done convincingly, we will assume it reflect their true opinions (whether they chose the position to argue or not!) They infer the debater has "assigned leanings" or bias. - Even when people know they are causing someone else's behaviour, they will still underestimate external influences! - We are also often unaware of the effect our behaviour is having on other people. We tend to presume that others are the way they act; even when we don't presume that about ourselves! We take people literally, at face value. - In a situation in which one person plays a "questioner", both contestants and observers came to the erroneous conclusion that questioners really are more knowledgeable than contestants. The same is true of professors, doctors and teachers. (Ross, 1977) - In real life, those with social power initiate and control conversations, which leads to us overestimating their knowledge and intelligence. - We assume everyone else is "less nervous" than us because we can't see how they are feeling inside. **WHY do we make the attribution error?** Perspective and situational awareness - We **observe others from a different perspective than we observe ourselves**; when we watch someone else act, that person occupies the centre of our attention. **The SITUATION becomes invisib**le. - It favours us**: If I am mad**, it's because of the **situation.** **If YOU are mad**, it's because **you are ill-tempered.** - The actor-observer difference is often minimal. And yet we have this "double standard" by which we judge others more harshly than ourselves. - Even **camera perspectives** can influence perceived guilt in a trial! This is known as **"camera perspective bias."** In trial, exclusive video focus on the accused (and not the judge, jury or the rest of the court) yield a 100% rate of conviction (which is why we don't see a lot of this). We literally eliminate the context. - When recalling our past, we become more like observers of someone else; we are more likely to judge our past selves more harshly, almost as if they were "other people." - We find causes where we look for them (a type of confirmation bias). - We are far **more aware of how our own behaviour varies** **in context** (I'm shy in class, but outspoken with friends) than we are of others (we assume they are stable across situations). We see ourselves as more variable than others. (Baxter et al) **How do we assess people's traits? (Nisbett);** big idea: We, as the actor, are more likely to see the external factors that influence our behaviour than we are able to see them for someone else (like a celebrity.) **Cultural Differences** - Cultures also influence attribution errors! - Western view; predisposes people to assume that people, not situations cause events. "You can do it!" - Westerners are taught from young to explain behaviour in terms of personal characteristics (unfortunately) - Eastern (Asian) cultures are more likely to be sensitive to the importance of situation. To the point of "the clock caused me to be late" (Spanish!) - The fundamental attribution error is FUNDAMENTAL because it colours our explanations in basic and important ways. - It predicts **major social attitudes** (e.g. towards the poor and unemployed) and political positions. - **Dispositional attribution** ascribes behaviour to the persons **dispositions and traits**. (e.g. "poor people are poor because they are lazy). These tend to be overly simplistic and cruel political positions. - Situational attributions tend to adopt **political positions that offer more emp**athy and support to the disenfranchised. (Poor people often come from a rough childhood and are battling multiple social disadvantages). Why study Attribution Errors? - It is not designed to demonstrate how foolish people are; our purpose is to reveal **how we think about ourselves and others.** - Our capacity for illusion and self-deception is shocking; but we are generally **adaptive. Illusory thinking is a by-product of biological adaptability.** - We have to simplify stimuli and complex information in order to deal with it all. Otherwise, we would be stuck in perpetual observation and decision mode! - There is a **humanitarian goal**; **people should not always be blamed for their problems**! (Gilovich and Eiback, 2001) - We are mostly **unaware of our biases** and can benefit from greater awareness. People see themselves as less susceptible that others to attributions errors (oh the irony). - **Social psychology aims to expose us to fallacies in our thinking in the hopes that we will become more rational, more in touch with reality and receptive to critical thinking.** **How do social beliefs matter?** - They **influence how we feel and act** and may **"generate" their own reality**, especially when we work to produce our own "confirmation." - They become **self-fulfilling prophecies (Merton, 1948);** **beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment**. (see Greek tragedies and the Stock Market crash of '33 for evidence of this!) - **We often "live up to" what we believe others expect of us.** - **Teacher's evaluations tend to correlate with student achievement**; they tend to think well of students who do well. They mostly accurately perceive students' abilities and achievements with about 75% accuracy (Jussim, 2017) - But **are they a cause of student achievement**? According to Crano and Mellon (1978) and Sorhagen (2013) teachers' judgements predicted student's later performance beyond their actual ability. - **Teachers' beliefs** can serve as self-fulfilling prophecies (according to Rosenthal; called the **"Pygmalion effect."** Please note his study on this was not replicated and is considered discredited, so take this entire section with a grain of salt!!!) - **Rosenthal and Jacobson** (1968) reported that if teachers gave pupils special treatment (because they were told the students were "spurters" or fast learners) that it would elicit superior performance. PLEASE NOTE THIS STUDY IS DISCREDITED. I CANNOT STRESS THIS ENOUGH. - Later analysis showed that this effect was **not powerful, reliable or replicable**. So, I am not sure why it made it into this textbook. - Low expectations do not doom capable children, and high expectations do not turn them into scholars. **High expectations do seem to give a "boost" to low achievers,** because being viewed favourably by the teacher is probably nice (for a change). Students are acutely aware of how their teachers feel about them (and can even judge it from a ten-second video). - And the effect student's expectations on teachers? They effect both students and teachers! If we expect competence, we see competence. If we expect a poor teacher, we will tend to see one. Teachers are judged most effective when assigned to students who nonverbally convey positive expectations. Student with positive expectations will pay better attention in class. **Getting from others what we expect** Our expectations of others although often reasonably accurate, can also act as self-fulfilling prophecies. Our perceptions of others are more often accurate than biased (Jussim, 2012). But the effect of self-fulfilling prophecies and effects of other's perceptions of us are still powerful. Self-fulfilling prophecies colour personal relationships; sometimes in an effort to diffuse a nasty situation, we will be extra nice, which induces them to be nicer than they would be, thus disconfirming our expectations that they are a jerk. More examples: Hostility nearly always begets hostility! Especially in lab experiments! We live up to the "evil" image the other has of us. When someone loves and admires us, it helps us become the person our admirer imagines us to be. Optimistic partners tend to perceive each other as engaging constructively compared to those with more pessimistic partners; they then feel more supported and satisfied. **Erroneous beliefs** about the social world **can induce others to confirm** those beliefs, called **behavioural confirmation.** In blind phone surveys, men's erroneous beliefs about the appearance of the women they were asking to lead them to act in a way that influenced the women to fulfill their stereotype that "beautiful people are desirable people." People who believe they are accepted and liked (rather than disliked) then behave warmly 0 and do get accepted and liked. **What can we conclude about social beliefs and judgements?** - Our susceptibility to error also makes clear the need for disciplined training of the mind. - "the biggest truth of all about learning is that its purpose it is unlock the human mind and to develop it into an organ capable of thought- conceptual thought, analytical thought, sequential thought." (Norman Cousins, 1978) - It reminds us to "judge not"! - People's perceptions of each other, despite all of the biases and logical fallacies are surprisingly accurate! (Jussim) - We must consider that our modes of thought and behaviour are adaptive; a by-product of mental shortcuts to simplify the overwhelming complexity of information we receive. - Optimism pays dividends and can be useful as a generalization. - Social psychologists should: - Train people to spot sources of error and bias - Set up statistics courses to help people understand everyday problems of logic and social judgements - Use rich, real-world anecdotes to teach! - Use memorable, useful slogans like "You can lie with statistics, but a well-chosen example does the job better" (Or the more useful' there are lies, damned lies, and statistics). -

Intro to Social Psychology Exam Review PDF

Document Details

Tags

Related

Summary

Full Transcript

Upgrade to continue