PSYC242: Exam 2

Better-than-average effect

(Western cultures) people see positive traits as more self-descriptive than negative ones; rate themselves more highly than for or by others on "important" personal traits like capability and compassion, exaggerate control over life events, predict bright future for selves

Stigmatization

*Stigmatized*: being persistently stereotyped, perceived as deviant, and devalued in society because of membership in a certain social group/having a certain characteristic - Targets of stigmatization are suspicious of how much others' impressions of them are distorted through social categorization (suspicion is a defense) - Study: B students who got negative interpersonal feedback from W students suffered less of a blow to SE if they could easily attribute the negative feedback to racism (can protect SE but reduce sense of personal control - feel bad anyway)

Culture and self esteem

- Underlying need for positive self-regard is pancultural, but specific drives differs indiv/coll *Study*: measure implicit self esteem (unconscious tendency to evaluate self-relevant objects and people positively) - AsAm and EuroAm quicker to associate selves with positive words - Only AsAm more likely to sasoc selves w/negative words, as well (may feel compelled to present self modestly to fit in collectively)

Detecting truth and deception

- We often rely on the wrong cues to deception (no research supports liars averting eyes, squirming, fidgeting, etc.) = mismatch between behavioral cues that signal deception and cues we use to detect deception *4 channels of communication:* - Spoken word - Face: easy to control - Body: harder to control nervous movements (study: observers better at detecting deception from tapes focusing on body rather than face) - Voice: most telling *Theory*: lying is harder and requires more thinking; should focus on behavioral cues that show cognitive effort, not stress/anxiety - Study: interviewers better distinguished liars by asking them to recount stories in reverse chronological order

ABCs of the self

Affect, Behavior, Cognition *Affective/emotional*: how people evaluate themselves, enhance self-image, and defend against threats to self-esteem *Behavioral*: how people regulate actions and present themselves to others according to demands *Cognitive*: how people come to know themselves and develop a self-concept/maintain a stable sense of identity

Self-schemas

Beliefs about oneself that guide the processing of self-relevant information. - Schematic in respect to x: lots of mundane events would trigger thoughts about x. - Aschematic in respect to x: if the individual doesn't see x as a big deal

Facial feedback hypothesis

Changes in facial expression can lead to corresponding changes in the subjective experience of emotion - BUT: face isn't necessary to feel emotion (Self-perception: if I'm smiling, I must be happy) *Study*: Zajonc - smiling causes facial muscles to increase flow of air-cooled blood to brain and lower brain temp -> pleasant state; frowning = dec blood flow = raise temp. - P repeat vowels 20x (ah, e, u) and measure temp changes in forehead as P reported how they felt; ah/e (mimic smiling) = lower temp, elevated mood; u (frown) = inc temp, dec mood

Rationalizing/enhancing SE: Downward Social Comparisons

Defensive tendency to compare ourselves with others who are worse off than we are - If you suffer a setback or failure, adjust social comparisons in a downward direction -> lifts mood - Temporal comparisons: between past/present self (at least I'm better today than I was in the past) - In light of tragic life event (i.e cancer): affiliate w/others in same situation who adjusted well, but compare selves w/people worse off (study: 53% breast cancer patients' social comparisons were downward over 7 weeks)

Realistic conflict theory

Hostility between groups is caused by direct competition for limited resources - Losing group is frustrated/resentful, while winning group is threatened/protective - root of conflict Ex: support for discrimination against minorities when unemployment increases *Relative deprivation*: feeling discontent because you think you fare poorly compared with others

Terror management theory

Humans cope w/the fear of their own death by constructing world views that help preserve self-esteem - Self-esteem acts as a protective shield to control for potential terror

Defining racism

Prejudice and discrimination based on one's racial background but also institutional or cultural practices that promote the domination of one racial group over another. Ex. Harvard prof arrested for "breaking into own home" = victim of systemic racism (facing it yet again) but when Joe Walsh was very offended by claims of systemic racism, he probably took it as an attack at the individual level

Egocentrism in social life

Self = very plentiful --> comes to mind readily --> info about the self can exert disproportionate influence on our judgments 1. False consensus effect (how we see other people) 2. Egocentric responsibility allocations (how we see ourselves) 3. Spotlight effect/transparency (how we think others see us)

The self is a social concept

Self is "relational" - we draw a sense of who we are from past and current relationships Ex. apes raised in isolation didn't recognize themselves in the mirror

Adaptivity of positive self-illusions

Study: depressed people w/low self esteem have more realistic views of themselves (match neutral appraisals, reasonable future predictions, etc.) - Positive illusions promote happiness, desire to care for others, ability to engage *Deceit*: evolutionary communication skill, need to go undetected for it to succeed - Deceive ourselves w/positive illusions -> we can display greater confidence in public than truly felt -> more successful social relations - Leads to good 1st impression, but longer term, rated less favorably by friends (boastful, condescending, sensitive) Self-enhancement biases can lead to chronic issues of self-defeat, alcohol addiction to escape self-awareness, too much self-handicapping, denial of health problems, etc. *Self-enhancement motive*: everyone wants to feel good about themselves; leads to unrealistic optimism, the above average effect (ex. majority of people 61% pick a slightly more attractive version of their face as reality)

Self-enhancement as egocentrism

*1. Egocentric anchoring* - We base our judgments more on ourselves than others *2. Egocentric knowledge of intentions* - We know our own good intentions, but not others' - Ex: cold pressor task; observers watch you state your intentions then judge your altruism. You judge your own altruism based on intentions (negative weight to behavior), while observers based judgments entirely on behavior, disregarding intentions. *3. Egocentric construal of experience.* - We choose our definitions strategically - Largest above average effects seen for the most ambiguous terms - lack concrete behavioral elements (i.e. strong leadership vs athletic) *4. Psychology of Incompetence* - Double burden: the greater overestimation comes form those lowest in their actual ability - Lacking competence robs you of the ability to see your own incompetence

Shooter Bias

*Amadou Diallo, 1999: African immigrant; police thought he had gun, shot him 41 times and he died.* - Black st - more likely to misperceive wallet *Study*: students had to quickly identify pics as weapon/not; quick glimpse of black face primed them to see threatening object more often than W prime *Study*: video game, shoot target (b/w) holding gun or object; quicker to press shoot if black and gun, more likely to mistakenly shoot unarmed black - Even if decisions aren't biased, response times are - Real-life: shoot/no shoot decisions under stress, fatigue, distraction = compromised ability to overcome stereotype-based biases - Racial bias isn't related to individual levels of racial prejudice (black Ps show same bias against black targets)

Culture and social identity

*Coll*: value connectedness/interdependence; may draw *sharper distinctions* between ingroup and outgroup members than individualists; have narrower "trusted circle" - Less likely to enhance ingroups in order to boost SE, and have higher tolerance for "contradictions" (dialecticism) - more likely see ingroups as having both negative and positive qualities, while Westerns emphasize positive aspects *Socialization*: process of learning norms, rules, and info of a culture or group (i.e. passing down stereotypes and prejudices from gen to gen)

Schemas in studies

*Condry & Condry, 1976* - Jack-in-the-box shown 3x to 9 mo/old infant - Infant reaction: angry or afraid? - If S got baby boy name, interpreted reaction was anger more than fear; if given girl's baby name, fear more than anger) *Loftus & Palmer, 1974* - Constructive nature of memory - Car accident shown on film; used word "contacted" vs "smashed"; P recalled and guessed 31 mph vs 41 mph (also more than 2x as likely to remember presence of glass, which there was none of) *Kleck and Strenta, 1980* - Experimenter used makeup to put big scar on subject, treated him like a C -> S would interact w/another P, and reported that he could tell that the other P was uncomfortable and staring - But: scar was removed secretly before interaction; all the staring/discomfort was just in mind of the subject who built schema based on thinking they had face scar

Stereotypes: - Distort perceptions - Resist change

*Confirmation bias*: perceivers reduce ambiguity by interpreting outgroups' behavior as consistent with stereotype; seek and create info that confirms stereotypes. *Illusory correlation*: overestimating association between variables that are only slightly correlated (ie. between 2 rare variables, like minority groups and criminal behavior, or women and bad driving) *Stereotypes perpetuated thru repeated communication* - Study: after 6 rounds of story, over 1/2 sessions changed black man, not white, to hold razor - Study: st-inconsistent info gets screened out, so at the end, character seems more clearly stereotypical *Self-fulfilling prophecies*: i.e. job interviews - W participants have colder interpersonal style to B -> behave nervously/awkwardly and actually do worse *Attributions*: use personal att for poor performance, situational att for good performance to explain an "exception" *Subtype*: if behavior clearly contradicts stereotype and can't easily explain with situational factors, may categorize person into a subtype within the stereotype instead of diversifying the image itself

Confirmation biases: Perseverance of beliefs

*Confirmation biases*: interpret, seek, and create info in ways that verify existing beliefs *Belief perseverance*: tendency to stick to initial beliefs even after they're discredited - Study: academic potential of Hannah, 9 y/o either from affluent family (high expectation) or run-down neighborhood (low expectations); P slightly more optimistic for high exp; when both groups saw same video of Hannah taking test, low exp gave much lower ability ratings (identical body of evidence only fueled biasing effects) - Ambiguous events interpreted to fit initial beliefs - Study: P came up with theories then told them the theories were fake; but P still stuck with them (came up w/explanations to perpetuate belief even after discredited) Reduce/eliminate belief perseverance effects: consider why an alternative theory would be true

Reducing stereotypes/prejudice

*Contact hypothesis*: direct contact between members of hostile groups will reduce intergroup prejudice under specific conditions: 1. Equal status 2. Personal one-on-one interaction 3. Cooperative activities (superordinate goals) 4. Social norms (favor intergroup contact) Ex. Jackie Robinson in baseball, 1947 - Cross-group friendships and dating - Extended/direct contact effect: close ingroup friend has good relationship w/outgroup - Jigsaw classroom; cooperative learning - Common Ingroup Identity Model: intergroup forms more inclusive superordinate group (i.e. Dem vs Rep -> American); smaller groups would benefit from dual identity so as not to be overwhelmed

Cultural differences in self-concept

*Individualism*: independence, autonomy, self-reliance, and personal goals stressed (US, Australia, UK, Canada, Netherlands) - Independent view of self: self is distinct, autonomous, self-contained, and unique entity *Collectivism*: interdependence, cooperation (Venezuela, Pakistan, Taiwan, China) - Interdependent view of self: self is part of larger network of family, co-workers, and socially connected others Culture is made of 4 Is: - Ideas - Institutions - social Interactions that shape how - Individuals think, feel, and act

Ingroups vs Outgroups

*Ingroups*: feel membership, belonging, identity (country, religion, sports team, etc.) *Outgroups*: don't feel belonging, etc - Outgroup homogeneity effect - Ex. China/Korea/Japan feel very distinct from each other, but to Westerners, all "Asian" - Ex. worse at distinguishing and recognizing faces of racial outgroup than ingroup - Cognitive element: literally less contact/familiarity with indiv members of outgroups, so they seem more homogeneous *Dehumanizing outgroups*: process faces more superficially, like objects/low-order animals; often implicit and autyomatic - Seen in patterns of brain activity - responses to pics of outgroup members esp black men, low SES, and diff countries - w/objects *Fundamental motives between groups* - Protect ingroup and be suspicious of outgroup - evolutionary - Positive feelings within ingroup enhances sense of connection, solidarity; identity fusion: sense of oneness with the group -> feel safer, more secure. - Terror management theory: favoring ingroups helps preserve cultural worldviews

Self-perception of motivation: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

*Intrinsic*: when people engage in an activity for their own enjoyment/interest *Extrinsic*: when people do something for tangible benefit (money, grades, recognition, fulfill obligation, etc.) *Overjustification effect*: intrinsic motivation diminishes for activities that become associated with extrinsic factors (rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation) - *Study*: preK kids play with markers; some given a "Good Player Award" if they drew, some just asked to draw, and some were given a reward when they were done. Result - kids who didn't receive reward/got reward at end unexpectedly = stayed intrinsically motivated, while those who expected/received a reward weren't as interested in the markers as before - Rewards can enhance intrinsic motiv if verbal praise or positive feedback rather than $$ - *Study*: babies who helped and got verbal praise (Thank you) were more likely to help again vs babies who got a reward (You get a cube!) when the reward was no longer available later

Interracial interactions

*Metastereotypes*: thoughts about the outgroup's stereotypes about them - In interactions, W may be concerned about not wanting to seem racist and try to regulate behaviors/be sensitive to signs of distrust, making a normal interaction awkward and cognitively exhausting -> ironically, makes them seem racist *Strategic colorblindness*: paired white P with either B/W confederate in Guess Who - P significantly less likely to ask questions about race is confederate was B, even if it made them lose the game - Older kids outperformed younger kids in a race-neutral version of the game, but younger kids sig outperform older kids when race was relevant (aware of sensitivities) - Colorblind approach (acting like race doesn't exist/matter) backfires - acknowledging and positively valuing differences is more effective (polycultural thinking)

Modern, aversive, and implicit racism

*Modern racism*: form or prejudice; surfaces in subtle ways when it's safe, socially acceptable, and easy to rationalize (i.e. in ambiguous situations) - i.e. analyzing pitches; umpires more likely to call strikes for pitchers of same race, but only if (1) game was played in park w/o monitoring system reviewing calls, (2) not many ppl watching, (3) if the call wasn't the final ball/strike at bat --> least accountability/public outcry *Aversive racism*: concerns ambivalence between fair-minded attitudes and beliefs vs unconscious/unrecognized prejudicial feelings/beliefs - Ambivalent: want to see self as fair, but still have anxiety/discomfort ab other racial groups - Microaggression: everyday, subtle but hurtful discrimination *Implicit racism*: operates unconsciously and unintentionally; can't be assessed by asking people about their attitudes - need more subtle, indirect measures (IAT) *Moral credentials*: people establish these creds of not being racist by demonstrating they have good friends from the group in question

Integrating info about a person: - Perceiver characteristics - Embodiment effects - Priming effects (cont.)

*Perceiver characteristics*: we're more likely to notice certain traits than others; often, more overlap in descriptions given by same perceiver than between descriptions given for same target. - We use ourselves as a standard frame of reference when evaluating others. - Perceiver's current mood state: if happy, optimistic, lenient, less critical attributions, attend more to positive facts and form more favorable impressions *Embodiment effects*: the way we view ourselves and others is affected by physical position and sensations/mvmts of our bodies - warm personality, giving cold shoulder - holding hot drink/in sarm room -> feel closer to target or experimenter *Priming effects*: recently used/perceived words or ideas come to mind easily and influence the interpretation of new info - Study: prime with positive (brave, adventurous) or negative (reckless, foolish) words then describe Donald -> impressions were shaped by trait words they earlier memorized - Study: Scrabble persistence; 57% primed w/achievement didn't stop after clock, vs 22% control; follow-up: if primed w/politeness words, didn't interrupt experimenter in middle of her interactions

Traits of Self-consciousness

*Private self-consciousness*: personality characteristic of indivs who are introspective and tend to inner thoughts/feelings - Make self-descriptive statements, recognize self-relevant words more quickly, try to reduce discrepancies to their own standards *Public self-consciousness*: focus on self as social object as seen by others (focus on outer public image) - 43% (vs 6% of private) drew E backwards for themselves on their foreheads to orient it right for the outsider - Sensitive to how much others share their opinions - Try to match socially accepted behaviors/norms *God*: always evaluating/watching behavior; for religious people, thinking about God triggers self-focused state and heightened concern about standard of behavior -> lead to more prosocial behavior due to "all-knowing" God reducing sense of anonymity and increasing sense of accountability

Cognitive Factors to racism

*Schemas*: stereotypes act as a kind of schema, substituter "stereotype" in Neisser's perceptual cycle Examples of cognitive factors of discrimination: - Rosenhan (fake mental health) - Rosenthal (Pygmalion in the classroom) - Biased memory: remember disconfirming things less - Biased interpretation: the ____ were unhappy with the amount of alcohol available at the party. (fill in differently, interpret sentence meaning differently)

Ingroup dominance and status motives

*Social dominance orientation*: desire to see own ingroup as dominant over other groups -> more willing to adopt cultural values that facilitate oppression over other groups, want to preserve inequity *System justification theory*: motivation to defend and justify existing social, polityical, and economic conditions; often it's powerful groups trying to promote status quo to preserve their position at the top. *Stereotype content model*: stereotypes vary along *competence* and *warmth* - Higher status of group = higher competence - More competition within group - lower warmth *Superordinate goals*: showed that field study with 11 y/o boys at camp who formed groups/cultures/conflicts - peace was only restored if they shared a goal only achievable through cooperation among individuals/groups

Stereotype threat

*Stereotype threat*: feeling concerned about being evaluated based on negative stereotypes about your group; present when individuals are in stereotype-relevant situations. Cause distrust and reduce sense of belonging. - Key in influencing intellectual performance/identity of stereotyped group members (increase anxiety, trigger distracting thoughts) - If chronic stereotype, individuals can *disidentify* from the domain and dismiss it as no longer relevant to the self-esteem/identity) - Ex: if experience stereotype threat in school often, situation becomes threatening to self-esteem; to defend SE, disidentify with school so that academic performance isn't as relevant to identity/SE -> work less hard/perform worse *Causes of stereotype threat effects* - Triggers physiological arousal/stress - Drains cognitive resources - Loss of focus on task - Trying to avoid failure instead of achieve success

Experiments for stereotype threat

*Study*: B/W students from prestigious university took a hard test (everyone struggled) - If said it was a "test of intellectual ability" vs problem-solving task (unrelated to ability), B students would feel negative stereotype threat in addition to stress from struggling with test and sig decreased performance *Additionally,* if asked to report race just before the test, impaired B performance but no effect on W performance (real-world applications) *Study*: M/F good at math/felt it was important to their identities took very hard math test - If told that the test generally showed no gender differences (implied that negative stereotype of women's math ability isn't relevant), W = M performance - If told that there were gender differences, W performed worse than M Other real-life examples of st threats: - White athletes if minority on court or field *Study*: B/W students played mini golf; if game was "diagnostic of natural athletic ability", W did worse; if "diagnostic of sports intelligence," B did worse. - Performance was more harmed if you care more

Integrating info about a person: (cont) - Target characteristics - Implicit personality theories

*Target characteristics*: - 5 cross-culturally reliable personality traits: extroversion, emotional stability, openness to experience, agreeableness, conscientiousness - Perceivers agree most easily on extroversion - Trait negativity bias: negative info weighs more heavily on impression; absence of favorable evaluation in recs = assume the worst (adaptive for us to stay alert for negative, potentially threatening info) *Implicit personality theories*: - Knowing someone has one trait -> infer they have other traits (network) - Central traits: powerful influence on overall impressions, imply presence of certain other traits (i.e. warm and cold) Study: list of "intelligent, skillful, etc. warm/cold, practical, etc." - formed v diff impressions; diff less pronounced if varied polite/blunt - Traits captured by 2 dimensions: social and intellectual - Universal dimensions of social cognition: differentiate 1st with warmth, then competence

Motivational biases

*Wishful seeing* - Study: if told B = OJ and not green juice, 72% saw B. if told 13 = OJ, 61% saw 13. - Study: if thirsty, estimated that bottle of water was 3 inches closer *Need for self-esteem* - Positivity bias in attributions (take more credit for success than blame for failure, overestimate contribution, exaggerate control, etc.) - We judge others favorably if similar to us on key characteristics - Ideological motives (political views): in general, make personal attributions first, then ideological motivation leads to situational factor correction *Belief in a just world* - Indivs get what they deserve in life -> leads to tendency to be critical of victims - People in poorer countries are less likely to believe in a just world - Helps victims cope by acting as a buffer against stress (deny that we're vulnerable to cruel twists/turns of fate) - Enhancing members of disadv groups restores justice by compensation

Ironic Mental Processes

- "Choking" under pressure: paradoxical failure from trying/thinking too much (motor activities become automatic with practice, but self-focus under pressure disrupts the fluid/natural flow of performance) - *Ironic processes*: the harder you try to inhibit thoughts, behavior, and feelings, the less likely you'll actually be able to do so; "ironic operating process" is triggered as people search mind for the unwanted thought - Especially prevalent if cognitively busy, tired, distracted, hurried, etc. *Study*: pendulum more likely to swing horizontal axis is expressly forbidden; does it even more if P is asked to count backward from 100 in 7s.

Other types of discrimination, based on: age, weight, sexuality, and other targets

- Ageism: prevalent now that ppl live longer - Physical disabilities, mental health, political ideology, economic class, marital status, religion - Study: European American Ps acting as jurors were more likely to prescribe death penalty if defendant was described as having little education or money, vs highly educated/wealthy - Prejudice based on weight/sexuality is somewhat more socially acceptable

Examples of cultural differences in self-concept

- Americans more likely to fill "I am..." with trait descriptions ("I am shy"); Chinese more likely to identify selves by group affiliations ("I am a college student") - Only Chinese (not Americans) when thinking about selves, activate areas of brain that are also activated when thinking about mothers; more likely to seek advice from others and compromise when making career decisions - North Americans overestimate contributions to team effort, while coll cultures underestimate their own role and present selves more modestly - American students see themselves as more unique/less similar to other people than Asian students - 74% of Americans chose unique colored pen, 76% Asians chose the common colored pen - Effects of language: when Hong Kong students took "Who am I?" test in English vs Chinese, focused more on personal traits (if Chinese, focus more on group affiliations)

Gender stereotypes

- Babies can distinguish men from women before turning 1 y/o; can ID self as boy or girl by 3 y/o; form gender-stereotypic beliefs and preferences about toys and objects soon after *Study*: first-time parents interviewed within 24 hours of birth - no differences between M/F newborn height, weight, or physical appearance - Parents of girls rated babies as softer, smaller, more finely featured - Fathers of boys saw sons as stronger, larger, more alert, better coordinated *Study*: mons of daughters more likely to intervene more quickly/frequently and caution about getting hurt, while moms of sons more likely to encourage risky playing

Culture and attribution

- Language influences the way people think about time, space, and objects (i.e. words for colors) - Indiv: believe people are autonomous, motivated by internal forces -> more likely to commit FAE - Coll: emphasize relationships b/t people and their surroundings -> more likely to use situational attributions *Study*: at young age, Americans/Indians had same explanations for observing behaviors; w/increasing age, Americans made more personal att, and Indians made more situational att. - Wealthy/upper social class more likely to make personal attributions, because they're used to having more choices/opportunity/control over their lives *Focal objects and backgrounds*: Study: American and Japanese students watched underwater scene; both A and J recalled details about focal fish equally, but J also reported more details about surrounding fish in background - Art in Western countries highlight individual people/objects, East Asia has more backgrounds and scenery - Differently cropped FB profile pics - Bicultural identities: perception depends on which culture was brought to mind for China-born college students in California

Perception: based on Situations

- More experience in a given situation = more detailed script for it (preset notion about the situation, leads to anticipation of goals, behaviors, and outcomes likely to occur) *Study*: first date script has 16 steps List was randomized, then asked P to arrange into right order. Extensive dating experience = organized statements more quickly. - Expectations/scripts for how situations affect us influences how we interpret others' ambiguous facial expressions (contextual)

Social class - influence on self-concept

- More income, education, and status = more opportunities to show individualism by expressing desires, autonomy, and pursuit of personal goals (more choice) - Less income/education/status -> have to rely more on others and fitting in, fosters "hard interdependence" Ex: working class men more likely than middle class men to see selves in terms of relationships

Perceptions of moral character

- Need to instantly/intuitively make judgments of moral character to see if you can trust/rely on people - Moral traits (courageous, fair, just, honest) shown to be more imp to people than warm traits (sociable, agreeable, easygoing) - Moral Character Questionnaire - valid *The Primacy Effect*: info presented earlier in sequence has more impact on impressions - Study: Asch gave list of traits in forward/reverse order; if more + traits came first, more favorable impressions - Study: if watch women get test Qs right before failing, perceive her as more intelligent - If no time pressure or fatigue in forming an impression, primacy effect eliminated - High *need for closure* to reduce cognitive uncertainty -> sticks to lasting first impressions of people/quick to draw conclusions - Change-of-meaning hypothesis: once impression is formed, interpret inconsistent info in light of the impression

Self-control in reducing prejudice

- Suppressing stereotypes and prejudice takes mental effort; depleted cognitive resources impairs control - Older people - Low blood sugar - Intoxication - Exhaustion - Sleep improves cog control - Stimulate medial prefrontal cortex (control) -> less implicit bias *Motivations*: - Explicit: don't wanna seem prejudiced - Implicit: don't wanna be prejudiced - more likely successful (self-regulation of prejudiced responses model) Ex: anti-prejudice brochures aimed at explicit motivations - show more prejudice - reactance

Self-Concept Representation in the brain

- Synaptic connections - biologically allow for memory formation, which provides the sense of continuity needed for a normal identity - PET scans, fMRI, imaging tech: shows some areas of the brain are more active when P sees image of self vs pics of others; reads self-relevant words vs other-relevant words; or takes 1st person perspective with a video game - Self can be transformed/destroyed by severe head injuries, brain tumors, diseases, toxic substances

Rationalizing/enhancing SE: Self-serving beliefs

- Take credit for success, blame external factors for failure - Study: college kids overestimated their SAT scores, esp if it was a lower score; if low score, described the test as inaccurate and invalid - As memories fade, potential for self-enhancing memories is increased *Unrealistic optimism* about future; may be due to illusions of control (overestimate how much they can influence personal outcomes) - St: more reluctant to sell lottery ticket if they chose the number themselves

Nisbert & Wilson (1977) "Telling more than we know"

- We often say things that is guesswork to describe and explain ourselves *Study*: stockings - Presented women w/4 identical pairs of stockings, asked which they preferred - Strong majority preferred right-most to left-most by 4-to-1; when asked why, all had rational explanations (telling more than they knew); when asked about possible effects of the position of the article, all subjects denied an effect - S watched documentary; either power saw noise in background or not - S ratings of documentary weren't different between noise/no noise condition, but 55% of S who heard the power saw said their ratings were affected

4 methods people use to rationalize and enhance self-esteem?

1. Self-serving beliefs 2. Self-handicapping 3. Basking in reflected glory 4. Downward social comparisons

Self-esteem

An affective component of the self, consists of a person's positive and negative self-evaluations. - Fluctuates in response to success, failure, relations, and experience - Declines from childhood to adolescence, grows during transition to adulthood, rises throughout adulthood, then goes back down in old age *Positive self-esteem*: happy, healthy, productive, successful - Reduced risk for physical/mental health issues; hard to say if high esteem/life success = correlated or causal - Pursuing higher self-esteem could be costly (anxiety, avoid risky activities, neglect others) *Negative self-esteem*: depressed, pessimistic, prone to failure, self-defeating cycle *Gender and race differences*: - M have higher SE for physical appearance/athleticism - F have higher SE for ethics/personal morality - Black Americans have consistently higher SE than whites; may use adversity to build a sense of group pride - Hispanic, Asian, and Native American minorities have lower SE scores than whites

Rationalizing/enhancing SE: Self-handicapping

Behaviors designed to sabotage own performance to provide an excuse for failure; by admitting to weaknesses, can shield self from implied lack of ability that comes with failure. *Study*: P worked on 1st test and told they did well; if test was hard, P was confused about initial success and less confident about outcome of 2nd test -> took Pandocrin, said to impair performance, while P who took easy 1st test took Actavil, said to improve performance - Less self-handicapping if experimenter wasn't present for the choice of the drug taken *M*: self-handicap w/drugs or not practicing *W*: report stress/physical symptoms - Sandbagging: playing down own ability, lowering expectations - Low SE: use self-hand as defense/excuse if failure - High SE: use self-hand as opportunity to get extra credit upon success

Social categorization: Outgroup homogeneity

Categorize people into ingroups and outgroups based on common attributes - Can be natural/adaptive to form quick impressions to make inferences - Often overestimate differences between groups and underestimate differences within groups - Affects basic perception: *Study*: see racially ambiguous faces as darker, trigger more negative IAT if faces labeled racially B than W *Outgroup homogeneity*: tend to assume that there are greater similarities among members of outgroups than among members of ingroups. - Cognitive: have more info about your ingroup because you see them more; outgroups are literally more indistiguishable to you, so they're objectified. - Own-race memory bias - We also process ingroup info better, even if we're given the same knowledge about ingroups and outgroups (shown in brain imaging - process ingroup faces more holistically in fusiform face area)

Attribution theories

Describe how people explain causes of behavior and to understand perceptions of causality. *Personal attribution*: attribute behavior to actor's internal characteristics (ability, personality, mood, effort) *Situational attribution*: attribution to external factors, i.e. task, other people, luck

Self-Verification

Desire to have others perceive us as we truly perceive ourselves; contrasts the strategic self-presentation thing, since we're motivated here to confirm/verify existing self-concepts in others' eyes. *Study*: P w/positive self-concept chose partners who evaluated them favorably; negative self-concept chose partners who confirmed those shortcomings. *Study*: 64% Ps w/low SE sought clinical feedback about weaknesses rather than strengths *Study*: more commitment to romantic partners who saw them at same amount of favorable as they saw themselves

Discounting and augmentation

Discounting: when multiple factors could account for a behavior/outcome, perceivers become less confident that any one factor was the principle cause. - Young and old love: discount true love, since it's kinda clear that it's money Augmentation: when inhibitory factors affect oputcome, become more confident that the causes were particularly strong. - Declare love if other person is in debt: augment the love you must feel

Cognitive dissonance theory

Dissonance = (discrepant cognitions x importance) / (consonant cognitions x importance) Dissonance = aversive, motivational state when cognitive elements don't fit - we've developed effective cognitive strategies to reduce discomfort. *Reduce dissonance*: - Change attitude - Change perception of behavior - Add consonant cognitions (rationalize) - Minimize importance of conflict - Decrease perceived choice *Implications*: key, because it says that it's possible that behaviors influence attitudes - Induced compliance paradigm: S did boring study, then had to tell others it was really interesting (dissonance) offered 1 or 20 - 1: changed actual sattitude, insufficient justfication; 20 -= no dissonance, money was enough to justify lying *Requirements for dissonance*: - Negative consequence for att-discrepant behavior - Personal responsibility and choice - PHysiological arousal - Arousal is attributed to the behaviory6y6 .

Dialecticism

Eastern system of thought; accepts the coexistence of contradictory characteristics within a single person Ex. EuroAm students say their "true selves" are stable, while AsianAm students varied self-concepts to suit different relationships and situations -> more willing to see and accept contradictory aspects of selves brought out situationally

Strategic self-presentation

Efforts to shape others' impressions to gain influence, power, sympathy, or approval. *Study*: introverts and extroverts told to present selves to interviewer in a way consistent/inconsistent with true personality - If cognitively busy (memorize #), self-presented true personality successfully but unsuccessful portraying out of character 2 strategic self-presentation goals (be subtle): - *Ingratiation*: acts to "get along" w/others and be liked - *Self-promotion*: acts to "get ahead" and gain respect

Two-Factor Theory of Emotion

Experience of emotions is based on (1) Physiological arousal - racing heart, sweat (2) Cognitive interpretation of that arousal - here, others' reactions help us interpret our own arousal *Study*: when P expected to get painful electric shock, sought company of similar others for comparison (when people are uncertain about their own emotions, their emotional state is determined by the reactions of those around them) *Study*: injected men with epinephrine (heightens physiological arousal); (1) informed about effects of epi; (2) no drug info, (3) control placebo. P left alone w/male who "received same injection" (C) - acted either euphoric or angry Result: drug-uninformed P felt relatively happy/angry depending on C -> if become aroused without knowing why, look to C for explanation (vs drug-informed P - know to attribute arousal to injection, didn't need to look for explanation) - Others need to be present *before* the onset of the arousal, since we look for explanations to events that preceded change in physical state.

Sexism - Ambivalence - Objectification - Double standards

Gender st are distinct, because they're prescriptive (what you should be like) rather than descriptive (what you are); in addition, ingroups/outgroups (men and women) are intimately familiar with each other (with other intergroup biases, contact reduces effects of bias; however, this clearly isn't the case for sexism). *Ambivalent sexism*: - Hostile sexism: negative, resentful feelings about women's abilities or challenge to male power - Benevolent sexism: affectionate, chivalrous, and potentially patronizing feelings based on belief that women need and deserve protection - Study: being target of either type of sexism triggered negative cardiovascular responses of women *Objectification*: advertising industry and pop media promotes image of women viewed/treated as bodies or objects (imagery of them represented as parts of bodies) *Double standards* - Even women may be prejudiced against other women (at women's college, study showed John McKay's writing rated higher than Joan's) - Study: letters of rec showed that both M/F profs included more info raising slight doubts for F than M -> made sig diff in evaluations - Sex differences in occupation: 98% dental hygienists women, 22% dentists - W get paid less than M for jobs (glass ceiling: harder to rise to highest positions of power) Dilemma: W are seen as more competent if they present with stereotypically masculine traits, but when they do, seen as less socially skilled/attractive

Confirmation biases: The Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Having expectations about a person leads them to behave in ways that confirm those expectations. *3 steps:* 1. Perceiver forms impression of target (if highly motivated to find truth, become more objective; if perceiver is higher power than target, triggers prophecy) 2. Perceiver behaves consistently w/1st impression 3. Target unwittingly adjusts behavior to perceiver's actions *Study*: Pygmalion in the classroom - Teachers told that some students were on the verge of "intellectual growth spurt" - 8 mo later, "late bloomers" actually showed bigger IQ score increase and favorable evaluations from teachers - Covert communication: teachers formed early impression and altered behavior consistently - higher initial expectations = more praise, attention, feedback, kids get energized and work harder; lower initial exp = student could lose interest and confidence - Criminal justice system: interrogator assumes guilty/innocent - Rejection prophecy: self-fulfilling prophecy but in context of how insecure ppl are afraid of rejection and are thus tense in social situations, which makes them awkward and more likely to be rejected by others, reinforcing initial insecurity

Self-regulation

How people control and change their thoughts, feelings, or behavior in order to achieve a personal/social goal and live a socially acceptable life - Limits: self-control is a limited inner resource that can be temporarily depleted once it's used *Study*: P watched upsetting film; got no instructions, or told to stifle/exaggerate emotional and facial responses - If inhibited/exaggerate emotions, lost strength in exercise from T1 (handgrip exerciser), shows decrease in self control *Study*: before/after self-control act, researchers able to counteract effects of lessened capacity (from glucose consumption of self-control) by feeding P sugared lemonade between tasks - People with a nonlimited theory of willpower (activities energize you for other activities) - more often maintain ability to self-regulate after exertion than if they believe self-control is limited

Devine (1989): Donald and priming

How stereotypes operate/are activated automatically (Automaticity and control - some processes work automatically; conflicts with our attempts to control them.) - Read about Donald's ambiguous behavior in terms of hostility, asked for overall impression of Donald after reading - S subliminally exposed to African American stereotypes beforehand (below threshold of perception) i.e. Africa, ghetto, basketball - If exposed to lots of words, more likely to see Donald as hostile, even though nothing was said about Donald's race (automatic activation of stereotype/lens) - Difference in P's stereotypic beliefs didn't matter: either way, it was activated and influential (*dissociation* between actual beliefs and what they were affected by) - Only have to be *aware* of your culture's stereotypes for them to be automatically activated *Priming*: thinking of stereotyped group primes you for concepts relevant to the stereotype

Kelley's Covariation Principle

In order for something to be the cause of a behavior, it needs to be present when the behavior occurs and absent when it doesn't occur - *Consensus*: how diff people react to the same stimuli. If low, behavior is personally attributed. - *Distinctiveness*: how same person reacts to diff stimuli. If high, behavior is situationally attributed. - *Consistency*: what behavior happens when person and stimulus remain the same. If consistent, situational att when consensus/distinctiveness are high; to person if consensus/distinctiveness are low.

Rationalizing/enhancing SE: Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRG)

Increase self-esteem by associating with others who are successful (SE is influenced by links to others). Ex. wear school apparel more if team won game the day before; if students failed a test, more likely to share team victory (WE won) and distance from defeat (THEY lost) - BIRG tendency matched by CORF (cut off reflected failure)

Self-Concept: Introspection

Introspection: looking in at own thoughts/feelings - Flaws: we can't usually accurately explain causes and correlates of our own behavior; not always the most accurate way to get self-knowledge; usually a lot more inaccurate than we realize (social/external factors are much more important) - Reported attitude about objects corresponds closely with behavior toward objects (i.e. if you report enjoying a task, spend more time on it) BUT if told to analyze the reasons for WHY they felt what they felt, attitudes they reported no longer corresponded to behavior - Humans are always mentally busy processing info, so we often fail to understand ourselves (overestimate positives - skills, success, impressions others form of them, etc.)

Anchoring and adjustment

Judgments are influenced by beginning with a starting point, then making adjustments from that point (up or down). - Adjustments tend to be insufficient. - May affect people because of conversational norms: why would you bring up/give an initial piece of info unless it was relevant? - Works even if the anchor is obviously set randomly (wheel of fortune) *On important decisions*: - DON'T start with sticker price, DO start with the invoice price and go up from there. (anchor)

Attribution biases

Kahneman said 2 systems of thought: - Intuitive: quick, easy, automatic - Reasoned: slow, controlled, requires attention and effort - Cognitive Heuristics (availability heuristic, false consensus bias, base-rate fallacy, representativeness heuristic) - Counterfactual thinking - Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE)

Attribution Biases: Cognitive Heuristics

Kahneman: heuristics = rules of thumb; quick shortcuts/judgments people make to organize given info *Availability heuristic*: estimate odds of an event by how easily instances of it pop into mind - Ex: which is more common, words that start w/r or have r as 3rd letter? - Overestimate death rates by homicide vs flu *False-consensus bias*: overestimate how much others share opinions, attributes, behaviors; availability heuristic - we associate w/similar others and more likely notice/recall instances of similar behavior *Base-rate fallacy*: we're relatively insensitive to numerical base rates/probabilities; influenced more by dramatic events (terrorist attacks etc.) - i.e. 70 lawyers and 30 social workers; description of randomly drawn person x given (planning a trip, has a dog) -> P said 50/50 chance it's lawyer vs sw, when it's really 70-30 *Representativeness heuristic*: judgments influenced by how much something seems typical for some category (applying stereotypes) i.e. perception of what randomness should look like

Other cultural differences in self-concept (besides indiv/coll)

Latino cultures: simpatico - expressive displays of charm, graciousness, and hospitality - This cultural value becomes part of Latino self-concept (Latino P more likely to describe themselves using simpatico-related terms) Change in word usage over time: Rural populations: duty, obliged, authority, belong Urban pops: decision, choose, unique, acquisition, self Generational change: newer generations are more focused on money, fame, and self-image (less affiliation, community, and civic engagement)

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Measures extent to which 2 concepts are associated - I.e. implicit racism towards black people by comparing how quickly P associate black faces with -/+ concepts compared with how quickly P associate white faces with -/+ concepts (if consistently slower at identifying something good after seeing black face, then degree of implicit racism) - Implicit racial bias is evident around the world, starting at age 3-4; but 10 y/o show less explicit bias than 6 y/o (they learn to hide it) - Score high on IAT for implicit racism: predicts negative, unfriendly nonverbal behaviors in interracial interactions that makes others feel disliked, leads to poor performance; docs prescribe more pain relief meds after surgery for white patients

Autobiographical memories

Memories shape self-concept, but self-concept shapes personal memories too. - Remember more from recent past, except for "reminiscence bump" (remember lots from adolescence/early adult years - busy/formative time) and "transitional firsts" (i.e. college) *Flashbulb memories*: enduring, detailed, high-res recollections; we're biologically equipped to "print" dramatic events in memory to feel special and serve as prominent memory landmarks - Distort past in ways that inflate our sense of importance and achievement (i.e. college students inflated low HS grades) - Students used 3rd person more when describing past actions that no longer fit their current selves

Implicit egotism

Nonconscious form of self-enhancement - Quicker to associate "self" words with positive traits, like letters in own name - Study found small tendency to gravitate toward things that contain letters of your own name

Neisser's Perceptual Cycle

Object (available info) -> modifies schema -> directs exploration -> samples the object -> modifies...

Perception: based on Behavioral evidence

People divide the continuous stream of human behavior into discrete "units" - either fine or gross units based on how many "meaningful actions" they detect. - Lots of fine units perceived -> attend more closely to behavior, remember more details *Mind perception*: attribute humanlike mental states to various animate/inanimate objects, rate them on mental capacities (pleasure, pain, memory, self-control, morality) - Perceive minds along 2 dimensions: agency (ability to plan/execute behavior) and experience (capacity to feel sensations) - More likely to ascribe more mind to others who share a social connection - Study: more mind ascribed to "enhanced" smart car who was given a name, gender, and "voice" *Nonverbal behavior* - *6 primary emotions*: happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, and disgust (10 diff countries show high levels of agreement in recognition of these emotions) - *Ingroup advantage*: 9% more accurate at judging faces from own national/ethnic group (familiarity -> accurate interpretation) - *Anger superiority effect*: people are quicker to spot and slower to look away from angry faces in a crowd relative to neutral - When see other faces contract in *disgust*, we also experience that disgust at a neural level - We're conditioned by current motivational state when searching for faces (i.e. lonely -> quicker to spot welcoming smile) - Eye contact: crucial - increase arousal, activate key social areas of brain, hold attention - Can get accurate judgments of people from thin slices of their behavior (nonverbal): shows quick judgments are intuitive and efficient. *Study*: can accurately tell how much eye contact people tend to give in convo from 30/60/90 second exposure

Perception: based on Physical Appearance

People evaluate physical appearance quickly, spontaneously, and unconsciously. *Study*: students judged photos of strangers faces for 1/10, 1/2, or 1 second on how attractive, likable, competent, trustworthy, and aggressive they were - ratings from these short exposures were highly correlated w/judgments made without time limits - Superficial cues give quick impressions (i.e. "old" or "new" generation names, Dorothy and Michelle, in implications of popularity) *Baby-faced features*: large/round eyes, high eyebrows, round cheeks, big forehead, smooth skin, rounded chin - Seen as warm, kind, naive, weak, honest, submissive - Judges less likely to rule for intentional wrongdoing, more likely for negligence - *Evolution*: respond gently to babyish features so real babies are treated with tender care; we associate babyish features w/helplessness and end up overgeneralizing to baby-faced adults - *Study*: brain imaging - frontal brain region associated w/love is activated when people are exposed to pics of babies' faces and baby-faced men, but not other adults *Mature features*: small eyes, low brows/small forehead, wrinkled skin, angular chin - Seen as stronger, more dominant/competent

Social Comparison Theory (Festinger)

People evaluate their own abilities/opinions by comparing themselves to relevantly similar others, especially when objective info isn't readily available. - The self s "relative" - we define ourselves in part by using those around us as a benchmark (Study: boys more likely to cite gender as identifying info when they grew up in predominantly female families) *Facebook* = venue for social comparison; "Facebook Depression" - more time spent on FB is correlated with more unhappiness; presumably, engage in upward social comparisons and rate self less favorably as a result

Social Identity Theory

People favor ingroups over outgroups to enhance the self-esteem, composed of (1) personal identity, and (2) collective/social identities based on ingroups. - Derive pride from connections with others - Feel need to belittle outgroups to feel more secure about ingroups (schadenfreude: experience of pleasure at other's misfortunes) Predictions of social identity theory: 1. Threats to individual's SE heighten the need for ingroup favoritism 2. Expressions of ingroup favoritism enhance one's SE *Study*: if P got negative feedback on test (lowered SE), evaluated Jewish job applicant more negatively and showed an increase in SE if they had the opportunity to belittle the "Jewish American Princess"

Jones' Correspondent Inference Theory

People try to infer from action whether the act corresponds to an enduring personal trait. Based on: *Degree of choice*: freely chosen behaviors are more informative about person *Expectedness of behavior*: action tells us more about the individual if it departs from the norm *Intended effects/consequences of behavior*: acts w/many desirable outcomes don't show motives as clearly as acts w/only single desirable outcome (discounting)

Affective forecasting

Predicting how you'd feel in response to future events - Study: people overestimate the strength and duration of their emotional reactions (impact bias) - ie. junior professors thought that getting tenure would increase happiness for several years, but in reality, profs who actually got tenure ended up about as happy as untenured profs in a few years Reasons for impact bias (overestimate emo rxn): - We don't appreciate how strong our psychological coping mechanisms are - When engaged in affective forecasting, focus too much on single events and don't consider other life experiences/events

Sociometer theory

Self-esteem is a gauge that monitors our social interactions and signals to us whether our behavior is acceptable to others. - Sociometer - helps us detect acceptance and rejection and translate it into low/high self esteem - Says the desire for self-esteem is driven by the primitive need for approval from others (threat of rejection lowers self-esteem, which activates the need to regain approval and acceptance) - fMRI: increased activity in rejection-related brain areas is associated with lowered self-esteem

Self-discrepancy Theory

Self-esteem is defined by the match between how we see ourselves and how we want to see ourselves (ought or ideal self) Fall short of ought/ideal self --> lowered SE< negative emotions, affective disorders - Actual vs ought: guilty, ashamed, anxiety disorders - Actual vs ideal: disappointed, frustrated, depressive disorders More focus on discrepancy does you greater harm

Self-awareness theory

Self-focused attention leads people to notice self-discrepancies, motivating either (1) change in behavior to reduce self-discrepancies and match societal standards, or (2) escape from self-awareness thru distractions - Situations such as mirrors, talking about selves, or being in front of camera heightens self-awareness and P react more negatively to self-discrepancies - Japanese people (culture - already highly concerned about public face) are unaffected by the added presence of a mirror If you're typically more self-focused, more likely to be moody and depressed. *Field studies of self awareness*: - Halloween trick-or-treaters left alone w/bowl of candy and asked to take 1. 34% violated, vs 12% if full length mirror was behind the bowl to increase self-focus - If successful reduction of self-discrepancy seems unlikely, will escape thru drug abuse, binge eating, watching more TV)

Social role theory

Small gender differences are magnified in perception by the contrasting *social roles* of men and women. 1. Biological and social factors led to division of labor over time 2. People behave in ways that fit the roles of their labor 3. Behavioral differences gave basis for continued social perception - Perceived differences between M/W are based on real behavioral differences that are mistakenly assumed to arise from gender rather than from social roles

Complexities of Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination

Stereotypes: cognitive (beliefs, associations) Prejudice: feelings Discrimination: behaviors, actions you take - Ambivalence: people want to treat everyone equally but sometimes negative feelings conflict with positive aspirations - Multiple causes: makes prejudices resistant to change; cognitive: how we process info (schemas, top-down), shortcuts, memory; motivational: driven by how we want to see ourselves/the world *Multiple levels of discrimination* - Individual: how one person treats another person differently (Systemic): - Institutional: i.e. college admissions giving advantages to kids of alumni who are more likely to be rich, white people - Cultural: i.e. media power Systemic levels are harder to see and recognize

Self-presentation

Strategies people use to shape what others think of them. *Spotlight effect*: tendency to believe that the social spotlight shines more on you than others (reflects self-consciousness in public settings) - Study: P wore distinctive T-shirt into room of strangers, overestimated by 23-40% the # of observers who noticed/could recall what they were wearing

Nonhuman animals and self-recognition

Study: different species in a room w/large mirror greeted their own images (vocalizing, gesturing), but after a few days, only great apes were capable of self-recognition (used the mirror to pick food out of teeth, groom, make faces for entertainment) - If put red dye on apes' eyebrows and apes looked in a mirror, apes spontaneously reached for their own brows (recognized mirror image as self) - humans do a similar thing starting around 18-24 mo. old - Mirror tests show that dolphins and elephants also recognize themselves/examine themselves - Cross-cultural research: can mirror tests be used to measure self-concept (if non-Western kids raised for compliance/trained not to ask questions -> don't move/touch marks)

Confirmation biases: Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing

Study: if P told their partner was an introvert/extrovert, asked appropriately oriented questions (sought evidence to confirm expectations) -> neutral observers listening to tapes also left w/mistaken impressions of int/ext - Simply answering loaded questions supplies evidence to confirm beliefs somehow - if perceivers think someone has a trait, engage in a one-sided search; show confirmation bias in searching for new info - *Biased experience sampling*: if you like someone after meeting them, more likely to interact w/them again and learn more; if you don't like them, you'll cut them out and limit the opportunity to revise your opinion

Egocentrism: False consensus effect

Tendency for people who act/choose certain ways/things to think that higher proportion of others will agree than those who don't act similarly/make that choice - It's not that we think we're in the majority; we just overestimate how man people agree with us vs disagree. Study: Eat at Joe's study If they'd wear the sign, estimated higher % of other students would also wear the sign; if refused to wear it, est. higher % would also refuse *WHY?* - Comforting to think that our attitudes and preferences are common/have social support - See false consensus effect less for skills/abilities, when it's better to be rare - *Egocentrism*: we encounter a biased sample of others and don't take this into account; we craft our environments to be around people who make decisions similar to us

Self-monitoring

Tendency to change behavior in response to the self-presentation concerns of the situation - Self-Monitoring Scale: - High self-monitor: ready to modify behavior from one group to another; also, unconsciously adapt to social situations and mimic demeanor of others to facilitate smooth social interactions - Self-monitoring processes drop with age (become more settled/secure about who they are)

Attribution Biases: (correspondence bias) Fundamental Attribution Error

Tendency to focus on role of personal causes and underestimate impact of situations on others' behavior. Fail to sufficiently discount for situational factors on behavior. *Study*: students inferred other s' true attitude from reading an essay even if they knew the other student was assigned the position, even if P himself was assigned a position then swapped essays, etc. *Study*: TV quiz show; P randomly assigned as questioner or contestant; Q = seem more knowledgeable, but everyone knows it was random. Still, spectators rated Q intelligence as above average and c as below; even C rated themselves as inferior to Q. 2 step process of social perception: - Automatic: make quick personal attribution - Attention/effort: adjust to account for situational inferences; FAE more likely to happen if perceiver is cognitively busy/distracted

Attribution Biases: Counterfactual thinking

Tendency to imagine alternative outcomes that may have been - Psychological impact of positive and negative events depends on how we view the counterfactuals - More likely to think about counterfactuals after negative outcomes that result from actions we took rather than actions we didn't take *Study*: first-instinct fallacy; students werem ore upset if they changed a correct answer than if they failed to change an incorrect answer - Especially easy to ruminate on counterfactuals if on verge of better/worse outcome (bronze medalists seem happier than silver medalists)

Egocentrism: Spotlight Effect

Tendency to overestimate the extent to which one is salient to others (how much you think others notice you) *Study*: Barry Manilow T-shirt study - P put on embarrassing T-shirt, briefly entered room w/other subjects, then left; thought everyone would notice their shirt, but only 1/2 the predicted subjects actually noticed - Spotlight effect also present if target is proud, not embarrassed, of shirt

Illusion of transparency

Tendency to overestimate the extent to which one's internal states are apparent to others - Focus on internal state -> then, correct for the fact that you realize that others have less access to that info than you, but correct insufficiently *Study*: Taste test study - S drink 4 good and 1 bad drink, maintain neutral face throughout all - Predicted that onlookers would be able to tell which one was the bad drink; often overestimated by a lot - Visceral sensation: important for enhancing the effect

Egocentrism

Tendency to see the (social) world from your own perspective; We correct insufficiently from our own perspective when attempting to adopt other perspectives (speaks to special status of the self in every day judgment) (Anchor on self, adjust insufficiently) - Piaget: showed in developmental psych that kids are very egocentric *Egocentrism as "naive realism"* - We never outgrow egocentrism - we just get better at covering it up *Dual-process model:* 1. Automatic knee-jerk tendency to assume that we see things as they are, and that others will see/know/focus on what we do. 2. Then, we correct for that initial assumption, but only secondly, effortfully, and insufficiently.

Impression formation

The process of integrating info about a person to form a coherent impression - Summation model: more positive traits = better - Averaging model: higher average value of all various traits = better Study: moderate rates diluted from rather than added to impact of highly positive/negative traits (person described by 2 high scale value traits, or 2 high and 2 moderately high scale value traits) *Information integration theory*: impressions are based on (1) personal dispositions/current state of perceiver, and (2) a weight average of the target person's characteristics

Social cognition

The study of how people perceive, remember, and interpret info about themselves to others - Dynamic, constructive process - *Bottom-up processing*: totally based on data, sensory input, then assembling and integrating it - *Top-down processing*: influenced by our previous experience, expectations, knowledge, and context; word exercises (we go beyond the info given) Uses models, ideas, and expectations to interpret sensory information Themes: - We form impressions quickly and succinctly when perceiving others (like to cut corners and save effort) - We organize info (parts into a coherent whole) = i.e. word exercise - we go beyond the info given

Self-Other Knowledge Asymmetry model (SOKA)

We know ourselves better than others do for "internal traits" - optimism, anxiety, how easily upset we get BUT No self-other difference in knowledge for "external" and observable traits - quiet, sociable, messy We have "blind spots" for ourselves in traits of intelligence, creativity, and politeness

Egocentrism: Allocations of responsibility

We overestimate our contributions to joint tasks. *Study*: married couples asked to assess contributions to household chores... should sum to 100% but often summed to way above average. *WHY?* - Motivational: greater share of work = more benefits - Cognitive: info-processing and egocentrism: I'm more aware of my own inputs, so I remember them more easily which makes them seem more numerous - When contributions are deletions (i.e. restoring painting), (study) writers thought that editors who deleted things didn't help as much/that they changed very much.

Schema

What the perceiver brings to the stimulus - Helps guide perception: operates like an implicit theory or hypothesis/expectation - Helps us organize/reduce, interpret, and go beyond the info given Classic early studies: seemingly random and ambiguous paragraph is confusing until given a schema (i.e. washing clothes) and then the paragraph makes sense - schema helps group together info Examples of schemas: - My Lai: soldiers had expectations of who the villagers were - Rugby vs Football: if you know the rules of one game better, process what's happening in the game more efficiently - Rosenhan: on being sane in insane places (staff formed schemas causing them to interpret many normal behaviors of "patients" w lots of bias) - Rosenthal: self-fulfilling prophecies - Seinfeld: Jerry + Geroge seen as "gay couple"

Self-perception theory (Daryl Bem)

When internal cues are ambiguous/hard to interpret, we gain self-insight by observing our own behavior and the situation in which it took place (i.e. I ate really quickly, I must have been super hungry) - Limits: people only learn about themselves from self-perception if the situation alone seems insufficient to have caused their behavior (i.e. no rewards or punishments) *Study*: P induced to describe self in flattering (rather than modest) terms later scored higher on a test of self-esteem *Vicarious self-perception*: infer things about yourself by observing behavior of someone else with whom you completely identify - Study: if P told they were genetically related to someone who was being sensitive and self-sacrificing, they rated themselves as more sensitive and self-sacrificing - Hunger/anger: physiological cues aren't clear cut; love/attraction: false feedback about own emotional reactions often (overjustification effect?)

Egocentrism mouse example

You (addressee) can see all 16 slots, but the director (on the other side) can only see 11 slots. - Director says "move the mouse" - there is one computer mouse (target) that he can see, but also one toy mouse (distractor) that only you can see; clearly D means the computer mouse, but looking at the toy mouse = evidence of egocentrism - Evidence that we 1st look at the thing (toy) we are thinking of, then we correct our thoughts to think about what others are thinking *Reaching latency* differences: longer delay of reaching if it's self and friend vs self and stranger, because it's harder to put aside info you know (they're closer to you.) - Parents correct from toy to computer mouse much more quickly than children, but still look to the toy first; proof that egocentrism doesn't just go away.