Social psych before midterm part 2
explanatory style
one's habitual way of explaining life events, a negative, pessimistic, depressive explanatory style attributes failure to stable, global, internal causes
learned helplessness
repeated uncontrollable negative events leads to resignation and hopelessness (most of time messing with self- efficacy and shift locus of control to more external surroundings; in order to get goals accomplished: high self- efficacy + internal locus of control)
people as everyday theorists
schemas
Maintaining a positive self- view: personal control
self- efficacy locus of control learned helplessness
credibility
believability. a credible communicator is perceived as both expert and trustworthy
four possible attitude reactions
(Cacioppo et al., 1997) Positive reaction: high or low Negative reaction : low high Positive high: positive attitude Positive low: dual attitudes Neg low: indifference Neg high: neg attitude (box with positive reaction to the right and negative reaction at the bottom and split up high low on right and low high on bottom) - Dual attitudes- ambivalent attitudes are more likely to be towards family members - people you know but have not chosen - Dual attitudes - cardiovascular activity, high stress, get under your skin the most - Ambivalent worse for you health wise than negative attitude -- Negative attitude- can distance yourself from; ex. Angry at boss, but when you are done talking with them- you come back to baseline; about recovery to baseline -- Ambivalent- more invested, affects you more - after threat is removed don't come back to baseline, still high blood pressure, heart rate etc.
cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger, 1957) - When we are aware of two inconsistent cognitions (general sense, 2 attitudes don't match, attitude and behavior don't match), we experience arousal (unpleasant- distressing). We are motivated to reduce this tension. (motivational theory- want arousal to be reduced) - Change our attitude to match our behavior When people experience dissonance (when behavior not consistent with attitude), they have some options - Change behavior (being moral is important to me, im lying rn-> need to stop lying) - Justify the behavior by adding new cognitions (add your own moderators- I am an honest person but lying bc don't want to hurt person's feelings -> justify behavior that's inconsistent with attitude) - Justify behavior through changing the dissonant cognition (why behavior may predict attitude- change attitude in order to match behavior and reduce dissonance)
self- verification theory
(Swann, 1996) People have a need to confirm their self- concept- positive or negative (want other people to confirm who we are - want them to reflect back on us, see us as we see ourselves- not as someone we are not) Self- enhancement vs self- verification - Self- enhancement motives can conflict with self- verification motives (usually do not conflict as most pp have higher self esteem) - For whom might this be a conflict or for whom might this not be a problem? -- People with low self esteem (want you to see me and myself, but I have a low opinion of myself; yet I want to self- enhance at the same time => which motive wins - see me for me or love me?) - Study - Self- verification theory (Swann, 1996) : - Get to know you interaction- then + or - feedback from other person (interact with multiple pp) - People with neg self- concept were more likely to choose the unfavorable person bc she verified their own impression of their social skills (more realistic verification of themselves) - Those with positive self- concept chose favorable person. No conflict between 2 motives! (doesn't have to make choice- favorable person checks both boxes, both verifying and enhancing)
spotlight research
(bc we are aware that pp are likely to attribute things to our internal disposition rather than the situation) Participants forced to wear embarrassing Barry Manilow t- shirt into a crowded room - Estimated how many people in the crowd noticed - Average estimate was twice as high as reality (we think pp are noticing us 2x as much as they actually are) (another ex: sports- good days and bad days; good practice vs bad practice; asked if they thought teammates recognized if they had a good day or bad day - we overestimate what pp are noticing, nobody noticed when you had a good or bad practice)
do attitudes determine behavior?
(feel strongly about something should act accordingly?- default thinking; not the case- attitudes tend to not directly predict our behavior) -Not so much... -but more likely in certain situations - Individual differences in attitude- behavior consistency (may believe differently but act the same? ex. exercising is important vs no important to me - but both exercise same amount)
how do we measure attitudes?
(has to be self report for classic definition- ones you have access to) Attitude scale - Attitudes: 1 strongly disagree 2 disagree 3 neither agree or disagree 4 agree 5 strongly agree (unipolarity) What if attitude is controversial, embarrassing, or socially "normed"? - Bogus pipeline - Covert or implicit measures Are attitudes really uni- polar? (bad vs good opinion of something)
confirmatory hypothesis testing
(if I think I am meeting a jerk- situation I put them influence how they answer diff questions - more active process; try to confirm my notions that they are a jerk ex. Have you ever hurt others feelings- everyone done this, but use their answer to support your preconcieved notion- seeking out info) -Do we seek info objectively, or are we inclined to confirm the suspicions we already have? - If given a task to understand someone or something- we believe we can seek info objectively; but are pp objective or inclined to seek confirmation- seek diff kinds of info, see things differently Snyder and Swann (1978): - Interview this person "he is somewhat of an extrovert/ introvert" (random assignment- told this beforehand) - Subjects made up diff questions that lead to confirmation of original ideas -- Do they seek objective info or ask diff kinds of questions -- When you have preconceived notion seek out info consistent with notion -- Thought person was introvert: are there times where you have chosen not to go to a party or felt uncomfortable in a crowd? -- Thought extrovert: do you enjoy meeting pp? - Most powerful: observers of the interview, blind to condition (watched through one way mirror), saw the "extroverts" as more extroverted and the "introverts" as more introverted -- People outside of it see you as more extroverted or introverted - Told something about someone before you meet them- preconceived notion; lead you into diff ways of trying to understand the person
post- decision dissonance
(most of time studied with approach- approach type decisions- > both +) Dissonance aroused after making a decision - Exaggerate positive features of the chosen alternative and the negative features of the other alternative(s) (do after making decision - like both things; but didn't get one thing that was good - so reduce dissonance by pointing out neg) - Experiments brought participants in lab with nice objects - participants rated how much they liked each thing; 2 things pp liked the most - say they can give participants one of the things - must choose; made choice then continue on with experiment-> rerate-> thing they chose went up things they didn't go down compared to their original ratings
self- monitoring
(neither good nor bad) Being attuned to the way one presents oneself and adjusting one's behavior to create the desired impression - An individual difference characteristic (often measured by self- report - behavior could be measured) --- Even if I am not enjoying myself, I often pretend to be having a good time ---I find it hard to imitate the behavior of other people. (R) High self- monitors show LESS attitude- behavior consistency than low self- monitors (if you attuned to and adjust behavior to match situation-> less consistent with internal attitude) (attitudes don't necessarily predict future behavior- not uncorrelated but not as high as you would think)
mental strategies and shortcuts
(not context depend, default ways in which we process info-> result in some errors) - Judgemental heuristics -- conjunctive fallacy - representativeness - availiability heuristic
confirmation bias
(notice things differently, interpret ambiguous info in certain ways; given the info - less active than confirmatory hypotheses) - The tendency to search for and interpret info that verifies existing beliefs (tripped up when unaware preconceived notions have an effect on us) - (interpret ambiguous info in way that is consistent with our original beliefs) Hannah Study - Participants saw one of 2 videos of Hannah - child playing (first manipulation) -- High expectation: saw her as affluent, nicely dressed, nice house etc -- Low expectation: saw her as poor, a bit dirty, worn out clothes, government housing - Asked to predict her math and verbal skills after (2nd manipulation): -- New info: saw video of her performance on math and word problems; answering some right and some wrong (mixed performance) - get more information about skills -- No info: without viewing performance video - asked to do right away - 2 x 2 study: high or low expectations and new or no info - Performance not viewed: high and low expectation pretty much the same, no diff- should not use socioeconomic class to make assumptions about persons academic skills - Performance viewed (see her in classroom- does preconceived notion of SES influence how they see her in classroom): big diff; high expectation far higher than low expectation- far lower (rating education level) -> knowledge of her background influenced how they saw the video, when you see her get a good grade- notice, interpret; see her miss easy question- notice, interpret that info ; notice + interpret ambiguous info diff based on preconceived notion (don't know that preconceived notions having an effect on us)
our intuitive knowledge of the fundamental attribution error
(when we do something we think others will attribute it to our internal disposition; know how we would attribute things to other pp) - We are aware that other people will tend to infer that our behavior reflects something internal about us - Do people notice our behavior? - spotlight research / effect
automatic thinking
- Automatic thinking: thinking that is nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and effortless (ex. Driving somewhere- don't remember how you get there, automatic pilot- do bc efficient) - Can be very beneficial, sometimes leads to problems (especially when theres ambiguity expectations don't match situation
cognitive dissonance vs self- perception
- Cognitive dissonance applies to many more situations and explains attitude change -- Heart of this is two conflicting cognitions, and reducing that tension - Self- perception theory applies to more limited situations and mainly explains attitude formation (peg turning-> everybody lied; but 20 had justification to dismiss that by adding 3rd cognition; situation was not ambiguous- boring to everyone; self- perception: attitude formation when things are ambiguous (unlike cognitive dissonance))
self esteem
- Sum of our positive and negative evaluations of ourselves. Our overall feeling of self- worth. (whether others value you, whether you possess more positive or negative qualities) - Self- esteem is a state of mind that can fluctuate with life
when is it more likely that attitudes will determine behavior?
- When we feel free (or forced) to express true attitude - When we look at aggregated behavior - When we examine attitudes for specific behaviors (if you can measure attitudes better-more attitude, behavior consistency) - When we are made self- conscious (drawing pp inwards to sense of self conscious- then behavior more consistent with attitudes, make you more self conscious when telling attitude or when actually behavior- can manipulate both sides)
self- fulfilling prophecy
- a belief that leads to its own fulfillment -Perceiver's expectation "that new guy in class is not friendly" --> P's behavior to target - as you leave class you don't introduce yourself → target's behavior- he leaves without talking to you (confirms your original expectation) Rejections sensitivity and couple interactions in the lab: chronic accessibility (can have chronic or temporary activation of schemas) (high in this schema- often brought to forefront; can be high low or neutral on schema) - Experiment: measured pp's rejection sensitivity; had women bring in romantic partners (all women); had talk about conflict - thing both concerned about; measured her behavior during conflict - Higher rejection sensitivity -> reacted more negatively - Woman's rejection sensitivity -> Woman's negative behavior during interaction -> Partner's post interaction anger -> Woman's rejection sensitivity (thus fulfilling expectation) - Elicit behavior out of someone else that confirms your beliefs about them or consistent with your expectation - Chronic accessibility of schemas
availability heuristic
- a cognitive rule that judges the likelihood of things in terms of their availability in memory. If instances of something come readily to mind, we presume it to be commonplace
mixed situation (one high one low)
-ambiguous attribution; may not make strong internal or external argument - also ambiguous if we don't have access to certain info like distinctiveness - but can follow other rules when ambiguous-> don't think as hard about it
availability heuristic
- a cognitive rule that judges the likelihood of things in terms of their availability in memory. If instances of something come readily to mind, we presume it to be commonplace Mental rule of thumb whereby pp base a judgment on the case with which they can bring something to mind - Often leads to reasonable judgment - Problematic when what is easiest to remember is not necessarily typical of the overall picture -- More vivid and memorable events are more available (or if been primed) -- Sometimes the difficulty in recall stems from other causes (rather than its representativeness of situation) It seems like.. - Every time I get in shower child screams mommy (all the times I have taken peaceful shower- not present in my memory, benign) - Every time I get into a checkout line it is the slowest (forgetting all the times that it has not been true- remember events more than non events- overestimate likelihood) - Every time I am running late the traffic sucks - You (to your spouse) always forget the things I told you (often remember times you were angry- see it as more frequent than not)
behavioral confirmation
- a type of self- fulfilling prophecy whereby people's social expectations lead them to behave in ways that cause others to confirm their expectations
attitudes
- beliefs and feelings related to a person or an event (often rooted in one's beliefs, and exhibited in one's feelings and intended behavior) -
why does our behavior influence attitudes?
- cognitive dissonance theory - self- perception theory
internal attribution
- inference that behavior is bc of something about the person, such as his attitude, character, or personality (even more temporary like a mood)-> infer something about the person, internal to person doing behavior
external attribution
- inference that the behavior is bc of something about the situation Make both attributions quickly
illusory correlation
- perception of a relationship where none exists, or perception of a stronger relationship than actually exists
illusion of control
- perception of uncontrollable events as subject to one's control or as more controllable than they are
insufficient justification effect
- reduction of dissonance by internally justifying one's behavior when external justification is insufficient (already lied can't change your behavior-> change your attitude)
norms
- standards for accepted and expected behavior, norms prescribe "proper" behavior (in a diff sense of word, norma also describe what most others do- what is normal)
cognitive dissonance
- tension that arises when one is simultaneously aware of 2 inconsistent cognitions ex. dissonance may occur when we realize that we have, with little justification acted contrary to our attitudes or made a decision favoring one alternative despite reasons favoring another
personal space
- the buffer zone we like to maintain around our bodies, its sizes depends on our familiarity with whomever is near us
culture
- the enduring behaviors, ideas, attitudes, and traditions shared by large group of pp and transmitted from one generation to next
natural selection
- the evolutionary process by which heritable traits that best enable organisms to survive and reproduce in particular environments are passed to ensuing generations
regression toward the average
- the statistical tendency for extreme scores or extreme behavior to return toward one's average
festinger's study
1956 - Peg turning study- turning peg for an hour- > task no one will enjoy - Participants all go through this then random assignment happens -- 2 critical conditions: $1 and $20 conditions - After finishing peg turning, other guy didn't show up-> need someone to tell next participant that it was an exciting task (everyone agrees to help out experimenter) - Everyone lies to next subject (confederate) - All lie but critical DV- measure of true attitude about how enjoyable peg turning task was- how do you really feel about it now; attitude (enjoyable- do it again) after you have done a behavior (saying it was an interesting task) - $20-= $179.99 nowadays; $1.00= $9.00 - Control: no lying, peg turning - everyone hates it $20:people still say don't like task, especially compared to $1 condition - have that justification, justify behavior by adding new cognitions ($= good justification) <- reduces dissonance - $1: pp shift private liking for peg turning task to close to top of the scale - change their attitude (insufficient justification) - offered $1 or $20 to say to the next participant that dull task is fun, 1 felt dissonance lying - bc not worth it, 20 did not felt dissonance- doing it for the money, justification for saying dull task was fun; $1 participants reduces dissonance by changing attitude- convincing themselves dull task was more fun that it actually was - Insufficient justification effect: other cognitive dissonance situations: - post-decision dissonance - justification of effort
do high or low self monitors show less attitude behavior consistency?
High - (if you attuned to and adjust behavior to match situation-> less consistent with internal attitude)
Maintaining a positive self- view: Self- serving bias
Attribute success to our good fortune (we have these gifts, talents, worked for it- internal, who we are), failure to circumstance - Situational vs personal attribution We see ourselves more favorably than others (tend to rate ourselves as higher than the average- makes little sense, not everyone can be above average) "Unrealistic" optimism (about reaching our goals/ being successful) false consensus and uniqueness
False consensus and uniqueness
Beliefs: tend to think others believe what we believe (political, religious- tend to think most other people think like us-> like minded, similar attitudes) behaviors/ traits: depends (estimate not many other people have this + trait or has done this + thing; underestimate how many pp have; if it is something you do not good-> estimate that everyone does it) (unique-> when good, feel common - one of the crowd-> do something not so good) - (in service of enhancing our self esteem)
self- perception theory
Bem, 1972) - When we are unsure of attitudes, we infer them by looking at our own behavior - Look to our behavior to infer our attitudes - if we are unsure of our attitudes (no arousal) When an attitude or feeling is ambiguous, we infer it by observing our behavior in the situation in which it occurs - Facial and motor expressions and mood (if you put pen in mouth and hold it between your teeth-> look like you are smiling vs holding it softly between lips- frowning; never say smile or frown but happening as a result of holding pen in mouth certain way; pp who are holding in teeth report being happier than lips condition) - things we are doing with our bodies can change our internal attitudes, infer attitudes from how body feels - Overjustification effect (remember math games studies- situation was very salient, underestimate intrinsic motivation)
attributions in close relationships
Do we see our close relationship partners as "others' or do we treat them more like ourselves when making attributions? - It depends (depends on whether you are satisfied in your relationship or rather you have tendency to perpetuate stress in relationship or not) Couple is: attribution style: partner's behavior: attributions: Happy -> relationship enhancing -> positive -> internal stable global -> negative -> external unstable specific Ex. partner brings home flower- they are amazing person Partner yells at you for not picking up dry cleaning- snap at you, had long day, really needed it for tomorrow (pp can use these in unhappy relationship to make more stable-> dismiss a lot of behavior) unhappy-> distress maintaining -> positive -> external unstable specific -> negative -> internal, stable, global Ex. partner buys flower- bough bc feeling guilty about something, were given it by someone else randomly Come home and yell at you- jerk, just an angry person Downward spiral-> conflict, relationship disillusionment (could have happy relationship but make these attributions can lead to demise of relationship)
does behavior determine attitudes?
Doing or saying can become believing (behavior has pretty big influence on our future attitudes) - Role playing - foot- in - the - door phenomenon
Maintaining a positive self view: receiving evaluative feedback
How do people respond to positive and negative feedback (professional setting, social setting) - Self- esteem stability matters --- Self- esteem fluctuates across time and those changes are bigger for some people (some of us may change a lot from day to day others may not stray too far from average- separate from whether you have high or low self- esteem; about how much you deviate from what your average is) Self esteem across time - Across 7 days a week - 2 people looked at: -- Person A: stays relatively constant (pretty stable self- esteem- low variability) A= 55.1 - level of self esteem (the average) -- Person B: fluctuates across time far more, really high and really low; B= 55.0; level of self- esteem is the same but varying a lot more - fluctuating a lot more -- Avg both have similar self esteem- around 55 Series of studies where they measured self esteem across long period of time frequently - Level of self- esteem: high and low - Stability of self- esteem: unstable and stable - 4 prototypical types of people: -- Some pp high and stable (secure in positive self feelings - in various contexts) -- Some stable and low (continuous neg self feelings- not feeling great about themselves, doesn't change day to day) -- Unstable and high (fragile, easily threatened by others and events around them- overall fluctuating around mean that is still pretty high) -- Unstable and low (use strategies to combat neg self feelings- fluctuating around lower mean) - Unstable high- risk for depression, anxiety ; as well as unstable- low (stability and level of self-esteem are not related to each other- can have diff combos) Study: - Brought pp into lab- previously measured their self- esteem across time (weeks worth- knew if unstable or stable- high or low - knew level and stability) - Say interested in how pp do when giving a public speech - other participants watch you give a speech and interact with other participants- stressful - "Other participant"= confederate - After speech: some assigned to receive + evaluations, then asked to rate how competent your evaluator is -- Assess source after feedback- don't agree=> dismiss the source or choose to accept source as competent and take feedback -- Not much difference if low stable or unstable -- High: unstable (think person who gave you feedback very competent- overweighting that positive info)- stable (don't inflate level of competence) -> big difference - After speech: some assigned to receive - evaluations (harsh- not socially skilled or good job candidate), then asked to rate attraction to your evaluator (friend) -- Low: unstable (want to be friends- over value evaluator) , stable (don't like them too much- moderate) -- High: unstable(really don't like them), stable (don't really like them- moderate) Unstable low or high- highly sensitive to evaluative feedback (pretty automatic)
Do we (in this class) have self- serving bias?
If the average instructor rating on course evaluations was a 5 out of 7, what would I predict that I would get? - most people predict 6 The avg grade in this class was a B=, what would you predict you would earn? The results.., (N= 273) A or A+ : 33.7% A- or higher: 61.5% B or higher (above average): 94.1% B- (the average): 4.4% C or lower: 1.4% (4 people out of 273) Unrealistic optimism-> maintain self esteem-> self enhance
base rate information
Info about the relative frequency of different events or group members in the population - We often ignore base rate info when we use availability and representativeness (more psych majors than mechanical engineers; prob of 1 event happening more than prob that 2 will occur)
perceptual salience
People are often the focus, not the situation. We pay attention to them more than the situation. exs: - taylor and fiske seating study - Writers to advice columns attribute their troubles overwhelmingly to situation but the advice giver attributes the problem to the person - about perception, perceptual salience; when I am in situation focus on external reasons, person you are writing to focused on you
when are we less likely to act in ways that seek to confirm our hypothesis?
Less likely if: - We are uncertain of our impression - Concerned with the accuracy of the impression (more inclined to seek objectivity)
self- enhancement motive
Maintain a positive sense of self (maintain higher sense of self esteem) - Automatic and controlled processes (automatic- not as aware of)
representativeness
People judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the extent to which it resembles the typical case
Perceiving and Processing Social Information (car study)
Prejudgments can bias our perceptions, interpretations, and later recall (most of time makes things go smoothly- when you meet someone for first time, don't expect them to tell you deep dark secrets as soon as you meet them) - Many times this is quite helpful, other times not so much -- Prejudgments can be conscious (ex. Significant other hasnt called on birthday by 10 -> probably forgot about it) -- Prejudgments can be unconscious (e.g., schema) (most come from unconscious) Study: - Randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions but all watch video of fender bender, asked how fast going when: smashed, hit or contacted each other - Smashed: faster, hit: medium, contact: slower - Illustrates activation of schema- choice of words activated diff schemas (schema in mind about how things smash together- hard; contact- not necessarily about speed and force- diff schema)
to be known or adored online study
Self- enhancement motives or self- verification motives on- line? - Do people post authentic content (e.g., accomplishments, beliefs, dislikes) or do they post overly positive profiles of themselves?) - (want pp see me as I am or see me more positively) Study social network profiles: - Got facebook profiles of pp, had them rate themselves on a variety of trait- then had friends and fam make same ratings about that person- multiple ratings - Does online content match what I say and what my friends say about me (friends and my ratings = similar) - Evidence that personality seems to be authentically represented (Waggoner et. al, 2009)- personality tends to come out -- Self- verification motives - Pictures of self (selfies) and physical characteristics tend to be overly positive (toma and hancock, 2010)- more flattering than in real life -- Self- enhancement motives - So both - self- verification (want pp to know who you are) but when it comes to how I look (want it to be more positive)
foot- in- the- door phenomenon
Small behavior leads to bigger behavior - Studied in domain of giving to charity, volunteering etc; one of first studies-> gave out pins, cancer drive, wear for pin; drive happened next week - who donated more those wearing pins or not wearing pins? Wearing pins- doing little things change their attitude-> get them to do bigger things - Lawn sign for political candidates -> those pp more likely to vote for that candidate; influence on everyday behavior - Change attitudes - ex. Wearing coke hat -> more likely to buy it
role playing
Stanford prison experiment - Zimbardo- mock prison, volunteers assigned pp to be role of prisoner or guard -> arrested prisoners brought them to jail; several days in jail; zimbardo caused off experiment-> getting out of hand- ethical dilemma; guards started acting authoritarian- prisoners became rebellious then helpless - Measured attitudes on authoritarianism- role of authority in society -- Subjects assigned to guard- attitudes towards authoritarianism changed between pre and post=> attitude became more consistent with their behavior as guards, became more authoritarian so believed in it more -- Playing certain role can change your attitude - Behavior changing our attitude
justification of effort
Tendency to increase liking for something once you have worked hard for it: - Initiation into a group (jonestown - pp's group cult; one of thing jim jones did - had embarrassing, harsh initiations as group-> work hard to get in, increase liking for group) - Cognitive dissonance perspective- work really hard for something, don't like it that much; can't change my behavior, have no justification- > increase liking - Experiment: sex on college campus, before you do this - must do embarrassment to make sure you can participate fully in group; randomly assigned- no initiation or initiation: harsh or mild embarrassment test; harsh embarrassment- had pp read outloud steamy sex scenes from novel, mild embarrassment- had to say technical terms for sex ex intercourse; everyone gets into group; group is really boring - study secondary sex characteristics of animals- biology- unpleasant; privately what do you think of this group? Depends on how much you worked to get in -- No initiation/ mild: same, didn't like too much -- Severe initiation: like group more than other conditions -- More you work to get into group-> more you like it (got to bring cognition in line to justify behavior of going through initiation)
fundamental attribution error/ correspondence bias
Tendency to infer that people's' behavior matches their internal disposition (personality, attitude) (ex. Actor plays horrible character-> wary of actor even though we know they are just playing a character) (doesn't apply to ourselves - when we are evaluating others) - Called the fundamental attribution error bc we overestimate internal and underestimate external - Not always an error though - sometimes behavior is disposition- caused - so some prefer the term "correspondence bias" (behavior is corresponding to internal attribution) - sometimes that behavior does correspond to internal disposition - Well supported - automatic response; discount external situational input- attribute to internal dispositions Remember the actor/ observer difference: we see other's behavior as internal and our own as external (others- internal, ourselves - external -- especially with neg situations)
belief perseverance
The tendency to maintain a belief even after it has been discredited (why pp hold onto false news or conspiracy theories) - The explanation or theory about why the initial belief was true often survives (find something out -> come up with explanation about why this is true; find out original thing is false, but explanations to explain untrue fact remain bc happen automatically-> hard to correct things that you are unaware off; explanation survives despite you correcting original info) - One way to reverse: explain the opposite (effortful) The explanation or theory about why the initial belief was true often survives-> Ross et al (1975) gave people bogus feedback - Succeeded or failed a social sensitivity test (empathy) - Asked vague questions about what you do in social situation- told you are highly socially sensitive or below the mean - Were then told that the feedback was false- told used wrong scoring key - They then estimated the number of items 1) actually did get right, 2) would get right on a similar test - Current task: - success feedback: rated highly; - failure feedback: rated lower - Future task: - success feedback: rated highly; - failure feedback: rated lower -- Even though info was corrected (don't know how social sensitivity you actually are) - > as soon as you get feedback come up with explanations for feedback- think of all the times you were socially sensitive or not depending on feedback you received ie comforting your roommate vs being awk on date; even though original idea corrected, schemas have been activated by feedback- happens automatically, don't realize this-> cannot correct as easily bc unaware its going on -- Find out original idea false have to go back and correct everything that came up in your head when you first heard info and thought was true
attribution theory
The way in which people explain the causes of their own and others' behavior - internal attribution - external attribution Make both attributions quickly
conformity
a change in behavior or belief as the result of real or imagined group pressure
conformity
a change in behavior or belief in agreement with others - Obedience - compliance - acceptance
sleeper effect
a delayed impact of a message that occurs when an initially discounted message becommes effective, succh as we remember the message but forget the reason for discounting it
role
a set of norms that defines how people in a given social position ought to behave
lowball technique
a tactic for getting people to agree to something. people who agree to an initial request will often still comply when the requester ups the ante. People who receive only the costly request are less likely to comply with it
obedience
a type of compliance involving acting in accord with a direct order or command
which schemas are applied?
accessibility:Which schemas are applied? Accessibility: extent to which schemas and concepts are at the forefront of the mid and thus likely to be used in making judgments (none as strong as self- schema, but other schemas) - Chronic accessibility (ex. Those high in rejection sensitivity- have strong schema for rejection, constantly brought to forefront- filter info for them) - Temporary accessibility: priming (ex. Like loftus with smash, hit, contacted study)
Excuse me, but what about actual behavior? (Bargh, Chen, and Burrows, 1996)
can you prime a behavior? - Subjects unscrambled neutral (no evaluative content- chairs, table), polite, or rude words - Told to find the experimenter when finished - Experimenter in hall, immersed in conversation for 10 mins (doesn't acknowledge participant) - experimenter continues in convo for 10 mins or until interrupted - Would they interrupt? - how long would they take to interrupt - Activate polite, rude or no schema and have applicable situation (interrupt or not) is there an effect on behavior - 15-18% polite condition interrupted, 35% interrupted in neutral condition, 60% interrupted in rude condition - large effect on behavior -- Completely outside of awareness of participants (don't know what experiment about)
2 types of accessibility
chronic and temporary
acceptance
compliance that also involves a change in belief
obediance
conforming to an explicit request
compliance
conforming to an implied or explicit request in public while privately disagreeing
why did the man beat the stuffing out of his computer?
consensus distinctiveness internal low low external High High * If it is a mixed situation (one high, one low) -> ambiguous attribution; may not make strong internal or external argument * also ambiguous if we don't have access to certain info like distinctiveness * but can follow other rules when ambiguous-> don't think as hard about it Internal for man and computer Other people do not throw their computers- consensus= low He throws other appliances - distinctiveness = low (he does it a lot in similar situations) -> internal attribution: threw bc something inside of him External for man and computer I've seen many pp in this office abuse their computers- consensus = high I've never seen him get angry at anything before - distinctiveness = high -> external: something about situation- computer not working, shitty place to work
covariation model (Kelley)
consensus information distinctiveness information
Korsakov's syndrome
disease that prevents you from being able to form any kind of new memory, as you approach new info- don't have any idea how it fits in with anything else, everything is brand new info, have to make up schemas on the spot
attitude
evaluative reaction toward something - Favorable or unfavorable (valanced- feel positive or neg or something inbetween) (something someone some group) Often inconsistency between internal attitudes and external behavior (are we not measuring attitudes or behavior right? - get better consistency if refine how you measure; think about what might moderate this? - individual diff or characteristic of person determine who might have more or less attitude behavior consistency
central route to persuasion
occurs when interested people focus on the arguments and respond with favorable thougths
peripheral route to persuasion
occurs when people are influenced by incidental cues, such as a speaker's attractiveness
schemas activated arbitrarily study
evidence schemas can be activated for arbitrary reasons The "Donald" studies (Higgins, Rholes, Jones, 1977) Participants told doing 2 unrelated experiments - First was a perception test: identify colors while memorizing list of words (manipulation took place here) - 2nd: was reading comprehension study: read a paragraph and give impressions of the target (Donald) (Donald- how he fostered his career, not a lot of weight on relationships- nothing too positive or negative about him, could be interpreted in many diff ways) (everyone got same materials) - Is he someone that is (dependent variable: how you rated Donald) -- Stuck up and reckless -- Likeable and enjoys new challenges - Half participants had + words in first study "adventurous, self confident, independent, persistent" - ½ had negative words in 1st study "reckless, conceited, aloof, stubborn" - Influenced perception of donald - 70% saw him in positive light if received positive words; 10% saw him in positive light if had negative words - Priming - making schema accessible and applicable - Schema needs to be activated or primed then need something relevant to apply it too - must be applicable to evaluation at hand, (irrelevant words don't affect evaluations)
attitude inoculation
exposing people to weak attacks upon their attitudes so that when stronger attacks come, they will have refutations available
attractiveness
having qualities that appeal to an audience, an appealing communicator (often someone similar to the audience) is most persuasive on matters of subjective preference
conjunctive fallacy
if something fits with our preconceived notions about how it should be and coupled with other event - put things together think both more likely than just one of them - relates to base rates (linda)
judgemental heuristics
mental shortcuts people use to make judgements quickly and efficiently - They usually lead to good decisions in a reasonable amount of time (takes too long to go through all these processes systematically- to be completely reasonable/ rational) - Show shortcuts exist- what situation would decision differ based on what processes you are using (rational vs heuristics) Tom W. - Studious, doesn't go to parties much- doing hmwk, likes math; farther= mathematician, mom= highschool science teacher, grew up in enriched environment - What is his major? -- Psychology vs mechanical engineer -- Psychology - has wayyy more people - statistically more likely Girl with cowgirl hat - ucsb student from texas or ca? -- Most pp from california - more likely to be from Ca than texas Linda problem - activist in her community A. linda works at a bank B. linda works at a bank and is active in feminist causes - The probability of 2 things being true is less than either one of them being true (coin flip?) - But we think B fits "linda" more (but better off saying A- more likely she will be just one thing) -- Known as conjunctive fallacy -- Relates to base rates
schema
mental structure people use to organize their knowledge of the social world around themes or subjects - Influences information noticed, thought about and remembered We have schemas about mahy things Help us make sense of the world - What if no schemas? -- Korsakov's syndrome
Taylor and Fiske (1975)
showed the importance of perceptual salience - (everyone in experiment is a participant but randomly assigned to different roles- 6 pp) - 2 students had "get acquainted" conversation - 4 observers sat in different positions (provide dependent measure- who lead convo) - Asked who lead the conversation? - who is the one who is driving the conversation, other person a little more passive - Actor A facing Actor B; 3 observers on each side - Observer B - Observer A + B - Observer A - (each observer is tilted in a certain way- where your chair is seated- affects who you can see the most) results: - Facing actor A - attribute lead to A more so than B - Facing actor B- attribute lead more to B than A -Facing both- attribute equally to A and B
when schemas can be problematic (people as everyday theorists)
stereotypes: schemas applied to social groups, such as frat, gender, or race - Most often studied stereotypes are for african americans and women Schemas can be activated for reasons that are arbitrary (as opposed to deliberate)-- (can be activated by pieces of them or target of schema itself)
spotlight effect
tendency for people to believe that their actions and appearance are more likely to be noticed by others than they really are (bc of fundamental attribution- know pp's default thinking)
consensus infromation
the extent that other people behave the same way in this situation (consensus being high- other pp behaving same way; consensus low- other pp not behaving this way)
distinctiveness information
the extent to which one particular person behaves differently across various situations (that are similar or the same) - similar situations= most diagnostic, nothing different- seem to act this way all the time; comparing that behavior of that person to what that person usually does (high or low?- continuum)
persuasion
the process by which a message induces change in beliefs, attitudes, or behaviors
self- efficacy
the sense that one is competent (can I get this done?- often domain specific, may feel efficacious in academic setting but not a social situation)
evolutionary psychology
the study of the evolution of cognition and behavior using principles of natural selection
foot-in-the-door pehonomenon
the tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request
depressive realism
the tendency of mildly depressed people to make accurate rather than self- serving judgments, attributions, and predictions
selective exposure
the tendency to seek information and media that agree with one's views and to avoid dissonant info
self- perception theory
the theory that when we are unsure of our attitudes, we infer them much as would someone observing us- by looking at our behavior and the circumstances under which it occurs
covert or implicit measures
try to measure without asking people directly; controversial: attitudes towards others, pp aren't going to report honestly, even internalized social norms stops us from reporting honestly; look at reaction to certain things, automatic responses - way to measure attitudes if controversial, embarrassing, or socially "normed" and pp don't want to be honest
locus of control
whether you perceive that outcomes are controlled by your own actions or controlled by chance or external forces (could have high feelings of self efficacy in chemistry but if you perceive that your professor is unfair-> have external locus of control; related but separate concepts, tend to be correlated but not necessarily always together)
bogus pipeline
you get people to believe that you will know anyway what their true attitude is so might as well tell them; hook pp up to machines- truth detector, tell us if you are telling truth or lie-> might as well be honest; pipeline to thoughts and feelings - way to measure attitudes if controversial, embarrassing, or socially "normed" and pp don't want to be honest
