Social Psych Final Exam

Example of multitrait

using different ways to cause arousal

helping behavior theoretical approaches: learning approaches

*operant conditioning *social learning *modeling

variables affecting aggression: learning

*operant conditioning *social learning *modeling *media effects

measurement of self esteem

*rosenberg self esteem scale *self discrepancy theory

Stereotyping

an exaggerated assumption about the traits of a group

Prejudice

unfavorable attitude about a group

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors: cognitive response theory

◦what they say that matters is the nature of response to message ◦what thoughts is the person who is trying to be persuaded having-more positive thoughts = more likely to be convinced (opposite with negative thoughts) ◦strength of the message: strong arguments = more persuasive ◦controlled processing- people are engaged and active and are processing the information ◦what matter is nature of response and cognitions to message

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 4

*If someone needs medical attention, and you don't know how to do CPR or anything medically related may not be likely to help *If you can't offer appropriate help, you likely won't try

Attraction: Contact Effects: Trait Approaches

*Physical Appearance *Matching Hypothesis *Similarity *Positivity *Small imperfection

Reduction of Intergroup Competition

*Simple Contact Effects *Jigsaw Classroom *Positive Intergroup Behaviors

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study

(Latane and Darley 1968) • people are told that they are to fill a personality survey in another room, either alone in the room, with two other subjects, or with two confederates; smoke starts to come into the room - measure whether any of them get the researcher or find help and how long it takes when alone, 80% go up and report the smoke and get help ◦when with 2 other real subjects, 40% of groups report the smoke ◦when with 2 confederates who see the smoke and then ignore it and go back to their survey, 10% of groups report the smoke (social comparison) • study where recording is played about the researcher going up and down the stairs then they hear that she falls down the stairs and she screams for help, individuals helped most non emergency situation study: dropping pens in an elevator

Consensus

(social desirability)- how everybody else is behaving in the situation; information about how other people behave in the same situation

Discontinuity Effect: Prisoner's Dilemma Game Results

*2 individuals: 95% x - 95% of time interindividuals will cooperate with each other - most neutrally beneficial - people quickly realize x is the best strategy if you are working together; only 5% choose y *if they screw the partner over after they agree to both choosing x, the person that screwed the other person over, feels guilty and apologizes and tells them they will balance it out again by letting them chose y and them choosing x and then going back to both choosing x *2 groups: 50% x and 50% y - groups are opposite and lie and scheme *once a group screws someone over they are no longer trusted and it is hard to regain their trust and then they end up in the y-y choice / once competitive action occurs, trust is broken *why does a group pick y? greed, fear the other group will choose y so you choose y and you will at least get 1 point *cheating also occurs more in groups than as individuals *fear schema- choosing y because you think the other will choose y and you don't want to lose

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes

*Cognitive *Motivational Theories *Intergroup Theories *Learning Theory *Stereotype Activation

Characteristics of lab study

*Control group, random assignment, manipulation of variable *Likely has higher internal validity but somewhat lower external validity (can be avoided using deception)

Theoretical Orientations: Evolutionary Approach

*Differential Parental Investment *Sociobiology Effects

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect

*Story of Kitty Genovese (1964)- murdered; 38 people in the apartment complex heard the murder and witnessed the crime but not one of them called the cops *The tendency to be less likely to help if others are also present •Latane and Darley had access to witness reports and they observed that almost all of the witnesses said they say others watching and assumed they had called the cops already *Smoke-filled room study *Latane's 5 step model

Discontinuity Effect: Prisoner's Dilemma Game Alternative

*add variable z- choice for withdrawal, if you choose z it doesn't matter what they choose both groups get 2 - for fear that the other group will choose y *y and x stay the same *2 groups: 50% x, 25% y, 25% z *2 individuals: 95% x

Group Task Types Affecting Performance

*additive *compensatory *disjunctive task *conjunctive

variables affecting aggression: physiological

*arousal *pain, heat, noise *alcohol and drugs *testosterone

aggression reduction approaches

*catharsis *learning/modeling *biofeedback *competing responses *norms against

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social exchange

*cognitive appraisal of rewards and costs *physical attractiveness *communal v. exchange *mood effects

self concept

*cognitive component - knowledge about yourself: what are you good at *self schema *knowledge of self, traits, abilities *different selfs: work self v. social self

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors

*comprehensibility *# of arguments *fear arousal

why do people social loaf?

*diffusion of responsibility *deindividuation *free riding

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect:

*discontinuity *social identity theory *diffusion of responsibility *social support for greed *de-individuation *reciprocity effect *ingroup-outgroup bias *group norms

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom: once started

*emergent norm *contagion *de-individuation

components of attitudes

*evaluation *belief *behavior

attitude generation

*experience *modeling *operant conditioning *social comparison *social learning *genetic predisposition

trial issues

*eyewitness testimony *what makes eyewitness credible *what makes eyewitness actually accurate/inaccurate

Associations with Positive Mood

*flattery works *wine & dine (restrictions on lobbyists)

variables affecting aggression: individual level

*genetics *personality *cognitive structures

Intragroup Issues

*group polarization *group think *minority influence

reasoned action model (theory of planned behavior): subjective norm

*important; sometimes, when we are forming behavioral intentions, we think about what matters to the people surrounding us Ex. are college freshman sexually active? •measured attitude and subject norm (what will others think of you?) •females: attitudes about being sexually active predicted their behavior, not their subject norm •males: subject norm predicts their behavior more than their personal attitude

strength of attitude determinants

*information *direct experience *personal importance *measurement timing (activation does not increase the attitude behavior link through strength)

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: recipient factors

*intelligence- people with lower intelligence and self esteem are easily persuaded but they are also easily persuaded back - flip flop, if you can convince a smart person of your position, they are more likely to stick to it and are more stable in their attitude positions *esteem- low self esteem = easily persuaded

reasoned action model (theory of planned behavior)

*intention *attitude *subjective norm *perceived behavioral control

Discontinuity Effect

*intergroup behavior is much more competitive than inter-individual *Prisoner's Dilemma & Game * Individual Sports v. Group Sports

variables affecting aggression: general affective aggression model

*look at variables that led to a behavior (personality) *systems approach- looks at all variables together rather than individually *also shows how someone will respond to an aggressive behavior and will begin a new cycle (reciprocity) person variables: personality type, testosterone, genetics, learning theory *situational variables: excluded, frustrated, intergroup, excitation transfer *cognitions: are aggressive schemas activated? what were you thinking? *affects: what emotions were you feeling? *arousal: how much ANS is going on? *automatic appraisals: crime of passion, in the moment *controlled appraisals: planned expression; plan revenge, first degree murder *aggressive behavior: yes or no *target response: how they respond puts them back in the cycle; why aggression can spiral out of control

variables affecting aggression: sociobiology

*male sexual jealousy- women are killed more by men than vice versa; jealous of sexual stuff * child abuse- rates of genetic abuse; violence against adopted and step kids is 3 times higher than in biological kids -> sharing DNA is important; if predator kills the alpha male he also kills the offspring because the female will be able to have offspring with the new alpha male faster; don't want kids that aren't yours

presentation of evidence

*narrative story *elaboration likelihood model

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social norm

*norm of reciprocity *norm of social responsibility *norm of social justice

Ways to reduce Selfish Behavior in Social Dilemmas

*normative/informative social dilemmas *smaller groups *identifiability *operant conditioning *legal measures

Attraction: learning theory

*operant conditioning *gain loss hypothesis *reciprocity effects *flattery effects *social exchange theory

persuasion approaches: elaboration likelihood model: central route processing

*parallels CRT •controlled processing •cognitive elaboration •when you care and are able to process the information/highly motivated •favorable or positive thoughts/positive cognitive response —> positive attitude change •unfavorable thoughts/negative cognitive response —> negative attitude change •mixed or neutral thoughts —> peripheral route processing •high-high •cognitive response approach •strong arguments does not get people out of central route processing

persuasion approaches: elaboration likelihood model: peripheral route processing

*parallels heuristic •automatic processing •pick up peripheral cues = if present —> attitude change, if not —> no attitude change •when you don't care or are tired •pageantry/too technical

persuasion approaches: elaboration likelihood model

*persuasive communication *central route processing *peripheral route processing *people have to do different things to convince people

Attraction: physiological approaches

*pheromones *arousal

variables affecting aggression

*physiological *individual level *group level *situational *learning *sociobiology *general affective aggression model

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study

*primary reason is diffusion of responsibility because you don't feel all the responsibility to report *steps that have to happen in order for someone to help *Breakdown of help happens the most in the first 3 steps ◦Drigotas study: went through all of lecture with zipper down to observe this study; people in the back never noticed, those in the front some would try to tell him discretely and some didn't because they didn't know how

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: medium factors

*print v. video with equal message *face to face v. media with equal message

Attraction: Contact Effects

*proximity *familiarity

ways to increase helping behavior

*reduce ambiguity- make it clear that you need/want help and it is more likely that someone will help; if you hope someone will help, they might not notice or interpret it as a helping situation *increase responsibility- don't yell someone call 911, it gets diffused across everyone, instead point directly at someone and tell them to call 911; no one will just walk away and say no *provide models of helping; when little kids have modeling of older kids helping they tend to help more; want to be like those they look up to reward but not over justification; need a balance because then people won't help when there is no reward *establish a norm of helping behavior not social justice to increase helping rates

obedience to authority: six bases of social power

*rewards *coercion *expertise *information *referent power *legitimate authority

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: Attachment Styles

*secure *avoidant *anxious-ambivalent

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: 2D space model

*secure *preoccupied *avoidant fearful *avoidant dismissive *Allows for subtle variations in the way that people experience attachment styles, even within a category (vs. 3 forced categories from before) *Undifferentiated

ego protection devices

*self serving bias *self handicapping *basking in reflective glory *muhammad ali effect *downward comparison

variables affecting aggression: situational

*social exclusion theory *frustration *excitation transfer *provocation *normative approaches *crowding

performance behavior

*social facilitation *yerkes dodson model *social impact theory

helping behavior theoretical approaches

*sociobiological *social norm *learning approaches *social exchange *empathy *bystander effect

variables affecting aggression: individual level: genetics

*species bred for violence (ex. dogs and mice) show that offspring are eventually extremely aggressive and want to fight *identical twin studies- twins sharing DNA (identical) have more correlated levels of aggressiveness *aggression may be genetic *map the human genome that may lead to aggression and use gene therapy to fix it (controversial)

once self concepts are gathered:

*they are complex and resistant to change *egocentric bias

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Dependence: Investment Model

*took the concepts of interdependence theory and shifted it to romantic relationship *shifted the focus away from satisfaction and towards commitment *satisfaction will always ebb and flow, but commitment determines the romantic effort you will put in *2 Dimensions: ->cognitive attachment style: how much does this relationship mean to me? ->motivation: how long do i want this relationship to last? *what makes you more committed? ->satisfaction (+) - helps with commitment ->alternative (-) - if there is an alternative you will be less committed ->investments: things you would lose if your relationship ended: tangible things: money, kids, friends & intangible things: traditions, potential for new memories *infidelity: commitment can very strongly predict rates of infidelity *sacrifice: willing to do things your partner wanted, even if you don't

variables affecting aggression: individual level: personality:

*type A *type B *narcissism *low empathy *aggressive traits

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom solutions

*unifying event *convergent norm *instigator *incident

function of attitudes

*value expression *provide expectations *organization *utilitarian

Discontinuity Effect: Prisoner's Dilemma Game

*x = cooperative choice *y = competitive choice *if both pick x, you both do relatively well (3) *if both pick y, to screw each other over, you both do poorly (1) *if one gets the other group to pick x while they pick y they maximize their results (5) and the other group gets screwed (0)

leadership: contingency model

2 different types of leaders ◦socioemotional leaders: very much concerned that people feel validated, keep up morale and satisfaction, tend to let people voice their opinions - most effective when moral is medium, not when moral is low (hard to get ppl that are upset with their job to be happy), or high (not doing anything at that point) ◦task leaders: more focused on getting the job done, monitoring people's performance, matter most when moral is low (make them do their job even when they are sad) and high (people are motivated and get work done), doesn't work when moral is low need both types of leaders - alternate when they are going to be most effective ◦best leaders are those that can be both, socioemotional and task leaders, and have the judgment to know when to use which - but this is rare

example of random assignment in experimental research method

3 groups on the difficulty of task, so they are randomly assigned to each group

example of perception

A study has participants watch a video of a girl leaving her home to go to school. The two groups watch her leaving two very different houses (one very nice, and another very small and rundown). The girl goes to school and takes an exam but has a very mixed performance (hard questions right and some easy questions wrong). Participants are asked questions and based on the house the girls left from, the responses are very different. Those who saw her come out of the high socioeconomic house thought she was smarter because they remembered her getting the hard right while those who say her coming out of the low socioeconomic house remembered Hannah getting the easy questions wrong. Another part was subjects had to guess how well she did on the test and gauge her intelligence - people who saw her come out of the rich house assumed she was smarter. Proved that people perceive wealthier people to be more intelligent. *Schemas dramatically affect perceptions and expectations

Personalism

Behavior directed at you by somebody else whether it is good/bad or positive/negative has a higher impact because it is directed at us - more likely to make a stronger internal attribution if the behavior is directed at us

Example of Memory & Recall

Before watching a video, subjects are told whether the woman in the video is a waitress or a librarian. In the video the lady is getting ready for work and had half the stereotypical things a waitress has and half the things a librarian has. After the video the subjects are asked what they remembered and those who were told she was a librarian remembered the librarian things and those who were told she was a waitress remembered the waitress things. *Researchers activated a schema to influence what they would remember.

self handicapping

Before you even fail you set up a reason to fail so that if you do, you can blame that reason instead of yourself

example of "When we are motivated to compare to others, they have an influence on us"

At a fancy dinner, you don't know which one is your bread plate so you mimic another person's behavior

Social desirability

If action is socially undesirable you are more likely to make an internal attribution; if behavior is socially undesirable and outside the norm we make stronger internal attributions

correspondent inference theory

Correspondent Inference- how you link a behavior with something inside a person, an attribution ◦A behavior corresponds to something about a person internally - determine what this one attribute is ◦Ability to compare actual behavior and other potential behaviors ◦there are common effects (similar aspects) that are common among all potential behaviors ◦the non common effects are unique among each potential behavior; Use this effect for making a clear internal attribution if there is only one; Multiple non common effects makes it difficult to isolate cause of behavior ◦Wanting to make an internal attribution ◦Based on what a person did and what they didn't do ◦Talks about how when we know how a person behaves we also know how a person could have behaved and acted ◦Personalism ◦Hedonism

Example of a schema

Culebra, Puerto Rico ‣Person who has never seen or heard of this place has no schema ‣Brother buys a house there, developed some schema from pictures ‣Visits his brother's house, developed a real schema

example of parsimony

Hans the mathematician horse - people would ask him the question and he would stomp out the answer; Hans did not know the answer he would read the people, when he started the person would look down at the horse, when they looked up he knew he was done - operant conditioning > phrenology and brain size explanation

Risks v. benefits

IRB determines risks, researcher must describe any risk and their impacts and what benefit you get out of the study, IRB has to see minimal risk and great benefit, IRB has become more and more conservative in the past 20 years

Experience Sampling

Experience Sampling: used mostly in social psych: an attempt to measure people's behavior out in the real world as it occurs. Instead of observing, they are keeping a record of what you want them to record, as it happens in their life. Give them a diary or social media devices to measure results. Tries to get a rolling snapshot of people's behaviors as it occurs. Cross between survey and observational research. Behavior should be naturally occurring; no chance for subjects to forget like in a survey, but it is still self reporting so the subject may unconsciously or consciously lie

example of covert behavior priming

Ex. A computer task where in the middle of the task an image is flashed for a few milliseconds and you are not able to consciously process it but it still affects you actions when you move on to the next task. Images of aggression -> subjects gave longer, higher intensity shocks when opponent got something wrong

balance theory examples

Ex. Drigotas likes his girlfriend and she likes her roommate (both pos) but Drigotas and the roommate do not get along (negative); when you multiply you get a negative so there is an imbalance that needs to be changed Ex. my enemy's enemy is my friend

example of "When we don't know how we are feeling we look to others"

Ex. Personality study with two subjects at the same time. One real subject and one confederate. Control condition: person just goes in and takes the survey. Other two conditions: subjects take epinephrine pill (increases adrenaline). One group is informed they are taken epinephrine and what is going to happen, the other group is given a cover story. Subject goes into study 10 minutes after they start the study, confederate walks in and either acts angry (why are they asking this, etc. not directed at the subject but they hear it) or acts joyful (throws a paper into trash as basketball, smiling, and laughing). After they measure the emotions the subjects experienced. The epinephrine uninformed mirrored the portrayed emotions of the confederate -used confederate for guide as to how they should feel. The control group was not affected by the confederate. Ex. Sad music in a sad moment of a movie

examples of elaboration likelihood model

Ex. Presidential Debate: Kennedy v. Nixon ◦those who listened and were paying attention they favored Nixon ◦those who were just watching and didn't care saw that Kennedy was younger and taller while Nixon was older and sweating on TV • Candidates need to have attractiveness and charm as well as a good platform because some voters use central route and some us peripheral route Ex. Wanting a computer based on how it looks - girl picks pink computer over the better computer Ex. Shamwow- convince you to buy impulsively and count on people being in peripheral processing as they have loud commercials that demonstrate how they work and they even throw in a second one free just pay shipping and processing but they make the most off of shipping and processing = Microsoft Surface Tablet Commercial

Intragroup Issues examples

Ex. archival study of the Kennedy Administration decision to launch the Bay of Pigs Ex. Space shuttle challenger was supposed to be televised in the morning. For the first time ever, there was a school teacher from New Hampshire (non-astronaut); within minutes space shuttle blew up Ex. Bush's decision to invade Iran

Example of manipulation check

Ex. study of aggression v. frustration: playing a video game where if the other player gets something wrong then the subject gets to give them a shock with their choice of duration and amplitude, don't know if you are measuring frustration or aggression • A MC would be an emotion word check, where you say a bunch of emotions and ask them to report their emotions, in the experiment above they should only report frustration or your results aren't really what you think you are operationalizing

examples of reactance

Ex. tell children not to eat vegetables Ex. parents tell their child to not date a specific person, they want to see them more

example of standardization in experimental research method

Ex. using a script/audio tape

Steps in research

Formulate Hypothesis/Theory -> Design Study -> Collect the data -> Analyze Data -> Disseminate the results

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: source factors: attractiveness

Halo effect; attractive people are assumed to have other possible characteristics -> attractive people are more persuasive than less attractive people

example of Testable/Falsifiable theory evaluation method

Freud- Psychoanalytic Theory- unconscious battle: id (hedonist/selfish- sex and violence), superego (sense of morality, keeps id in check), need a balance between the two, ego (mediator between id and superego) - has not been tested, cannot measure the unconscious -> has lost its value

example of correlational study

GPA and SAT score= .5

Attribution tendencies

Have a tendency to make internal attributions about other people's behaviors- other people act they way they do because of something inside them so that we can predict their behavior in the future and so we don't have to consider external factors (attribution bias)

simulation

Have subjects pretend to be in a certain situation because observing the actual situation is difficult or unethical; projection of what they think their role should be like, can't have access to the people they want to study; not used often

example of "Should compare to those who are similar to ourselves - will gain the most information"

If Professor wants to figure out how good he is at basketball, he isn't going to compare himself to his students or his nephew but he should compare himself to his age group at they Y

example of "People's attitudes can have a direct effect on how we think about topics or events"

I got a B on the exam, makes a difference when all your friends got an A or all your friends got a C ‣ Study on this. The people who compared upward, to those who got an A felt worse about their 85. But those who compared downward to those who got a C, felt good about their 85. But, they tracked their performance on the next exam and saw that those who felt bad and compared upward performed better on the next exam but those who compared downward did not do better.

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 5

Implement Help: many reasons why other situational variables get in the way of helping (someone else helps before, situation changes it

example of Underuse Base-Rate Information: relying on vivid cases

Many people are more scared of flying than driving even though the odds of dying in a car crash are higher than in a plane, same with sharks - image of a plane crash is more vivid and terrifying causing people to ignore statistical data

Implicit Association Test (IAT)

Indirectly testing if you closely tie two concepts together. Word pairs are memorized then tested. If you see a pair that has not been seen before and they are closely associated, it will not take long to say no. If they are closely related, it will take longer. This can be used to test stereotypes, avoids self reporting; measures socially undesirable schemas

Theory Development

Inductive and Deductive

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Infidelity

Infidelity: committed individuals are less likely to cheat on their partner, uncommitted individuals more likely to be unfaithful *occurs during semester, or over breaks

Perception

Influences expectation, motives, moods, activation (not modeling) ◦Motive: when you have a motive, a certain schema will be activated, and will seek out things that confirm your schema ◦Mood: unhappy -> people will think you are condescending

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 2

Interpret as someone in need of help; interpret that someone needs help and that it is a helping situation ◦Pluralistic Ignorance: others not helping, must not be a problem ◦Potential costs to interpreting wrong; can have consequences when you interpret it is a helping situation when it is not (someone laying in quad looks like they need help but you go over and shake them and they get mad because you woke them up) ‣ Study: man and woman walking down the street and they are having a somewhat calm argument; woman says one of two things each time they are in ear shot: "get away, i can't believe i even stopped to talk to you" or "get away, i can't believe i ever married you"; people intervene much more in the first situation ‣Homeless people have things on their signs to put you at ease

pretrial issues

Jury Selection ‣pretrial questionnaires- given the evidence you have on your side who would you want to be in the jury ‣ "voire dire" exemptions- can remove people from jury, determined through the questionnaires to determine what types of morals and personality traits you want on your jury ‣200 people fill out questionnaire and 12 are picked for final jury ‣ Ex. OJ Simpson Trial- charged with killing ex-wife and other man; prosecutor determined they didn't want older black women because they would be maternal figures and would sympathize with OJ but the defense attorney ignored that and picked them and OJ won

Hedonism

Making an internal attribution about a behavior that causes you pain or pleasure- behavior isn't necessarily towards you; more likely to make a stronger internal attribution if the behavior causes us pleasure or pain but not necessarily directed at us

example of representative heuristic

Linda is a feminist bank teller- Subjects are given a description of Linda: 31, single, outspoken and very bright, as a student was concerned with the issues of discrimination and social justice and participated in anti-nuclear demonstrations. Then subjects are asked if it is more probable that Linda is a bank teller or a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement. More than 80% chose the second option but when compared to another situation such as that tomorrow you will have a flat tire v. tomorrow you will have a flat tire and and a man in a black car will stop to help you, it is obviously more likely that the first will happen.

experimental

Manipulate a variable (independent) and measure a quantifiable variable (dependent); want to check for a difference between the 2 manipulated groups on the measured variable

Social Cognition Biases

More likely under automatic processing, low need for cognition leads us to rely on schemas cognitive miser

explanation of muhammad ali effect

Muhammad Ali would always say he was greatest in the world - very bombastic. In an interview, they asked Ali why he was socially promoted from 8th grade to 9th grade (didn't pass) - he said "I'm the greatest in the world, I never said I was the smartest". Used boxing to categorize his greatness rather than his intelligence because he was really good at boxing

Example of Inductive Theory Development

Murder of Kitty Genovese

Murder of Kitty Genovese

Murder of a woman walking home to her apartment: brutally raped and stabbed for 20 minutes; Police told a reporter that at least 36 people witnessed the crime - people are dehumanized but social psychologists got eyewitness accounts and they said that they saw other people watching and they assumed that they had called the police • Hypothesized presence of other people hinders your ability to help -> Experiment where they got people to take personality surveys some where alone and some in groups of three; used a recording of woman going up and down a ladder and has fallen and screams -> saw that those who were alone, immediately got up to go help, however those in the groups either had a delay in going to help or they only one person would go -> Determined that their hypothesis was correct • Hypothesized results of ambiguous help needed -> Experiment where smoke came out of vent, those alone immediately got up those in groups did not • Hypothesized non emergency events —> Experiment where a person dropped pens in the elevator, if they were alone they helped, if not alone they did not When needing help point at someone and say "You call 911" so that you give them responsibility

example of overriding behavior priming

Not helping when the pens you could pick up

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 1

Notice the Event: in order to help, you must realize something is happening; often people are distracted and don't even notice ◦Good Samaritan Study- being in a hurry: people who were late to their event helped less because they didn't notice the person in need of help

Milgram Obedience study-

Nuremberg trials discovered that many officers claimed they were told to do something and that's why they did it even if they didn't want to; people wondered what was wrong with them and their country -> Milgram knew internal attributions were being used more than necessary so he though about obedience to authority; he did a study in which people in a community came to a study with a confederate; the subject is the teacher and the confederate is the learner; confederate is given pairs of words to memorize and you have the subject shock them as a negative reinforcement when they get it wrong; the subject is told to continue shocking even when the confederate/learner is yelling or stops responding, about 65% of people do the entire study, much more than predicted; this rate was about equal no matter the culture it was conducted •deviations of study: ◦standard- 65% ◦if you have two subjects in the room- 10% continued- due to social comparison ◦if the experimenter leaves the room and another subject/teacher gives the orders only 20% continue - authority figure is removed ◦subjects choose what level of shocks, 4% continue •people continue because of foot in the or compliance strategy

Kelley's Cube

Often have more information than we can use to decide whether we will make an internal or external attribution 3 dimensions: consensus, consistency, distinctiveness *Hyder wants to conclude that it is something internal that is the cause just like CIT and personalism and hedonism, but Kelley wants to figure out all bits and pieces of information that makes attributes more complex

types of aggression

Physical: hitting people Instrumental: trying to hurt people in a non-physical way

Ego depletion study

Psychologist was reading on dieting and required impulse control for dieting as well as cognitive being taxed (which makes you give up easier on next task), and delay of gratification in kids -> theorized ego depletion- only have so much cognitive energy at one time, and when it gets taxed/used up, you get depleted and less motivated to work hard on the next task • Used a study where people were forced to fast before a study on taste perception, half the subjects get a protein bar in waiting area, other half do not. In the study room there is a bowl of radishes and on the other side there are chocolate chip cookies. Told they are in the radish group and start cutting up the radish and then the experimenter leaves the subject alone. Measured whether or not they ate the cookie when the experimenter left. Those who ate the protein bar had impulse control did not eat the cookies, but those that had fasted quickly got up and ate the cookies.

Cluster Analyses (Q-sort)

Put objects/concepts into piles by association

example of downward comparison

Racism in the South- the worst stereotypes and worst behavior came from poor southerners - Poor white people downward compared to black people, "I may be poor, but at least I'm not black" :/

Correlational research method

Relation between measured variables: measuring quantifiable variables and trying to see if there is a systematic relationship between the variables; -1.0, 0, 1; can't talk about causation; path analysis

Correlation is NOT causation example

SAT score does not cause a high or low GPA, it is your intelligence

conformity studies

Sherif's Auto-Kinetic Effect, Asch Line Study, Johnny Rocco Studies

heider's levels of responsibility example

Scenario: Walking through breezeway and someone throws a snowball at you and hits you in the head so you want to figure out who did it ‣Association: Turn around and see 3 people - possible culprits ‣ Causation: One of them is empty handed and shaking off the snow while the other 2 have snowballs in their hands and determine that the empty handed one is the cause ‣Forseeability: Could the culprit forsee the consequences?: If he is laughing and pointing at you- you assume he was aiming at your head and wanted to hit you; If he is waving and apologizing, you assume he did not mean to hit you ‣Intentionality: Did the culprit choose to accept the consequences?: If he was laughing you assume he did it on purpose and is happy he hit you on the head and you say he's an ******* ‣Justifiability: If the culprit is concluded to have done it on purpose, is there a justifiable reason?: Ex. you threw a snowball at him earlier so he was throwing one back for payback which does not make him an *******

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom

Social Rage- Dramatic Events (assassinations, unpopular verdicts) crystallize social rage stemming from underlying root reasons: racism, poverty, etc. and why people experience this rage manage it in a self destructive manner- breakdown of families, media influences, etc. *sociology approach

Example of simulation study

Stanford Prison Study, Computer Simulation- violent video game that had multiple levels of abuse and researchers observed how long people stayed and played- video game simulated an abusive relationship

Stanford Prison Study

Stanford Professor (Zimbardo) wanted to find out whether prison guard brutality was due to sadistic personalities or with the environment they worked in. Turned basement of building into a mock prison and chose 24 men that were physically and mentally stable and did not know each other prior. Randomly assigned to guard or prisoner. Prisoners treated like actual criminals: arrested then blindfolded and taken to basement then were stripped naked and locked away with a uniform and cap for hair and chain around ankle. Guards were given a uniform too and wore sunglasses to avoid eye contact. Guards were allowed to do whatever they though necessary to maintain law and order. Result was that guards and the prisoners adopted their stereotypical behaviors. Prisoners rebelled and guards accordingly punished them. Experiment went bad really quick. ‣ Conclusion: people will readily conform to the social roles they are expected to play, especially if the roles are strongly stereotyped

Example of deductive theory development

Study on ego depletion, Another study of people waiting in a DMV line. Those who had been waiting a long time could not solve basic anagrams but those who had barely been waiting could solve them

Example of quasi experimental study

Study on size and scope of social networks depending on whether or not they were in a romantic relationship- couldn't manipulate whether or not a person was in a relationship

Example of field experiment

Study on the weapons effect. Hypothesis: presence of a weapon (gun) activates schema about gun which activates a schema of violence and aggression. Measured how aggressive a person was when a gun was present. Had a pickup truck with a gun rack. Weapon condition had a rifle and no weapon condition had a contracts level. Flip a coin for randomization. Procedure: At a red light, one car behind them had to have one person behind the wheel. When light turns green they won't go and the person in the truck watches the person in the car. Measured aggressiveness by whether or not they honked, how long they honked, whether they yelled or stuck the middle finger up. Results showed that people were more aggressive when the rifle was in the back. Aggressive schemes were primed in the study.

example of cognitive miser

Study where people ask if they can cut in line to use a copy machine, they are much more successful if they say "Can I cut in front of you because ..." - people react to the word because

Surveys

Subjects self report, then researchers assess the data and results Can collect a lot of data in a short period of time. Can hand out 200 questionnaires in a 30 minutes and will get 200 data points.

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3

Take Responsibility: saying to yourself I am going to give help *bystander effect *diffusion of responsibility *learning theory *social exchange *evolutionary theory *social norms

Theory Evaluation Categories

Testable/Falsifiable, fits data, parsimony, generates research

Example of issues with ethics pre-milgram study

Watson- Classical Conditioning- found that you can have something you like but can be conditioned to not like it ‣Used a 9 month child and would bring in a fluffy rat or bunny but as they would bring it out they would blare a loud noise in the baby's ear, and afterwards they just had to show the bunny or rat and the child would scream - unethical

representative heuristic

We base our decision based not on statistical information, but instead rely on descriptions - if a description matches our schema that schema can override the base rate info/statistics; ignore statistical information in order to match a schema

example of looking glass self

When I comfort someone, do they feel better and do they like it - Determine how sympathetic I am ; Do people laugh when I make a joke - Determine how funny I am

self serving bias

When you fail you make an external attribution and when you succeed you make an internal attribution

looking glass self

William James- Late 1800s - a mirror, how we look to how others respond about us to gather knowledge about ourselves

example of Underuse Base-Rate Information

Would you rather try to pick a white ball from bowl A (9 blue and 1 white) or bowl B (91 blue and 9 white)? Many pick bowl B because it has more white, but bowl A has a greater chance of picking white (10%) than bowl B (9%)

Example of Phenomenal Logic

Writing Experiment: half wrote about random things, the other half wrote about traumatic events that they had shared with no one and tracked the number of times they had visited the health office and why and their diseases -> found out that people that wrote about their trauma had less disease than those who wrote about everyday things had more disease • Not published because he showed a phenomenon rather than explaining why those who wrote about their troubles were healthier • Later he would test different hypotheses to explain his findings - people who showed most benefit were those with greatest cognitive understanding because they received some closure - physiological cause was more white blood cells

what causes conformity: social comparison

a big role (we are likely to conform if we don't know how to behave in a situation, often an unfamiliar situation)

Intragroup Issues: group think: gatekeeper

a person who can control access to the central leader ‣can control what message gets to the central leader-> very powerful •arguably more important than the central leader - contributes the most to Groupthink phenomena

obedience to authority: six bases of social power: expertise

a person with knowledge (especially if you need/require this knowledge) has a certain authority that can get you to do things you would not normally do Ex. you do whatever the computer repairman asks when he is fixing your computer

overconfidence

a person's subjective confidence in his or her judgments is reliably greater than the objective accuracy of those judgments. Once you've made a decision, you have this tendency to want to believe you made the right decision. Tend to inflate how much you think you are right -> overconfidence error *Confidence is higher than actual performance, once your decision is made, you have decided to be confident in your decision

2010 French Milgram Study

a reality tv show was set up to give people money to shock someone else; found that 70% were willing to shock people all the way through

parsimony

a simple explanation is preferred over a more complex explanation if they account for data in the same way

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom solutions: convergent norm

a substantial enough number of like-minded people who would favor mob behavior. a potential troublemaker must have confidence that there are others thinking like he/she is thinking and would follow suit

Milgram study

about obedience; got subjects of all trades, subject reports to another study and there is another subject (confederate/ plant), told they would be the learner or teacher, the study is rigged; teacher is the real subject and is shown an apparatus with shocks he would use to teach the subject, the learner is the confederate and is told to learn the words. the teacher is told to give the subject a shock every time the learner got a question wrong, and they are given a shock to show it is real. The teacher goes all the way and even when the subject wants to stop the experimenter leader always tells the teacher to keep going and the subject always does. The voltage goes up and increases each time with a wrong answer. 325 was max where the learner no longer responded. 75% of subjects went all the way. ‣ Another researcher was shocked by the willingness to hurt others. She tracked the original members of the study and found that they were having mental issues. It hurt the subjects to realize that they did that and willingly put the learner through the pain.

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Correspondence

across interactions, are we both being benefited? *when we find someone who likes the same things we do, it is much more likely our relationship will be mutually beneficial *successful partners want the same things and want to mutually benefit each other

Attribution theories

heider's levels of responsibility, correspondent inference theory, kelley's cube

self esteem

affective component - how you feel about yourself

components of attitudes: evaluation

affective: think of things favorably or unfavorably or have an emotional response (global)

variables affecting aggression: individual level: cognitive structures: priming studies

aggressive schemas are easily primed; more things are linked to aggression so aggression can be primed automatically ◦Study: truck at stoplight with a gun rack in trunk; if there was a gun, car behind would show more aggression and if there was just a level, the car behind would show less aggression ◦Study: spring carnival: pay 50 cents to through a heavy wet sponge to hit a person in the face, in the back of the room on side table they have either a badminton racket or water pistol; when the gun was there more people payed to hit the person

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom: once started: de-individuation

allowed to do behavior not normally acceptable •contributes to destructive behavior because you feel like you won't be caught

3rd variable control

alternative hypotheses could account for results, these should be ruled out

Kelley's Cube example Scenario: Student walks in 10 minutes late -> Not geared to make internal attribution, get a mixed bag of information

always late to class but never to meetings but at the same time a lot of people are late to class -> fuzzy internal attribution because it has external factors also

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom: once started: contagion

arousal and behavior is contagious (exhilarating)

performance behavior: social facilitation

arousal enhances the dominant response ◦if a task is well-learned, you will perform better at the task if you are doing it in front of a group v. doing it alone • Ex. maze study- easy/difficult maze; by yourself/people watching you, for easy mazes they were completed faster while other people were watching, for difficult mazes, people had more trouble while people were watching Ex. sports- good free throw shooters perform at a higher rate with other people watching •evaluation apprehension increases arousal leading to a performance change ‣novel tasks create a threat type of nervous system arousal ‣challenge- increased autonomic nervous system arousal in well learned tasks

trial issues: what makes eyewitnesses actually accurate/inaccurate

arousal factors: myth that arousal helps 'burned in' memories but it does the opposite ‣Study: man snatches purse in class or strolls in and exits (low arousal) v. a man that comes in quickly (high arousal) ◦high arousal accuracy= 24% ◦low arousal accuracy= 49% •weapons make you less accurate ‣ time: more time that passes before you do identification you are less accurate; more time spent with perpetrator and in their presence, the more accurate you are going to be ‣ similarity: better at identifying in-group members rather than out-group; older people don't do well when identifying younger people; better within same race ‣suggestability: the way we recall things can be influenced by the nature of the language used when we are asked to recall • Study: video of car rolling in to tree and asked to give testimony some asked "smashed" and "hit" to describe the collision, but those that were asked using smashed remember that the car was moving faster and that there was more damage than there actually was

strength of attitude determinants: personal importance

as something becomes personally relevant to you, you tend to have stronger attitudes, and attitudes and behaviors tend to line up; when an attitude is affecting you personally, you have a stronger attitudinal position and your behavior flows from this attitude more strongly; increases the prediction of behavior by increasing strength Ex. raising money for cancer research- if you know someone with cancer you have a stronger relationship between attitude and behavior

basking in reflective glory

associating yourself with a group that is succeeding so that some of their success reflects on to you

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: Mary Ainsworth Attachment Style Study

attachment styles for kids will display themselves under stress Phase 1: mother is in the rom *secure: explore the room with their mother as home base *avoidant: two people doing completely strange things; mother and child are doing separate things and they don't really interact *anxious ambivalent: did not want to leave the mother and did not explore Phase 2: take the mother away and replace with a stranger *secure: kids don't get too upset *avoidant: barely notice the mother is gone *anxious-ambivalent: get very upset Phase 3: bring mother back and observe reunion *secure: happy to see the mother and go back to playing *avoidant: barely notice the mother is back *anxious-ambivalent: so happy the mother is back but very angry that she left

field experiment

attempt to manipulate and independent variable and measure a dependent variable in a real world setting, trying to do an experiment but out in real life, subjects don't know they are in the experiment -> natural behavior. Make sure there is enough control and random assignment to determine that what you are manipulating is causing the difference in the dependent variable. Very hard to do. High in internal and external validity if you can have a standard procedure and randomization while observing a natural occurring behavior. *most likely to measure actual behavior*

schema measurement

attitude surveys, cluster analyses (Q-sort), implicit association test

example of design

attitudes towards pornography- if subjects figure out that they are measuring pornography, the subject does not want to admit it, they lie to look socially desirable and skew the bias

function of attitudes: utilitarian

attitudes work to reward us, you can benefit from certain attitudes and you get something out of having an attitude Ex. People who are more democratic tend to be more in favor of union while people who are more republican tend to be richer and more in favor of lower taxes

presentation of evidence: narrative story

attorneys who tend to pretend evidence as a story timeline that builds up and makes sense tend to be much more effective in terms of convincing juries of their side; has beginning, building up, and conclusion v. out of. sequence and haphazard or context tend to be not as convincing; like having things that make sense and something that is part of a bigger story

attitude learning theories: classical conditioning

automatic response ‣pairing a neutral stimulant with something that produces an automatic response ‣how the environment can alter your attitude ‣after some time you will get the same automatic response w/out the actual thing/stimuli ‣ can be extinguished fairly quickly, except taste aversions - subject to the process of extinction, eventually will have no automatic response *except for taste aversion ‣response becomes natural ‣ in humans: food, physiological stuff, fear (when we are scared we have an automatic nervous system arousal - pairing something natural with something that makes you scared

variables affecting aggression: physiological: arousal

autonomic nervous system- linked in terms of the evolutionary adaptive ness of fight or flight behavior; linked to increases in aggressive response by research

availability heuristic

base your decision on the ease/amount of examples that come to mind

attitude generation: genetic predisposition

based on twin research

Group schema type

based upon life; categories of group membership ◦Democrat v. Republican ◦Stereotypes about groups ◦Knowing a group membership will force others to make assumptions about you ◦Often times central nodes

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: de-individuation

behavior can't be tied to you individually -> become deindividuated and have non-normative behavior, usually in a bad way; because we can't be identified we are more likely to do things we wouldn't normally do *Ex. mirror in front of candy bowl, yelling jump to someone jumping off a building ‣ When you make people ultra deindividuated, put in to groups but they don't see each other and instead use a communication in separate rooms for the representatives; subjects know they are never going to see each other •competition increases and goes up to 60% ◦if no one is going to know who i am and how im going to behave •it's easier for me to be greedy and choose the competitive choice even when an individual is deindividuated this way, they still cooperate 95% of the time

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: cognitive

biases that we are subject to *social cognition biases *ingroup-outgroup bias *implicit bias

operationalization in experiment

both how you choose to manipulate the independent variable and how you choose to measure the dependent variable

Intragroup Issues: ways to combat

brainstorming: generation followed by an evaluation ‣group members should be able to think of as many ideas as possible without anyone evaluating their ideas •there can be NO evaluation of these ideas because this stifles people •when one person says an idea, it generates more ideas from other people •THEN you go back and evaluate all the ideas- group creativity is much higher •effectiveness of brainstorming is directly related to a lack of evaluation at the generation state

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: stereotype activation

can actually affect you when activated ‣ Ex. a stereotypes for blacks is that they aren't as smart, if that is activated before their take the SAT they will actually perform worse ‣ Ex. mini-golf study- either group got a stereotype that was threatening (whites are not athletic, blacks not smart) or positive stereotype (whites smart, blacks athletic) *threatening- did worse than the control group subjects at the same rates *positive- performed a little better than the control group

Dynamic: Structure Characteristics of Schemas

can be changed (room for growth and reorganization); greater ability to change when you are younger ‣Schemas are most malleable when we are young/novel and most stable when adult/familiar

attitude measurement: direct: survey

can collect a lot of data from a lot of people) and interviews *structured v. unstructured interview

generalizability

can lab results be applied to real world

Cons of quasi-experimental studies

cannot talk about causation the same way, not randomly assigned to conditions, can talk about correlation and the relationship but cannot determine that the independent variable is the only variable causing the dependent variable to be different - ex. in the relationship study, it could just depend on personality; have bias in the experiments inherently because you don't control the assignment

conformity

changing one's beliefs or behavior to be consistent with group standards

Commitment

changing the conditions of what you are committed to, but you still do it because you are committed *Foot in the door *Low-balling

muhammad ali effect

choosing to evaluate yourselves in dimensions you are good at

demand characteristics

clue/cue that tips of subject as to what the study's hypothesis is; tells the subject how they are expected to act and allows them to think whether or not they agree with the hypothesis—> subject can now choose how to behave to affect the study, and behavior is no longer a natural behavior; threat to internal and external validity

components of attitudes: belief

cognitive: set of beliefs about a concept/topic

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: source factors

come from person trying to do persuasion: attractiveness, credibility, power

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: Harlow's Monkey

comfort contact *monkeys wanted to spend all their time with the cuddling monkey rather than the milking monkey *goes against the learning theory of we like to surround ourselves with people that reward us

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Denigration of Alternatives

committed individuals likely to try to find something wrong with alternatives to their current relationships (denigrate, find their bad qualities) ‣ Ex. individuals in relationships told that other people found them attractive, found that committed individuals denigrated alternative that is attracted to them only if that individual was extremely attractive (didn't feel need to protect relationship when person was unattractive), less committed people did not denigrate the attractive person, actually rated them high

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Sacrifice

committed people are more willing to do things that their partner wants to do, but they wouldn't necessarily want to do *Ex. attend a boring office party *Also more likely to give up something they like for the good of their partner (smoking, drinking, etc.)

Colors of love (love styles):storge

companion love, love as friendship

Intergroup behavior

competitive and aggressive *Discontinuity Effect

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: group norms

competitive behavior is more normatively accepted in intergroup situations vs. in interindividual situations it's not as acceptable to screw the other people over; within groups there is a pressure to behave competitively based on normative and informative social influence *pre-school kids always cooperate *1st grade/2nd grade- it's okay to act competitively in groups, happens across the world

obedience to authority

complying with a person or group perceived to be an authority; obedience to authority is taught from a very young age

components of attitudes: behavior

component or prediction: wonder if this is really a component of attitudes or is just an outcome? best reflection of your attitude (according to some researchers); should be a true reflection of what you truly think, or we should be able to predict your behavior - has some debate about whether it really represents a component

stable

constant thing, predictable in the future

What is an archival study a branch of

correlational study

Fundamental Attribution Error

correspondence bias *Make internal attribution for the way people behave, they behave that way because of who they are *Tendency to overestimate internal causes for other's behavior - ignoring strong external reasons ‣ Why: salience (pay more attention to person than their environment) , stable expectations (internal attributions will help to make predictions about future behavior) Leads to belief in a Just World *It's easier to think that someone's behavior is a result of them rather than paying attention to all the external things around them as a reason- short cut *Easier than to think that people's behavior changes from situation to situation

forseeability

could this person foresee the effects of their behavior?

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: attribution effect

couples who are in a healthy functional relationship attribute good internal attributions to their partners and external attributions about bad behavior ‣ when we start to make external attributions about good behavior or internal attributions about bad behavior, the relationship goes wrong ‣ positive trajectory of relationships are slow, but when things are going badly the downward trajectory is very steep

Post Milgram Study

created a mandate of review process for the ethics of a research study there's a board that reviews the study and determines any dangers -> Belmont report: how research is conducted in an ethical study -> Institutional Review Board

Reduction of Intergroup Competition:Positive Intergroup Behaviors

creating competition and then attempting to reduce it ‣ Ex. college students sign up for a study that will take 4 hours, randomly assigned to one of two groups, then gave each group tshirts (blue or green, minimal group paradigm quickly acts to the ingroup/outgroup bias), would take out individuals and bring them to a room where they had to do a fun task with an individual from the other group, individuals would go back and talk positively about working with the other group and this positive behavior would decrease competition - somewhat effective but not as effective as jigsaw or robber's cave; trickled throughout the group and helped to eliminate bias *knowing a group member is friends with an outside group member

internal

degree to which you are sure of the cause of your results; tends to be increased with experiments, when you have control and random assignment, and when you standardized the groups (everything is identical except independent variable); more maximized in experiments with a lot of control; correlations can say that some things are systematically related; may not occur without random assignment or control

fits data

data must fit theory, empirical support

Archival

data that is collected is not collected by a psychologist, rather by someone else who is measuring variables, the psychologist just asks to have access to the data to study the relationship between the variables; makes use of data collected for a reason other than psychological; data taken from an archive

causation

decide which particular person caused a behavior

operationalization

deciding to measure and how you manipulate; Need to be sure that you are manipulating or measuring what you think you are

external

degree to which your subjects behavior is naturally occurring- are they behaving as they would naturally behave?; do studies without people knowing they are in a study- observational, as you move out of a lab into the field you increase external validity because in labs people know others are watching; deception can be used to increase external validity (ex. kitty experiment; told they were taking survey but the recording of woman played to measure their results);

Potential biases of studies

design problems, experimenter bias, participant bias

what causes conformity: normative social influence

desire to be liked

what causes conformity: informative social influence

desire to be right; you think other people know what the correct behavior is so you behave like them

Mob Behavior: riots

destruction of property and looting *conventional wisdom

Intragroup Issues: group think

deterioration of mental efficiency, reality testing, and judgment that results form in-group pressure •variables affecting: central leader, gatekeeper, pluralistic ignorance, self-censorship, pressure to uniformity *hard to do a groupthink experiment

Theory Evaluation

determines theory's value

Measurement of Stereotypes: self report

diagnostic ratio (could include bias because some stereotypes are undesirable); diagnostic ratio alleviates some of the problems with self report by asking people to rate, first for the average human being and then for a number of other groups (race, gender, profession, etc); you can form a ratio between individual groups v. people in general - less direct because it is a comparison between groups - comparing the rate of outgroup traits to the rate of humanity's traits

justifiability

did they have any justification for their action? - allows for an external reason for their behavior

intentionality

did they intend to do something even if they understood the effects?

strength of attitude determinants: direct experience

direct experience on an attitudinal topic makes attitude stronger and behavior will flow from this attitude; increases the prediction of behavior by increasing strength Ex. more people came to college than the college had housing for so some freshman were put up in the gym randomly, social psychologists measured attitudes about this - people living in the gym had varying attitudes; they could very strongly predict behavior (protesting v. not protesting) based on these attitudes; much harder to predict behavior of those not living in the gym based on their attitudes - those who lived in the gym: some hated it some loved it, they had relatively strong attitudes; those who lived in the dorms thought it was funny and didn't have such strong attitudes, those with strong attitudes were more likely to protest

attitude measurement

direct v. indirect

Discontinuity Effect: Prisoner's Dilemma

do they hold their ground and say they weren't there and keep denying it, or one of them blames the other or blames themselves? *if they both hold their ground or denying they will be okay *if one of them flips the other person is screwed *dilemma is whether they maximize the good of both of them or protect themselves *due to fear schema, greed schema, and social support not individuation

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: social support for greed

does not happen when you're alone; if someone brings up the possibility of choosing y, there is an opportunity for the other group members to support this decision *increases competition by activating greed schema *Ex. college aged confederate that were told how to act, in one condition they didn't do much, in the second supported a choice for y strongly, in the third they just nodded and gave a mumbled response when someone brought up choosing y •when confederate gave strong support - 80% of the time they choose y •when confederate gave mumbled support - 50% •Social Support for cooperation: confederate would push for choosing x *Has to be in a group- when you are alone you don't have someone egging you on

compliance

doing what we are asked to do even if we prefer not to ◦"mindless conformity": the use of heuristics ◦Longer study: a "placebo reason" ("can i use your copier now because I have to make copies?" increases compliance over no reason and almost as much as a real reason ("because i'm in a rush") ◦cognitive misers - when people acquiesce because they hear the word "because" ◦decreases when fully processing, focused and motivated ◦increases with low motivation or low need for cognition

social comparison theory

don't know how good we are or where we stand on something, we are motivated to compare ourselves to other people; People's attitudes can have a direct effect on how we think about topics or events; Should compare to those who are similar to ourselves - will gain the most information; When we are motivated to compare to others, they have an influence on us; When we don't know how we are feeling we look to others

variables affecting aggression: individual level: personality: aggressive traits

don't know if aggressiveness is a personality trait

example of overconfidence

dunning kruger effect

attitudes are similar to schemas

dynamic and changeable, but more resistant with time and familiarity; Structure and evaluation issues apply- once an attitude is established we seek information that is consistent with this and ignore inconsistent information

Structure Characteristics of Schemas

dynamic, yet stable, central nodes, fuzzy boundaries

Attraction

earliest relationship studies focused on this because you could do experiments on attraction: level of physical attractiveness, compatibility, etc. -> 1970's started to do more longitudinal studies on actual relationships

Attraction

earliest relationship studies focused on this because you could do experiments on attraction: level of physical attractiveness, compatibility, etc. -> 1970's started to do more longitudinal studies on actual relationships *Physiological *Learning Theory *Contact Effects *Trait Approaches *Evolutionary Approaches

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory

early socio-economic bonding has later implications for schemas regarding self and other *John Bowlby *Harlow's Monkey *Attachment Styles *Mary Ainsworth Style Study *2D Space Model *Illusion v. Accuracy *Empathetic Accuracy *Attribution Effect

Ways to reduce Selfish Behavior in Social Dilemmas: smaller groups

easier to solve, have more impact in a smaller group so they are less likely to behave selfishly; feel more responsibility ◦Ex. class experiment in a smaller group

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: cognitive: social cognitive biases: cognitive misers

easy for these stereotypes to be maintained, look for information that is consistent and ignore inconsistent (confirmation bias) these stereotypes to be maintained, look for information that is consistent and ignore inconsistent (confirmation bias) *small samples/limited contact: origin of stereotype or schema and why it persists) *vivid examples override base-rate *look for consistent/ignore inconsistent = stability *illusory correlations- think things are related but they are not = ignoring base rate info *priming studies: both high and low prejudiced people when primed, view stimuli stereotypically (when schemas are activated without their knowledge, this affects both prejudice and non-prejudice people similarly which is evidence that the stereotype is present in both ->primed stereotype behavior can be overcome by non-racists if they are made controlled processing

small sample errors

error is caused by observing a small sample of a population, and assuming that something observed is true for the ENTIRE population- judging someone based on a schema acquire from a small sample Stereotyping

Attraction: Contact Effects: Trait Approaches: positivity

especially in first impressions, we like people who are positive; don't like pessimistic people; only personality trait that has a powerful effect *ex. in speed dating, neurotic people are less liked

Participation Bias

evaluation apprehension

Reliability

expect personality traits to be reliable or stable (intelligence will be the same in 6 months). In some situations this is not a problem, when something is not expected to be reliable (ex. commitment is expected to change)

Schema Generation

experience, modeling, operant conditioning, social comparison, genetic predisposition

what research method has lower external validity

experimental

Research designs

experimental v. correlational

How to prevent experimenter bias

experimenter is blinded and does not know what group/condition they are in, so they can't have any expectation, or use a recording (standardization); Also instructions for conducting experiments should be standard and specific

Phenomenal Logic

explains there is a difference but does not explain the why; shows a phenomenon but doesn't explain it; simply demonstrates that an effect occurs in research

Archival studies are high in what type of validity

external

trial issues: eyewitness testimony

extraordinarily convincing to jurors even if they aren't very credible, increases conviction rate ◦Study: staged crime in front of waiting subjects, witnesses described thief and did lineup, testimony to jurors, jurors believed eyewitness 80% regardless of accuracy problem because a lot of weight is put on eyewitnesses but they are not the most credible ‣jurors are still swayed even when discredited: •circumstantial- 18% •eyewitness- 76% •eyewitness discredited-68%

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: medium factors: face to face v. media with equal message

face to face is much more persuasive than just media

attitude measurement: indirect

find out an attitude without the person/subject knowing it's being measured, not self-reported so it is hard for people to mask and pretend *physiological measures, bogus pipeline, implicit association test *not used for response latency or attitude confusion, but are used for non-normative attitude, undesirable attitude and conscious/unconscious bias

example of controlled processing

first learning to drive

Norm of reciprocity: Door in the face

first you asked for something really big, when you are rejected/the door is slammed in your face, you lower your demands and expectations so then they are more likely to agree; works better than if you just ask in the first place ‣ Ex. zoo study: an experimenter would go up to college students and say they provided mentors for troubled youths and asked if they would be a mentor for 6 hours a week for 10 weeks; most people said no, then they asked if they would just chaperone 2 hours one time and people were more likely to say yes if they had been asked to mentor than those who were not asked ‣ Ex. watergate: Liddy knew he couldn't get them to agree for him to break into the suite; first, he proposed that he would get officials to go on a boat and get them in trouble by taking their pictures with call girls, then he proposed breaking into the hotel - since this was less extreme they agreed

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: 2D space model: undifferentiated

for a bunch of people, attachment style isn't a dominant trait *middle of the graph represents this

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Simple Contact Effects: Robber's Cave Study: contact

forced groups to sit in auditorium not separated by groups and had to eat meals together; simple contact did not do anything, still ultra competitive

downward comparison

form of social comparison to compare to someone who did worse than you to make yourself feel better

Attribution Theories Biases

fundamental attribution error, actor observer effect, self-serving bias

Deductive

general to specific: observe a bunch of behaviors and think of a theory that ties them together

Commitment: foot in the door

get someone to do something small for you first, then you ask them for something larger later on; since they already committed they might do something they normally would not ‣ Ex. drive safely study- 2 very similar neighborhoods, try to get them to put up a large sign that says "please drive safely"; control give talk and ask to put up sign; experimental- 2 weeks before they just give the talk and ask if they would sign a petition for safe driving, then they come back and ask to put the sign up; if you signed the petition you are more likely to vote to put up the sign because you feel committed to the cause

Commitment: low-balling

gets you committed because you expect one result, but then dramatically changes the parameters; law of scarcity ‣ Ex. car sales- you have researched car and know which one you want to purchase, once you go to the dealership you ask for the car but the salesman says they don't have the model you want (they have one but with all the upgrades); they say they can have the exact one tomorrow, but you can test drive the one they have available, you say you will have the exact one tomorrow, but you can test drive the one they have available ; the next day you come back and they tell you the car was sold, so they sell you the upgraded one as a deal; since you are already committed to the car you still go along with it ‣ Ex. car sales- run add in newspaper with great price but in fine print it says one at this price; this will make you come to this dealership find out it was sold but have the same one at a higher price ‣ Ex. 7 am study- recruitment by researchers for subjects; control- they would explain the study and tell you it was on saturday at 7 am then they ask if you would participate, experimental- describe study and ask for your participation, if you agree, they tell you the time of the study, if you already said yes you are more likely to actually participate

unstructured interview

give a small prompt and let the people talk ◦bottom up strategy ◦pros: things can emerge that you didn't think of

external

give credit to something outside of yourself; trying to assign cause of someone's behavior to the situation or external factors

internal

give credit to yourself; trying to assign cause of someone's behavior to the person

Larger Intragroup Issues: social dilemmas: public goods dilemma

give to a resource to maintain Ex. public radio stations or public tv- vast majority of their funding comes from the community; if you many people take advantage and do not give money, they won't be able to operate; "im listening to this station, but im not going to give" if toomany people have this attitude everyone listening will suffer Ex. recycling- if too many people decide not to recycle, everyone suffers •have to actively do something - not taking something but doing something that resolves a problem

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: John Bowlby

had observation that the kids that were the most 'difficult' were separated from their parents at a very young age (between birth and two) *said we are born helpless and we won't survive without parental figures *as a result we can talk about the socio-emotional bond that will have implication as the person ages

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom solutions: incident

has to be some incident that calls people to action, not what to do, but what other people will probably (rock through window, a sacrificial action and arrest)

path analysis in correlational research method

have a variable you want to be able to predict; so you measure different variables; if you find that one path sticks out more than the other paths, when considering all paths at once, then you can determine that it is a strong predictor, and use more causal like language (not 100% caused)

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Simple Contact Effects: Robber's Cave Study: entitavity

having a group identity (name of group) makes you think differently about your own group, increases loyalty

control

having control over the study such that you know only the thing you manipulate is what is different; using a lab to ensure conditions are the same; isolate one different thing

experience

having experience with different objects and situations; as you have more info one to you, you are going to fit that info into established schemas or new schemas; can be operant conditioning or naturally interacting with the world without getting feedback

obedience to authority: six bases of social power: information

having it can be a form of power Ex. a CEO's administrative assistant has great power because they control the CEO's calendar and has information

helping behavior theoretical approaches: sociobiological

help to ensure the survival of genes- more likely to help family, especially kids *kin selection: more help if genetically related; adopted vs. biological kid; very dramatic findings in studies *reciprocity: help when we can at a low cost to get help when we need it; in terms of survival

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: 2D space model: avoidant dismissive

high avoidance & low anxiety *don't like other people, but arrogant about it; believe that others want to be close to them; more self assured and confident

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: 2D space model: avoidant fearful

high avoidance and high anxiety *don't want to be close to people, but do have issues of people wanting to like them /worrying if people want to be close to them • wallflowers- paling attention to other people's conversations but can't work up the nerve to enter the conversation themselves

variables affecting aggression: individual level: personality: type A

high need for achievement and power; driven, higher achiever, but also have more stress in their lives = tend to be more aggressive both physically and instrumentally to get what they want however use more instrumental aggression and are more successful but are more likely to die earlier

variables affecting aggression: physiological: testosterone

higher levels associated with aggression; more likely to be a criminal if you have inherited testosterone levels; also more likely to have more/larger tattoos, don't smile as much *look at prison populations and compare people in for violent crimes and those in for nonviolent crimes; those that are violent have higher testosterone levels *boys and girls of highest level in testosterone (after puberty) are more likely to engage in juvenile delinquent behavior such as fighting *firemen and stuntmen have higher testosterone levels *higher testosterone people look angry and are serious while low testosterone people smile

Attraction: Contact Effects: Evolutionary Approaches: Differential Parental Investment

historically and through this day, men and women play very different roles in reproduction, men and women find different things attractive *men can have as many kids, can impregnate more, fertile longer in their lives, men are less sure of having their genes in the child - could be carrying another man's child *women are absolutely sure their genes are in their offspring, have a limited window for fertility, can only have so many kids at a time, and go through dramatic changes during this time, but because they are sure their genes are in the child, they are heavily invested *study: asked people all over the world what the most important thing they want in a mate ->men and women both want someone who they love and loves them back ->the only things they found different were that men valued physical attractiveness more than women did and women valued resources more than men *Historically ->physical appearance back in the day was a sign of successful vaginal child birth -> men prefer this bc it means their genes will survive ->more attractive people will have better genes *marriage: men 27, women 25; what men value in who they want in a partner as they age is a younger age even when they begin to age, women always want a man 2 years older; men want someone who can bear children *2 types of sperm; make females or males - very different; male sperms are little but fast and where themselves out (like cones) , female sperms (like cylinders) slow but have more stamina - if you have two competing sperm donations in same place at same time - kamikaze sperm, some sperm will give up their chance to win so that they can destroy the other competing sperm *perpetuate stereotypes: women should be pretty; men should have good jobs; some people use evolutionary psych to suggest that men should sleep around -> all wrong *macro theory- talks about gender differences across everyone but not very good at explaining individual scenarios and not why you ended up with the person you do, more factors in ongoing intimate relationships; can't explain dysfunctional v. functional relationships and can't predict any of this

example of dunning kruger effect

horse betting: people are much more confident in their bet after they put their money down than before they put their money down

Operationalization of Aggression

how aggression is going to be measured in the lab; can't let people get too out of hand

Theoretical Orientations: Evolutionary Approach: Sociobiology Effects: denigration

how do men and women degrade potential rivals for a mate? *Men usually talk about what they have (what kind of major they are, what car they drive, etc.) ->Men denigrate their rival's resources (he is from a poor family) *Women tend to uplay their attractiveness ->Women denigrate their rival by calling her ugly and a slut *Idea of symmetry in attractiveness

Theoretical Orientations: Evolutionary Approach: Sociobiology Effects: mate poaching

how do you lure someone away from their relationship to be with you *women tend to use their physical appearance *women value attractiveness over resources for a short term relationship *women value more strong jawed, masculine men when they are ovulating, but during times other times of the month, they value baby-faced me

operationalization in correlational study

how i'm going to measure the variables to see if they are operationally correlated

Distinctiveness

how person behaves in similar situations, if the situation is distinct you are less sure of an internal attribution

Consistency

how person has behaved previously; information about the same person; helps us make internal attribution

variables affecting aggression: individual level: cognitive structures: aggressive schemas

how we develop schemas revolving around how to act when insulted or disrespected reflects in our aggression; linked to violent video games in that people who play that develop stronger schemas aggression; linked to violent video games in that people who play develop stronger schemas for aggression

persuasion approaches

how you get someone to but your product or vote for you *message learning approach *elaboration likelihood model

Multitrait

how you manipulate and measure; operationalization of variables; if you can demonstrate that the hypothesis is true while you manipulate the variable in different ways then your work is more likely to be accepted and accredited; represented in research by the use of creative of creative operationalizations

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Accomodation

how you respond when your partner does something that hurts you in some way or how they respond when you do something to hurt them *Active v. Passive: active is more behavioral *Destructive v. Constructive: destructive means your intention is to hurt the person back, constructive means response is trying to make things better *Exit: active destructive- partner insults you ->order dessert, tells you that you are looking a little chunky and asks if you are sure you want to order so you call him fat too and leave the restaurant *Neglect: destructive passive, demonstrating you are upset and want to hurt them back, but not in an active way ->pouting *Voice: active constructive, asking them why they are upset and if there is a deeper meaning *Loyalty: passive constructive, just smiling and letting it roll off *Ex. less committed couples tend to have destructive responses, more committed ones didn't always act constructively but they tended not to have destructive responses *Ex. couples fight, some allowed to respond immediately and others had to wait 7 seconds to respond second group didn't respond destructively as often - shows that lashing out is an automatic response, and if we think of the long term consequences of the immediate behavior we become more restrained

self schema

how you view yourself, very complex bc you have more information about yourself than about any other person on earth

variables affecting aggression: situational: excitation transfer

if a person is made frustrated in a situation, but cannot act aggressively due to constraints (could be your boss), the person may transfer this emotion to the next situation in which they can behave aggressively; in other words, when people can't act aggressive in a situation (boss yelling) you take it out at the next possible opportunity (on your kid at home)

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3: learning theory

if cost of helping out weighs the benefits

Ways to reduce Selfish Behavior in Social Dilemmas: normative/ informative social dilemmas

if norm of acting unselfishly is created or if you are informed of the effects ◦informative- gives information ‣Ex. stickers posted next to door to turn lights off before leaving ‣ normative- making something an accepted behavior makes it more likely for everyone to do it, and those who do not follow norm usually have repercussions • Ex. our recycling generation- have made recycling a norm so more and more people are more likely to do it -> bottle bill; pay extra for container, but if you return the item to a recycling facility, you get the money back, if someone doesn't recycle they can be called out = normative influence = signs around campus that say "please recycle" • Ex. San Antonio Spurs basketball player; drought in texas so it was made a temporary law that you could not water your garden, but basketball player was watering his lawn and someone reported him but it was actually a leak in a pipe and he wrote a letter to the same editor that he was not acting selfishly

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3: social exchange

if odds of you actually helping are high

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social norm: norm of reciprocity

if someone has helped you in the past you feel the need to reciprocate/if i help you i should be able to call you to get help later on

helping behavior theoretical approaches: learning approaches: operant conditioning

if we are rewarded for helping others and it doesn't cost us much then we are more likely to help *Study: kids given gold stars helped more and were more likely to help in other situations *rewards are more powerful than punishments *avoid over-justification effect

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: illusion v. accuracy

if we see our partner better than they actually are, it will benefit the relationship *can't be way off because at some point down the road, illusion and reality will collide

variables affecting aggression: situational: social exclusion theory

if you are excluded in a social situation, you tend to act aggressively in response • Study: chat room research where people are told they don't belong and are excluded -> some people feel powerless and shut down while others act aggressively and lash out • Study: lab research; everyone in lab makes ratings about everyone else; they have to choose who they would want to work with; someone would be told they were not chosen l then later they would have to work with others again, they tended to act aggressively if they were excluded (could be related to pain)

Ways to reduce Selfish Behavior in Social Dilemmas: operant conditioning

if you are going to be rewarded or punished you are less likely to act selfishly Ex. Netherlands- if you could prove you were carpooling you got a bonus on your paycheck ‣ rewards are more effective than punishments, because people become desensitized to punishment, and people try to avoid getting caught and getting punished ‣punishment is the least effective way to reduce selfish behavior in a social dilemma

variables affecting aggression: learning: operant conditioning

if you are rewarded for aggressive behavior you will continue to act aggressively, if you are punished you will not (often in children);

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3: evolutionary theory

if you aren't related to them you are less likely to help

aggression reduction approaches: norms agains

if you can establish that aggression is not an appropriate response, people will follow this; establish a norm so you reduce aggression

Testable/Falsifiable

if you can't test using a scientific method and find support, then that's problematic; lacks empirical support

variables affecting aggression: individual level: cognitive structures

if you do cognition measures, aggressive people have larger cognitive structures that revolve around aggression *aggressive schemas *priming studies

variables affecting aggression: situational: frustration

if you make people frustrated, they are much more likely to behave aggressively; lingers when you can't act on it

example of components of attitudes: behavior

if you say you don't like pizza and then you eat pizza

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: reciprocity effects

if you screw me over i will try to screw you over; in groups this spirals down in to choosing y-y everytime, can't rebuilt trust; strong for competitive acts when in a group; when there is one act of competition by one group the other group naturally retaliates but in more extreme ways; continues and becomes a cycle that is hard to break; however individuals are better at resolving the conflict quickly *schemes for fear and greed are really activated in groups *when person gets the other to choose x and they choose y and allow the other group to get them back -> try to apologize and after they get each other back they discuss that they will not succeed this way and resettle trust

Larger Intragroup Issues: social dilemmas: commons dilemma

if you take too much it will deplete the supply for everyone else - right level of selfishness ‣Ex. natural resources, if you take a lot there are a lot of consequences (whales in 19th century)

Ways to reduce Selfish Behavior in Social Dilemmas: identifiability

if your behavior is identified and associated with you, you are less likely to be selfish = normative influence because you don't want people to think poorly about you Ex. people in HOV lane that shouldn't be there do not look around at other cars, stare at road

modeling

imitation of others and modeling their behavior (children imitate their parents/siblings); a lot of our schemas come from imitating how others interact with the world

attitude generation: modeling

imitation, can be handed down through a family

helping behavior theoretical approaches: learning approaches: modeling

imitation; especially in younger children; look at people you like and model their helping behavior

Correlation is NOT causation

in a correlational study, you cannot discuss causation - both variables are caused by something else, not by each other

Norm of reciprocity: compliance

in compliance, you do something you normally do because you are paying someone back for a previous behavior ‣ Ex. soda study: subject takes personality survey, then experimenter leaves and comes back with a soda to give to a subject. after a second survey, the confederate says that they are having a raffle for charity and asks if they would like to buy a $5 ticket -> found that if they were given a 50 cent soda they were significantly more likely to buy a ticket; we take the first chance to pay someone back (even if its not necessarily equal) ‣ Ex. Hare Krishna's: famous religious sect for trying to spread their faith at airports by giving out flowers and literature then asking you for money; observed that people who took the flower more likely to take a pamphlet and give money; also noticed that flowers were thrown away after which were reused by Hare Krishnas

Attraction: Contact Effects: Trait Approaches: similarity

in terms of demographics, same age, same race, same social class (not universality, slight important findings) - most attracted to people with similar attitudes as us, someone who shares your interests and attitudes (conservative, vegan, etc) - makes interactions go better because conversations are easy *opposites attract is a myth; if it happens eventually the thing you find that is different from you that you fell in love with will soon become the thing you hate the most *personality doesn't matter, extroverts don't need to be with extroverts *attitudes are most important

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors: fear arousal

increase fear to persuade people to do something ◦Ex. brushing your teeth- one group was shown images of disgusting teeth and told that if they didn't brush that is what would happen to them, people changed their attitude but they also needed the "how to" avoid what they fear ◦Ex. packs of cigarettes with picture of blacked out lungs on them

Quasi-Experimental

independent variable is naturally occurring, cannot randomly assign people to groups but still want to compare the groups; manipulation would be difficult or unethical Is there another variable that would account for the observed difference in the dependent variable; a lot of research have quasi-experimental values/variables within them, ex. gender

Characteristics of Experimental research

independent variable, control, random assignment, standardization (replication is not a fundamental key)

variables affecting aggression: situational: normative approaches

is it acceptable to be aggressive in this situation? strong norms against aggression to fight in class, church, etc.; some situations very rarely come with aggressive behavior because of norms (church vs. bars); some situations have norms that facilitate aggression

Intragroup Issues: group polarization

individual attitudes and opinions become more extreme when they are embedded in a group ◦normative social influence: others pressure others - "i will fit in better if i have more extreme opinions that reflect the group tendencies"; want to fit in ◦informative social influence: may receive more information than you didn't have before; people have other knowledge that you think is the right way to think ◦Ex. case study: study done at a college that was known for its liberal values; they were one of the first schools to drop test scores for admissions - looked at incoming freshman before they got to the college and their social issues (rights, voting laws, etc.) then, they measured the same attitudes one year into college, and a few years after they left to college; when they were at the college they became much more liberal, when they left they reverted to their precollege attitudes

Most common type of theory development

inductive

Asch Line Study

informative social influence was eliminated by telling everyone what the right answer was; subjects looked at slides involving line lengths; subjects were randomly positioned at a table and all but one were aware of the study = confederates; subject was told how to answer and what was correct, confederates say right answer for a few trials but then they all say the same wrong answer -> found that the one subject would give the same wrong answer 72% of the time; asked why they purposely gave the wrong answer: "everyone else have the wrong answer so they wanted to fit in"; when people gave a private answer they conformed less *conformity study

IRB mandates

informed consent, risks v. benfits, debriefing

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory

interactions between people are the key to any relationship *when two people interact, they have the ability to affect the other person's outcome which makes us interdependent on each other *Correspondence *Satisfaction *Dependence *Accomodation *Denigration of Alternatives *Sacrifice *Infidelity

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Jigsaw Classroom

interdependence; designed to make kids interdependent, broke kids down into smaller groups and each group would be given an overarching topic, each kid would be given a subtopic; each child was in charge of learning about the topic and bringing other kids to speed and they expected to learn about other topics from other kids but in order to do well you had to learn well what you were assigned and what the other kids had to know *designed o increase academic performance and to decrease ingroup/outgroup stereotypes and competitive behavior *found that students did improve academically and also that they were much less negative to outgroups and the contact between in and out groups increased *interdependence- people tend to see more similarities across races, proved to be more effective teaching strategy (jigsaw class kids did better on exams than individually taught kids, had less ingroup/outgroup bias towards race, and had es general stereotypes about group members)

variables affecting aggression: group level

intergroup competition- more violence when you are in a group *deindividuation- can't be identified so you are more aggressive *diffusion of responsibility- not completely responsible for the aggression of the group *social identity theory- you want your group to do better for self esteem reasons which can lead to aggressive behavior *give longer shocks when in a group *more aggressive fouls in team sports than individual sports

validity types

internal v. external v. generalizability

helping behavior theoretical approaches: learning approaches: operant conditioning: over-justification effect

intrinsic motivation (actions come because you like to help) v. extrinsic motivation (doing something for the external reward) -> when there is an over reliance on external motivation for doing something it tends to undermine intrinsic motivation ◦Study: control students told to play with anything and experimental students told to play with anything but if they play with markers they will get a reward; round 1 happens and then kids are rewarded and then in round 2 those who were given candy did not play with the markers again but those who were not rewarded played with the markers both times; experimental group only had an external reason to want to help, not intrinsic -> if kids only want something for the reward, they won't do it on their own for no reward ◦Study: people out of college take a job either bc it pays well or bc they like it; those who take a job bc it pays well tend to be less happy and don't get promoted while people who do it bc of intrinsic motivation are happier and enjoy their work and are more successful and eventually end up with more money ◦Study: kids play on old lady's lawn: they play all the time and she likes when they lay so she gives them a quarter to play but when she can't pay anymore they don't come back; turned intrinsic motivation to external

how self schemas are gathered

introspection and looking to others

Pre-Milgram Study

it was up the psychologist what the ethics was, some did not care about the subjects and others did

presentation of evidence: elaboration likelihood model

juries can be in either central route processing or peripheral route processing; central-controlled processing; peripheral- cues, attractiveness, etc.; attorneys want to know what strongest sides of case are for each side, so that when they present their side, they want the jury to be motivated and refreshed so that they pay attention so your strong evidence will have the strongest impact, but if you know the other side is presenting first you want to make the jury switch to PRP by objecting a lot and distracting them • Owen Jennings- famous orator and trial strategies: when other side was presenting his strongest piece of evidence, he would stick the end of a paper clip into a cigar which would cause the ash to stick so everyone stared at him instead of the strong arguments against his client •attorneys try to clean up their clients so that those who are in PRP are more sympathetic towards him • can always tell those in litigation because they are most attractive people -> halo effect, people are more convinced by attractive attorneys • attractive people are less likely to get convicted unless they used their attractiveness clearly in their favor - violate this schema and make people upset because attractive people are supposed to be better • OJ Simpson Trial- there was a lot of blood on the scene and blood of the perpetrator; DNA first starting to be used in trials, not necessarily accessible to general public; evidence was overwhelming that OJ's blood was there (1 in 6 billion chance it was not him) but they got someone to account for DNA testing at a super technical level and the jury afterwards said that they did not understand it at all so their most convincing case was thrown out the window • Drigotas was on a jury of a trial where someone ran a light and then t-boned someone who hit their head on the metal bar and he was suing the guy for lost wages because he wasn't going to be able to work to the best of his ability anymore; both sides wanted Drigotas because they knew he was a psychologist but each side though they better had the better expert witness testimony; one of the lawyers was wearing a cowboy hat and looked like a huge prick but as soon as the jury went into the room 4 jurors said they didn't know what was going on but that they didn't like that attorney

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom solutions: instigator

just having many people in the same mood doesn't start a riot; most people make the calculation that if they start it they might get caught but if they wait for someone else to start it, the odds go way down (risk of getting caught decreased based upon ratio of crowd/police, probability everyone will join); must consider getting caught (increases based upon ratio of crowd/police), others joining, police intervention

Study Types

laboratory, observational, field experiment, surveys, experience sampling, simulation, archival, quasi-experimental

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3: bystander effect

less likely to take responsibility to help

attitude measurement: indirect: bogus pipeline

like a fake lie-detector test, believe that a machine measures your attitudes; then they ask questions about socially undesirable attitudes (sexism, racism) which people are more likely to admit when they believe they are under lie-detection than in a survey; not a physiological measure

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social exchange: cognitive appraisal of rewards and costs

likelihood and what it means • Study: Good Samaritan- measures of personality (altruism, empathy, and religiosity) were taken; ask someone to give a talk on a parable to children and they all say yes; half were given a helping parable and half were not; half were given 10 minutes to get to the talk, others were told to hurry; on their way there was a bench with a slumped man -> results: personality or priming (what variable they read) did not matter, only time; those who were rushed knew that the cost of stopping was great and therefore did not help while those who had 10 minutes were more likely to stop and ask if the man was okay

Colors of love (love styles): pragma

love as sort of a laundry list, want to fall in love with someone who has blue eyes, this tall, this many kids, live in this type of house etc. - have a series of qualities you want in one person you want to fall in love with *associated with thinking in terms of characteristics and checking off boxes

Colors of love (love styles):agape

love is selflessness, giving up yourself to get someone else through a dangerous or hard time, being there for them (religious connotation)

Colors of love (love styles): ludus

love is the hunt, winning someone else over, the chase, getting someone to fall in love with you is how you define a loving relationship *tend to get bored when once they win someone else over, find someone else, move from relationship to relationship

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social exchange: physical attractiveness

more likely to help a physically attractive person due to potential rewards

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social exchange: communal v. exchange

more likely to help people we are friends with, our family, or who expect to interact with in the future because there will be greater rewards; less likely to help exchange relationships because you don't expect there to be interactions in the future and less rewards

Love as self-expansion:

love this is this process where you find somebody, and the love that you feel can be the result of you raking on characteristics of them, and them taking characteristics of you, expand and grow into each other (self-other merging) ◦theory of self-expansion: we need to be trying new things, life is a growth process, if we like these new things then we incorporate them into our lives to grow and expand as a person established at first using social cognition measures, allowed the field to embrace this theory as actual scientific research *life is a process of expanding yourself, taking on new experiences, integrating them; you are constantly growing *pairing off, falling in love, is a process of self expansion - you find someone who you can expand wit, taking on some of their traits ad activities; integrate them into your life research has found that people who report they have fallen in love, became larger and they expanded their traits *self other overlap is strongest for person you have fallen in love with *related to: how committed you are, functioning levels, how good you fit, correspondence, attribution patterns, accommodation, etc. = commitment, accommodation, sacrifices, happiness, stability, conflict-resolution **best in predicting love; shown most success and most strongly associated with personal growth *inclusion of others in the self scale (ios): demonstrates self other merging, meant to check off which set of circles represents you and your partner's relationships as the circles merge together, individual circles get bigger (demonstrates growth) *asked which set of circles best represents you and your romantic partner *Ex. both members of couple were told to write down 10 new pleasing things they could do together, and also 10 things that they could do together that would be exciting; randomly assigned them to do pleasing things once a week for 10 weeks or exciting things. measured functioning, passionate/compassionate love, sexual intimacy, etc. -> exciting things showed dramatic increases in passionate love, sexual intimacy, etc.; pleasing things showed no benefit; something about doing exciting things ramps up growth (might be some attribution of arousal, thrilling things cause ANS activity which we label as attraction to partner)

Example of fuzzy boundaries

loving, lusting

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: 2D space model: preoccupied

low avoidance of intimacy and high anxiety *want to be close to people , but worry that they will hurt you or that you can trust them, or that they won't like you back

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: 2D space model: secure

low avoidance of intimacy and low anxiety *want to be close to people, do not worry that they will hurt you, you can trust them

aggression reduction approaches: learning/modeling

lower rewards for aggression and increase the costs so that people then will be more likely to reduce aggression; for modeling, imitate people acting non-aggressively ◦little kids getting gold star for non-aggressive works ◦in recess 5th graders taught conflict avoidance training; smaller kids who looked up to these 5th graders model their behavior after them and this was most effective

heider's levels of responsibility

make a strong internal attribution about somebody else's behavior; can we make an internal attribution to a person's behavior? kind of like building a legal argument and finding evidence association, causation, forseeability, intentionality, justifiability works for both positive and negative responsibilites/scenarios

Person schema type

make assumptions about a person ◦Trump ◦Roommate ◦If you had to call home and had to ask for $100 with no questions asked, who would you want to get on the phone

standardization

making sure that the exact same things happen to every subject in the study except for the one thing you are manipulating, so that you can conclude the manipulated variable is what is causing the results.

Theoretical Orientations: Evolutionary Approach: Sociobiology Effects: jealousy

male sexual jealousy and homicide *the most prominent reason women get murdered is by male sexual jealousy *men get much more upset thinking about their partner having sex with someone else while women get much more upset thinking about their partner falling in love with someone else

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom solutions: unifying event

mass of people together, spontaneous or unplanned

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: cognitive: social cognitive biases: implicit bias

measure by implicit association test (closely associated word pairs we can determine faster we have not seen before) *belief accentuation

attitude measurement: indirect: implicit association test

measure response time to measure unconscious desires - you believe you are memorizing pairs of words and then have to recall them, pairs of words that you have not seen before are shown, if you closely associate the words you determine more quickly that you have not seen them than when you do not closely associate them; shorter response time when the words are close related *best and most current

Attraction: physiological approaches: arousal: lingerie slides

men are hooked up to physiological response sensors (skin, heartbeat, etc.) look at 10 slides of women in lingerie and then randomly assign you to 1 slide and they will hear a fake heartbeat on this slide, say the study is over, and then a week later they say they forgot to ask ratings of the slides and don't get hooked up again, people reported that the slide they found the most attractive was the one to which they heard their heartbeat fastest because they thought their heart was responding

Theoretical Orientations: Evolutionary Approach: Sociobiology Effects: mate preferences

men value attractiveness more than women and women value resources more than men

attitude measurement: direct: likert

methods of summated rating uses 1-10 pt scales (agree-disagree); examines surrounding beliefs of an attitude; trying to measure more specific beliefs around the topic and establishes a global evaluation based on the ratings *Ex. Drigotas' feelings towards Dallas - good food, easy to get around, weird weather, school issues, very segregated -> a likert scale would take all of these beliefs (ratings on a scale) and finds an average rating in order to determine Drigotas' attitude regarding Dallas *Ex. Claire's boys rating system, rated every quality then found an average to determine which was best

strength of attitude determinants: information

more information means your attitude is stronger which will make your behavior follow your attitude more consistently

variables affecting aggression: individual level: personality: type B

more laid back and less aggressive

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social exchange: mood effects

more likely to help when in a bad mood than in neutral mood because it improves our mood and more likely to help when in a good mood than in neutral also learn positive effects of helping once we are in school • Study: subway car- when there were a good number of people in subway car; old man face plants in subway when it moves, half the time he bleeds the other half he doesn't; people help less when there is blood bc there is a larger cost • Study: homeless people's signs try to make it easier for you to help my making it clear they deserve your help; people with dogs also get more help

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: motivational theories: scapegoat theory

more of a sociology theory, stereotypes might arise out of motivational need to have someone be worse than you; freud- unconscious drive to be better than other people so we will think about outgroup people bing worse than us (hedonistic drive) - solely motivated in nature *Ex. in the south, negative attitudes about blacks were the most hateful among the poorest whites, need someone to be worse off than they are as it allows them to feel better about their lives (similar to downward comparison)

attitude generation: social comparison

motivated when we aren't sure of out attitude compared to other people, shapes your own attitude; when we don't know how we fill

Observational study

naturally occurring behavior out in the real world, correlational designs because you are not manipulating anything, high in external validity, low in internal validity, cannot talk about cause of results only about correlation, subjects are typically unaware, can only be done in a public setting and has to be everyday normal behavior, less control; Difficult to code natural behavior- different observers may interpret the situation differently

Attraction: physiological approaches: arousal

neurotransmitter and hormones changes; hue that we are attracted to somebody; spark; feel adrenaline, butterflies, increase in respiration and use this as a sign of attraction and use this as a sign of attraction *mis attribution of arousal *lingerie slides *secret relationships

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3: social norms

norm of help causes you to help more, norm of justice (whether they deserve help or not) can cause you to help less

Colors of love (love styles): eros

normal, passionate, romantic love

Central Nodes: Structure Characteristics of Schemas

not all info in a topic is equal- schema that if it gets activated, it activates a bunch of other things •Pt of vital info •Make all sorts of other assumptions if that schema gets activated • Halo effect •Central nodes are not the same for everyone

random assignment

notion that any one subject has equal chance of being assigned to a condition/independent group; eliminates some form of bias/other confounding variables; any personality variable that could affect the dependent variable is equal from the control and independent group so that this confounding variable cancels; any weirdness is distributed across independent variable

aggression reduction approaches: catharsis

notion that if you can let out aggressive impulses in a socially accepted manner (screaming into pillow, sports) then you won't feel the need to let them out in socially unaccepted ways (fighting) ◦some success and failure in research ◦some studies showed that it even made people more aggressive

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: cognitive: social cognitive biases: ingroup outgroup bias

notion that we think differently/better of members of our own group than members of another group

operant conditioning

reinforce or punish ideas to shape a schema; experience feedback in form of reward or punishment

attitude measurement: direct

some sort of measure of self report; ask the person directly "what is your attitude" *surveys, likert, semantic differential

structured interview

talk down method ◦will only get response to the things you specifically ask about ◦pros: everybody gives response to everything, so it is easy to compare across the board

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors: comprehensibility

people must be able to understand in order to be persuaded; if something is too technical it will not be persuasive, people tune out a message they can't understand and can't follow

how to prevent design problems

people run a pilot study and after they ask the subjects what they thought the study was about, if subjects can figure it out, they change the procedure and what is said to avoid this bias; can also use deception

Categorize quickly

once a small amount of information is known, we use schemas to label; seek meaning to fit them into an existing schema •small categorizations -> large assumptions •Stereotyping •Cognitive misers

function of attitudes: value expression

number 1 function, summary of what we believe, like and dislike; helps express who we are Ex. when we are determining whether we want to be friends with someone, this function matters most

attitude learning theories: social learning

observation; we can see someone else reinforced/punished for their attitudinal position and this can affect our own attitudinal position; you don't have to be the subject for it to have an effect; different than social comparison theory because it has to do with reinforcement (offshoot of operant conditioning) stems off of operant conditioning ‣ you can see someone else be the recipient of operant conditioning and you can learn ‣ might change your attitude ‣ you can see someone else be the recipient of operant conditioning and learn from it

dunning kruger effect

on a certain task, people who perform the worst think they perform a to higher. As you get up to the people that perform better, you have more accuracy about how they rate their performance

Norm of reciprocity

one of the strongest norms in human nature, if someone does something for us we feel obligated to do something in return *compliance *door in the face *"that's not all"

Laboratory

one thing different so that the results on the dependent variable can actually be determined from the change in the independent variable; subjects are aware of study

unstable

one time thing, unpredictable in the future

looking to others

our self concept can be changed by looking at others; looking glass self; social comparison theory

Mob Behavior

panic v. riots

function of attitudes: organization

part of our organized knowledge structure, attitudes help to shape our ideas of the world; can provide a way to organize our thoughts; some are closely linked while others are distantly linked

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: social identity theory

part of our self esteem is tied to the groups we belong to, and therefore to maintain self esteem we want out groups to be better than others, this is why group behavior might be more competitive *1st group to use *minimal group paradigm*- get a bunch of strangers to sign up to a study all at once and they are randomly assigned to 2 groups and they start to identify with their group and start calling it my group; pull 1 person out of each group and are told they can allocate $100 to any member in the study (have to make sure everyone is complete strangers), turns out that people always give more money to their group rather than the other group; can't give yourself money; by giving our group money, our group does better which raises our self esteem *randomly assigning groups to measure competition

Colors of love (love styles):mania

passionate love on steroids, out of control, really obsessive, overwhelming emotions, can't live without, desperate to be with them *indicated by dysfunctional, non-normative, over the top behavior

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors: # of arguments

people are persuaded when you have more reasons and more arguments (heuristic) *Study: persuasive message with 4 arguments to take a comprehensive exam after college in their major, other group received same message but arguments were doubled but we're redundant and just repetition of the original 4, 2nd group was more convinced

Sherif's Auto-Kinetic Effect

people are put into groups of 3 in a dark room; administrator flashes a pinpoint non moving light onto a screen and asks the subjects how far the light is moving; subjects are constantly moving eyes around so they start to believe the light is moving even though it's stationary; first time subjects would answer individually -> found that a norm developed and as trials went on the estimate of movement from each subject converged; subjects were conforming; by the third trial subjects were in complete agreement; *can't be sure if it's normative or informative social influence; examined the transfer of norms through generations by adding new members *conformity study

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: learning theory

people can be reinforced to have stereotypes, way parents reinforce their children's attitudes has an effect; vital for creation and maintenance of stereotypes *negative experience- have negative stereotype *limited experience- negative stereotypes *social learning = modeling; stereotypes are passed down *modeling- kids want to mimic other's behaviors, especially their parents; the strongest predictor of if you have negative attitudes towards a specific group is if your parents carry those negative attitudes - stereotypes are passed down generation to generation

Just world

people get what they deserve; people believe this tend to make even more internal attributions than the average person ‣people who are rich deserve to be rich because they work hard and are smarter ‣Blaming the victim, ex. rape victim asked why they were out so late, wearing promiscuous clothes, drinking, etc.

function of attitudes: provide expectation

people know what to expect; Ex. want to know on a first date if they are vegan

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: cognitive: social cognitive biases

people make sweeping generalizations based on small sample, underusing base rate information, etc.; exaggeration based on limited processing (cognitive misers)

Attraction: Contact Effects: Trait Approaches: Physical Appearance

people tend to prefer more attractive people; great indicator of interpersonal attraction; ratings of attractiveness are pretty universal (.7 correlation); correlation between rating of yourself and others has little correlation because we are biased; really a first impression *computer dance study *first impressions *halo effect *little kids

intragroup performance: social loafing: free riding

people think they can ride on the backs of the other members of the group; conserve your energy at the expense of other people; rely on other group members

variables affecting aggression: individual level: personality: low empathy

people who are less able to understand other people's emotional states are more likely to behave aggressively; don't have many emotions ◦considered sociopaths or borderline personality disorder ‣ sociopath: don't feel emotions but learn to mimic them and are charming (ex. Ted Bundy) - burn you down, hurt you, and steal from you then feel no shame

Intragroup Issues: group think: self censorship

people who have doubts may not say anything because they have less power; people foresee a disaster but say nothing because they lack power, are held back by the gatekeeper or know their decision will be unpopular

illusory correlations

people will believe things are systematically related even when they are not - extension of underuse base-rate

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social norm: norm of social responsibility

people will give help if they see that help is needed because we feel a responsibility to do so; if this norm is established then the rates of helping increase

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: source factors: power

people with power are more persuasive- doctors selling medicine or athletes selling workout clothes

Intragroup Issues: group think: pluralistic ignorance

people within the group who may have doubts tend to think that everyone agrees that they should be doing it - people think they are the only naysayers so they just go along with it so they don't stick out; feeling that others know what they are doing (when they don't) contributes to groupthink *assume that the people who have more power know what they are doing

Influence of Schemas

perception, memory/recall, behavior priming

Meaning of -1.0 correlation in correlational research method

perfect negative correlation; independent variable increases as dependent variable decreases and vice versa

Meaning of 1.0 correlation in correlational research method

perfect positive correlation; both independent and dependent variables increase

automatic processing

performance/thought with little awareness ◦Perform more quickly with less effort ◦Often inflexible (automatic) behavior ◦Multi-task ◦Used when it is a routine task, easy task, you are tired, distracted or have low motivation ◦Social cognition shortcuts to make decisions so that we don't have to fully think them through - running on autopilot

Debriefing

period in which you explain the entire study to the subject, and allow the subject to express concerns and ask question, rule of thumb is that the subjects should leave study in same way they came - your study should not have a permanent impact or an impact on them going forward

Types of schema

person, concept, self, group, event,

internal and stable

personality & traits: I get an A on the exam, give myself the credit and it was all my work

Attraction: Contact Effects: Trait Approaches: Matching Hypothesis

phenomenon that we tend to end up with a partner that is the same attractiveness level as we are; when we have mismatches this creates insecurity in the less attractiveness person that the other person might me taken from them, attractive person can have more power and can see the insecurity creating a rift *social market place theory- we know our level of attractiveness and we seek out someone of the same level of attractiveness to avoid imbalance issues *All seek out the most attractive people, and the most attractive people have their pick of the litter and pick the most attractive people and then the next successive pair of attractive people gets together and down the line until the two least attractive people get together *Drigotas: 2nd theory when we are younger and have no experience, but as we get more experience we start to learn our social market place value and we learn how attractive we are and how it is beneficial to be with someone at the same level

Halo effect

physically attractive people have other attractive traits- funnier, kinder, smarter = less likely to be found guilty of a crime; attractiveness = central node

Measurement of Stereotypes: indirect

physiological responses; IAT (often more effective because people won't want to lie/have bias)

obedience to authority: six bases of social power: legitimate authority

power is given to legitimate authority figures like elected officials, judges, police men, etc Ex. parking meter needs money; 2 conditions: control- guy in suit says put money in the meter, experimental- guy wearing security jacket says put money in meters; control- done 50% of time, experimental- done 85% of time

obedience to authority: six bases of social power: referent power

power that comes out of identifying with another person (charismatic power); people want you to like them so they will do things for you; when charismatic people often can get people to do things for them

Issues of Study method ethics

pre-migram study, milgram study, post milgram study

genetic predisposition

predisposed to the way ideas are predisposed based on genetics: there is some greater overlap on topics that shows more similarities on identical twins v. paternal twins (conclusion based on research of twins)

Group Task Types Affecting Performance: compenstory

premium on accuracy, take average (guess temperature) ‣Group comes up with one answer to represent the entire group ‣less susceptible to social loafing because people are more in controlled processing for accuracy tasks ‣emphasize accuracy Ex. try to guess temperature of a room with a group

Intragroup Issues: minority influence

pressure the minority to change and flip to the majority or the rare occurrence of the minority changing the majority, swaying them to their side 3 components for the rare to occur (not giving in to majority and even causing them to sway towards their side) ◦consistency- have to be consistent, cannot hesitate or the majority take this and attack harder ‣confidence- need to be confident that whatever their stance is, is the correct one - must be sure of themselves ‣ independence/objectivity- whatever the issue is that the majority is trying to move you towards, you should not have a stake in the matter; your stance should not benefit you for a reason; more likely to convince majority if they don't feel that you have an ulterior motive this is when a rare minority can get a majority to move closer to them ‣if a minority subject didn't sway towards the majority, the majority ultimately used expulsion on them

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: medium factors: print v. video

print is more persuasive than video because people read and process the arguments at a higher level, video is much more passive - print is more effective because it is more actively processed

Group Task Types Affecting Performance: additive

priority is to maximize output ‣especially/most susceptible to social loafing ‣one way to discourage social loafing is to identify individual work ‣more automatic processing ‣Ex. take paper clips and make paper clip chain ‣ Ex. swim meet- looked at the times of people doing the individual freestyle v. the 4 by 1 relay. they looked at the individual times v. the relay individual times; when in the relay they swam slower, however when the individual legs were identifiable they swam just as fast as individual times

Measurement Issues

psychological research attempts to answer a question about human behavior: operationalization, manipulation checks, reliability

Disseminate the results

publishing findings- but can be misconstrued ex. 15 second clip of interview, using test on cosmo magazine to test if your partner loves you

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Simple Contact Effects: Robber's Cave Study: what worked

purposely had water truck go into ditch, feared there would be no water, tools to fix truck were spread out between two groups and the boys had to work together to fix the truck so that the entire camp would have water (higher level/superordinate goal); activity where it was the whole camp v. a different camp = cognitive reframing, boys went from seeing themselves as enemies to partners because they had to work together = subordinate goals

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Simple Contact Effects: Robber's Cave Study

randomly assigned kids of same socioeconomic background and similar sized communities to groups, allowed the groups to choose their own names, had competition type games (capture the flag, dodgeball, etc) and groups started to spiral out of control (stole each other's clothes, and trophy) (created intergroup competition) *entitavity *contact *what worked *switch identities

external and stable

re-occurring situation: I get a D on the exam, Professor's fault, he is horrible, your failure is the result of something outside of you

variables affecting aggression: situational: provocation

reciprocity- if someone behaves aggressively towards you, you often behave aggressively back; related to pain but also shows that even if you aren't hurt by the other persons actions, you are still more likely to be aggressive back; often can spiral out of control -> cycle of aggression

Case study on FAE

recruit 30 subjects and the researcher asks each one of them independently to come up with a trivia question that they know the answer to what they think no one else knows the answer to. Then they randomly select 6 people to come up and randomly assigns them to two groups and face each other. One group gets to ask their question and the other has to answer. Nobody in the answering group got the answer correct. People in the audience determined that the ones asking were smarter than the ones answering. Internal attribution that they are smart by of the situation, instead of noticing external attribution

attitude learning theories: operant conditioning

reinforcement- reward and punishment can alter your behavior; environment can do this and shape your behavior; your attitudinal preferences are the product of this shaping ‣we respond to things that make us feel good/bad ‣ we are just a product of our environment ‣ very powerful phenomenon ‣ how something reinforces/punishes you for a certain behavior/attitude

cognitive motivation/balance: balance theory

relationship between three things and how they are positively or negatively related - if these three things are not in balance, this creates imbalance; multiply 3 signs (pos or neg), if resultant is negative there is an imbalance; doesn't necessarily show which relationship will change, just shows there is motivation/need to change

manipulation checks

representing the concepts you think you are representing; Some concepts are difficult to measure so you have to make sure you are actually measuring what you are looking to measure, ex. love scale- could be measuring love

examples of violations of informed consent

research on prisoners and children pre-milgram

variables affecting aggression: physiological: pain, heat, noise

research on these three aspects has how that they have been linked to aggression. when it is warmer there are higher crime rates; noise pollution in cities is linked to higher crime

Theory

research that should give an explanation - the why; tends to be published

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: Attachment Styles: avoidant

result of good care, mom was cold business-like *later in life, child says they don't want to be close to others *20%

attitude generation: operant conditioning

rewarded or punished for an attitude

Attraction: learning theory: social exchange theory

rewards and costs matter with regards to whether you are attracted to someone; probability estimate is involved; how likely is it that i will get those rewards; we examine the rewards we get and the cost we incur out of interacting with someone, our cognitive assessment of these will weigh in our minds to determine if we like someone or not *we examine these differently if we have one or multiple interactions with someone *Ex. men won't ask out a woman unless they are 75% sure the woman will say yes even if they are attracted to the woman *communal relationships v. exchange relationships ->communal- bond, intimate, close to - friendships, romantic, family -put more energy because expect more rewards and fewer energy expenditure ->exchange- business, one time interaction, casual - dentist/doctor, mechanic ->different motives that fuel or behavior depending on whether we think relationship is communal or exchange ->more likely to help others who they are in exchange relationship with • Ex. you are doing a task and are told that there is a new girl in the school and one group is told that she is in a committed relationship and other group is told she is single, she is a confederate and dramatically messes up the task - men are more likely to help if they were told that she is single - odds that she would go out with them later were significantly lower when they are told she is in a committed relationship

Theoretical Orientations: Evolutionary Approach: Differential Parental Investment

says that men and women play different roles in the reproductive process; women are more heavily invested in any one offspring because they have more limiting variables and they are certain that an offspring is theirs; men are less sure that an offspring is theirs, has less limit on number of children they can have and for how long

Passionate v. Compassionate

scale, on camera *passionate: sweaty hands, sexual stimulation, heart racing, obsessive thoughts, wanting to be near them all the time; highly charged ‣ systematically related to time: tends to be in the at beginning of relationship, drops over time; things become more familiar; couples that do more exciting things together are more likely to regain passionate love *compassionate: get along well, finish each other's sentences, have similar values and traditions, happy and steady but not intense feeling ‣ not systematically related to time; some have it at very beginning some have it after time; some maintain it, some don't; more related to stability

Covert Behavior Priming

schema activation happens in a way where the subject is completely unaware; a subtle activation of the schema will impact behavior

Overt behavior priming

schema that gets printed, gets printed in a way that gives you some awareness, that you are processing it in some way - behavioral confirmation

Event (script) schema type

schemas about activities or situations; prediction about what will happen, guide for behavior. If you haven't already been in a certain situation you look to others for how to behave ◦Guidance about how you should behave ◦When you go into an event where you don't have a social schema, you act like the people around you ◦Having an event schema decreases anxiety when going into a situation

Concept schema type

schemas about topics, objects, political attitudes, etc. ◦Things about the world ◦Automatically in language development

Fuzzy Boundaries: Structure Characteristics of Schemas

schemas are sometimes overlapped, not clear where one ends and the next begins

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: discontinuity

schemas of fear & greed: groups have schemas about group behavior that are different from the schemas from individual interactions *groups are naturally competitive: we should win the should win *a group knows they are going to be greedy so they fear the other group will also be greedy *schemas of greed and fear do not arise in individual interactions but do arise in group interactions *discontinuity effect does not arise until around 1st grade, schemas about greed and fear between groups is okay but not between individuals; preschool kids do not have these schemas

example of modeling in schema generation

see someone interacting with a toy, you will go over to the toy and play with it the same way

association

see who could be associated with the behavior

examples of social learning

seeing your friend be judged by their taste in music can change your attitude

Evaluation Characteristics

seek meaning, categorize quickly, seek consistency

egocentric bias

self referenced remembered better remember in our favor - when you associate a personal example/experience with whatever you are trying to learn you remember it better; also when we have memories of previous events, we remember these in a way that favor us (ex. group project last semester, you will remember that you worked harder; or in a relationship, you were more likely to be better) - ego protection device

Example of experimenter bias

self-fulfilling prophecy (notion that if i have an expectation of you, my behavior will elicit that behavior); if the person running the subject, expects them to behave in a certain way because of their conditions/environment, the experimenter may act in a ways to elicit the studied behavior/will cause subjects to act unnaturally

Experimenter Bias

self-fulfilling prophecy (notion that if i have an expectation of you, my behavior will elicit that behavior); if the person running the subject, expects them to behave in a certain way because of their conditions/environment, the experimenter may act in a ways to elicit the studied behavior/will cause subjects to act unnaturally

Stereotypes

set of beliefs about attributes of group (+/-) (cognitive component of negative outgroup schemas)

Social Cognition Biases examples

small sample errors, underuse base-rate information, availability heuristic, representative heuristic, overconfidence, illusory correlations, framing

Attraction: physiological approaches: pheromones

smells that we elicit, play a big role in mating rituals in other mammal species; are we attracted to people because of their smell? •cologne & perfume industry convince you that pheromones exist and it matters how you smell •smell is greatly linked to memory; but the link bw pheromones and attraction is weak • not great research demonstrating that a smell makes us attracted to someone but there is research of wearing same shirt for 2 weeks and found that some women found smell more attractive whether they were ovulating or not • Ex. women that live together sync their menstrual cycles- study had 2 different apartments where they swabbed the sweat of women's from apartment 1 and they put it under the other women's nose —> synced menstrual cycle

what causes conformity

social comparison, normative social influence, informative social influence

variables affecting aggression: physiological: alcohol & drugs

some drugs such as cocaine and alcohol are often involved in aggressive crimes *alcohol: physiological effects on impulse control; higher level cognitive function is impaired *marijuana: people are less aggressive

obedience to authority: six bases of social power: coercion

someone provides negative outcome (operant conditioning) •rewards tend to work better than coercion •constant use of coercion, subject becomes accustomed to it and it loses its meaning

obedience to authority: six bases of social power: rewards

someone provides positive outcome (operant conditioning) *most effective

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: source factors: credibility

someone who seems credible, an expert in a field is more persuasive because we trust them more *Illusion- commercials: put someone in a doctor's coat but they are an actor-gives them some credibility when they don't really have it Ex.Commercial: Actor plays doctor in show "I'm not a doctor but I play one so buy this aspirin

Attraction: learning theory: gain loss hypothesis

someone whose attraction to me i get to improve, is going to be greater than someone who already was attracted to me; more attracted to someone you have to work for/someone who works for you ; if someone's attraction level decreases you will be more concerned with them than the one who already rated you low because you lost their affection; we like people that we have to win over

Inductive

specific example of human behavior and the causes lead you to a more general theory

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: motivational theories

states that stereotypes come about because we are motivated to create generalizations about groups *realistic conflict *scapegoat theory *belief accentuation is not solely motivational in nature

Characteristics of schemas

structure v. evaluation

Love v. In Love

study about if you would rather have partner say they love you, or that they are in love with you -> more people preferred in love, you can love many things but being in love implies it only relates to one person

design problems

study in which subjects know they are in a study, subjects who know they are being studied, try to figure the study out: demand characteristics, 3rd variable control

example of debriefing

study on abusive men where they are given alcohol and hear a tape where their romantic lover is flirting with another man - found that alcohol has a greater impact, could not send men back to significant other angry and violent so they needed an extensive debriefing

behavior priming

subtle activation of a schema - what schema gets activated will dramatically affect one's automatic behavior; neurons fire, not at a conscious level, but affects behavior overt & covert

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Simple Contact Effects

suggests that intergroup contact can effectively get rid of competition between groups, or prejudices between groups; reduce stereotypes, see more similarities as humans by simple contact and should alleviate competition (desegregation); not actually effective *desegregation of schools- found that simple contact did not work well to eliminate racial prejudices *Robber's Cave Study

Johnny Rocco Studies

survey to understand individual's concept of crime by asking subjects to give thoughts on Johnny Rocco, a juvenile delinquent - asked if he should be sent to reform school or home with his parents; most people said reform school and one that was liberal; noticed that those who did not agree were bombarded with informative and normative social influence by the other subjects -> 85% of the time the person moved over to the majority decision; also a condition where the out of place person was a confederate who was told not to change their position. after a while, the rest of the group decided to kick out the one person (social exclusion). they also did the study where the minority consisted of two people. having this one person for social support dramatically reduced the amount of times the minority moved over to the majority; communication was of the majority to minority nature; communicated both normative and informative

Attraction: Contact Effects: Evolutionary Approaches

survival and reproduction *Differential Parental Investment

Mob Behavior: panic

survival instincts kick in, fight or flight behavior, autonomic nervous system arousal ◦Ex. Hillsborough Soccer Championship: behind the goals were standing room only, and they didn't let the in until right before the match; they were anxious to get in, and they opened the only gate, everyone tried to squeeze through and 80 people were trampled/suffocated ◦Ex. Italian Hall Disaster: community of minors were on strike, but they were having a christmas party on the second floor. the only way to get up was through a long, skinny hall. someone yelled fire, and over 100 people were trampled; there wasn't even a fire

Reduction of Intergroup Competition: Simple Contact Effects: Robber's Cave Study: switch of identities

switched from rattlers v. eagles to robber's cave v. other group

Group Task Types Affecting Performance: conjunctive task

synchronicity is valued; group is ‣ you're only as good as your worst member; one person is out of synch and the entire group does poorly ‣ Ex. crew- all group members need to be accurate in their timing, if there is just one person who is off rhythm, it doesn't matter that the rest of the people are on time

goal of experimental research

talk about causation

self discrepancy theory

talks about where you stand on an attribute and how you feel about yourselves from a category: how you feel about your actual self v. your ideal self on that dimension: If your actual self is equal to or greater than your ideal self then you are happy; If your ideal self is greater than your actual self then you are not satisfied

how to change a behavior

target attitudes and social norms Ex. make juuling seem uncool

aggression reduction approaches: biofeedback

taught to think lower levels of frustration when you are potentially going to act aggressively; move more into a controlled appraisal and less likely to act aggressively (anger management); going to a happy place ◦studies show that this is a skill people can learn and it does impact aggressive behavior

internal and unstable

temporary mood/motivation: Bad grade on an exam, because you woke up in a terrible mood that day and it affected your exam, something about yourself that you don't expect to happen again

belief accentuation

tend to assimilate differences between ourselves and our own group members are more similar than they might actually be, but accentuate attitudinal differences between ourselves and members of the out-group *tendency to make intragroup differences smaller than intergroup differences

Attraction: Contact Effects: familiarity

tend to like people that remind us of people we liked in the past; people that seem familiar • Ex. people get photos of someone in their past they look alike and in a rating of a bunch of random pictures they rate them the highest on whether they would interact with them • Ex. job interview; if someone on the board reminds you of someone you like, you feel more at ease • Ex. Drigotas started dating a little girl and hung out with her until his parents move him to a different school and he recognized a girl because she looked like a girl from his previous school but 3 weeks after he realized she was horrible; but the familiarity convinced him he was attracted and more inclined to like her

attitude

tendency to evaluate objects/issues favorably or unfavorably; very similar to schemas; However, may have many beliefs (cognitions) but usually one global overall feeling (tough to change once established)

Self serving bias

tendency to make internal attribution for success and external for failure •Ex. When I get an A it's because I'm smart, when I get a D it has to be because of an external reason: professor sucks, etc, ◦Ego Protection- don't want to make yourself look bad or feel bad ◦Researched in: gambling (those who win- say they have a plan and talk about methods, when they fail- they say it's rigged, no longer have a plan or method by you don't want to admit you failed), insurance claims (people make external attributions for why they crashed archival study in one-car accidents- found more external attributions), school grades, coaches in sports (when team wins- coach says that they worked hard, etc.; when the team loses- blame the ref, weather conditions), marital behaviors ◦Deals with self esteem -> *Depressed people- reverse self serving bias; make internal attributions about themselves for when they to poorly and external attributions for when they succeed ‣When something goes right you don't give yourself credit: I got an A because it was an easy exam ‣When something goes wrong you blame yourself: I got a D because I'm an idiot ‣ Makes people more and more depressed

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: intergroup theories

tends to lead to competition, which causes us to form stereotypes *discontinuity- discontinuity effect *social identity theory- part of our self esteem is tied to the groups that we are a part of, thus we think differently about our own group and stereotype for others; threat to your self esteem

attitude surveys

test organization of information

most important theory evaluation

testable/falsifiable

example of control in experimental research method

testing ego depletion- having difficult group perform in january and the easy group after spring break, the timing can have an effect on the results

reasoned action model (theory of planned behavior): intention

the best way to predict behavior is by knowing intention Ex. what do you want for lunch v. do you intend to eat pizza for lunch today

strength of attitude determinants: measurement timing

the closer in time you measure an attitude to when you measure the behavior, the stronger the link between the two Ex. our attitudes about presidential candidates will fluctuate now, your attitude will predict your behavior closer to the real election

Larger Intragroup Issues: social dilemmas

the conflict between wanting to maximize self interest against the interest of the group as a whole ◦Ex. entire class has to write 10 or 3 points on a slip of paper representing how many points you will get added to your grade; if 10 or more write 10 points no one gets anything if 10 or less write 10 points then everyone gets what they wrote on their slip of paper types: *commons dilemma *public goods dilemma *general social dilemma

how to prevent evaluation apprehension

the experimenter goes to great lengths to ensure them that their behaviors will never be linked to them, or that their responses will not be recorded to their name; make sure measurements of subjects are confidential -> use a code

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: Attachment Styles: secure

the mother was there when the child needs them; showed emotion, intimacy in first year of infants of life *later in life, child is able to trust that people will be there *60%

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Satisfaction

the outcomes that you receive relative to comparison level (CL) *if your outcomes are higher than your comparison level, I will be happy with it and vice versa *comparison level: schema on what you expect to come out of relationship

Cognitive Approaches: Interdependence Theory: Dependence

the outcomes to comparison level for alternative (CLalt) *CLalt: schema/expectations of the outcomes of your relationship to receive from your next best alternative *If outcomes are greater than CLalt, you are happy *Investment Model

Memory and Recall

the schema you have during an event will affect how you recall the event; * If you don't have a schema during the event, the feeling you have after the event will affect how you recall the event ◦Having a schema before hand, regardless of what schema the subjects were given (librarian v. waitress), helps improve memory- helped subjects remember what was both consistent and inconsistent with the schema ◦Both a schema before and after help improve memory; both help because now you have a way of interpreting the event ◦A schema after however only helps remember information consistent with the schema rather than inconsistent information ◦Memory is very fluid n terms of what we remember and our mood during the time of recall ◦Memories can be suggested: we can create false memories in people ◦Combination of schemas that enhances memory for a perceived event: before/consistent ◦Combination of schemas that is most likely to impair memory: after/inconsistent

generates research

theories are measured by the interest of others in the theory and whether or not they want to research the theory ◦Measured people checking the number of times a psychologists articles or journals were cited

Valuable research

theory based

helping behavior theoretical approaches: bystander effect: smoke filled room study: step 3: diffusion of responsibility

there are others around, you are less likely to help

Sternberg's Triangle Theory of Love

triangle of passion, commitment, and intimacy ◦Best relationships have a combination of all three, but you can have other types of love ◦Can have a one night stand where you feel a bunch of passionate love (lust) towards someone, no commitment to them later on and no close, intimate bond, but this can be considered a time of love

helping behavior theoretical approaches: empathy

there are people in this world that when they see someone in this world that needs help, they need to help ◦2 modes of helping behavior: *Emotion: distress -> Helping Mode: egoistic -> Behavior: help or flee (goal is to alleviate their stress so they help or leave to feel better) *Emotion: empathy -> Helping Mode: altruistic -> Behavior: help *empathy- can be measured as a personality trait using scales • studies where people are put in helping studies, empathetic help 95-99% of the time and those who are in the distress group are 50% • Study: medium to high empathy study sign up for another study that has to do with exercise; told that as part of the study they are looking for people to volunteer to take part in a walk for an important research foundation so they want to make sure they are physically fit; almost everyone in the study says the want to volunteer (all helpers), test that they take to measure physicality is 20 steps in a minute on a stepping stool, everyone who was high empathy all passed the exam but those who were lower in empathy purposefully failed the easy exam- get the glory of volunteering but sandbag their performance so they can get out of actually doing it • Study: high to middle level of empathy, randomly manipulated what mood these people were in and put them into a helping situation - found that those high in empathy had a higher rate of helping when they were in a bad mood than neutral mood because it changes our mood and makes us feel better - shows that it is not all about the other person ongoing debate on whether altruism really works

Intragroup Issues: group think: central leader

there is going to be someone who has the final decision ‣Ex. president kennedy says yes so the bay of pigs war is a "go"

Intragroup Issues: group think: pressure to uniformity

there is some pressure that a decision needs to be made and pressure for people to all agree; pressure to support one course of action *mainly comes from the gatekeeper- get on board because your job is at stake

Cognitive miser

think in simpler and less effort full ways rather than in more sophisticated and more effort full ways, regardless of intelligence - save energy; behavior in general- people tend to take the easier way out because being cognitively active takes energy; Linked to automatic processing, dementia, and social cognition bias not attribution bias

variables affecting aggression: individual level: personality: narcissism

think they are superior and need people to recognize this -> more aggressive; are set off when they feel like they are not getting the respect they deserve; *self esteem is not linked to aggressive behavior

Colors of love (love styles)

thinking about love as a personality, individual differences, types of personalities reflect different schemas about the way we thing about love (cognitive) *eros *mania *pragma *ludus *agape

persuasion approaches: message learning approach

thinks of different types of factors in attitude change then systematically look at different variables that would be linked to attitude change; what factors make people change their attitude -> two theories: cognitive response and heuristic *source factors *recipient factors *message factors *medium factors Not very theoretical, no reasons for why these variables are affected -> 2 theories came out - how above variables are related to changing attitudes *cognitive response theory *heuristic approach

Norm of Reciprocity: "That's not all"

throwing something in for free makes people more likely to go along with a deal ‣ Ex. cupcake study - randomly assigned to two conditions; control- person would ask how much and admin responded $1 for a cupcake and cookie, experimental- for $1 you get a cupcake and we will give you a cookie for free; more people buy when they are told they are getting something for free because it seems like they are being done a favor by receiving a free cookie and because they think it's a good deal ‣ Ex. free giveaway- if they give you a free sample, you are more likely to buy the product in return

Law of Scarcity

time is running out, it is a one time deal; reactance accounts for the law of scarcity in compliance • Ex. people in automatic processing (late night) watching ads see that it is a limited time offer and they are more likely to buy

Visual Salience Study

tried to see if they could reverse the actor observer effect: 8 subjects, 2 randomly chosen to have debate. Forced to maintain a randomly assigned position. The other 6 people are randomly assigned to be observers, 3 are behind 1 of debating subject and other 3 are behind the other subject. Video camera behind each debater focusing on other side. Observers made more internal attributions to those they directly see rather than the debater they are sitting behind. Then bring subjects back individually a week later and watch the recording of the debate but video feed location is randomly assigned: same as where they were sitting or opposite. If you watch it from the same angle, you make even fewer attributions about the guy who's not facing you. If you watch it from the opposite angle, you make many internal attributions of the person who you were sitting behind. When the debaters watch the tape, they make far more internal attributions about themselves when they watch it from the other debater's perspective. ‣Explains why we don't make as many internal attributions about ourselves- can't see ourselves ‣Can reverse the actor observer effect if you simply change the person's visual perspective

attribution dimensions

trying to explain why people do things: stable, unstable, internal, external

Attraction: physiological approaches: arousal: mis-attribution of arousal

trying to see if you can have an autonomic response for another reason and you will still label it as arousal ◦Ex. Field Quasi Experiment and Lab Study- old bridge over gorge in Canada national park and a concrete bridge across the park; placed female research assistant in middle of each bridge and would stop males in the middle and ask a set of questions then after she was done they walked to the end of the bridge where another assistant asked some follow up questions including if she was attractive and if they wanted her number; those that were on the rickety bridge were more likely to find her attractive and take the number and call it than on the stable bridge -> labeled their feelings as attraction to her because they were focused on her ◦Ex. female research assistant walks in to waiting rooms; one waiting room was told they were going to be shocked and the other room was told something that was not fearful; the waiting room that was told they would be shocked, they were more likely to find them attractive ◦Ex. on a first date go do something scary or fun (rollercoaster, scary movie, etc) because they are more likely to attribute their arousal as attraction to you

Meaning of 0 correlation in correlational research method

two variables are not systematically related at all; Weakest relationship is closest to 0 whether + or -

Discrimination

unfavorable behavior (behavioral component of outgroup bias)

external and unstable

unpredictable situation: I get a D on the exam, there was a distraction- the person sitting next to you is tapping and it drives you crazy

Multimethod

use many methods when testing a theory; if you want to test a theory and hypothesis it is best to use different types of methods more likely to be true if you can demonstrate your conclusion through different research methods

Underuse Base-Rate Information

use wrong statistical information/people will underuse the statistical information they are provided; Relying on a vivid case instead of data

attitude measurement: direct: semantic differential

uses ratings of a global nature (dallas rather than specific things about dallas) and opposite adjectives (good, bad) to rate the attitude concept. this does not evaluate beliefs, but just your emotions about a concept to find the global attitude; global evaluation of an attitude

Ways to reduce Selfish Behavior in Social Dilemmas: legal measures

usually punishments like fines or incarceration, last resort, aka adequate enforcement Ex. lobsters in Maine- put a restriction on how many cages people could have and also put a restriction on the age and gender of the lobsters to ensure that females could still have a chance to reproduce Ex. camera at a light that takes a picture when they speed through a light- found that rates of accidents at intersections with cameras decreases but at nearby lights without cameras without cameras, the rate of accidents increased - people alter the behavior instead of stopping it ‣ Only work if the odds of getting caught go up/are high

Seek consistency

we look for information that supports our schema and ignore information that goes against our schema; pay more attention to behavior that goes along with a label you have already established (halo effect) •Cognitive misers •Value things a person does to support our schema and ignore those that a person does to reject them •Confirmation bias: want to confirm our own attitudes, want to keep schemas intact, and want to confirm our own bias about the world, more confident than we should be

Informed Consent

voluntary, have to be given some notion of what study is about and then give consent on whether or not you wanted to participate *Observational studies, or field experiments do not get informed consent but still go to IRB and have to demonstrate it is a public environment and that it is natural behavior

Seek meaning

want to label someone or understand a situation, when we are taking on new information, we seek meaning. want to be able to understand so we can fit it into a schema *first impressions *what's going? why?? in almost every interaction

independent variable

want to make sure that there is only 1 thing that is different between the 2 groups - the thing you manipulate -> than you can determine that the result is due to this difference and that the difference in the independent variable caused the results of the dependent variable

example of path analysis in correlational research method

want to predict whether or not a partner would sacrifice for their significant other, so you measure how much time they spend together, levels of physical affection, length of relationship, etc.; commitment is the one that sticks out -> causal variable

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: Attachment Styles: anxious-ambivalent

warm and attentive at times, and very inattentive at other times; mother was inconsistent in responding to child's needs insecure attachment style *later in life, child is anxious thinks they can't trust other people to be there consistently *20%

Attraction: learning theory: reciprocity effects

we are more inclined to like someone who likes us; middle school "tell him i like him" works because now they know you like them and they are more inclined to be attracted to you; we like people who like us

Theoretical Approaches to Stereotyping/Origins and Persistence of Stereotypes: motivational theories: realistic conflict

we are sometimes in conflict with other outergroups over similar resources; people hold most negative outgroup stereotypes with groups that they were in direct competition with (ethnic groups in competition for jobs) Ex. immigrant groups, measuring how strong outgroup stereotypes were across ethnicities- found that you tend to have the strongest stereotype for the groups with which you were in competition with for the same jobs (irish and italiansdocking jobs)

attitude generation: social learning

we form attitudes by seeing other's attitudes reinforced

Attraction: learning theory: operant conditioning

we like people who buy us with rewards and have minimal costs; if you get a benefit out of someone you are more likely to interact more; those who incur and demand a lot of cost we will not want to interact with

Attraction: Contact Effects: Trait Approaches: small imperfection

we like polished people but also like people to have a small imperfection *ex. attractive actor is brought in to lecture, beautiful engaging lecture, well polished; in one class he has a glass of water and he spills it on himself and was embarrassed and in the next he doesn't; rated the professor higher when he spilled the water on himself because it makes him more human and more relatable

variables affecting aggression: learning: modeling

we see if someone else foes a behavior so we want to try it out and we imitate it (often in young children, not as much in adults) • bobo doll studies- adult goes into a room with toys and either patted the doll on the head or punched the doll in the face; 4-5 year olds watched and when they went in the room they mirrored what they saw the adult do

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom: once started: emergent norm

what constitutes acceptable behavior ◦when you have many people stealing, it seems like more normal behavior, so people who normally wouldn't act that way get caught up in a new norm

intragroup performance: social loafing

when in a group, people do not work as hard as when they are alone ◦"many hands do not make light the work" ‣people in a group do not put as much effort as when they are by themselves

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: ingroup outgroup bias

when individuals are in a group they inflate the characteristics of their own group and think really negatively of the other group; why they think they deserve to win- group bias, think that their group members are smarter and better place make positive attributions for our group and extremely negative ones for the other group *linked to self-serving bias, "we deserve the good things that happen to us" ; "when bad things happen to the other group, they deserved it", "when the other group succeeds, it was a fluke", "when we fail it was something external" *why we have the discontinuity effect - easy to be competitive when you think your group is better than the other and more deserving

aggression reduction approaches: competing responses

when people are angry and aroused and you say something funny, they are much less likely to behave aggressively, so humor is a competing response to aggression

Salience

when people are doing something, we are focused on their behavior and what they were doing rather than the environment around them

variables affecting aggression: situational: crowding

when people feel more crowded it tends to lead to aggressive behavior *70's research- more crimes done in crowded cities (NY) *lab: put lots of people in small room they start to act more aggressively vs. people who have more space

Attraction: learning theory: flattery effects

when people say nice things to you even if the person thinks it is insincere we feel good and like the person

cognitive motivation/balance: reactance

when something is being taken away unfairly, it makes you motivated to want it even more (reverse psychology); law of scarcity in compliance

evaluation apprehention

when subjects know they are being studied, often times the subject is anxious knowing they are being judged -> bias because the behavior is not necessarily a result of the independent variable rather it is the apprehension and anxiety •Doesn't happen in archival data, observational study, or field data •Occurs in Lab or survey •Threatens internal and external validity

Yet Stable: Structure Characteristics of Schemas

when we are first learning about a topic, they are very dynamic. However, once it is firmly established, it is hard to recognize a schema; still ale to change schemas at an older age but are more resistant *We look for information that supports our schema, and ignore information that disproves our schema

social comparison

when we don't know what we think or feel, we are motivated to compare to other people how we fee/think about the situation; if we are motivated to compare with other people, those other people can have a significant impact on our schema; do this when we are unsure of how to evaluate ourselves or are in a new situation; the fact that knowing what other people think about a topic can influence your schema

Attraction: physiological approaches: arousal: secret relationships

when we keep relationships secret, we tend to have an increased level of attraction for that person *have to constantly think about keeping the relationship secret so you are obsessively thinking about the person too -> attraction because they are more in your mind *Ex. brought groups of 4 into the lab with 2 men and 2 women all heterosexual; study on extrasensory perception; man and woman is paired every time, task was to get the other person to guess a shape, experimental group they were told that they had to touch feet under the table while keeping it a secret but the control was touching but everyone had to see it; results that the couples that touched feet and had to keep it a secret (sort of exciting) rated themselves higher than everyone else *downside: guilt/forbidden relationship because someone wouldn't approve of *haven't done a study if there is a dip in attraction when the relationship is exposed and is no longer a secret

intragroup performance: social loafing: diffusion of responsibility

when you are doing a task by yourself, you are 100% responsible for the output, but in a group you can share the responsibility; when you are in a group, the product is diffused across group members vs. when you are alone, all of the responsibility is on you

intragroup performance: social loafing: deindividuation

when you feel like other people can't identify you individually, you act in ways you normally would not; knowledge that others may not know your output; when you feel that you can't be identified and that your actions will not be tied to you directly, you tend to act non-normatively Ex. in a dark room with strangers you are more willing to talk about intimate details of their lives ◦people are more likely to behave aggressively or selfishly when they are deindividuated = usually negative behavior, sometimes positive like anonymous donations when you are embedded in a group it is harder to tie the group output to anyone individually ◦in social loafing, when you are in. group you feel some deindividuation and that gives you the temptation to not work as hard

Discontinuity Effect: Individual Sports v. Group Sports

when you look for illegal competitive behavior (personal fouls, etc.) see a lot more in team sports

Reasons for Intergroup Competition/Discontinuity Effect: diffusion of responsibility

when you're in a group of 3, the decision for your group to choose y is diffused across members so the decision is diffused, however when you're alone and not in a group the other person knows who is entirely responsible - responsibility for competitive behavior is diffused across members so you won't take all the blame and are more likely to act selfishly *even in a group, the individual who is a spokesperson, apologizes to the other group and places the blame on the rest of the group after they screwed the other group over

cognitive motivation/balance: cognitive dissonance

when your attitude and behavior don't line up, or two attitudes don't match this creates cognitive tension, we are motivated to reduce this tension. we could alter our behavior, but often it is easier to alter our attitude ; *tension reduction; behavior has to be by choice for cognitive dissonance because no tension if you were made to do it

performance behaviors: Social Impact Theory

where arousal comes from ‣there is an optimal amount of arousal that will allow you to perform at your best ‣arousal: f(strength x immediacy x number) ‣strength- how much you care about the audience's opinion of you •immediacy- how much you feel the audience's presence •reduced by paying attention to the back of the room ◦number- number of audience members •Ex. college talent show- people who had to perform by themselves felt more nervous than if they were performing with others ‣ Ex. when Drigotas is playing golf, when people watch him, he becomes self conscious and will not perform at his best, when Tiger Woods plays golf, when people watch him, he will feed off of the audience and perform bette

self discrepancy theory: actual self

where you actually stand on the attribute

Attraction: Contact Effects: proximity

where you are and your environment matters, being close to people matters a lot; people we have more interactions with we are more likely to like more • study in 50's showed that you were more likely to marry someone who lived in your community because that's who you communicated with • study at the end of WW2 when soldiers were sent back to college; MIT built new dorms; Festinger did study on interpersonal relationship, people rated everyone -> found that everyone tended to like the people that lived in their dorm than others, people that were most liked were the ones on the bottom of the stairwell because everyone else walked past them everyday •mere exposure- possible explanation for proximity- tend to like things more, the more we are exposed to them -Ex. told it is a perception study, one group of nonchinese people are presented with 100 slides with chinese symbols - 1 slide is repeated 20, another 10, another 5, etc. and each group is randomly assigned to the number of times it is repeated; called back in a week, people were more likely to highly rate the slide they saw 20 times ->so the more interactions we have with people the more we are able to figure out whether we like each other ->same with songs but at a point you hate the song = saturation point -> not much research about whether this is the same with people

self discrepancy theory: ideal self

where you wish to stand on the attribute

helping behavior theoretical approaches: social norm: norm of social justice

whether the person deserves the help or not; attribute things to their inner personality; blame the victim and see a lot less help • Study: person asking for notes because they didn't go to class bc they were sick v. bc they didn't want to go; more people helped wen they were sick

reasoned action model (theory of planned behavior): perceived behavioral control

whether you think you can actually do that behavior; people who have no control, will undermine attitude and subjective norm so that behavior is not possible (confidence) *whether it is in your control *no matter how hard i try, will i actually be able to get it done? *added to the model most recently *has its own direct link to predicting behavior Ex. the cool thing to do is to dunk, both attitude and subjective norm was to dunk the ball; Drigotas would not do it in public because he was scared to fail — didn't think he would be able to do it ‣ Ex. dunking, person was too short so attitude and subjective norm did not actually lead to behavior; he realized he would not be able to do it; once he was taller all the aspects were in line (even perceived behavioral) so that dunking was possible

Example of Lab study

woman falling of ladder experiment: dependent variable is whether help is given and how long it takes for them to help, independent variable is whether the subject was alone or in a group of 3

variables affecting aggression: learning: social learning

you can see someone else being rewarded or punished for their behavior -> you are influenced

introspection

you have access to your internal thoughts and emotions - you get to know whether you like things or not -> can make conclusions about yourself

Self schema type

you have more knowledge about yourself than other concepts, have very complex schemas about ourselves ◦We are the only ones who have access to your inner thoughts and emotions ◦Could be very different depending on the situation you are in ◦College friends v. high school friends ◦Academic self v. social self

self awareness theory

you have self focused attention; hyper focused on what you're doing *mirrors

reasoned action model (theory of planned behavior): attitude

you have some sort of favorability about a topic

Larger Intragroup Issues: social dilemmas: public goods dilemma: general social dilemmas

you maximizing your own self interest v. the greater good of the group; conflict bw/ self and the group interest • Ex. walking through grass (saving 5 steps, but if too many people do it, grass is destroyed) v. sidewalk (takes longer, but you preserve grass) • Ex. HOV lane; get more people to carpool and they should be rewarded; should also ease traffic flow, but one car with one person decides that "hey i'm only one car" and goes through HOV lane - if too many people do this it jams the HOV lane too • Ex. in class point experiment

helping behavior theoretical approaches: learning approaches: social learning

you see someone else rewarded/punished and it affects your behavior ‣ex. see someone give money to a homeless at a stop light and you see it so you are more likely to give money

Theoretical Orientations: Cognitive Approaches: Attachment Theory: empathetic accuracy

your ability to read and understand your partner's unexpressed thoughts or feelings *watch videotape of couples fighting - stop the tape every time they have unexpressed though or emotions *functional couples have more empathic accuracy *depending on your level of closeness, your empathic accuracy will be stronger

attitude measurement: direct problems

•some people will be extreme or average reporters •bias if topic is socially undesirable •biggest problem with surveys is that they are passive

variables affecting aggression: learning: media effects

• TV- linked to aggression; led to need for ratings on TV shows; watching aggressive behavior correlates to acting more aggressively ◦Study: town had a tv and a town that did not; town with tv had kids that imitated ninjas and shootings ◦Study: 3 grades watch 10 minute film; one group watches film of cowboys and indians being aggressive and another watches aggressive karate and the last watches one with no aggressive behavior; kids then go to recess and each group imitated what they saw; those that watched the action video with no violence acted less aggressive than other two groups • video games- violent games, especially first person shooting, result in more schemas to develop around aggression; these games desensitize kids to violence and changes their schemas •copycat crimes- imitation of highly publicized crimes; when there is a suicide greatly published, rates of suicide will often rise

behavioral confirmation

• When a schema gets activated in me, I might influence how others will act too - when a certain schema gets activated in me, it will get you to act the way i want you too •You will observe a behavior that you expect from a person •Self fulfilling prophecy •Illicits expectations in the other person's behavior

examples of classical conditioning

•Ex. blowing air into freshman's eye paired with a tone -> blink, eventually just the tone caused the student to blink • Ex. sexual stimulation with advertising: attractive imagery paired with Busch Beer- something that has nothing to do with anything sexual • Ex. jaws was one of the first movies to use classical conditioning by playing the famous shark music - before you see the shark you get scared because of music • Ex. taste aversion: you get a virus and then you go out to eat and order something you like, the virus kicks in and you throw up so you strongly associate the throw up with the food and you no longer want to eat the food - taste aversion lasts a long time

Kelley's Cube example Scenario: Student walks in 10 minutes late -> Consistency

•How often is he late? •If not a lot, professor assumes it was a one time thing and doesn't make a strong internal attribution •If it's every day that the student comes in late, then the professor makes internal attribution

Kelley's Cube example Scenario: Student walks in 10 minutes late -> Consensus

•If student is the only one that shows up late, professor makes an internal attribution •If everyone is 10 minutes late for some reason, professor will not make an internal attribution

Kelley's Cube example Scenario: Student walks in 10 minutes late -> Distinctiveness

•Is he late to other things in his life? •If not, and is always on time to other things, then you conclude the reason is not maybe so much internal to him •If he is then you are more likely to conclude it is something about him and that he is a tardy person

Leadership

•charisma is an important factor • type of table where a group sits can determine who leader will be - people who sit at ends tend to be elected leader, people look at them most, they are the ones that talk the most leaders are taller than those they are leading; if you don't want a hierarchy you sit at a round table •leaders tend to be firstborn •contingency model

Mob Behavior: riots: conventional wisdom problems

•explain too much- have these conditions all the time but riots are episodic •explain too little- often riots are the result of good news •crowds are not riots waiting to happen •riots after positive events are problematic for the social rage argument for riots happening

attitude measurement: indirect: physiological measures

•head movement •galvanic skin response- standard lie detector test •pupil response: eyes dilate when they agree and shrink when they disagree •facial emg: smile v. frown

Cons of surveys

‣ Dishonesty aka conscious bias- want to look socially desirable so they lie and try to make themselves look better. Give a different response than what they think or feel -> to prevent this, ensure that survey is anonymous and that no one will be able to tie their answers to them, so they can respond freely ‣Unconscious bias- people don't give accurate responses but do not do it deliberately ‣People that never use extremes on a scale regardless of feeling. Never pick 1 or 10 on a 1-10 scale •By definition are passive- choosing to try and measure things in a passive and self-reported ways - not actually tracking behavior ‣Not as good as actually measuring behavior. Too many potential biases.

Examples of observational studies

‣ Ex. Study on who is more likely to sit alone in the school cafeteria: male or female. Set up system for Research Assistants to walk around cafeteria, so they standardized a route and coded tables in the moment. Made sure that everyone coded about alone v. together: rectangular table with 4 chairs, 2 people at table but diagonal from each other was considered alone. Found that men were more likely to eat alone. (Phenomenological) ‣ Ex. Girls get prettier at closing time: measured flirtatious behavior at the closing time of a bar, have to code subtly and really outline what determines flirtatious behavior (facing directly, eye contact, touching, laughing, head gait- woman looks at man smile, then turns head down), keeping track of time, each coder, coded one person. Found that men's attempts at flirting increased as closing time approached. Also took into account amount of alcohol: more alcohol = more flirting. Set parameters: male behavior and heterosexual flirting. Also didn't know if the couple was an ongoing relationship or they had just met.

intragroup performance: social loafing examples

‣ Ex. farmer tested his farmhands: pull on a rope by themselves or in a group of 3 or group of 6; he found that when they did it by themselves they put in more effort ‣ Ex. shouting- people yelling in groups will yell quieter in group than by themselves (can do it without an audience and it still holds) also happens with clapping, even tried it with cheerleaders

examples of external validity

‣ Ex. lab study about southerners and northerners who come to lab to complete study, but as they were leaving they recorded a big man saying ******* as they passed them by, this was the real study - determined southerners made a bigger deal and northerners just shrugged it off ‣ Ex. research on priming (subtle activation of a schema- neural network that describe a concept, that can affect subsequent behavior) involves a level of deception- read a passage then recollect info about passage- for most passage is about architecture and others is about a passage about architecture using only adjectives with a theme of old; ask you to walk to another room, those who were primed with old, walk down the hallway with elderly manners without realizing it

examples of cognitive dissonance

‣ Ex. study of doomsday cult & seeing what they would do when the world doesn't end; creates psychological tension because you believed something that was untrue; instead of admitting they were wrong, the people claimed they saved the world with their prayers ‣ Ex. subjects sort nuts and bolts into two boxes for 2 hours and then the experimenter asks to do a favor, to tell the next subject it was a lot of fun; half of subjects were given a dollar the other half were given $20; cognitive dissonance: those who were given a dollar felt tension bc they didn't want to lie to other people for such a small amount of money so after they got their money they reported to a 3rd party, not a subject of the study, that they had a lot of fun so they didn't feel as guilty for lying and attempt to actually believe you enjoyed it, if you were paid $20 you have more of a reason to lie and don't need to alter your attitude - have a different report depending on how much you were paid to lie *demonstrated power of dissonance over learning theory ‣ Ex. initiation study- women subjects were told they had to complete a small task before a group discussion; in the control group they had to read some sexually explicit words to a man and in the experimental it was sexual passages; they then are told they can listen to a discussion about birds and bees (literally); after listening you get your pay and the administrator asks how exciting the discussion was - those that went through a harsh initiation (passage) were more likely to say the discussion was fun, say that it was fun and that they would come back and do it again so that they convince themselves it was worth the harsh initiation; another way to also reduce the tensions was to incorporate embarrassment ‣ Ex. study on taste perception: eating grasshoppers; fill out personality/attitude survey - control condition: say it looks good and move on; experimental condition: insults their personality -> taste perception part: experimenter asks if people are willing to try fried grasshoppers and 90% say yes; when the administrator asks how much they enjoyed it they say, those the experimenter was harsh to say they did enjoy it while those the experimenter was neutral towards said it was disgusting; this is to reduce tension because they did him a favor even though he was mean to them so they change their attitude to think that the grasshoppers actually tasted good ‣ Ex. marketing study: housewives came into store for a promotion, they tested things like can openers and blenders and rated them on a 1-10 scale; then they took two objects with similar ratings and told the subject they could take one home, after choosing they tell subjects they lost the ratings and ask them to redo it - the appliance they chose they rated higher and the one they didn't chose to take home they rated lower to convince themselves they made the right choice

hedonism examples

‣ Ex. walking down the street and you love dogs but your friend next to you doesn't, owner comes out of store and hits the dog in the head, you and your friend make different attributions about the dog owner because it caused you pain because you love dogs while your friend is indifferent, behavior wasn't towards you- he didn't hit you but it caused you pain and so you make a strong internal attribution ‣ Ex. Professor had 4-wheel drive and the card swipe to the parking lot wouldn't work so when 5 other cars were stuck behind him, he decided to go over the curb and after he parked and old lady came and yelled at him, saying that they didn't do that at hopkins - his behavior affected the old lady even though it wasn't directed at her and she made an internal attribution about his behavior

Possible reasons for actor observer effect

‣Ego defense- by thinking about external reasons for our behavior we are defending ourselves, especially with negative behaviors •Ex. when we fail, we attribute it to situation but when others fail it is internal to them •Ex. when we succeed we attribute it to ourselves but when others succeed you attribute it to situation ‣ Have more information about ourselves than others, so we can describe how our behavior changes from situation to situation, but with others we don't see every situation so we assume their behavior is due to internal attributions ‣ Want to see consistency in other people's behavior, we are less willing to allow that circumstances and situations can change the behavior of others - don't need consistency in our own behavior as much

examples of availability heuristic

‣Ex. Tom Cruis v. Bill Murray- Who is in more movies? Easier to bring more Tom Cruise movies in to mind ‣ Ex. Which has more words in the english language: words that start with k or words with k in the middle? Automatically say start with k because you think of k or more words that start with k but that is the wrong answer

examples of small sample errors

‣Ex. assuming everyone who is lithuanian is lazy just because you met one lazy lithuanian ‣Ex. bad college tour guide leads one to believe the school is a bad fit

cognitive motivation/balance

◦operant conditioning doesn't have enough to do with what were thinking ◦came about to return the internal mechanisms in your thought process ◦cognitive dissonance ◦balance theory ◦reactance

operant conditioning examples

‣Ex. if someone compliments your shirt, we are more inclined to have a positive attitude about the shirt ‣ Ex. university of hawaii was thinking of having a spring fair- took a sample of 400 students and called them saying "we are gathering peoples thoughts of the spring fair" whenever the person on the phone said something positive, one would say "good good" vs. "uh uh" then they tracked how they voted; the people who received "good good" were much more likely to vote in favor of the spring fair

personalism examples

‣Ex. someone cutting you off on the highway- you make a strong internal attribution about their driving ability and who they are, but you don't do that when you see someone else getting cut off and not you ‣ Ex. someone sends you flowers, you think the person is nice and must like you but when your friend gets flower you assume that the other person wants something; make a stronger assumption when the behavior is directed at you

performance behaviors: yerkes-dodson model

‣across different tasks, there will be optimal even of arousal for that task allows for different optimal levels if different task types ‣ too low or too high arousal will hurt performance ‣ each person will have a unique curve depending on task ‣ Ex. golf- a professional might have an optimal curve that is generally optimal, might dip at very high or very low arousal; an average golfer might have a severe dip in the curve at high arousal

trial issues: what makes eyewitnesses credible

‣confidence • Study: varied violence, disguise and time before lineup when after watching crime tape -> only confidence had effect on verdict but they are only accurate by a correlation of .25 ‣ speed and detailed answers: eyewitnesses that give them random details and answer quicker to questions are more convincing but there is no actual relationship to accuracy either problems because you can teach this to eyewitnesses to convince them to juries

conformity is increased if:

‣no social support ‣group attractiveness: do you want to be a part of the group? ‣status effects: medium status people conform more ‣social comparison effects: you don't know how to behave, you are motivated to look to others

conformity is reduced if:

‣social support- at least one other person gives the wrong answer ‣someone gives an even worse answer than the majority's ‣response is given privately

Group Task Types Affecting Performance: disjunctive task

‣the group is as good as its best member ‣ as good as the best member of the group, but if the best person does not have ugh status they may not let this person influence the answer; more susceptible to social loafing ‣sometimes due to outside pressures, the best person will be dismissed, best person is not allowed to immerse Ex. ask a math problem, some sort of mental acuity- if there is just one person in the group who is good at math, the group will still do very well

do attitudes predict behavior at all?

◦1934- study of hotels and willingness to have Chinese people stay; went around the country and some hotels would not let a chinese couple stay; after, the psychologist wrote to the hotels and asked if he could make a reservation with a chinese couple (to measure attitude); found no relationship between what they responded to the letter and the actual behavior 1969- meta analysis of 31 attitude-behavioral studies -> found no relationship ◦Debate whether behavior belongs as a primary component of attitude •good attitude behavior fit in terms of measurement relevance: general-general (behavior, attitude) •bad attitude behavior fit in terms of measurement relevance: general-specific (behavior, attitude) •correlation gets stronger as the question is more specific

Cons of archival study method

◦Because you are not part of the data's generation, you can only interpret the study ◦Need a coding system for how you are going to measure

self awareness theory: how mirrors make us self aware

◦Ex. Experiment on halloween. Let's kids in and compliments their costumes. He tells them to come in and grab one piece and let themselves out because he has something on the stove. He has a bowl of coins and bowl of money. Manipulated whether there is a mirror or not in front of the candy bowl. Found that those who had a mirror in front of them were less likely to take more than one candy and did not take coins but those who did not have a mirror took more than one and took coins. Also took into account whether kids were in a group or whether they were heavily masked. ◦Ex. Professor Drigotas Ex: Bank entrance is at the end of a hallway that had a floor to ceiling mirror on one side and a brick wall at the end. At the beginning of the hallway and at the end there were incognito people rating those who went in to the band on attractiveness. Those we were rated attractive walked the hallway looking at the mirror while those who were rated unattractive walked down the hallway looking at the brick wall to avoid looking at themselves and feeling bad about their appearance.

example of basking in reflective glory

◦Ex. Monday after college football team had a game - they tracked the amount of people wearing school spirit and apparel. When they won, everyone wore their apparel so they associate themselves with the football's team win - "We won" but when they lost they didn't wear apparel - "They lost" ◦Ex. No one says they are related to Ted Bundy but if someone is related to someone who is liked and famous, they never stop talking about it

Examples of CIT

◦Ex. Professor Drigotas supporting Maine competitor in Miss Teen USA but the top 3 had common effects: all were attractive, intelligent and could sing, but the one non-common effect, the fact that she was from Maine influenced him, has to be only one non-common effect because you are more likely to make that the internal attribution for the reason you are deciding that ◦Ex. applying to colleges: similar ranks, med campus, city schools, but if you find out that one of your parents went to hopkins someone could assume that you when to hopkins because of your parent; when you compare colleges with many differences its hard for someone to make an internal attribution for the predominant reason for your behavior

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors: heuristic approach

◦what matters is the heuristic (shortcut, based on examples, schema) that gets activated ◦attractiveness- halo effect: their attractiveness convinces you; credibility ◦automatic processing

Examples of behavioral confirmation

◦Ex. Research in a wine storage with a large wine selection. Manipulated ethnicity of music playing in the background and observed what type of wine people bought. People bought wine that correlated with the type of music playing in the background. But most people couldn't identify the type of music they were listening to after buying the wine ◦Ex. Social interaction study between men and women. Men fill out survey then have a conversation with a woman over the phone then receives picture of the girl. Pics aren't real. Women are in the other room and are told they will have a conversation to get to know the man and it will be tape recorded. If guys thought the woman on the phone was attractive, they were warmer and more conversational to them and the woman responded in the same way. Found that women acted based on how the men acted. ◦Ex. If I think you're extroverted, you will act more extroverted -> same with introverted

self handicapping examples

◦Ex. Subjects do mental tasks for 20 minutes then 10 minute break then another 20 minutes. In the easy condition, the subjects get easy anagrams and those in the hard condition are given extremely hard anagrams. Told phase 2 are similar. In the break, researchers offer a pill that they say will help them perform worse but is part of the experiment but taking it is voluntary. Those who were doing the hard anagrams took the pill so they had a valid excuse that wasn't themselves when they failed. Those who had the easy anagrams did not want to hurt their performance so they didn't take the pill. ◦Ex. Playing a game of pool with friends. Before you play, you tell everyone "I haven't played pool in forever" so that in case you are bad at pool you have a reason that doesn't make you look bad ◦Going out before an exam

example of social discrepancy theory

◦Ex. psychopaths who have no sympathy have no guilt about the way they behave, this is because their actual self and ideal self are at the same level and they think this behavior is ideal ◦Ex. People who rate high on an attractiveness scale, usually have low self esteem because their ideal self is unrealistic and they get it from social media and photoshopped images - in order to fix this, you must lower their ideal self standards or you get them to raise their actual self

Examples of Experience Sampling

◦Ex. study on link between social interactions and attractiveness w/i college students. 1st they took a polaroid of the subject then filled out a survey and personality test. Then they were asked to fill out a diary sheet every time they had a social interaction for more than 10 minutes for a duration of 10 days. Had many details. Subjects turned sheets in daily. Researchers sent photos to another university and 100 subjects rated the students in the experiment based on physical attraction. Found that attractive woman had slightly more and more quality in interactions with opposite sex than less attractive woman. Biggest finding was that attractive woman did not initiate contact with men, men came up to them. While unattractive women were more likely to go up to men. For men, attractive men had more one on one interactions with women and they had way better quality in their interactions than less attractive men. ◦Ex. Mood surveys. Person was pinged at a random time and they had to fill out a survey about how they felt. Found consistency in the way they felt emotions. Some people were naturally negative others positive.

Actor Observer Effect

◦FAE holds for other's actions but not for your own (internal attributions will be made about other people's behavior but we don't assume our behavior is a result of internal factors) ◦When it comes to our behavior we are more willing to look at the situations and circumstance that have external effects on why we are acting this way ◦Only do this for ourself not for others ◦Visual Salience Study

Cons to field experiments

◦Hard to assess confounding variables and test subjects because you don't always have control of the environment. Ex. a clown walks by the car behind the truck so subject is distracted, do you count this subject or discard. ◦Very timely and expensive.

Schemas

◦Organized knowledge structures that influence perception, memory, and behavior ◦How we think about the world around us (situations, other people) ◦We acquire schema throughout life ... a lot of schemas are common but individual tend to perceive/remember things differently ◦Organized structure with different items grouped into how they are related- when we learn something new, we tend to associate it with things we know ◦People are built to take on schemas especially relating to languages ◦All the info we know about a topic ◦Some schema are limited while others are expansive, such as the schema about ourselves which is extremely complicated

controlled processing

◦Perform more slowly with more effort ◦Concentrated behavior ◦Single task oriented/one task at a time ◦Focused thought ◦Don't make as many social cognition errors because of biases- don't take as many shortcuts ◦Used when it is a difficult or novel task, have high motivation ◦Personality variable/Individual: ‣need for cognition (makes you less of a cognitive miser) ‣Certain individuals spend a lot of time in controlled processing = who they are/personality trait ‣Others are low in need for cognition and spend more time in automatic processing ◦Can be very taxing and uses a lot of energy

Deliberation Issues

◦Personality Variables and Attitudes ◦Leadership Roles: round table v. rectangular table; sitting at head of table and dressed the part -> foremen and people listen to him ◦Conformity: if majority going in 88% unanimous that tends to be the way the group votes as a whole *normative and informative social influence - hard to withstand pressure

helping behavior types

◦Prosocial: you are helping to get an external reward or because of a lot of external variables ◦Altruistic: you are helping because you see someone who needs help; for the sake of doing good, regardless of what is going on- due to personality (empathy)

persuasion approaches: message learning approach: message factors: cognitive v. heuristic

◦both had data supporting their approach trying to explain phenomenons of attitude change/persuasion ◦Developed Elaboration Likelihood Model ◦maybe both theories are right: can be in a situation where either or applies - situation where you are in controlled processing = cognitive response theory, when you are in automatic processing = heuristic

examples of event schema

◦going to McDonalds. You know you don't sit at a table, but go up to the counter to order ◦Doctor's appointment. You have to sign in, wait in the waiting room, and know you will have to wait for the doctor