Psych 360 Exam 1 Study Guide
How do basic human motives influence construal?
- people distort the world to feel good about themselves instead of seeing the world accurately - human beings have a need to justify past behavior, so whatever happens in the present could be influenced by this need
What do schemas do for us (that is, what are their functions)? Provide an example of a schema, identify what kind of schema it is, and how it's come in handy for you. What are the downsides of schemas?
A) Schemas are mental structures used to understand and organize knowledge about the world. They help make sure that the right stuff comes to mind in the right situation. Schemas affect attention, interpretation, and memory Schemas are like theories E.g. "doing laundry" B) 4 types of schemas: Person schemas (aka stereotypes): contain information about the characteristics of people. Organized around "types"/clusters of traits E.g. people with tattoos, professors, Black men More on the schema of Black men: Many associate Black men with violence "Black" and "violent" are automatically linked in memory Seeing a Black face should (since they are linked) activate violence Self-schemas- contain information about the self They guide the processing of self-reliant information Dominated by "central" traits (e.g. intelligence) Affect perceptions of other others (e.g. "I'm smarter than that guy!") Role schemas- contain information on how to act in certain roles. Contains information on how to act in certain roles. E.g. student, professor, patient, doctor Event schemas- contain information on the sequence of events in a given situation. Order is important. E.g. "the first date" C) Functions of Schemas: they direct attention to what is important. The aid in interpretation by providing a structure to interpret a situation. ("finding food" versus "looting" after hurricane Katrina). They guide recall by helping to "fill in the blanks." D) Problems with Schemas: Schemas distort perception and memory (e.g. myside and confirmation bias) Perseverance effect: Schemas persist even after they're discredited. Self-fulfilling Prophecy: 1) Expectation about X. 2) Expectation affects your behavior toward X. 3) Your behavior forces X to confirm your expectation. Basically: Schemas: mental structures used to organize knowledge about the social world; fill in blanks of situations; direct our attention to what is important Downsides: leads to stereotypes; perseverance effect (schemas persist even after they're discredited); self-fulfilling prophecy (we accidentally make schemas come true, regardless if they are or not). A simple example is my idea of a party; at least with my friends, our "parties" consist of us hanging out at someone's house and talking about the college classes we hate and making jokes, and there will usually be food (more of a potluck type of deal) and a few "activities" that we disregard for the sake of "gossiping." Having an idea of what will happen helps me feel more at ease (one of my central "traits" is introversion) and allows me to have a more fun time than if I went into it blind.
Define accessibility, and describe the 2 different sources of accessible concepts. Give examples of each.
Accessibility: how easily/quickly a concept is activated from memory Chronic Accessibility: the concept is ALWAYS accessible b/c of the person Temporal Accessibility: the concept has been made TEMPORARILY accessible b/c of priming (can be unconscious or conscious) EX: Chronic- a basketball coach will always notice the height of the people they come across. Temporal- a psychology student will notice other people's nonverbal behavior more after a lecture on nonverbal behaviors (that they took notes in). A judge for a bodybuilding competition will notice their (lack of) muscles more after the competition they judged that morning.
What are the 4 characteristics of automatic processes, and the 4 characteristics of controlled processes? Give an example of an automatic process, and explain why it is automatic.
Automatic: unconscious, unintentional, unstoppable, effortless Controlled: conscious, intentional, stoppable, effortful EX: An automatic process would be recognizing the words that are being spoken to or around you (in your native language) (assuming you don't have an auditory processing disorder); since it takes place without (you) explicitly deciding for them to, it can't be easily inhibited, it is (often) unintentional, and it requires little effort on your part (assuming the two caveats I mentioned earlier are fulfilled.
How can we avoid automatic influences? Using what you know about when people engage in controlled thinking, what could be done to decrease the influence of automatic thinking in everyday life? What is the relationship between automatic thinking and controlled thinking?
Avoiding automatic influences could be as easy as introducing variety into your daily routine; if we become "complicit" in our daily routines, we are probably more likely to become complicit in our thought processes. If we make our routines more conscious (ie. choosing to eat somewhere different each day (for lunch) taking a different route to your classes every day, trying to find a different way to drive to work/class every day, etc), our thoughts will likely follow. A short answer to the relationships between automatic and controlled thinking would be our automatic "gut feelings" can summarize a LOT of info. Enter consciousness after the unconscious has decided? Can (sometimes) lead to better decisions. The long answer would be that while 95% of our brain power is used on automatic thinking, the other 5% is used when we're motivated to think carefully and when we have the opportunity to do so (the MODE mode). When we are functioning at our highest, we utilize both processes. This indicates that even during the 95% of the time that we are using our automatic thinking processes, we are preparing/saving our brainpower to think consciously and critically. Controlled thinking couldn't exist without the (ease of the) automatic thinking processes, and even though the automatic thinking processes could exist without the controlled thinking processes, we would be very unaware of our potential and what we don't know.
Give examples of basic and applied research questions, and describe the relationship between basic and applied research.
Basic Research: studies based purely on reasons of intellectual curiosity. EX: A study looking at attachment styles among children of divorced parents compared to those raised by married parents). Applied Research: studies designed to solve a particular social problem. EX: Investigating which treatment approach is the most effective for reducing anxiety. Basic research helps expand scientific knowledge. Applied research helps answer a specific question or problem. They feed off of one another, the questions answered by applied research fuel new basic research ideas which create new questions for applied research (a true symbiotic relationship). The line between the types of research is fuzzy, and the endeavors of one group are not completely limited by the endeavors of another
How have research interests in social psychology been influenced by historical events during the 20th century?
Before psychology- me, mama, and religion. We got answers to social psych. type questions through personal experience (me), authority (hierarchy, elders speak the truth). Darwin (mid-1800's)- science influences views of human nature. Animals and humans are the subjects of study. Wundt (1879)- the 1st experimental psychologist? Triplett (1897)- the 1st social psychologist? The early 1900s- the 1st textbooks 1920s: Allport - focus on the individual, experimental method The mid-1930s-50s- Allport, Festinger, and Hitler (inspired the question of how could people be so evil?) (Tech revolution) 1930s: Gestalt approach - the social environment is made up of relationships b/w individuals 1940s: research obedience, propaganda, organizational behavior 1960's-the 1970's (and 80's, 90's)- cognitive revolution, more recently "Integration?" The cognitive revolution emphasized the concept of self. Also, The Jonestown mass "suicide" (most people were forced to kill themselves or else they would be shot) drew attention from social psychologists to further the understanding of the power of the situation. They also started to research cults and how they affected the hearts and minds of otherwise healthy people.
Define conceptual and operational definitions of variables
Conceptual Variable: less observable/measurable (kinda abstract) Operational Variable: more observable/measurable (kinda/more concrete). Ex used in class: C.V.- drinking, O.V.- consuming 4 beers, or "how many beers have you had?" Ex not used in class: C.V.- Hunger (how hungry do you feel) O.V.- how many days have you gone without food?
What can't correlational research do that experimental research can? How do experiments allow researchers to determine cause and effect relationships?
Correlation does not equal causation! It cannot prove that one variable causes (an effect on) the other. Can't answer the "why" questions like experimental research can. How do experiments determine the cause? Experimental control: 1) random assignment: each participant has an equal chance of being in any condition. 2) Participants are treated exactly the same EXCEPT for the level of the independent variable.
What are emblems and display rules? Give examples of each.
Emblems: nonverbal gestures that have well-understood definitions within a given culture; usually have direct verbal translations (i.e. Okay sign or Peace sign) Display Rules: culturally determined rules about which nonverbal behaviors are appropriate to display (i.e. showing shame in front of others, kissing others on the cheek(s))
How are external validity, mundane realism, and psychological realism related?
External Validity: do the results of the experiment apply to other people in other situations aka "generalizability." Does it look like the real world? Related terms: Mundane realism- does the experiment resemble the real world? (not as important). Psychological realism- did the experiment engage the psychological processes used in the real world? (important) They are related because they all (at least help) determine the generalizability of an experiment. Mimicking the "real world" is not as important as mimicking the psychological processes used in the real world, however, building a sense of familiarity could at least partially increase the likelihood of that occurring.
What is thought suppression, and what are its consequences? What are the two processes involved?
From the book "One form of self-control that does not work very well (and often backfires) is thought suppression, whereby we try to push thoughts out of our minds. Often, the more we try not to think about something, such as an ex-boyfriend or the chips on the buffet table, the more those very thoughts keep coming to mind. A better strategy is to go ahead and think about the forbidden topic while trying to exert willpower when it comes to acting on those thoughts. We are likely to have the most willpower when we have plenty of energy while trying to control our actions. But, because self-control requires energy, spending this energy on one task limits the amount that can be spent on another task, just as going for a 5-mile run makes it difficult to immediately play a game of basketball. This explains why Lijiao ate the potato chips—she had used up her "self-control" energy on being nice to her ex-boyfriend. To test this idea, researchers asked participants to exert self-control on one task to see if this reduced their ability to exert control on a subsequent and completely unrelated task. In one study, for example, people who were instructed to suppress a thought (don't think about a White bear) were worse at trying to regulate their emotions on a second task (try not to laugh while watching a comedy film) as compared to people who did not first have to suppress their thoughts. Although the tasks were quite different, the researchers suggest that the first one depleted the resource that people use to control their behaviors and feelings, making it difficult to engage in a subsequent act of self-control"
Define counterfactual thinking, and describe a case in your own life where you "counterfactualized." When do you think we're most likely to engage in counterfactual thinking?
From the book: "One circumstance is when we experience a negative event that was a "close call," such as failing a test by just a point or two. Under these conditions, we engage in counterfactual thinking, which is mentally changing some aspect of the past as a way of imagining what might have been. "If only I had answered that one question differently," you might think, "I would have passed the test." Counterfactual thoughts can have a big influence on our emotional reactions to events. The easier it is to mentally undo an outcome, the stronger the emotional reaction to it. One group of researchers, for example, interviewed people who had suffered the loss of a spouse or child. As expected, the more people imagined ways in which the tragedy could have been averted, by mentally undoing the circumstances preceding it, the more distress they reported. Sometimes the emotional consequences of counterfactual reasoning are paradoxical. For example, who do you think would be happier: an Olympic athlete who won a silver medal (came in second) or an Olympic athlete who won a bronze medal (came in third)? Surely the one who got the silver, because they did better! Actually, it is the reverse because the silver medal winner can more easily imagine having won the event and therefore engages in more counterfactual reasoning. To test these hypotheses, Medvec, Madey, and Gilovich (1995) analyzed videotapes of the 1992 Olympics. Both immediately after their event and while they received their medals, silver medal winners appeared less happy than bronze medal winners. And during interviews with reporters, silver medal winners engaged in more counterfactual reasoning by saying things like, "I almost pulled it off; it's too bad." The moral seems to be that if you are going to lose, it is best not to lose by a slim margin. Earlier we described controlled thinking as conscious, intentional, voluntary, and effortful. But like automatic thinking, different kinds of controlled thought meet these requirements to different degrees. Counterfactual reasoning is clearly conscious and effortful; we know we are obsessing about the past, and this kind of thinking often takes up so much mental energy that we cannot think about anything else. It is not, however, always intentional or voluntary. Even when we want to stop dwelling on the past and move on to something else, it can be difficult to turn off the kind of "if only" thinking that characterizes counterfactual reasoning. This is not so good if counterfactual thinking results in rumination, whereby people repetitively focus on negative things in their lives. Rumination has been found to be a contributor to depression. Thus, it is not advisable to ruminate constantly about a bad test grade to the point where you can't think about anything else. Counterfactual thinking can be useful, however, if it focuses people's attention on ways they can cope better in the future. Thinking such thoughts as "If only I had studied a little harder, I would have passed the test" can be beneficial, to the extent that it gives people a heightened sense of control over their fate and motivates them to study harder for the next test." A case in my own life where I have "counterfactualized" is when I was trying to learn/succeed in my 1st "real" engineering classes online last year/semester, and I wondered "what if" I had picked a different (and "easier" for me) major, would I have been more successful (and less stressed)? I think we are most likely to engage in this type of thinking when we go through a major life change (i.e. a new job, new school, etc), especially if we had to decide between a few options to do so.
When forming impressions of others, some evidence suggests that we should not "judge a book by its cover," but some evidence suggests we can. Summarize each view, using specific research examples.
From the book: Even though we also know we should not "judge a book by its cover," we do form impressions of others based on the slightest of cues. For example, Sam Gosling has conducted research on "what your stuff says about you," as presented in his book Snoop (2008). Is your room messy or orderly? What posters are on your wall? What objects are on your desk and shelves? All of these possessions can be used by observers (potential snoopers) as clues to what you are really like. For example, consider what we might learn from an individual whose office or car doesn't have much decoration in the form of personal objects or photos. One possibility, Gosling suggests, is that this is the mark of a person who wants to establish a clear separation between his or her private self and his or her work/public self. Another is that this is someone low on the personality trait of extraversion: extraverts tend to decorate public spaces more, making them inviting to other people and sparking conversations with passersby" "Of course, as you now know, another factor that plays a major role in first impressions is nonverbal communication. What we have not reviewed yet is just how quickly such communication takes place. Research indicates that we form initial impressions of others based solely on their facial appearance in less than 100 milliseconds. That's less than 1/10 of one second! And recent research indicates that we show signs of this tendency to consistently infer character from faces when we're as young as 3 years old. One example of these quick snap judgments is that people who have "baby faces"—features that are reminiscent of those of small children, with big eyes, a small chin and nose, and a high forehead—tend to be perceived as having childlike traits as well, such as being naive, warm, and submissive. Obviously, these impressions are not always correct, but there is some evidence that we can make accurate judgments about others simply based on facial appearance. As another example, after brief glances at photographs of men's and women's faces, research participants are able to judge sexual orientation at above-chance levels of accuracy, suggesting that there may indeed be a scientific basis to the notion of "gaydar". Or in another set of studies, American participants rated the faces of Canadian political candidates (with whom they were totally unfamiliar) on the dimensions of powerfulness and warmth. Their first-impression ratings correlated with actual election results: The more powerful the candidates looked, the more likely they were to have won their election; the warmer they looked, the less likely they were to have won. Just think about this for a moment—all the time, money, and effort candidates expend to try to win elections, and in the end, the simple question of how powerful their face looks emerges as a significant predictor of success. Perhaps we were too dismissive earlier of the importance of "body language experts"!"
What are the fundamental human emotions, and how good are we at detecting them? When does detecting emotion become more difficult? Why might women be better at detecting emotions?
Fundamental Human Emotions: happiness, fear, anger, disgust, sadness, surprise - can be detected (similarly) across cultures, but not always mixtures of emotions (affect blends). I.e. sarcasm doesn't translate. Women might be better at detecting emotions because (I'm generalizing here, I promise I'm not a misogynist) they have been conditioned from an early age to express their (desirable) emotions, and perhaps since they might be more used to seeing it on their own faces, they can more easily pick it up on others' faces.
What physical features are automatically encoded when we perceive someone? Why do you think it is these features in particular that are encoded?
Gender, age, and race are automatically encoded. I think these features are what our brain can quickly/easily "categorize" based on social conditioning from a young age. We've been "shown"/"taught" what these traits (generally) look like, so our brain feels that if we can do this quickly it should be automatic (so that we can learn about the people we interact with).
Briefly describe each of the 5 steps of the research process using "HOMER."
HOMER identifies the 5 steps of the scientific method through Hypothesizing, Operationalizing, Methods, Evaluating research, and Revising/Replicating. First, a hypothesis is a testable prediction about the conditions under which some event is expected to occur. Hypotheses are ideas made more specific, and these ideas can come from a number of places (e.g., previous research, theory, accident). Operationalizing variables means making them more measurable. For example, instead of calling someone "drunk," which is a vague conceptual variable, we might operationalize it by measuring BAC. Operationalizing variables makes science more accurate and less prone to errors and biases. Next in HOMER is Methods. There are many methods of research, including observational approaches, which are easy and allow for seeing variables as they occur in nature. Correlational approaches allow for identifying relationships between variables that can't be manipulated (like gender), and experimental approaches allow for causal inferences by manipulating an IV and measuring its effects on a DV while controlling all other variables. Which method you choose depends on what kind of question you're trying to answer. Evaluating research includes statistical tests of the data and considering internal validity (did the IV actually cause a change in the DV?) and external validity (are the results generalizable?), as well as potential confounds and alternative explanations. Finally, revising and replicating refers to improving research designs, testing different operationalizations of variables, and testing different populations to make sure the findings are robust and reliable. (Written by Prof. Olson)
What are heuristics, and what are their benefits and drawbacks? Provide definitions and examples of the different heuristics discussed in the book.
Heuristics: mental switches people use to make judgments quickly and efficiently. EX: Sitting in your "spot" without thinking about it. Representativeness: classifying objects according to how representative they are of the typical case. EX: Functional- wearing orange= UT fan. Dysfunctional- Mega-corp, "typical" welfare mother. Availability- basing judgments on the ease with which examples come to mind. EX: functional- the likelihood of traffic. Dysfunctional- victim of terrorism, the summer of the shark. Other thoughts on heuristics... They're often right, sometimes wrong We have tons of them Always go w/ import beers Newer/bigger is better Basically: Judgmental heuristics: mental shortcuts people use to make judgments quickly and efficiently Availability Heuristics: people base a judgment on the ease with which they can bring something to mind Representativeness Heuristics: mental shortcuts people use to classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case Benefits: Heuristics can serve as a useful tool for making sense of the (sometimes ambiguous) world, and in making decisions when you don't have a lot of information. Drawbacks: They can be wrong and biased, and they can take a very uncommon event and blow it up (in your mind) to where you believe it to be more common than it is (i.e. "shark week" or believing flying is less safe than driving after 9/11). Examples: Judgemental: A cab was involved in a hit-and-run accident. Two cab companies serve the city: the Green, which operates 85% of the cabs, and the Blue, which operates the remaining 15%. A witness identifies the hit-and-run cab as Blue. When the court tests the reliability of the witness under circumstances similar to those on the night of the accident, he correctly identifies the color of the cab 80% of the time and misidentifies it 20% of the time. You might believe that it is safe to assume that the cab was, in fact, Blue. Availability: When physicians are diagnosing diseases, it might seem relatively straightforward for them to observe people's symptoms and figure out what disease, if any, they have. Sometimes, though, symptoms might be a sign of several different disorders. Do doctors use the availability heuristic, whereby they are more likely to consider diagnoses that come to mind easily? Several studies of medical diagnoses suggest that the answer is yes. Say a doctor had just finished writing a research paper on the effects of anxiety in college students, and you come into their office complaining of not being able to sleep, a high heart rate, and a racing mind. They might be more quick to diagnose you with anxiety. Representativeness: the "Barnum effect" a teacher gave a personality description to his students and asked them how accurate it was on a scale from 0 (poor) to 5 (excellent)- the average rating was a 4.26. The statements are vague enough that virtually everyone can find a past behavior that is similar to (representative of) the feedback. The reason the feedback seems to describe us so well is that we do not go beyond the representative examples that come to mind and think, "Actually, there are just as many times when I didn't feel or act this way.
Let's say you wanted to increase your chances that your roommate will lend you 20 bucks. How could you use priming to your advantage?
I could prime my roommate with "generosity" or "philanthropy." I could maybe talk negatively about billionaires and how they hoard money, and then talk very highly about those that participate in philanthropy (all the whole using words like "generosity" and "giving") before I ask? I could maybe do this over several days (if I had time), just to make sure their recent experiences were very focused on this concept.
Design an experiment to test the hypothesis that high self-esteem leads to job success. Be sure to identify your independent and dependent variables and your operationalization of each.
I would gather a representative sample of whatever population I am studying (i.e. women in their mid to late 30s) and design a test that rates their self-esteem (independent variable) and then measure how successful they are in their field (dependent variable) I would operationalize self-esteem by having them take a test where they would pick how they would respond to certain situations presented to them and then rate how successful they think they would be at that response (conceptual- how do you feel about yourself?). I would operationalize Job Success by making the participants list their salary, position, and their employment history (conceptual- how successful are you? How successful do you feel?).
Define "implicit personality theories," and give an example of one of your own.
Implicit Personality Theory: a type of schema people use to group various kinds of personality traits together (i.e. someone who is kind is also generous). One of my implicit personality theories is that if someone is considerate, they are also genuine (those who are inconsiderate are usually hiding behind a mask of "not caring," usually so they don't get hurt [again]).
Define internal attribution and external attribution, and give an example of each. Do we tend to favor making one kind of attribution?
Internal Attribution: the inference that a person is behaving in a certain way b/c of something about the person such as attitude, character, or personality (the target's disposition is viewed as the cause (e.g. ability)). External Attribution: the inference that a person is behaving a certain way b/c of something about the situation; assume that most people would respond the same way in that situation (the target's situation is viewed as the cause (e.g. the task)). We like to "know"/understand people (or we like to think we do), so we lean towards internal attribution -> we're more like personality psychologists than social psychologists.
What is internal validity, and why is it so important? What helps to ensure internal validity?
Internal validity: whether IV caused observed effects on DV. - random assignment and experimental conditions help. - but, there are always alternative explanations, making sure that nothing besides the independent variable can affect the dependent variable; this is accomplished by controlling all extraneous variables, making sure every participant is treated the same, and by randomly assigning people to different experimental conditions. It is important because when internal validity is high, the experimenter is in a position to judge whether the independent variable causes the dependent variable.
Summarize Kelly's Covariation Model, and include a discussion of the 3 pieces of information one needs in order to make attributions. Provide an example, and make sure to point out how it fits the 3 pieces of information.
Kelly's Covariation Model: tried to explain how we make attributions by attending to the presence/absence of: The behavior we're trying to explain The behavior's potential causes (connections b/w stuff we want to understand and their causes) 3 possible attributions: The person (internal) The situation (external) Unknown (chance/fate, God) 3 sources of info are needed: Consistency: does the person usually act this way in this situation? Consensus: do other people act this way in this situation? Distinctiveness: does this person usually act this way in other, similar situations? If 1) is low, then it is not internal (they're probably having a rough day). If 1) is high, then we need more info. If 2) is low- we need more info. If 2) is high, then everyone acts the same in this situation, hence external attribution. If 3) is low, the person acts similarly in similar situations (internal?). If 3) is high, the person acts this way in only this situation (external?). High consistency, high consensus, and high distinctiveness = external attribution. High consistency, low consensus, low distinctiveness = internal attribution. Low consistency, all other patterns= God/chance/invisible green demons. Basically: it explains how we make attributions by attending to the presence or absence of the behavior we are trying to explain or the behavior's potential causes Three Sources of Info: consistency (does this person usually act this way in this situation); consensus (do other people act this way in this situation); distinctiveness (does this person usually act this way in other similar situations). EX: I am deciding whether or not to take a "fun" but time-consuming fashion class next semester. My friend, Margot, who is currently taking the class has a lot of excellent things to say about it. Instead of deciding to simply believe her and sign up, I am influenced by: Consensus: do her opinions have high consistency? Do her classmates agree with her? It turns out that yes! The other classmates I talked to agree that it is a fun class (and an easy A) (high consensus). Distinctiveness: is Margot the kind of person that raves about every single class she takes? Does she truly enjoy classes that others sleep through? Actually, she has been the one friend I can complain about any and all classes with, and not only will she validate my complaints, but she will also have plenty of her own about almost every class she's taken (high distinctiveness). Consistency: has Margot had such high praises for this class for the entire semester? Or did I catch her on a day when she was in a good mood? To check this, I asked her again the day after her Chemistry final. She had the same sentiment but in the voice of someone who just realized she was going to have to retake the same class for the 3rd time (high consistency). High consensus, high distinctiveness, and high consistency= external attribution, meaning (by definition) that it was the class itself that contributed to the students' good attitude, not the person taking it, and indicating that I should sign up for it before it gets full.
Describe the 3 research methods discussed in class. What are their pros and cons?
Observational- observing/describing a phenomenon without trying to influence it (answering the "what" questions). E.g. participant observation. Pros: easy, naturalistic. Cons: can't learn about relationships b/w variables or caution; prone to bias (can't really answer "why" questions). Correlational- studying whether variables are related by studying them. EX: alcohol consumption and perceptions of others' attractiveness (positive correlation). Time spent online and GPA (negative correlation). Pros: can study variables you can't manipulate (gender, family, violence). Cons: correlation does not imply causation: x could cause y, y could cause x, both x and y could be caused by a 3rd variable. EX: drowning and ice cream sales. Experimental- determining whether one variable causes an effect on another variable (answering the why questions). Dependent variable (DV)- effect, "depends on" something, EX: ratings of attractiveness. Independent variable (IV)- presumed cause. EX: consumption of alcohol. IVs are manipulated and must have 2+ levels (levels= conditions). Pro: can determine causation! Con: time-consuming, hard(er) to set up, could (still) be biased if not set up correctly.
Describe Payne's (2001) experiment on stereotypes. What did it demonstrate?
Payne investigated the automatic nature of person schemas (stereotypes). Specifically, he looked at the stereotype of Black men and aggression/violence. People are exposed to negative depictions of Black men in the media from an early age, and whether they pay attention to them or agree with them, those depictions affect peoples' stereotypes of Black men. According to Payne, those depictions are so pervasive and regular that people automatically associate Black men with aggression by the time they are adults. To demonstrate this, he showed pictures of Black and White men to participants at very short durations. These faces were immediately followed by either a gun or a tool, and participants had to identify the item by pressing one of two buttons labeled "gun" and "tool." They underwent many trials, some of Black men followed by guns and some followed by tools, and some of White men followed by guns and some followed by tools. He found that people were quicker to identify a gun when it followed a Black face relative to a White face. Also, people were more likely to misidentify a tool as a gun when it followed a Black face. These findings show that Black male faces automatically activate negative stereotypes, and suggest that people are biased to see Black men as more aggressive than they are. These findings may also help explain why unarmed Black men are more likely to be shot by police officers— people are essentially "ready" to see aggression in Black men. (Written by Professor Olson).
person-by-situation approach
Person: individuals' traits, attitudes, etc. Situation: situations encourage/discourage behavior Person by Situation Approach: whether person or situation is more influential in determining behavior.
Define priming. Several studies involving priming were cited in the lecture and the book. Summarize one, making sure to point out what was primed and what kind of effect it had.
Priming: the process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait, or concept, basically anything in the environment that activates a concept. EX: Higgens et al.: participants primed w/ either "reckless" or "adventurous" and then read about Donald, those primed with "adventurous" liked Donald more EX: Participants were either primed with the elderly stereotype (e.g. "Bingo" "Florida") or nothing They were then timed as they walked to the elevator Those primed with "elderly" walked more slowly.
Define random selection and random assignment to condition, and explain why each is important. Say you wanted to survey UT students; how might you go about making sure you get a random selection?
Random Selection: A way of ensuring that a sample of people is representative of a population by giving everyone in the population an equal chance of being selected for the sample. This is important because as long as the sample is selected randomly, we can assume that the responses are a reasonable match to those of the population as a whole. Random assignment to condition. This is the process whereby all participants have an equal chance of taking part in any condition of an experiment. This is important because, through random assignment, researchers can be relatively certain that differences in the participants' personalities or backgrounds are distributed evenly across conditions. If I wanted to make sure I got a random selection, I would send out my survey (assuming it was online) to the dean for each major/college (or just a list of students that study at each "college" i.e. college of agriculture, college of engineering, etc) since the demographic for each major is likely different and representative of the population (college students?) as a whole.
Define social cognition and social perception, and describe the relationship between the two using an example not discussed in class. What does it mean to say that "cognition precedes perception"?
Social Cognition: how our minds select, interpret, remember, and use info; info comes from "within" (stuff already in our heads). How our minds select, interpret, remember, and use information. Social Perception: how we form impressions and make inferences about the world; info comes from "out there" Perception is subjective and is based on cognition (cognition precedes perception). How we form impressions and have inferences about people. -Information comes from "out there." Perception is subjective ("construal"); in other words, cognition precedes perception. The world is ambiguous, we use what's in our brain to make it less so. Also how we form impressions and make inferences about people. 1st impressions matter: EX: If you perceive someone as warm on the first impression, and you find later that they are also intelligent, energetic, and creative, the 1st impression of warm will affect them/they will depend on it (i.e. "intelligent" is taken to mean thoughtful and caring versus if you believed them to be "cold" on 1st impression, "intelligent" could become cunning and manipulative). EX: We could get a first impression (Social perception) of someone (being introduced to us by our friend) that they are kind and considerate based on the way they smiled and complimented your outfit. We could then remember that when we hang out with them again (Social cognition) (as a group of 3, with our mutual friend) so that when your car won't start to go home, you believe that they would be willing to help you start it?
What fundamental motives that operate in people were discussed in the book and in class?
The need to maintain a positive self-view, justify actions, be accurate, and belong. EX: volunteering to help those in need to maintain a positive self-view, watching a youtube video that discusses why not doing laundry often is better for the environment (to justify your action of only doing laundry once a month), studying for an exam (so you can be accurate during it), and talking to at least one other person in each of your classes (so you can feel like you belong/"fit in").
What were the 3 non scientific ways of gaining information about people discussed in class? What's wrong with each?
Ways of Knowing Authority Personal experience (reasoning, weaknesses/strengths, scientific method, intuition). We want to share them to minimize weaknesses. Authorities are often wrong. Personal experience is biased, e.g. construal We're biased We're limited (e.g. intimate partner violence- not all of us, thankfully, have experienced this. Basically: Authority: often wrong Personal Experience: biased and limited Reasoning/Intuition: illogical
Compare and contrast social psychology to personality psychology, sociology, and behaviorism.
What is social psychology in terms of the level of analysis? Personality Psychology (traits) ----- Social Psychology (individuals in context) ------- Sociology (structures). Similar questions, different focus. Ex: racial prejudice; personality psychology would look at what "kinds" of people are "prone" to it. Social Psychology: concerned with the individual and influenced by others. Personality Psychology: concerned with the individual and characteristics/traits. Sociology: concerned with groups, organizations, and societies. Behaviorism: concerned with behavior due to the environment. All of these involve studying the individual but at different levels. Both behaviorism and social psych are concerned with behavior and how it's affected by the environment, but behaviorism doesn't look at individuals as closely, more focused on the behavior aspect. Personality psychology is more concerned with individuals' traits than how they are affected by others/the environment, but both social psychology and personality psychology do look at the individual on a certain level. Sociology focuses on the structures (and groups) that affect the individual more than the individual themself and social psychology focuses on the individual within the structures, but both look at the effects they have on each other. From the book "Social psychology is related to other disciplines in the social sciences, like sociology, economics, and political science. Each examines the influence of social factors on human behaviors, but the main difference is the level of analysis. For personality and clinical psychologists, the level of analysis is the individual, but for social psychologists, the level of analysis is the individual in the context of a social situation. Other social sciences are more concerned with social, economic, political, and historical factors that influence events. The major difference between sociology and social psychology is that in sociology, the level of analysis is the group, institution, or society at large. The goal of social psychology is to identify properties of human nature that make almost everyone susceptible to social influence, regardless of social class or culture."
When should you "listen to your gut" vs. treat your gut feelings as sources of automatic bias?
You should listen to your gut when: The info set is large The gut has been "fed" the right info (e.g. "yes" on whom to marry, "no" on lottery numbers) There aren't specific "rules" to follow Creativity/synthesis is important You should treat your gut feelings as sources of automatic bias when: You notice the source of bias Know/recognize how it's biasing you Recognize that it's to "decontaminate" yourself (i.e. purge all relations/ties you have to it) Have (or want to make) the time/energy to correct for its influence
What fundamental cognitive processes that operate in people were discussed in the book and in class?
naïve realism, construal, accessibility. Naïve realism: assuming we see the world as it really is. EX: there's no color in the world, just wavelengths reflecting light. Construal: how people perceive/interpret the world; perception is subjective. Ex: optical illusions. Accessibility: we use what most easily comes to mind. EX: When asked by a friend "why is it so hot?" An Environmental Science major might explain the atmospheric/geographical conditions that contribute to heat, where a Psychology major might explain that the heat they feel is subjective compared to the heat their friend feels, so their explanation would differ from their friends (due to construal).
Examples of the person-by-situation approach
sexual harassment ("some men some of the time"), police brutality. *Situations/rooms have personalities*.
What major influences do social psychologists study?
social influences through presence and interactions with others.
Social psychology
the scientific study of how an individual's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others.
Key components of social psychology:
thoughts (Cognitive), feelings (Affect), Behavior, influence.
