Social Psychology

Cite some Scriptural references about lying, falsehood, and deception? How might we understand these verses in light of this material?

"The Lord detests lying lips, but delights in people who are trustworthy." Proverbs 12:22 NIV "For, whoever would love life and see good days must keep his tongue from evil and his lips from deceitful speech." 1 Peter 3:10 The way I understand this is that we are not supposed to lie, and that lying is wrong and sinful. The bible tells us not to lie. And I'm not saying that we should lie, all I'm saying is that I think despite what we should do, we all do end up lying. But have no fear, although we may do what the bible says is wrong by lying, the bible also speaks of our Savior who came and died so that we would be free from our sin (even lying.) And I don't think knowing that we can be forgiven is a reason to lie, but if you find yourself in a place where you've told a lie, I think it is important to know there is grace and that doing a bad thing doesn't make you a bad person, and you haven't ruined your life. We are human, we screw up. And even in our humanness, we are so very loved.

What are the three types of info that Kelley's covariation theory suggests we look for when we are attempting to assess the causes of behavior? (p. 106)

- covariation theory - to form an attribution about what caused a person's behavior, we systematically note the pattern between the presence or absence of possible causal factors & whether or not the behavior occurs. It is primarily concerned with situations in which we have the opportunity to observe another's behavior in several situations and across time. We look at 3 types of info (across several situations) to examine covariations between potential cause (A) and effect (B). Like Jones & Davis (1965), Kelley still looks for unique info or unusual behavior. ♣ Consistent - does this actor respond the same way to this one stimulus over time? Is this stimulus reliable in producing the effect? If not (it's unique so no pattern), it's hard to know anything about the actor!!! ♣ Consensus - do other people behave in the same way the actor does to this same stimulus? Does this stimulus produce the same effect in others? If low consensus (it's unique among actors), then we may make an internal attribution about the actor! ♣ Distinctive - does this actor behave in the same way to different situations? Is this stimulus unique among situations in producing the effect? If high distinctiveness (it's unique among situations), then we may make an external attribution about the situation!

Describe Bem's (1972) self-perception theory and how it relates to how we know ourselves. (pp. 139)

-"that when our attitudes and feelings are uncertain or ambiguous, we infer these states by observing our behavior and the situation in which it occurs" .-we use it when we are uncertain how we feel/our attitudes -when we are uncertain and things are ambiguous we observe our behavior and the situation to infer our feelings -"what kind of person would do that in this context?" -we can say we aren't the type of person to cuss someone out even though we have in fact cussed someone out -we justify this by saying that it was situational, that the situation made us do it, and that under normal circumstances we wouldn't have, "that's not who i am" -can i know me based off of observing my behavior? -probably not, we often misinterpret our behavior through the lens of the need to be right and liked -we observe our behavior and make an attribution as to why we behaved that way

Given the wealth of our society and Festinger & Carlsmith's (1959) findings, should you pursue great external incentives in life? What constitutes "great"?

-(p. 175 -176) -no -less incentive, more likely to internalize -more incentive, less likely to internalize -ex of self justification leading to self persuasion in young children -implications: parents who use punishment to encourage their children to adopt desirable values should keep the punishment mild-barely enough to produce a change in behavior- and the values will follow -if you want to believe in what you do, you probably don't want to make too much money doing it -getting paid a lot might make you lose your passion for what you do and stop believing in what you do

What are some possible attributions that people make for homelessness? What type of attributions would the fundamental attribution error predict would be most common?

-Bottom line: the attributions we make are *INTERNAL* !!!! (ex: lazy, bad person, bum, deadbeat) -The fundamental attribution error would predict that people assume others homelessness is due to who that person is, rather than the situation that person was in that could have led to homelessness.

Define a heuristic; list 3 specific ones along w/ their definitions & the potential problems w/ them.

-Heuristics are the mental shortcuts people use to make judgements quickly and efficiently, they come from the Greek word meaning "discover." -Availability heuristic- mental rule of thumb whereby people base a judgment on the ease with which they can bring something to mind. Potential problem because some events are easier to recall than others, leading us to make a mistake when something is not actually more common but just more prominent in our own minds. -Representativeness heuristic- mental shortcut whereby people classify something according to how similar it is to a typical case. Potential problem is that just because something is more represented does not actually make it more likely which leads us to make wrong judgements. -Base rate heuristic- on average, are you average? Problems? -miss uniqueness -lose data -lose what makes them different

Define & contrast intrinsic & extrinsic motivation & how this relates to the over-justification effect.(140-141)

-Intrinsic motivation is "the desire to engage in an activity because we enjoy it or find it interesting, not because of external rewards or pressures." (p. 140) Whereas extrinsic motivation is "the desire to engage in an activity because of external rewards or pressures, not because we enjoy the task or find it interesting." (p.140) So basically, intrinsic motivation is a desire to do something that stems from within, and extrinsic motivation is a desire to do something that stems from some external reward, and without that external driving factor, there would be no desire to do the activity/task. -over justification effect: people think they do it because of extrinsic reasons and totally disregard the extent to which it was intrinsically motivated. focus on extrinsic and tune our intrinsic. over emphasize external reasons and spend too little time emphasizing the internal

How does the Biblical view of judgment relate to impression formation/ attributions? How should we (or how should we not) engage in impression formation or making attributions about others? What do specific biblical verses say about making judgments/attributions?

-Matthew 7 sermon on the mountTherefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. Romans 14:13 You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Romans 2:1 A person may think their own ways are right, but the Lord weighs the heart. Proverbs 21:2 It is clear to me that the Bible says that judging others is wrong. These passages lead me to believe that we should use a lot of high-effort thinking when it comes to forming opinions on other people. God created human brains in such a way that we will always have a limited perspective and he gave us the ability to make sense of our environment. When we think of impressions of others, it is then our job to get rid of any general assumptions that may not be true. I do not think the Bible is telling us to live without making attributions to others. Every time Paul writes a letter, it is to address problems he is seeing with the church in that specific area. There is apparently a fine line between judging God's people and pointing out sin.

What do we know about the effects of self-awareness?

-Self-awareness results in people becoming objective and judgmental observers of themselves. They compare and evaluate their current behavior with their internal standards and values. The consequence of this is that if there is an incongruence between one's behavior and their internal values then if they can change, they will. However, if they become aware of this incongruence and they can't change, it will make them so uncomfortable that they may go to extreme measures to attempt to escape their awareness of self. -Therefore, we know that in objective self-awareness, one's standards become salient and therefore become more likely for the individual to actually live up to them. -We also know that self-awareness manipulations, like placing subjects in front of a mirror, do affect people's behavior, but the effects are not always predictable because conflicting standards may be made salient. -In regard to self-consciousness and motivation, we know that a more predictable effect of self-consciousness may be to increase motivation, which in turn improves performance on easy tasks and interferes with performance on difficult tasks. -Also, we know some people may be chronically self-aware or have high "public self-consciousness" and are more susceptible to social pressure than those more oriented to their true feelings.

What is a 1-2 sentence conclusion about the self as a limited resource in regard to self-control? (p. 128)

-The self when it comes to self-control, is similar to a muscle. It is strong, but its resources are limited and when pushed to its limits it tires, weakens, and can become depleted, however it can also be trained and tuned and grow even stronger. -The more you use it the less you have to use. It is like a muscle that gets tired after being used and loses strength. Self control is limited so one can make plans for when they need to have self control.

Describe Wicklund's (1972, 1975) self-awareness theory and its consequences. (p. 133 & fig. 5.3)

-The self-awareness theory is the concept that when we focus our attention on ourselves we evaluate and compare our actual behavior to our personal standards and values that we hold dear. This happens especially when we are able to see ourselves, whether it be through a video or looking in the mirror. Seeing ourselves makes us hyperaware of our behavior and we become critics of ourselves. We compare the behavior we are seeing on video or in the mirror, to the standards we hold internally. This can be beneficial in the way that seeing the discrepancy between what we value and how we are truly acting can bring awareness to the issue and motivate us to change our behavior to match our values. An example of that would be if someone saw a video of them being belligerent and obnoxious while drunk, it might give them the motivation that they need to quit drinking. However, if one isn't able to simply decide to change their behavior and follow through with it, it creates an increasing uncomfortableness because you are aware of the problem, but stuck in your awareness without the power to move forward out of it or forget what you now know. People may go to drastic measures to then avoid the awareness they have and find an escape. In sum, self-awareness can be negative and harmful when it reminds someone of their shortcomings and so they do something additionally harmful to avoid this awareness (i.e. alcohol abuse, disordered eating, drug abuse). However, under the right circumstances self-awareness can be beneficial and motivating. -we become aware and self conscious and compare and evaluate our current behavior with our internal standards and values, we become objective and judgmental observers of ourselves -consequences: if i can change, i change; if i can't- i am uncomfortable, and sometimes I go too far to try to escape my self (alcoholism, eating disorder) -so, can i use introspection w/ this theory to know myself? .....NO, because if i don't like what i see, then i escape to avoid awareness!

What does Baumeister (1991) mean when he says that many forms of religious expression & spirituality are effective means of avoiding self-focus? Is this what happens with Christians on this campus?

-people get so focused on doing good christian things so they don't have time to think about/focus on the self (reading bible, church, mission trips, volunteering) -I think what Baumeister means is that focusing all our energy and attention on one thing can be a form of escape no matter how positive of an outlet it appears to be. Even the greatest of outlets can be taken to an extreme and become harmful. I think that some people use religion as an escape from reality. They get in the mentality that as long as they keep going to church and keep praying that everything will be alright. This can become a damaging mentality when someone is so focused on religion that they can't keep a job down, can't afford the costs of living, have no social life, no support system, and are virtually self-sabotaging by maintaining the belief that "God will provide." Now I do believe that God will provide and it is not foolish to believe that, but sometimes we forget that Him providing might be offering you a job that will pay the bills, or a friend that wants to have lunch, but if we are set in the mentality that we don't have time for those things because we must only focus on God, then I believe we have lost sight of God all together. Because you can be with God in all moments, in all circumstances, without being self-destructive. I think this is what Baumeister was getting at. That anything, even religion, even following Christ, taken to an extreme, or taken out of context can be a form of escaping the self, all while being incredibly damaging to the self as well. I haven't seen this happen on campus to this extremity, but I think everyone on this campus is guilty of doing this in some form at one time or another. We trade in our faith for a foolish substitute, because it's easier than truly facing the obstacles that lie ahead.

Describe Schachter's two-factor theory of emotion and how Schachter and Singer's (1962) experiment relates to self-perception. (pp. 143ff) What is the "fascinating implication" of this theory? Do you agree with this conclusion?

-The two-factor theory of emotion is the idea that experiencing emotions happens in a two-step process, first people experience physiological arousal and then secondly, we seek an appropriate explanation for the arousal. Schachter and Singer's experiment relates to self-perception because it showed that emotions can be the result of how we perceive ourselves. People tend to look for the most likely reason for their arousal and conclude that that is the reason for the arousal, even though the most plausible reason that they chose is actually not related to the arousal at all. The fascinating implication of this theory is that "people's emotions are somewhat arbitrary, depending on what the most plausible explanation for their arousal happens to be." (p. 145) I agree with this conclusion to some extent, but I don't believe it tells the full story. It makes sense to me that on some level our emotions are a product of what seems to make sense in that moment, but I also feel that sometimes emotions are much more specific. Sometimes I think we don't really know why or what we are feeling so we look for explanations, but I also think that at other times we know exactly what we are feeling and are very in tune without needing to look around at possible explanations for our arousal. -2 factors: arousal & label/explanation -experiment: gave some people epinephrine, some not and had them read insulting questionnaire. Are they aroused bc angry or bc of epinephrine? -Implication: people's emotions are somewhat arbitrary depending on what the most plausible explanation for arousal is -sometimes the labels we put on our emotions are wrong (ex: say we are angry when we are really scared/vulnerable)

What is the Christian response to this idea of faking (#4)? Isn't this similar to saying that we all "lie"? Do all Christians lie? Do authentic people need fakery? Is it possible to live without fakery, deception, etc.?

-We all lie! -It's motivated because we want to be right and liked -We want to be liked so bad that we fake it -It is easier to pretend to be a good christian than to actually be one -But that doesn't mean that lying is ok -it's wrong -we need to focus on god liking us not other people liking us -authentic people don't need fakery BUT the cost is losing social appropriateness -it's near impossible for imperfect humans to live without any fakery

Can a Christian undo the past? How? Or why not?

-YES -social reality only exists in our minds -we can undo it in our minds because our minds reality is all there is -one can undo social past but not physical past -like through forgiveness

b. Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) - effects of forced compliance. (p. 171)

-asked to tell a lie that tasks were enjoyable -half students offered 20$ for telling lie (large external justification) -half students offered 1$ to lie (small external justification) -students who were payed 20$ rated experiences as dull and boring as they truly were -students who were payed 1$ rated experiences as significantly more enjoyable -in other words: people who had received an abundance of external justification for lying told the lie but didn't believe it, whereas those who told the lie without a great deal of external justification succeeded in convincing themselves that what they said was closer to the truth

4. What does Sabini (1995) believe about "faking"? E.g. #1:if your teacher's behavior angers you one day & he asks you if you're angry, should you fake it & act like things are 'fine' or tell him off? E.g. #2:if you think your teacher casts student's answers to the side and then gives his own answers, as if they're the only right ones, should you tell him you think he does this (using words like "pontificate" & "arrogant", which are in fact true) and tell him that he should run the class differently?If not this way, then how might you respond if you think this about the class?

-behaving according to the dictates of how one feels at the moment is not necessarily any trues than presenting a consistent self that is occasionally at odds with one's transitory feelings -you're not being honest just because you say how you feel, "i hate your guts" is not as true as "i'm frustrated but i love you" -or just because you don't blow up when you're angry doesn't mean you're faking -you are more true by not blowing up if you respect being peaceful and kind

What happens to a person when they choose to behave immorally?How else does dissonance affect personal values (Mills, 1958)?

-first seek external justification then when that falls they change their views -cognitive dissonance leads to searching for justification, if they cheat then they change their view that cheating is bad, if I don't cheat then they become even more strict on their belief that cheating is bad -dissonance causes change in values because of how you behaved in a situation relating to those values -when you justify a behavior that is immoral you make it easier to act immoral again....and again, etc.

d. Zimbardo et al. (1965) - effects of wanting to please or displease others- (p. 178)

-mean officer requests you to eat grasshopper vs nice officer requests you to eat grasshopper -those asked by mean officer liked grasshoppers more than those asked by nice officer -those who complied with mean officer request had little external justification so they adopted more positive attitudes about eating grasshoppers in order to internally justify it

Given Aronson & Carlsmith's (1963) study, how should you encourage others to discipline their children? Is this what God does when he disciplines us?

-mild punishment is most effective, NOT harsh punishment -love your children and let them deal with consequences of their actions but also don't kick them out or punish them when they screw up -God: if you do something wrong he doesn't necessarily protect you from the consequences, but he also doesn't smack you around for making a mistake (or ten)

c. Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) - internalization of conscience through dissonance- (p. 175)

-preschoolers desire for different kind of toys -asked each child to rate attractiveness of several toys -pointed to one of most attractive toys and told them they weren't allowed to play with it -half children threatened with mild punishment -other half threatened with severe punishment -those who had little to fear needed internal justification to reduce dissonance -they succeeded in convincing themseleves that the reason they hand't played with the toy was because they didn't really like it -they then rated the toy less attractive after the experiment, whereas the children with severe punishment rated it still highly desirable -self justification leading to self persuasion -implication: those who use punishment to encourage desirable behaviors should keep the punishment mild!!! Severe punishment doesn't work and just makes them want to do the thing they aren't supposed to do even more

What is the purpose of controlled thinking? Be prepared to talk about what the Christian response to this should be.

-provides checks and balances for out automatic thinking -makes people more humble about reasoning abilities -teach people directly some basic statistical and methodological principles in their everyday lives Christian response? -the bible calls us to use controlled thinking! -we are supposed to think about "whatever is lovely" and love God with our mind!

We also vary on the dimension of individualism-collectivism, with Americans tending toward individualism. As Biblical Christians, should we subordinate our/selves or our interests to some broader social entity (God, god, or family?)? Should we be more individualistic or more collectivist if we want our behavior to be more Biblical? If you answer yes, then explain why.If you answer no, then explain why. What Scriptures might you use to support your answer? I'm interested in your reasoning.

-scripture about self as a body* (look this up) -sin is fun in the short run but hell in the long run (figuratively and literally) -we want to be known and loved, this motivates us to behave the way we do -we are after healthiness, I don't purse my instincts/urges, but instead pursue what is healthy in the long run -self control & morality is way better in the long run -submitting to one another goes against our individualistic desires bit it leads us to be more biblical -SOOO... collectivist is more biblical, after-all God is a trinity: 3 in 1, unity, that is pretty collectivistic!

. When tragedy strikes we often make attributions that seem to others to be unrealistically optimistic (e.g. believing that my loved one will survive the hurricane when they were in its direct path). Is this good for us to do? What purpose does this serve, if it is indeed overly optimistic?

-seems best to be optimistic while also considering the possible other outcomes -little bit optimistic while also dealing with reality

Describe Festinger's (1954) social comparison theory & how it relates to how we know ourselves.Is comparing ourselves to others a "Christian" thing to do? (pp. 148ff)

-social comparison theory: learn about our own abilities and attitudes by comparing ourselves to other people -we do this when there is no objective standard to measure ourselves against and when we are experiencing some uncertainty about ourselves in a certain area -compare ourselves w/ who is available and then narrow it down based off who is an appropriate comparison, most appropriate to compare with people who are like you -downward and upward comparisons p.150

What are 3 ways through which we come to know ourselves?(pp. 125)

-through introspection -by observing our own behavior -by using other people to know ourselves

In light of what we've discussed, what does scripture mean when it says "be all things to people". Is this any different from being a hypocrite? What is the difference if there is one?

-use the aspects of you God has given you to connect with people on their levels where they're at

e. Davis & Jones (1960) - effects of insults- (p. 181)

-watching man be interviewed and then telling him all about how much he sucked -told him he was shallow, untrustworthy, and boring -they succeeded in convincing themselves that they didn't like the victim after they said all those mean things -in short, after saying things that they knew would hurt him, they convinced themselves that he deserved to be hurt

Does culture have anything to do with schema? What?

-yes -cultures instill mental structures that influence the very way we understand and interpret the world -specifically the culture we were raised in influences us -Definitely. We can't escape culture, and it is something we are constantly surrounded by. Because of this 24/7 exposure it would be near impossible for culture to not have at least some effect on our schemas. Specifically, the culture we grow up in has a huge influence on us by creating mental structures that effect the way we understand and interpret the world. -There are countless cultures that we are exposed to. For example, Anderson University has a culture of its own. I think a great example of the way this culture effects our schemas as students here is the idea of "ring by spring." When I first transferred here from Ball State I still very much had a schema that was shaped by that community and I was totally shocked and entertained by the seriousness in which Anderson University students felt the need to find a lifelong partner, and settle down so urgently.

Do Christians often engage in exemplification?If yes, should they?If no, do they engage in any other self-presentation strategies on a regular basis?

-yes! -ex: taking pic of devo and putting it on instagram -however, people may be being real when they do this but they also may be acting

What are the 5 themes that we will repeatedly see throughout this course?

1) A person constructs his/her own social world 2) A person underestimates the impact of the social situations (and overestimates personality) -we have little data on the world around us and much data on ourselves, so we tend tend to think we have more impact than we really do 3) A person needs to view him/herself in a positive light -because we're selfish pigs! 4) A person needs to feel connected to other people -we need others and want to have relationships and feel connected in those, but we also want to be right and have it our way, we want to still be selfish 5) A person processes info about his/her social world in the most efficient and easiest way possible -we are lazy, we stereotype and judge people!

Give 2 examples that attempt to explain how and why cultures differ in the attribution process. (pp. 112ff; 120ff)

1) Individual autonomy in the West and group autonomy in East Asian cultures. In western culture a person is perceived as independent and self-contained; his or her behavior reflects internal traits, motives, and values. In East Asian cultures the individual derives his or her sense of self from the social group to which he or she belongs. People in individualist cultures do prefer dispositional attributions about others, relative to people in collectivist cultures, who prefer situational attributions. The correspondence bias does appear in many cultures; however, members of collectivistic cultures are more aware of how the situation affects behavior and more likely to take situational effects into account. (p. 112-113) 2) Self-serving bias. The self-serving bias is strongest in the United States and some other Western countries such as Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. It is also prevalent in Africa, Eastern Europe, and Russia. Some Asian cultures on the other hand, displayed a markedly low or even absent level of self-serving bias. In many Asian cultures, the values of modesty and harmony with others are highly valued. Their cultural tradition does not encourage them to attribute their success to themselves, as it does in the United States and other Western countries. In individualistic cultures like the United States, people tend toward the self-serving bias, looking outside of themselves- to the situation- to explain failure. On the other hand, in collectivist cultures like China, the reverse is true; people attribute failure to internal causes, not to external ones.

What does research on embarrassment say about these theories?(Why do the researchers focus on embarrassment?)

1) Modigliani- suddenly losing self esteem in the eyes of another (not in our own eyes) -embarrassment is failing to impress others, thereby losing self-esteem which doesn't reside in us! 2) Milgram & Sabini- interaction, loss of self esteem is not necessary for embarrassment, it depends on: -social roles/social identities & then -how the situation is defined CONSEQUENCES: -avoid eye contact -speech distrubances -body movements -attempt to restore the situation (facework)

What are the three major areas of social psychology that were discussed?

1) Social cognition - how others affect how we think 2) Social influence - how others influence us 3) Social relations - how others impact our relationships

What are the three major components of social psychology that were discussed?

1) The importance of cognition (construals) - we reason/think/intuit reality matters. 2) The power of the person - how we are the creators of our own social worlds (subjectivity). 3) The power of the situation - culture & context; we often overestimate the impact we truly have and underestimate the impact of the world around us.

What are the 2 basic motives that underlie the origin of people's construals?

1) The need to feel good about ourselves (self-esteem) 2) The need to be accurate/right (social cognition)

Why do our impressions seem so accurate (3 reasons) and what can we do to improve the accuracy of our attributions? (p. 121ff)

1) correspondance bias 2) use of schemas 3) self fulfilling prophecy (extra reason dr. priest gave us) To improve: know about these things we do to judge and be aware of them and how they affect us and try to counteract and challenge them!

Compare and contrast the 2 theories about why we manage our impressions?

1) self interest (esteem) (self) -our treatment by others depends on others' impressions/thoughts of us -therefore we should influence others' thoughts/impressions, especially of us -how? we can do this through our behavior -so, we arrange our behavior so that others draw the conclusions about us that we want them to 2) definition of the situation (continuing the interaction) (others) -we all need a shared understanding of the social situation -the situation calls for social roles/social identities (i know you; you know me) a) roles are partly formal (ex: you have an idea of how a professor should be treated) b) they are also partly a function of an implicit contract; the two people who are interacting develop a working consensus (they agree to treat the others as if they had certain identities) -so, our identities are a function of the nature of the situation and of social roles or identities

Describe 3 things that can be done to help people correct their automatic thinking mistakes.

1. Make people more humble about their reasoning abilities. There are many things that human beings do not know, and it is when humans are over confident in their abilities is where the trouble happens. 2. Approach the overconfidence that people hold directly. If a person is aware that there could be more correct answers than the one that they currently hold, they will make fewer errors in judgement. 3. Teach people directly some basic statistical and methodological principles about how to reason correctly. It has been found that if people learn methods like these that they will be able to make better decisions and to be more informed. (p. 84)

What is the 2-step process of attribution? Do you think the average person is likely to spend much time on the second step?

1st: make an automatic internal attribution (internal) 2nd: consider other possible reasons (external) -not likely to spend time on the second step because we are lazy and it takes effort The two-step process of attribution is "analyzing another person's behavior first by making an automatic internal attribution and only then thinking about possible situational reasons for the behavior, after which one may adjust the internal attribution." (p.112) I think often people spend very little time on the second step, or skip it all together. The second step requires intentional effort and we as people are lazy and would rather just go with the first step because it is easy and effortless.

Identify and define 3 important functions served by the self. (p. 127; your text only lists two!) a) What are the 3 ways that Higgins (1987) suggests that we think of ourselves? (not in text)

3 important functions (not sure of #3): -organizational function: keeps organized how we see world and ourselves in it, keeps data sorted in memory, helps us make decisions/judgement - ie. decide if someone seems safe -self regulation/executive: regulates behavior and plans for the future -self reference effect: if you can be emotional about something you remember it better. ie. smelling ex bf cologne and remembering him- warning sign? 3 ways Higgins suggests we think of ourselves: -actual self: who we think we are -ideal self: who we want to be/who we would like to be -ought self: who should i be/ who I ought to be

1. What is a self? Define it using both Wm James' words and the modern words. (p. 126)

According to William James the self is made up of our thoughts and beliefs about ourselves, or as James would call it the "known" or the "me." James also explained the self as the active processor of information or the "knower" or the "I." In modern words, the known aspect of self is called the "self-concept." Self-concept is "the content of the self; that is, our knowledge about who we are." The knower aspect of self is termed as "self-awareness." Self-awareness is "the act of thinking about ourselves." Both aspects of the self, when combined, create a sense of identity. Self concept = me = know = self as an object = content Self awareness = I = knower = self as a subject = process

Fritz Heider (1958) started us thinking about attributions (p. 104ff). Jones & Davis (1965) [discussed w/o their names on p. 108 about correspondence bias. I'll talk about them in class] developed a theory of correspondent inferences. Then Kelley (1967; 1973) developed the covariation model (p. 106). SO... What is an attribution?; How does the covariation model explain the attribution process?; and How might the correspondence bias relate to this? What is the role of perceptual salience in correspondence bias?

An attribution is an inference someone makes to explain the behavior of themselves or someone else. The covariation model explains the attribution process as "that to form an attribution about what caused a person's behavior, we systematically note the pattern between the presence or absence of possible causal factors and whether or not the behavior occurs." (p.106) The correspondence bias is "the tendency to infer that people's behavior corresponds to their disposition." (p.109) So the correspondence bias could relate to attribution because people tend to attribute the behavior of others to who they are as people, and disregard the situation that the behavior took place in. The role of perceptual salience in the correspondence bias is that when we are trying to make sense of a person's behavior, we tend to focus on the person and not the situation around the person. We often have no idea the situational details that surround a person and their behavior, and even if we are aware of the situation, there is no way for us to know how the person in it is interpreting it all. "We can't see the situation, so we ignore its importance. People, not the situation, have perceptual salience for us; we pay attention to them and we tend to think that they alone cause their behavior." (p.111) -attribution: explanation of the cause -external: situation caused it: -internal: i caused it Perceptual salience: -what is important, what is relevant -we judge based on what matters to us -if it is uncommon it tends to become more salient -ex: white guy with dreadlocks -attributions are affected by what we see as important

What is an implicit personality theory and how does one work?

An implicit personality theory is "a type of schema people use to group various kinds of personality traits together; for example, many people believe that someone who is kind is generous as well." (p. 102) These theories are developed over time and with experience. People may have a few very different theories about which personality traits go together, but we also share many similar theories with each other. This is because implicit personality theories are strongly linked to culture. Similar to other beliefs, these theories are passed from generation to generation. (p.102) -you use what few traits you know about someone to determine their whole personality -taking one bit of a person and assuming the rest about the person

Most persons in our society have group memberships. How does blasting, basking and other direct strategies of self presentation play themselves out in your life and on campus?

Define basking & blasting and then answer! In my life, there are definitely times when I participate in basking and blasting. I know for example that I bask in the success and image of groups I am a part of, especially on campus. For example, even something as simple as being a psychology major, is a membership that I take great pride in. I bask in the community of the psychology department and the way we pride ourselves in the encouragement we give, and the difference we are trying to make in the community around us. And even in my basking with the psychology department, I know I also at times blast other departments as a means of making myself feel even more proud of my department. For example, my friends in the psych department and I often talk about how we are the superior department because we have couches, and no one else does... so that clearly makes us greater! I also know that at times I probably engage in a sense of exemplification because even if it's just subconsciously, there is a part of me that prides myself as being more virtuous and pure now that I go to Anderson University, compared to my friends I know from Ball State.

1. Define/describe "schema". a. What are the functions of schemas? b. When are they most important? c. Are they helpful, hurtful, or both? How? d. How do they operate, especially in regard to attention and memory (e.g. Carli, 1999)? e. When are schema used? f. How long can schema last?

Define/describe "schema". Schemas are defined as "mental structures people use to organize their knowledge about the social world around themes or subjects that influence the information people notice, think about, and remember." (p.59) A) What are the functions of schemas? The function of schemas is to not only contain our basic knowledge and impressions but to organize this information and help us make sense of it so we can apply it to new situations and so we can fill in the gaps in our knowledge. The function of a schema is similar to that of a filing cabinet, used to store and keep organized critical data that will be applied to a variety of future situations. B) When are they most important? They are most important when we are faced with new information that could be interpreted many different ways, because they help to reduce ambiguity. C) Are they helpful, hurtful, or both? How? They are both. They can be hurtful because when we don't actually have all the information, we often use schema consistent details to fill in the blanks. Often times what our schemas portrayed to be true end up being later discredited as untrue. However, even after evidence that supported our schemas is proven incorrect, schemas can take on a life of their own. The "perseverance effect" happens when a person's beliefs about themselves and the social world around them continue even after their beliefs have lost credit. People sometimes unconsciously make their schemas become true through a self-fulfilling prophecy. This can have serious consequences and cause a person who has an expectation of someone else to act in a way that causes the person they had an expectation of to then act in a way consistent with what they expected. This then makes their predictions come true, when really it came true only because their schema skewed their behavior which had a domino effect on the person they were projecting these beliefs onto. They can be helpful because they keep us organized, help us make sense of the world around us, and allow us to fill in the gaps in what we know. D) How do they operate, especially in regard to attention and memory (e.g. Carli, 1999)? Memory reconstructions tend to be consistent with people's schemas, meaning when there are blanks in memory people fill them in with misremembered details that are congruent with their schema that was constructed from the things they were exposed to that truly did happen. Schemas become stronger and more resistant to change over time. E) When are schema used? Schemas are used all the time, they are used each time we are making judgments or interpretations about the social world. We use them to make sense of ourselves, other people, social roles, events, etc. We use them to organize new information and the information we already have, and we use them when there is information lacking so we create answers based off of the data we previously have stored. F) How long can schema last? It depends. Some schemas are chronically accessible due to past experience, which means that they are constantly active and ready to be used to interpret ambiguous situations. Some can become accessible because it is related to a current goal we have, and lastly some can become temporarily available because of our recent experiences. (p. 63-64)

Describe the phenomenon that Nisbett and Wilson (1977) labeled and how it relates to knowing ourselves through introspection (pp. 135-137). How and why does thinking about our feelings sometimes generate attitude change? (p. 138)

Describe the phenomenon that Nisbett and Wilson (1977) labeled and how it relates to knowing ourselves through introspection -we are usually aware of the conclusion of how we feel/think, but we don't actually know how we arrived at this conclusion -"why do you believe that?" : usually a very difficult question for us to explain -since we don't know how we arrived to our conclusion... we make things up! ....SOOO can we know ourselves through introspection based off this study? -NO, reflecting isn't all that accurate, we make up what we don't know How and why does thinking about our feelings sometimes generate attitude change? -when we don't have a good explanation of our feelings that satisfies us, we try to make sense which can change our attitude -we don't like not being able to explain/articulate our feelings so instead of accepting "i don't know" we generate reasons that seem to make sense and after analyzing and trying to explain, it can change our attitude -we hallucinate because we want to be right! (reasons generated attitude change)

Describe how cognitive appraisal theories and the two-factor theory agree and differ. (p. 147-48)

Differ -appraisal: emotion happens from misinterpreting even w/out arousal/ arousal doesn't always come 1st -2 factor: emotion = arousal + interpretation (arousal always comes first) Same -both include interpreting and explaining

Name 6 direct and 2 indirect strategies used in self presentation (Jones et al.; Cialdini).

Direct strategies used in self presentation are: Ingratiation Self-promotion Exemplification Intimidation Supplication Self-Handicapping Indirect strategies used in self presentation are: Basking Blasting

a. Aronson & Mills (1959) - effects of initiations- (p. 169) b. Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) - effects of forced compliance. (p. 171) c. Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) - internalization of conscience through dissonance- (p. 175) d. Zimbardo et al. (1965) - effects of wanting to please or displease others- (p. 178) e. Davis & Jones (1960) - effects of insults- (p. 181)

a. Aronson & Mills (1959) - effects of initiations- (p. 169) -explored link between effort and dissonance reduction -college students volunteered to join a group that would meet to discuss psychology of sex -1/3 had extreme initiation -1/3 had mildly unpleasant initiation -1/3 no initiation at all -people who went through severe initiation liked it the most

What is the fundamental attribution error & how is the actor/observer difference (p. 116) a twist on this? How are these two different? Is the fundamental attribution error the same as the correspondence bias theory?

Fundamental Attribution Error - discounting of the situation when making attributions about the other Tendency for observers to underestimate situational influences & overestimate dispositional influences upon others' behavior. ♣ it looms large when it serves our self-interest ♣ we tend to presume that others ARE the way they act! Actor-Observer Difference - we have a different perspective when observing others than we do when we're acting Tendency to see our behavior as externally/situationally caused but other's behavior as internally/dispositionally caused. Why? ♣ as actors, we attend to our environment rather than our qualities; our focus is on the situation (perceptual salience) ♣ we know more about ourselves (especially internal qualities) than we do about others (info availability) ♣ We tend to describe ourselves with verbs that describe actions/reactions; (situational/external causes) We describe others with nouns that describe what that person IS! (dispositional/internal causes) How do you reduce the fundamental attribution error? By focusing on the situation!!!! How do you reduce the actor-observer difference? By empathy!!!!!

What are the 2 factors that interfere with our attempts to be accurate?

I'm not entirely sure but I think it is... 1) We overgeneralize 2) Our expectations get in the way of reality (self fulfilling prophecies)

Give your reaction to the first theme, especially the idea that reality in some sense doesn't matter in social psych even though it might matter theologically.

My reaction to the first theme, especially the idea that reality in some sense doesn't matter is at first to be resistant. I want to be defensive and argue that that isn't true, and that it couldn't be correct. However, then I sit and think that perhaps I am defensive and resistant out of my burning desire of a need to be right. Because well, after all- I am a selfish pig! And when I think of it from that perspective, I actually begin to soften to the idea that maybe reality doesn't matter in social psychology, maybe it doesn't exist at all, and it is all a construct of my imagination and my need to feel important, liked, and connected. Overall, I am hesitant about this theme, but nonetheless I am willing to learn more and eager to see where it goes!

Describe how cultures are similar & different and genders are similar and different in regard to the definition of the self. (pp. 128-132)

In Western cultures, it is common for people to have an independent view of the self. In this view, people tend to define themselves in terms of their individuality such as their own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions not in relation to other people. As a group, Westerners learn to think of themselves as a separate whole from other people, a whole that is unique, independent, and valuable on its own. In many Asian and other non-Western cultures, people tend to have an interdependent view of the self. In this view people tend to define and describe themselves in relation to other people. They recognize and emphasize that their behavior is often influenced by the feelings, thoughts, and actions of those around them. They place value in being connected to one another and having interdependence between them. Women as a general whole, tend to have more relational interdependence. This means that they place their focus on their closest relationships, like their feelings about their significant other or their children. Men as a general whole, tend to have more collective interdependence. This means that they place their focus on their membership within larger groups, like their role as a fraternity member or an American. -western: independent, unique self, important by self -non western/eastern: interdependent, view self in relationship w/others, part of a group -christianity: together, unity, group, community -women: relational interdependence, identify with intimate relationships, define self by close relationships -men: collective interdependence, identify w/being a memory of a certain group (not necessarily one they are close with, ie. job, fraternity

You are sitting in a jury. A man is accused of raping a woman. Both parties agree that sexual intercourse occurred. The man denies that it was rape. What kinds of attributions will the accuser use? What kinds of attributions will the accused use? What non-verbal or verbal cues will you look for as a juror? Would you use base rate info regarding variables such as race, SES, past history, etc.?

Kasey's answer! Both the accused and the accuser will use the self-serving attribution bias. They both know their own story and will try to blame the environment or the other person. Both will also use the Actor/Observer Difference attribution. They will both assume the other person's behaviors extended from the type of person they are and justify their own actions based on the situation that happened. The accused may use a defensive attribution as he may want to deny the fact that he raped her (if in fact, he actually did). He may have raped her, but not thought of himself as one who rapes. As the juror I would fall into the "blaming the victim" bias. There would be parts of me that wondered why she put herself in whatever environment in the first place. In order to establish norms, I would watch how the accused and accuser walk into the room and behave before they spoke in the courtroom. If it changed in a drastic way (besides being nervous), I would start to doubt them. I would watch for eye patterns, what words they chose to emphasize, how they react to certain questions, how much sympathy they are trying to gain, and if they feel like they have a lot to lose. I would have to be very cautious of base-rate information. I do make efforts to not let that stuff effect me, but I am NOT perfect at it.

Given that we must judge others when we make attributions, what does Scripture say about judgment, especially of others? Give at least 3 verses. Is NOT judging others possible? How might we judge others in a 'good' way and not a 'bad' way?

Kasey's answer!1. Matthew 7: 1-5 1 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you. 3 "Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? 4 How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? 5 You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye. 2. James 4:11-12 11 Brothers and sisters, do not slander one another. Anyone who speaks against a brother or sister or judges them speaks against the law and judges it. When you judge the law, you are not keeping it, but sitting in judgment on it. 12 There is only one Lawgiver and Judge, the one who is able to save and destroy. But you—who are you to judge your neighbor? 3. Romans 14:1-13 1 Accept the one whose faith is weak, without quarreling over disputable matters. 2One person's faith allows them to eat anything, but another, whose faith is weak, eats only vegetables. 3 The one who eats everything must not treat with contempt the one who does not, and the one who does not eat everything must not judge the one who does, for God has accepted them. 4 Who are you to judge someone else's servant? To their own master, servants stand or fall. And they will stand, for the Lord is able to make them stand. 5 One person considers one day more sacred than another; another considers every day alike. Each of them should be fully convinced in their own mind. 6 Whoever regards one day as special does so to the Lord. Whoever eats meat does so to the Lord, for they give thanks to God; and whoever abstains does so to the Lord and gives thanks to God. 7 For none of us lives for ourselves alone, and none of us dies for ourselves alone. 8 If we live, we live for the Lord; and if we die, we die for the Lord. So, whether we live or die, we belong to the Lord. 9 For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living. 10 You, then, why do you judge your brother or sister? Or why do you treat them with contempt? For we will all stand before God's judgment seat. 11 It is written: " 'As surely as I live,' says the Lord, 'every knee will bow before me; every tongue will acknowledge God.' " 12 So then, each of us will give an account of ourselves to God. 13 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in the way of a brother or sister. I think it is imposiible to not judge other people. Without judgement, there is no accountability and that is not good. I think Romans 14 gives good perspective of what is important and what is not. It is good to judge people who are veering off of their path and remind them of their values. It is wrong to judge people for the idiosycracies they have if that is what helps them praise the Lord. -Dr priest said: Matt 7, sermon on the mount!

There are several "classic" studies in this chapter.Be prepared to briefly describe each of the following studies (either here or in class)

a. Aronson & Mills (1959) - effects of initiations- (p. 169) b. Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) - effects of forced compliance. (p. 171) c. Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) - internalization of conscience through dissonance- (p. 175) d. Zimbardo et al. (1965) - effects of wanting to please or displease others- (p. 178) e. Davis & Jones (1960) - effects of insults- (p. 181)

Where does the self come from? (not answered in your text) a) Are you born with one or does it develop? b) If it develops, how does it develop and what are some of the influences on it? c) If you're born with it, is it naturally inherited or is it God-given? d) If the self is partly/mostly a cultural phenomenon, then did Adam have a self before Eve was made? e) How does the knowledge that chimpanzees & orangutans may have rudimentary selves affect how you view your unique place among animals?

Mainly opinon based... this was kasey's answer a. I believe I am born with one and it develops. Even from very young ages, babies have their own needs, personalities, and behaviors. They also develop into more complex selves as the babies mature into adults. b. Culture is always a big influence. Like it or not, the culture you live in impacts and defines you in many ways. It also develops as you mature and become wiser. Piaget's developmental theories play a big part of the "self" up through mid 20's and then after a person is developed, it is more up to the conscious self to continue gaining wisdom and knowledge. c. It is a God-given gift. He has given us this and it is our responsibility as Christians to use it for his divine purpose. d. This questions depends on if you believe Adam is one man or representative of many men. Even if he was one man, he still had a culture with God who taught him how to take care of the land gifted to him and spoke to him in the garden. In both instances yes- the self is greatly influenced by culture, but not dependent on it in its absence. e. Honestly, I don't care. God made humans to tend the earth- not chimpanzees. I am not threatened by their rudimentary acknowledgement of the self.

Explain Festinger's (1957) theory of cognitive dissonance (his definition & subsequent research's definition & how the 2 are different; How we attempt to reduce it; etc.)

cognitive dissonance originally: 2 cognitions (thoughts) that don't match up cognitive dissonance now: behavior & thought don't match up -we tend to change our beliefs to match our behavior (which makes us more liberal) -it's easier than changing our behavior to match our beliefs... we are lazy!!! ex: divorce, premarital sex -easy to change our beliefs to match our behaviors especially when they are highly motivating How do we reduce it? (p. 161) -change behavior to match thought -change thought to match behavior -adding more cognitions/adding on to existing thoughts and beliefs

Given your faith & Aronson & Mills (1959) study, what type of initiation should campus clubs have?

PROBABLY NOT ON EXAM I think it is important to note in regard to Aronson & Mills study that "It should be clear that we are not suggesting that more people enjoy difficult, unpleasant experience - they do not. Nor are we suggesting that most people enjoy things that are merely associated with unpleasant experience - they do not. What we are asserting is that if a person agrees to go through a demanding or an unpleasant experience in order to attain some goal or object, that goal or object becomes more attractive." I think this is knowledge that we must be careful not to take advantage of. I think some clubs on this campus make the initiation process unpleasant and demanding, because they know that if they can get students to buy into it, that they will be more committed to the club and passionate about it once they have made it through the initiation. While this is a smart strategy in regard to getting dedicated and enthusiastic members of your club, I do not think it is necessarily the right thing to do. To me it feels a bit unethical and a little like brainwashing. I think clubs on this campus should have some sort of initiation process because there is value in that, but I don't think clubs should make that initiation process humiliating and exhausting for the initiates, just for the club's own gain. I am all for hyping people up when they are joining a club because it's incredibly special to be a part of something bigger than yourself, but I think there are ways in which our campus can go about this that don't push the limits of what is ethical and fair, and disregard the love of Christ that should be at the center of the heart of the clubs in the first place. I think there is a balance. We should have initiation processes, but they should be fueled by activities that have meaning that is bigger than upping the ante of a club, and should instead be glorifying Christ.

What are the other motives that influence the formation of people's construals?

The other motives that influence the formation of people's construals are: Biological drives, fear, promise of rewards (love), and need for control.

Be prepared to explain figures 3.5 and 3.6 (self-fulfilling prophecy) as well as 3.4 (perseverance effect)

Self fulfilling prophecy -I expect, I act, They behave, I'm right (p. 66 and 68) Perseverance effect -people's beliefs persevered even after the original evidence for them was discredited -evidence to the contrary of our beliefs doesn't always change our beliefs (p.69 boomer effect)

What are self-serving attributions? Which athletes are most likely to use them? (3 answers) Why do we make them? (4 answers) (p. 118).

Self-severing attributions are "explanations for one's successes that credit internal, dispositional factors and explanations for one's failures that blame external, situational factors." (p. 118) The athletes who are most likely to use self-serving attributions are those who are less experienced, those who are highly skilled and talented/ and those in solo sports rather than team sports. We make self-serving attributions for four main reasons. The first one is to try to maintain self-esteem (even if that means distorting reality). The second reason is because we want people to think well of us and admire us. The third one is when there is a lack of information available. Fourth and finally, we make self-serving attributions to defend from threats to our self-esteem, protect us from feelings or vulnerability and mortality, and explain things such as tragic events. -tendency to take credit for successes, and blame others or the situation for our failures Athletes most likely to do this? -less experienced -highly skilled -those in solo sports Why do we make them? -maintain self esteem -maintain esteem in eyes of others -info available: give more -get defensive to protect ourseleves

What are some of the elements that we use in order to 'stage a performance'?

Some of the elements that we use in order to 'stage a performance' are: -Sets and props 1) orient the audience to the action that will follow 2) inform the audience about characters to appear in the play -Teams: interactions among characters are very important; coordination important -Appearance & manner: gender, age, attractiveness, clothes, how we talk

Similar to #10, if we are willing to "fake out" others, then is it possible that we can and are willing to do the same to ourselves? So let's revisit the definition of "self" that we stated with at the beginning of class...is the self merely an external composite of our behavior or is it composed of something internal as well? IS there a REAL/TRUE self??? Does impression management conceal the true self or is it the true self?

YES! We can!