Social Psychology Test 1

Front 1

Social psych vs. sociology

Back 1

o Both have an interest in studying how people behave in groups
o -sociologist: studies societies and their trends
o -social psychologist: studies average individuals

Front 2

• Social psych vs. personality psych

Back 2

o Both focus on the individual
o -personality psychologist: focuses on private internal functioning and on differences between individuals
o -social psychologist: focuses on our common humanity

Front 3

• Hindsight bias

Back 3

o We invoke “common sense” after the fact! (a.k.a., the I-knew-it-all-along effect)
o “The tendency to exaggerate, after learning an outcome, one’s ability to have forseen how something turned out.

Front 4

• Folk psychology

Back 4

o -speculative intuitions about the way psychological phenomena “really” are
o -they never get tested; they remain based in conventional wisdom and individuals’ presumptions

Front 5

• Theory

Back 5

o Theory: an integrated set of principles that explain and predict
o “So what really makes a good theory?”
 (1) effectively summarizes a wide range of observations
 (2) makes clear predictions that we can use to:
• confirm or modify the theory
• generate new exploration
• suggest practical application

Front 6

• Hypothesis

Back 6

o Hypothesis: Testable prediction derived from a theory
 (i) allow us to test a theory, by suggesting how we might try to prove it false (i.e., to falsify it)
 (ii) give direction to research (they send investigators to look for things they might never have thought of before)
 (iii) they make theories practical

Front 7

• Falsifiability

Back 7

o Want hypothesis where it is possible that the opposite could happen.

Front 8

• Independent variable

Back 8

o The experimental factor that a researcher manipulates

Front 9

• Dependent variable

Back 9

o The variable being measured, so called because it may depend on manipulations of the independent variable.

Front 10

• Random assignment

Back 10

o Allows you to equally distribute differences in variables other than the IV across conditions in an experiment.
o Prevents the occurrence of uncontrolled systematic differences btwn groups!
 -without this, we couldn’t make unambiguous statements about causality

Front 11

• Cover story

Back 11

o You tell participants a lie so they act naturally

Front 12

• Demand characteristics

Back 12

o If you tell them, you’ve introduced “demand characteristics”, and it makes them think you’re “Demanding” a way for them to act
o Ex. If you tell them you’re studying aggression, they could feel urge to act aggressively or also not to act aggressively.
o “Cues in an experiment that tell the participant what behavior is expected.

Front 13

• Alternative explanation

Back 13

o Okay, I was wrong, so now why did this happen?

Front 14

• Confounds

Back 14

o Z, confound. Other variables

Front 15

• Debriefing

Back 15

o After experiment, explain why & what it was about * why methods were done.

Front 16

• Mundane realism

Back 16

o Degree to which an experiment is superficially similar to everyday situations

Front 17

• Experimental Realism

Back 17

o Degree to which an experiment absorbs and involves it participants

Front 18

• Correlation vs. Experimentation

Back 18

o Correlation vs. Experimentation
 the experiment can demonstrate direction since variable X comes before variable Y
 the experiment can demonstrate causation because it controls for any third variable Z (i.e., through random assignment)

Front 19

o Experiments

Back 19

 Problems with experiment
• How much can you really generalize from the controlled settings of experiments to the real world?
o -mundane realism vs. experimental realism
• (2) Couldn’t the experimenter be biased?
• (3) Experiments are restrained by time limits

Front 20

o Correlation

Back 20

 An alternative to experimental method.
 r = 0 means no correlation (no “relation”; no “association”)
 r = 1 means a perfect positive correlation (i.e., for every increase in variable X, there is an increase in variable Y)
 r = -1 means a perfect negative correlation (i.e., for every increase in variable X, there is a decrease in variable Y)
 Advantages of correlation
• Easier to generalize to the real world (because data usually gather directly from the real world)
 Problems with correlation
• (1)Does not demonstrate direction
• (2) Does not demonstrate causation

Front 21

• Internal validity

Back 21

o Extent to which we know x is b/c of y (good internal validity if it matches well)

Front 22

• External validity

Back 22

o Can It be applied to the real world, generalizable?

Front 23

• Operationalization

Back 23

o How are we going to make this construct apparent? Ask him if he’s violent, ask teacher, use survey, ask parents.
refers to the process of making some invisible variable into something

Front 24

• Attitudes (what are they?)

Back 24

o A favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone, exhibited in one’s beliefs, feelings, or intended behavior
o Attitudes give us an efficient way of sizing up the world.
 e.g., a person who believes a minority is lazy might feel dislike for such people and may, as a result, intend to behave in a discriminatory way toward them
o Composed of:
 i. pos & neg feelings about object
 ii. cognitions which uphold feelings toward object (i.e., beliefs)
 iii. predisposition to behave toward the object in a certain way

Front 25

• Moral hypocrisy

Back 25

o moral hypocrisy: espousing moral attitudes but acting contrary to them
o When morality & greed were put on a collision course, greed won!!

Front 26

• Facial electromyography (EMG)

Back 26

o Measures facial responses (frown & smile)
o Occurs independent of person’s knowledge
o May not be visible, but still “micro” smiles and frowns

Front 27

• Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT)

Back 27

o U of A bad & good test

Front 28

• Bogus pipeline

Back 28

o A procedure that fools people into disclosing their attitudes. Participants are first convinced that a machine can use their psychological responses to measure their private attitudes, then they are asked to predict the machine’s reading, thus revealing their attitudes
o Procedure
 have Ps hold a locked wheel that, if unlocked, could turn a pointer to the left (indicating disagreement) or to the right (indicating agreement)
 attach electrodes to Ps’ arms
 tell Ps that the machine gauges tendency to turn the wheel left or right
 demonstration: ask questions about attitudes Ps had already expressed on a now-forgotten survey
 the machine then seems to predict their attitude, Ps are amazed and the machine seems completely credible!
 hide the attitude meter
 ask Ps about the attitude you’re interested in
 finally, ask Ps to predict what the meter said their attitude would be

Front 29

• Self presentation

Back 29

o People often act in certain ways to present themselves in a favorable light. More often than not, our self-presentation is determined by the particular situation we’re in.

Front 30

• Theory of Planned Behavior

Back 30

o Specific and relevant attitudes do predict intended and actual behaviors
o Has shown that one’s (a) attitudes, (b) perceived social norms, and (C) feelings of control together determine one’s intentions, which guide behavior.

Front 31

• When do attitudes affect behavior?

Back 31

o (1) WHEN SOCIAL INFLUENCES ON WHAT WE SAY ARE MINIMAL
o (2) WHEN ATTITUDES ARE SPECIFIC TO THE BEHAVIOR EXAMINED
o WHEN ATTITUDES ARE SALIENT

Front 32

• Salience

Back 32

o means prominence in consciousness, i.e., outright and in your face

Front 33

• Self-Awareness Theory

Back 33

o The idea that when you become internally focused (i.e., “self-aware”), you become:
 (1) objectively aware of your espoused attitudes (e.g., morals, values)
 (2) concerned with meeting standards associated with your attitudes.

Front 34

• Externally focused

Back 34

o you’re paying attention to the environment and its contents

Front 35

• Internally focused

Back 35

o you’re paying attention to your thoughts and your actions

Front 36

o Cognitive Dissonance

Back 36

 tension that arises when one is simultaneously aware of 2 inconsistent cognitions
 e.g., dissonance may occur when we realize that we have (with little justification) acted contrary to our attitudes or made a decision favoring one alternative despite having reasons for favoring another

Front 37

o The Logic of Dissonance Theory

Back 37

 (A) we have all sorts of cognitions in our heads (cognitive elements)
• (i) representations of things we think & experience
o -e.g., of behaviors, of attitudes, etc.
 (B) sometimes these elements don’t fit together quite well
• (i) e.g., sometimes the way we recognize our behavior doesn’t fit with preexisting cognitions about our attitudes
 (C) when two cognitions are psychologically inconsistent with one another, we experience an uncomfortable state (i.e., “dissonance”)
• (i) we become motivated to reduce this feeling
• (ii) can do so in a number of ways
 (D) ways to reduce dissonance
• (i) add consonant cognitions (i.e., thoughts that will reinforce the dissonant act or behavior)—e.g., trivialization, rationalization
• (ii) change your attitude
• (iii) change your behavior (this is the hardest, e.g., quitting smoking)
• (iv) alcohol!!!

Front 38

o Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)

Back 38

o Festinger & Carlsmith (1959)
 (1)Ps first required to spend an hour doing an incredibly dull task
 (2)When you’re done, the experimenter (in a supposed debriefing) tells you the study was looking at how expectations affect performance
• (1) “The next P must be led to believe that this is an interesting experiment”
• (2) But P is also told that the research assistant whose job it is to create this expectation in Ps didn’t show up
• (3) So P is asked to tell the next P (really a confederate) that the study was really fun and interesting
 (3)saying the experiment was interesting would go against what the P really thought about the experiment
 (4)Ps either offered $1 or $20 to do this
 (5)After talking to the supposed “next P” the real P is asked to express their attitude about the study (their attitude at this point is the DV)

Front 39

• Cognitive elements

Back 39

o representations of things we think & experience

Front 40

• Conditions for dissonance:

Back 40

o (1) Low external justification
 -if given enough money, there’s no dissonance (you have an excuse)
o (2) Perceived choice (i.e., “personal responsibility”)
 -lo choice subjects didn’t experience dissonance because they had the excuse that they did it because they were told to; hi choice were responsible
o (3) Commitment
 -dissonance occurs when you’re committed to the inconsistent behavior

Front 41

• Decisional dissonance

Back 41

o When you make a choice between two valued alternatives, you end up devaluing the unchosen alternative and valuing the chosen alternative even higher
 U of A
 Pos: inexpensive, nice climate, easier
 Neg: lack of prestige, poor parking, big classes

 Harvard
 Pos: prestige, better opportunities, better education
 Neg: bad sports, snobby, expensive

 If you pick U of A, you’ll end up: (1) devaluing neg aspects U of A and (2) devaluing pos aspects of Harvard
 -over time, you convince yourself that you made the right decision

Front 42

• Minimal deterrence

Back 42

o when posed with only a small threat for doing a bad behavior, people are likely not to do it again (because they think they stopped by their own free will!!)
o toy robot study

Front 43

• Implications of Dissonance Theory & Research

Back 43

o WE COME TO LOVE WHAT WE SUFFER FOR (e.g., frat & sorority initiations)
o WE CAN TEACH OURSELVES WHAT NOT TO DO (“Principle of minimal deterrence”…see next slide!)

Front 44

o self-perception

Back 44

: when our attitudes are weak, we simply observe our behavior and its circumstances & infer our attitudes
 -“here I am smoking again.”
 -“I must like smoking”

Front 45

o self-perception theory

Back 45

the theory that when we are unsure of our attitudes, we infer them (much as someone would by observing us), by looking at our behavior and the circumstances under which it occurs

Front 46

• Foot-in-the-door-technique

Back 46

o The tendency for people who have first agreed to a small request to comply later with a larger request3.
o when a person gets you to comply with a small request, and then increases the demand of the request little by little

Front 47

• Overjustification

Back 47

o the result of bribing people to do what they already like doing; they may then see their actions as externally controlled rather than internally appealing

Front 48

• Dissonance vs. Self-Perception

Back 48

o cognitive dissonance: the less external justification we have for our counter-attitudinal actions, the more we feel responsible for them, and thus the more dissonance arises & the more attitudes change
 “I know smoking is bad for me”
 -“ah…I’ve been waiting for this all day”
 “oh well…the statistics aren’t as awful as they say.
 Anyway, I’m very healthy. I won’t get sick.”
o (2) self-perception: when our attitudes are weak, we simply observe our behavior and its circumstances & infer our attitudes
 “here I am smoking again.”
 “I must like smoking”

Front 49

• Schachter’s theory of emotion

Back 49

o Emotions = Physiological Arousal + Cognitive label
o Runner and scared person might have same physiological symptoms, but have different label and emotion thus.

Front 50

• Misattribution of arousal

Back 50

o bogus sources of arousal can be used to alter individual’s emotional experience

Front 51

• Excitation transfer theory

Back 51

o arousal caused by an initial event can, a short time later, be misattributed to a second event and thereby can intensify the emotional reaction to that second event

Front 52

• Residual excitation

Back 52

o arousal from an event that remains after the individual is no longer aware that he/she is aroused

Front 53

• Reverse placebo effect

Back 53

o Caused by misattribution of arousal
o Such as insomniac study
o Pain experiencer’s