This site is 100% ad supported. Please add an exception to adblock for this site.

Psych 260


undefined, object
copy deck
Basic Psychological Needs
understand the self, understand others, understand social rules & norms
Social Psychology
The study of how people\'s thoughts, feelings, & behaviors are influences by the real or imagined presence of other people
Problems with self-reporting
inaccurate memory, social desirability, impression management
Internal Validity
How confidently can we say we know the causal connection? (experimental method/random assignment)
External Validity
To what extent can we generalize the findings to other samples? (replication)
Research Methods
-Survey/Correlational -Experimental -Archival Data Analysis -Observational
Leon Festinger
Cognitive Dissonance Theory: dissonance --> discomfort --> 1. change behavior 2. change cognition 3. add new cognition
Kurt Lewin
took Gestalt Psychology (Stresses importance of studying the subjective way in which an object appears in people\'s minds rather than the objective, physical attributes of the object) and applied it to social perception by focusing on how people construe social situations
Fritz Heider
Balance Theory: E.g. dissonance caused by interpersonal relationships • + I like john, + john likes pres. Bush, - I don’t like pres. Bush = (+)(+)(-) = (-) is dissonance, so must change one belief
Claude Steele
Self-Affirmation Theory: another response to dissonance is to affirm oneself in an unrelated domain
mental structures used to organize the social world around themes/subjects. Schemas \'fill in gaps\' and influence the information people think about, notice, and remember
Process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait, or concept e.g. Bargh et al - Read \'One Flew Over the Cuckoo\'s Nest\' then see a man acting weird; think that he is mentally ill. If no priming, might assume he\'s drunk
Self-fulfilling prophecy
1. Form an expectancy 2. Perceptual confirmation 3. Behavioral confirmation
Mental shortcuts -- Availability: people base judgment on the ease with which they can bring something to mind Representativeness: people classify something according to how similar it is to a particular case
Kelley\'s Covariation Model of Attribution
e.g. John & Mary go to a party, Mary leaves him o Consensus: extent to which other people act the same way toward the same stimulus as the actor (e.g. has Mary behaved this way before?) o Distinctiveness: extent to which one particular actor response in the same way to different stimuli (e.g. has Mary behaved this way to other men?) o Consistency: extent to which the behavior between the actor & the stimulus is the same across time & circumstances (e.g. have other women done this to John?)
Correspondence Bias
a.k.a. Fundamental Attribution Error: o Finding internal attribution for others’ actions (e.g. that person ran a red light, they must be immoral) but NOT our own (e.g. I had to run the light, I was running late and in a hurry)
Gilbert\'s 2-step Model of Attribution
1. Automatic attribution (stop here when cognitively overloaded) 2. Correction phase (when there is time & resources)
William James\' structure of the self
-I (knower) vs. Me (known) -material, social, spiritual \"me\"
Baumeister\'s structure of the self
Private self vs. Public Self
Markus & Kitayama\'s structure of self
Independent vs. Interdependent
Self-Regulation & Will-power
Vohs & Heatherton: watch a boring video w/ M&M\'s either RIGHT next to you or across the room, then do a figures task --high temptation condition worked on the cognitive figures task for LESS time, b/c had already used up resources resisting candy
2-Factor Theory of Emotion
1. Observe physical arousal 2. Try to find a cause
Process whereby people look inward & examine their own thoughts, feelings, and motives -- Doesn\'t usually lead to new self-knowledge
Social Comparison Theory
Idea that we learn about our own abilities by comparing ourselves to other people (upward or downward)
Nisbett & Wilson\'s Teaching More Than We Can Know
Introspection leads to use of causal theories, NOT greater self-knowledge --Insomniac study: 3 conditions, pill, pill \'to arouse\', pill \'to relax\'; results: arousal made them fall asleep faster, relax slower, because the arousal pill allowed them to misattribute their insomniatic pre-bed arousal to the pill; BUT in interview relied on causal theories (e.g. test so didn\'t sleep at first) not pill
Self-Perception Theory
When our attitudes and feelings are uncertain/ambiguous, we infer these states by observing our behavior & the situation in which it occurs
Post-Decision Dissonance Reduction (Brehm)
Dissonance aroused after making a decision is reduced by enhancing the attractiveness of the chosen alternative & devaluing the rejected alternative --Experiment offering women an appliance; they initially rated them all the same & afterwards rated the one they chose much higher/the other one lower
Memory stages - why isn\'t eyewitness testimony reliable?
Acquisition: process by which people notice/pay attention to a SUBSET of the information in the environment Storage: process by which people store information they have acquired from the environment in memory Retrieval: process by which people recall information stored in memory -- in each of these stages, problems can occur; also: reconstructive memory = when memory is distorted by additional facts
Characteristics of a Good Eyewitness
- faces just \"pop out\" - confidence does NOT equal accuracy
False Memory Syndrome
- Clancy: candy, sour, etc. words = 88% recovered “sweet” – NOT on the list - Loftus et al.: leading questions w/ stop sign vs. yield sign --75% accuracy baseline, 44% accuracy when misinformed
What is an Attitude?
Evaluations of people, objects, and ideas
Yale Attitude Change Approach
who says what to whom (source, nature, audience)
Petty & Cacioppo\'s Elaboration Likelihood Moden
Central Route: Logical, functional info.; more difficult, but effect lasts longer vs. Peripheral Route: Affective info., easier but w/short-term effects
Subliminal Ads
Have small effect in laboratory; NO evidence that subliminal messages in everyday life have any influence on behavior
Affective vs. Cognitive persuasion (Shavitt)
affect based attitudes for clothes, cosmetics, soda & cognition-based attitude for home appliances, toothpaste, etc.
Sherif (1936) vs. Asch (1956)
- Asch’s line study (NORMATIVE): 76% conformed on at least one trial - Sherif (INFORMATIONAL): people’s responses converge when asked to judge w/ a group
Factors associated w/ Conformity
Situation: Group size (peak at 7), degree of unanimity, nature of task (difficult, vague task = more conformity) Individual: similarity, attractiveness to group, status, acceptance, culture
Zimbardo\'s Stanford Prison Experiment
Lucifer effect; argues that it\'s not bad apples but a bad BARREL
Milgram\'s Obedience Study
Normative social influence (no private acceptance) -- 65% went to highest shock to teach learners
Social Facilitation
Mere presence of others produces arousal, and thus helps performance on simple & well-practiced tasks; e.g. children wound fishing string faster w/ another person
Social Loafing
Presence of others leads to relaxation when your individual effort CAN\'T be evaluated; people do worse on a simple task & better on a complex task
Zajonc (1968) Facilitation vs. Inhibition
Skills & Task difficulty are key; facilitation for simple/well-practiced tasks; inhibits for hard/new tasks
Feelings of anonymity & reduced individuality, resulting in loosening of normal constraints on behavior -- w/ lack of self-awareness, can lead to moral digression
Group brainstorming
Not a good idea b/c of: -evaluation apprehension -social loafing effect -blocking (only one person can speak at a time) PRIMARY REASON
Thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness & solidarity is more important than considering the facts in a realistic manner --Antecedents: High group cohesion, isolation, directive leader, stress, poor decision-making procedures --Symptoms: Ilusion of invulnerability, belief in morality of group, stereotype of outgroup, self-censorship, pressure on dissenters to conform, illusion of unanimity
Transactional Leaders
People who set clear short-term goals and reward people who meet them
Transformational Leaders
Inspire others (followers) to focus on common, long-term goals
Contingency Theory of Leadership
idea that leadership effectiveness depends on both how task-oriented & relationship-oriented the leader & on the amount of control/influence the leader has over the group
Stasser et al. (1992)\'s Murder Mystery Study
Groups make better decisions; the 3 person group was 50% accurate, while 3 individuals had 30% accuracy
Process Loss
When any aspect of a group interaction inhibits good problem-solving
Mutual Enhancement Effect
High-status members mention both shared & unshared information; low-status members mention primarily SHARED information; unshared information from high status members is remembered better
Wittenbaum & Park (2001) More effective group discussion
1. Members know each others expertise 2. Leader recognizes each member\'s area of specialty & seeks unique info 3. Time is long enough for members to feel safe sharing unique info
Campbell (1965) Realistic Group Conflict Theory
When group goals are compatible, positive relations are likely to exist, whereas when group goals are incompatible, conflict and negative intergroup attitudes and behavior result
Prisoner\'s Dilemma Game
Money - Give yours to share or don\'t; if partner\'s give and you defect, you get the most - most people defect & thus act selfishly, so everyone loses
Schopler et al. (2001) Group vs. Individuals
Groups are more likely to defect in the game than individuals
Sherif et al. (1961) Summer Camp Study
Intergroup competition leads to hostility; supra-ordinate goals lead to cooperation
Propinquity Effect
Physical & Functional distance leads to familiarity --> liking
3 Types of Friendship (Aristotle)
1. Utility 2. Pleasure 3. GOODNESS
Adams & Plaut (2003)Ghanaian Friendship
Have caution toward friends, see them as material/practical help -- NOT trust/respect like in US, having few friends is NOT pitied
Closed vs. Open field
In closed field, propinquity may lead to enemies as well as friends
Similarity & Liking
Similarity in background, attitude, health behaviors --> friendship BUT married couples had weak similarity effect for PERSONALITY
David Buss (2000) Friendship
Evolutionary Past: small group living w/ life & death experiences together --> close friendship Implications for modern friendship: fewer enemies; fewer true friends
Social Exchange Theory
Idea that people\'s feelings about a relationship depend on their perceptions of COST and REWARD in the relationship, as well as: - kind of relationshp they deserve - chances of having a better relationship with someone else
Passionate Love vs. Compassionate Love
An intense longing we feel for a person, accompanied by physiological arousal; when our love is reciprocated we are happy, when it\'s not we despair vs. intimacy & affection we feel when we care deeply for a person but do not experience passion or arousal in the person\'s presence
Attachment Styles
Secure: trust, lack of concern w/ being abandoned, view that one is worthy Avoidant: suppression of needs, find it difficult to develop intimate relationships Anxious/Ambivalent: concern that others won\'t reciprocate intimacy, leads to anxiety
Investment Model
Theory that people\'s commitment to a relationship depends not only on their satisfaction w/ the relationship in terms of cost/rewards/alternatives, but ALSO on how much they have invested in the relationship
Neuroscience of Love (Aron et al. 2004)
fMRI study: shown partner\'s picture vs. acqaintance; in PARTNER condition: decreased activity in Amygdala, increased activity in VTA
Love across cultures
Would you marry without love? US -- no India/Pakistan -- yes Thailand, not as much, Japan very similar to US
Altruism vs. Helping
Altruism: desire to help another person even if it\'s at a cost/involves NO benefit to the helper
Reciprocity Norm
mutual helping increases chances of survival
Vohs et al. (2006) Money & Prosocial behavior
people primed w/ $$ are less likely to request help/offered help for less time in experiment
Darley & Latane (1968) Bystander Intervention
Steps: 1. notice the event 2. interpret the event as an emergency 3. assume responsibility 4. know appropriate form of assistance 5. implement decision --size of community where you grew up predicts helping
Why DON\'T people help?
1. unclear if victim needed help 2. didn\'t know what to do 3. embarrassing if victim didn\'t need help 4. others not responding: informational social influence 5. diffusion of responsibility
Mood & Helping
After finding a coin, 84% picked up envelope & mailed it --Happiness, guilt, sadness lead to helping, NOT anger/anxiety
Batson & Cialdini on motives for helping
Cialdini: help removes guilt "negative state relief" (always some selfishness) Batson: "empathy-altruism" hypothesis - w/o empathy, help only if there is a benefit (can be altruism)
Culture & Helping (Levine et. al 2001)
Economic productivity was correlated with LESS helping
Levine et al. (1994) Helping in 36 US Cities
Predictors: small population, not densely populated, low cost of living = most helpful
De Cremer (2002) Pro-Community Action
Role of Respect: participants are given $ and can put it in a pool that gains interest & is split at the end -- manipulate group membership & mutual respect Results: mutual respect led to more pro-group behavior
Motivation for volunteerism & sustained effort (what predicts duration?)
understanding, personal development, esteem
Social Learning Theory (Bandura)
We learn how to act aggressively; children imitated Bobo doll & did novel aggressive acts; violent video/movies/tv leads to aggression
Evolutionary Theory
Evolution selects for aggression so the strongest survive
Twenge et al. (2001) Social exclusion & violence
Manipulated social exclusion; DV = how much shock they gave to another participant - social exclusion leads to aggression toward both provacateur and innocent
Anderson & Dill (2000) Videogame
showed that violent videogames increase aggression, at least temporarily
Weather & Aggression
More violence in hot cities; within same city, murder rates higher in warmer years; within same DAY, crime peaks w/ temp
Gender Differences in Aggression
girls more likely to act indirectly aggressive (e.g. gossip) than boys
Puente & Cohen (2003) Jealousy, Love, and Violence
How much did her husband love her? -- If husband beat wife & was jealous, loved her more; if beat wife & was NOT jealous, loved her less -- SAME with RAPE Cultural myth that jealousy --> love --> violence
Why some stereotypes persist
1. communicability (e.g. athletic is more communicative than dirty) 2. outgroup homogeneity 3. self-fulfilling prophecy
Stereotype vs. Prejudice vs. Discrimination
Prejudice: emotional; hostile/negative attitude toward a group of people Stereotype: cognitive; generalization about a group of people in which certain traits are assigned to virtually all members Discrimination: action; unjustified negative/harmful action toward a member of a group
Devine (1989) Automatic vs. Controlled Processes
IAT shows that people still implicitly hold stereotypes, but can control them to fit cultural norms
Mood effect of Stereotype
Angry = more likely to use stereotypes
Outgroup Homogeneity
More likely to have a stereotype if you believe the outgroup is all the same
Modern Racism
outwardly acting unprejudiced while inwardly maintaining prejudiced attitudes
Stereotype Threat
Apprehension experienced by members of a group that their behavior might confirm a cultural stereotype --e.g. black students stress about doing poorly on a test b/c it will reflect on their race
Contact Hypothesis
Contact helps IF: -equal status -for a common good -mutual interdependence -repeated interactions
Explicit & Implicit measures of prejudice
Not so related for racism
fMRI Study: perception of black/white faces
Saw face for 30ms (subliminal) or 525 ms --in subliminal condition, black face activated amygdala (Fear) -- in 525 ms condition, activated anterior angulate, dorsolateral PFC (control), ventrolateral PFC (ambivalence)
Putnam (2007) Does diversity work?
Diverse group = better problem solving --DARK SIDE: residents in diverse cities trust others much less than residents in homogeneous cities
Consequences of stereotypes/prejudice/discrimination
-psychological withdrawal -psychological distress -aggression -poor task performance
Stress & Immune System
Stress lowers your immune system --> more vulnerable to infectious diseases --increase in CD4 for cancer patients, etc. is GOOD (higher immune system)
belief in one\'s ability to carry out specific actions that produce desired results
Learned helplessness
1. classical conditioning, pairing tone w/ a shock in a hammock (dog can\'t move) 2. move dog to low-fence box, and make tone (now dog could escape easily) --dog DOESN\'T escape why? Attribution: negative event --> uncontrollable/unchangeable --> give up -def: pessimism that results from attributing a negative event to stable, internal, and global facts
Pennebaker et al. (1988) Trauma relief
Writing about trauma --> increase in T-helper cells --> stronger immune system --best when writing leads to causal understanding & finding meaning
Social Support
Perception that others are responsive & receptive to one\'s needs --collectivistic cultures struggle less from stress-related diseases b/c easier to obtain access to social support --social support group of breast cancer survivors lived 18mo longer than control group
Buffering Hypothesis
We only need social support when we are under stress
Affleck et al (1987) Besides writing, what helps health?
Heart attack victims who found meaning in the event were less likely to have another attack
Bower et al (1998) Partners of HIV positives
finding meaning --> no decline in CD4+ (good) NO finding meaning --> decline in CD4+ (bad for health)
Labot et al. (1990) Patch Adams effect
Humorous video = good for health (increase in SigA) Sad video = decrease in SigA (bad for health)
Why does optimism work?
Aspinwall & Taylor Study of UCLA students: Optimism --> adjustment to college --> no physical symptoms (increase in CD4+ and natural killer cells)

Deck Info