Chap 1-3 Flashcards
Theory
Integrated set of related principles that explains & generates predictions about phenomenon in the world
Hypothesis
Testable prediction about what will happen under specific circumstances if theory is correct
Data
Set of observations gathered to evaluate hypothesis
Hindsight bias
Tendency to overestimate ability to foresee outcome after learning outcome
Confirmation bias
Tendency to seek out, pay attention to, & believe only evidence that supports what we are already confident is true
Disposition
Person’s inherent qualities, values, & character
Normative influence
Desire to fit in
Fundamental Attribution Error
Tendency to underestimate the influence of situation on behaviour, &
overestimate influence of personal dispositions
Construal
The way we construct our social reality (reality -> construal process -> biased perceptions & beliefs)
Social Psychology
Scientific attempt to understand & explain how feelings, thoughts, behaviours of individuals are influenced by actual or perceived feelings, thoughts, behaviours of others
Variable
Anything that can take on different values (depends on person, situation)
Measured variable (all)
Values are simply recorded (every study)
Manipulated variable (some)
Researcher controls values of variable (diff participants get diff levels of variable)
Operational definition (or operationalizing a variable)
Specific way of measuring or manipulating abstract variable in particular study
(Turning it into a number, recorded & analyzed)
Self-Report
Ppl describe themselves; their
behaviour in interview or survey (rating scale)
Social desirability bias
Tendency to answer questions in way to be viewed favourably by others
-Impression management
-Self-deceptive enhancement
Impression management
Faking being good, what is viewed favourably by others
Self-deceptive enhancement
Unrealistic self-views, but honestly held
Event-contingent recording
Participants report experience right after it happens
Direct observation
Researchers observe & record the occurrence of behaviour
Population of interest
Full set of cases the researcher is interested in understanding
Sample
Group who participated in research, & belong to larger group (pop. of interest)
Random sample
Sample in which every person in pop. interest has equal chance of being included
Correlational Research
Study that measures two or more variables in same sample of ppl, & observes relationship between them
Scatterplot
Figure used to represent a correlation
Direction (up-down)
Strength (dots clustered, spread out)
What needed to establish causality
1) 2 variables correlate
2) 1 variable précède other
3) No reasonable alternative explanation for pattern of correlation
Experimental research (causality)
Study: 1 variable is manipulated, other measured (all other variables = constant)
Independent variable
Manipulated variable in experiment
Dependent variable
Measured variable in experiment
Random assignment
Participants as likely to be assigned one condition as to another
Control group
Condition comparable to experimental condition in every way, except lacks one “ingredient” hypothesized to produce expected effect on dependent variable
Moderator
Factor that causes the effect to happen to some participants but not others, or in some situations but not others (“it depends” on what?)
(Eg: In Pro- or anti-Ecology sentiment, manipulation only works on ppl who don’t have strong feeling towards their ecology sentiment
-> factor: Prior attitude)
Measurement Validity (construct validity)
Measuring what you think you’re measuring
(Reliability)
Reliability
Same results every time administer measure
-test-retest reliability
-inter-rater reliability
Internal Validity
Rule out alternative explanations for relationship between 2 variables in experiment (confounds)
Differential Attrition
Loss of study units from a sample
(When some participants more likely to drop out of study than others cuz factor, eg: level of motivation)
Need random assignment
External Validity
1) Results generalized to other samples (sometimes tolerated)
2) generalized to other situations?
Null hypothesis
Hypothesis of no effect (Statistically significant finding: provides sufficient evidence against null hypothesis)
P-values
Probability of getting result as extreme as one we observed if no difference between 2 groups (no relationship - 2 variables)
0-1
< 0.5 (reject null) - statistically significant
> 0.5 (not reject null)
Replication Study
Repeats previous study with identical or similar methods but diff participants ( can original finding be repeated? )
-Direct replication
-Conceptual replication
Direct replication
Attempt to recreate original experiment exactly
Conceptual replication
Recapture original finding using diff methods or measures
Open Science Movement
Movement to make scientific research accessible to all levels of society, amateur or professional
transparent and accessible to all
Allow those who want to criticize or replicate findings to do accurate replication
Failed Replication?
1) Original result = fluke
2) Original research = faulty
3) Replication result = fluke
4) Replication research = faulty, Or did not capture dynamics of original study
Institutional Review Board (IRB) or Research Ethics Board (REB)
Local committee that reviews research proposals & ensures research complies with provincial, national, and international guidelines for ethics in research
Informed consent
Individual’s signed agreement to participate in research study
(Only after all relevant aspects of study have been explained)
If explanation behind research defeats purpose of study: Deception in research
Debriefing
End of study, Participant is informed about:
1) aims & hypotheses of study
2) potential social value
3) nature & purpose of deception (if any)
4) opportunity to withdraw data
5) restore sense of well-being
Ethical Guidelines
1) Costs vs Benefits
2) Informed consent
3) Deception justified
4) Adequate debriefing
5) Confidentiality
5 big ideas in social psych
1) Situations are powerful
2) We often underestimate power of situations
3) Perceptions of people & situations are not accurate to reality
4) Ppl have a need to belong (social)
5) Best way to understand social behaviour is by using Scientific Method
Mediator
The mechanism behind an effect, why manipulation has an effect
(Eg: In teacher-student study, it’s teacher behaviour)
Moderator vs mediator
Mediator: expriment works, because of factor
Moderator: experiment works sometimes, but sometimes not -> depends on factor
Self-Concept
What we know & believe about ourselves
Thesis: Self is social construction developed & maintained via inferences drawn from social experiences
Data Collection Method
1) Self-Report
2) Observation
Setting of Study
1) Field
2) Laboratory
Research Design
1) Descriptive
2) Correlational
3) Experiments
Self-Report Limitations
1) Social desirability bias
-Impression management (mitigated by anonymous participation)
-Self-deceptive enhancement
2) Difficult to identify & verbalize experience
3) Not always aware of why we do things
4) Memories may be inaccurate or coloured (biased) - retrospective report (mitigated by Event-contingent recording)
Self-Report Advantages
1) Easy
2) Relatively inexpensive
3) Collect Data from more participants =stronger study
Observation Advantages
1) More objective than self-report (if done well)
2) Good approximation of real-world behaviour
Observation Limitations
1) More expensive, Time-consuming, & Difficult
2) Not as many participants (can’t recruit)
3) Requires extensive training: cuz need to be as consistent & objective as possible
WEIRD
Random Sampling hard even within 1 country, so… Most research findings involve:
White
Educated
Industrialized
Rich
Democratic
…samples
Descriptive Research
First step in scientific research,
Scoping out problem or phenomenon to generate hypothesis (Eg: characterizing prevalence & patterns of social media use)
r coefficient (correlation coefficient)
Statistic representing
Direction & Strength of relationship
-1.0 to +1.0
-/+: Direction
Strength:
Closer to 0: Weaker
Closer to -1 or 1: Stronger
Avoiding threats to internal validity
1) Experimental conditions only vary on variable of interest (all other variables constant)
2) Random assignment (differential attrition still possible threat)
3) Standardize study scripts/instructions, Not reveal hypotheses, Double-blind (limits experimenter bias, demand characteristics)
Size of P-value (affected by…)
1) larger size of observed effect (more statistically significant)
2) higher number of participants (more statistically significant)
-Very large sample, even small effect might be significant
Statistically significant not mean practically significant
Debriefing as source of info
1) Probe for suspicion
2) Indicate need for adjustment (piloting stage)
3) Sense of participants experience, inform interpretation of results, inform future research
Deception in Research (reasons)
1) Required to create conditions necessary to test hypothesis
2) participants knowledge of true purpose of study may affect their response
Self vs. Other-ratings
Diff aspects of personality depending on:
1) Availability of info
2) Motivational biases
Schemas
1) Internal cognitive structures that contain generalized knowledge of world
2) Frameworks: guide perceptions & interpretations of incoming info, help organize knowledge
Self-Schema
1) Cognitive generalization about self derived from past experience
2) Framework (template): processing incoming info
Self-perception theory
When uncertain about our attitudes & feelings towards smtg, we infer them from observing own behaviours
(Eg: ecology study with “frequently” & “occasionally” - weak eco attitudes fell for trick, but not strong eco attitudes - mediator)
Accuracy of Self-Knowledge
1) Think we know ourselves better than other do
2) Motivated to see ourselves positively
3) Not aware of many behind-the-scenes mental processes
Looking glass self
Learn about ourselves through ppls reactions to us
Sources of self-knowledge
1) Introspection
2) Inferences from observations of own behaviour (self-perception theory)
3) Feedback & Reactions from others (Looking glass self, Reflected self-appraisals)
4) Social comparisons (social comparison theory - 3 Hyp)
Reflected self-appraisal
Belief about what others think of one’s self (not necessarily how they truly see us)
Social Comparison Theory
Hyp 1: we r driven to evaluate our opinions & abilities
Hyp 2: when objective standards not available, then engage in social comparisons
Hyp 3: engage in comparisons with people not too dissimilar
Downward comparison
Comparing ourselves with ppl worse off
Upward comparison
Comparing ourselves with ppl better off
Self-esteem
Positive & negative evaluation a person has of themselves
Trait level: enduring level of self-regard, fairly stable
State level: dynamic, changing feelings about self (vary moment to moment)
Contingencies of self-worth model
Ppl want to maintain, protect, & enhance self-esteem by attempting success & avoiding failure in domains where they stake self-worth
-Increase self-esteem if domain believed to be valued by others
-better to stake self-worth in wide range of domains
Sociometer Theory
Theory: Ppl use self-esteem as “gauge” to assess degree to which they accepted by others
Naïve Realism & Corollary
Naïve realism: Belief we see world as it is
Corollary: belief others see world as we do
Self-fulfilling prophecies
Expectations of success can lead to behaviours that ensures success
But no guarantee
Narcissism
Unrealistic & self-aggrandizing views of self
(Defensiveness, agression when positive self-view threatened)
Low-self esteem
1) poorer well being (depression, anxiety, loneliness)
2) relationship problems
High self-esteem
1) higher initiative, resilience, positive affect
2) self-fulfilling prophecy
Self-enhancement motivation (motivation to self-evaluate)
Motivation to view oneself positively
Eg: Better-than-average effect
Better-than-average effect
Finding: most ppl think they r above average on various personality trait & ability dimensions (abstract vs specific dimensions)
(not possible: we can’t all be better than average, cuz average would just be higher)
Reason: self-serving construals
Self-serving construals
When evaluating oneself on abstract traits, ppl think they above average (construe ambiguous traits in many ways)
“What others r like on average vs what I’m like at my best”
Better-average effect disappears when domain specific
Self-Affirmation Theory
Theory: Ppl maintain positive overall sense of self-worth in face of threats to self-concept by affirming valued aspects of oneself unrelated to threat
Self-concept clarity
Extent to which one possess clearly defined, internally consistent, & temporarily stable sense of self
Self-verification theory
1) Ppl want to maintain coherent self-view, cuz need prediction & control
2) ppl will seek feedback that reinforces own self-view (even when negative)
Self-verification strategies
1) Developing self-confirmatory social environments (close with ppl who share same views on them as self-view)
-Identity cues: Signal how we expect to be treated (clothing, conduct, material possessions)
2) Engaging cognitive strategies -> produce illusion of self-confirmatory social environ.
-selective attention to feedback confirming self-view
-better recall for self-confirmatory feedback (instead of self-discrepant)
Self-Enhancement vs Self-Verification
Affective response: self-enhancement theory
Cognitive response: self-verification theory
Several factors influence which will win over other
Self-Regulation
Processes by which ppl initiate, then control behaviour in pursuit of goal
(Ability to prioritize long-term goals over immediate rewards)
Self-Discrepancy Theory
1) Actual self: belief about what you are actually like
2) Ideal self: belief about what you want to be
3) Ought self: belief about what you should be (ought to be)
Hot processes
Driven by strong emotions
Energize us to pursue rewards
Cool processes
Driven by reasoning
Keep us on track to pursue long-term goals, help resist temptation
Implementation-intention (automatic self-control strategies)
If-then plan:
When particular cue encountered (if), then engage in goal-directed behaviour (then)
Self- presentation
Presenting person we want others to believe we are (social interaction like dramatic performance)
Eg: Face
Face
Public image we want to project
Self- monitoring
Tendency to monitor behaviour to fit current situation (high or low self-monitoring)
Self- handicapping
Protecting self- image by engaging in self- defeating behaviours to have excuse for later failure
