Midterm 1 - Lectures Flashcards
List the 4 fundamental themes of social psychology
- The power of the situation
- The power of the situation can be subtle
- The role of basic cognitive processes
- The consequences can really matter
Provide an example that demonstrates the fundamental theme of: “power of the situation”
- The way you act and feel being very different at a birthday party compared to a funeral
- How crowded you may feel either in a night club or solo camping
- Stanford prison experiment
Provide an example that demonstrates the fundamental theme of: “the power of the situation can be subtle”
Copy Room Example:
Person asked to cut in front of the person next in line to make copies at the copy machine. There was 3 conditions, all asking in slightly different ways:
- “Excuse me, I have 5 pages, can I use the machine?” → 60% said yes
- “Excuse me I have 5 pages, can I use the machine, because I’m in a rush” → 94% said yes
- “Excuse me I have 5 pages, can I use the machine, because I have to make copies” → 93% said yes
*By providing a justification (even it doesn’t make much sense) makes people more likely to agree
Provide an example that demonstrates the fundamental theme of:
“The role of basic cognitive proccesses”
Copy Room Example:
When people used the word “because” (aka. a justification) people agreed more because it is an automated response to a situation.
By adding the word because, the cognitive process in their heads associated because with a justification, creating their actions (in this case, letting them go ahead)
Provide an example that demonstrates the fundamental theme of: “the consequences can really matter”
Voting Location Example:
Study analyzed voting data from an election to determine if there should be a tax increase for public schools or not.
Found that people who physically voted in a school building were more likely to vote for an increase tax for schools.
Being in the building and thinking “oh this place is really run down”
What is the recipe for aggression?
Two ingredients:
- Provocation
- Contextual Variables
(that affect how a person interprets the provocation and responds)
Define provocation
Anything in someone’s environment that might lead them to having an aggressive response
What are a few examples of a potential provocation?
someone flips you off
witnessing something upsetting
What are contextual variables?
Specific features in one’s environment that affects how a person interprets a provocation and then responds to it.
What’s a very common contextual variable?
Physical Discomfort
(ex. having a headache, stubbing toe, being HOT, etc.)
Physical discomfort influences the way you respond to the provocation
What does the research on heat and aggression demonstrate? Provide example studies
Research shows that when people are uncomfortably hot, they are more likely to engage in more aggressive behaviour.
Examples: when people are too hot, they….
- Act aggressively in experiments
- Throw baseballs harder at opponents
- Honk car horns at other drivers more often
- are more likely to RIOT
According to research, when people are ______, they are more likely to riot
uncomfortably HOT
Draw the map of why being hot can cause aggressive behaviour
Heat –>
Physical discomfort (fatigue, headache, etc.) –>
Crankiness (aka: negative emotional state) –>
Provocation –>
Anti-social interpretation or response –>
Aggression!
Studies show that exposure to weapons can lead to increased aggression. Why is this?
When a person sees a weapon…
Cognitions associated with violence and antisocial behaviour become activated…
Which leads to antisocial interpretations and responses when provocations happen…
Hence causing aggression
What psychology term can be used to summarize why participants are more aggressive in response to provocations when a gun is next to them?
PRIMING
The idea of having something associated with violence in front of someone, will cause them to have a more “violent mindset”. If a provocation occurs, they are more aggressive in response to that because they have this more violent or antisocial mindset.
What is the example study provided in class to demonstrate how exposure to weapons can increase aggressive behaviours?
Participants sat down to deliver electric shocks to other people
Condition 1: guns on table next to them (but were told they just happened to be there)
Condition 2: badminton rackets next to them (but were also told they just happened to be there
Participants in condition 1 sent greater shocks to other people
What are cultural associations with the colour black?
The colour black is often associated with immoral behaviour in some cultures.
Because of this cognitive association, you are more likely to view someone wearing black as more aggressive when a provocation occurs
OR be more aggressive when your wearing black yourself when a provocation occurs
What research examples demonstrate the cognitive association of black being associated with immoral behaviour?
- A study randomly assigned participants to either wear a black or white uniform –> people in black uniforms chose more aggressive forms of competition in the study
- Study showed that in professional hockey and football games, teams wearing black uniforms are more highly penalized.
What is counterfactual thinking?
Cognitions in our minds that think of an alternative reality (how things could have been different)
“what if…”
Draw/explain the map of something happening that leads to an emotional response
Something happens…
Cognitions with reality (what actually happened)
OR
Cognitions regarding an alternative reality (counterfactual thinking)
… BOTH ignite an emotional response
(these emotional response is influenced by what come to mind quickly, which depends on context)
Emotional responses to counterfactual thinking depend on the context. What does this mean in simple teams?
If it’s easy to imagine an alternative reality with WORSE outcomes = HAPPY
If it’s easy to imagine an alternative reality with BETTER outcomes = SAD
What’s an example to demonstrate how emotional responses depend on context?
Olympic medalists!
Bronze medalists always seem happier than silver medalists, because…
If I win bronze, it is easy to imagine how I could have not made the podium (worse outcome), so I am happy!
If I win silver, it is easy to imagine how I could have won gold (better outcome), so I am disappointed!
Look at the table from the article on counterfactual thinking and understand the main points
(left side shows set of examples of the things people likely imagine alternatives to)
(right side provides additional set of examples to illustrate that those effects don’t always happen based on the situation)
What are the 4 types of alternatives people commonly imagine when engaging in counterfactual thinking?
- Things that people have control over (rather than “uncontrollable” things)
- Things that happened relatively recently
- Things that are unusual or exceptional
- Actions (rather than inactions)
Provide an example that demonstrates that people commonly imagine alternatives to “things people have control over”
Women is flying to Germany for vacation. There was an opportunity for the women to take a flight that left 6 hours earlier so she got on that flight. That flight crashed.
When people hear this, they think of the alternative reality of “if only she did not change her flight at the last minute” (controllable thing)
People would not say “if only the mechanics on the airplane were taken more seriously” (because it is less controllable)
Provide an example that demonstrates that people commonly imagine alternatives to “things that happened relatively recently”
The women taking the earlier flight had the decision to take the earlier plane, but she also had the decision of booking the flight to Frankfurt (instead of Oslow)
People do not tend to think of that further away decision of going to Frankfurt over Oslow
Provide an example that demonstrates that people commonly imagine alternatives to “things that are exceptional or unusual”
Person is driving home from work and gets into an accident. He left on time from work but decided to take the scenic route home.
People will think “if only he took the regular route home, that wouldn’t have happened”
Much larger focus on events that are out of the ordinary
Provide an example that demonstrates that people commonly imagine alternatives to “actions (instead of inactions)”
Student is studying late before an exam and doesn’t wake up in the morning and misses their test.
People will think “if only they didn’t stay up so late studying, they would have slept more and got up on time”
People are less likely to think “if only they studied more the week before they would go to bed on time and not cram”
________ is often associated with counterfactual thoughts
REGRET
(but there is a difference for immediate regret and long-term regret)
For immediate experiences of regret, people regret __________ more than __________.
ACTIONS > INACTIONS
Ex. “I really should not have slept with my roommates girlfriend” (regret of ACTION)
For long-term reflections on regret in one’s life, people regret __________ more than __________.
INACTIONS > ACTIONS
Ex. “If only I had written that book when I was younger, I would have accomplished my dreams”
In the domain of sexual behaviour, how does regret differ between men and women in sexual contexts?
Women = regret specific sexual ACTIONS
(“I really should not have slept with him”)
Men = regret of specific INACTIONS
(“I should have been more bold when I was talking to her”)
What kinds of consequences occur with counterfactual thinking?
Emotional responses as a result of counterfactual thinking can have lots of consequences:
- future judgements
- future decisions
- future actions
What’s an example of a consequence that can arise with counterfactual thinking?
Example of legal judgements from counterfactual thinking:
Participants brought into study a stimulated court case about a woman who got food poisoning from a restaurant. She was suing the restaurant and participants were asked how much the restaurant should be fined and how much she should be compensated.
C1: It was a restaurant she eats at regularly
C2: It was her first time at that restaurant
Condition 2 gave the resterant a larger fine an the victim more compensation because….
If it’s her first time, it’s easy to think about an alternative reality where she chose a diff restaurant (better outcome), which creates a stronger emotional response
How does counterfactual thinking relate to the idea of not going back to change your answers on a multiple choice test?
If you initially had the answer right, but changed it to be wrong, it causes stronger emotions
Because… it is very easy to imagine an alternative reality where you could have had a better outcome (did not change answer)
Explain the details of the study that found: Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth
provide method, conditions, and how it illustrates fundamental themes
Experimenter told participants that he needs to record information on the clipboard he is holding, and asks each participant to hold the cup of coffee while he does so:
- Condition 1: Iced Coffee
- Condition 2: Hot Coffee
Participants give back the coffee and each participant is given a short description of someone based on a few adjectives (around 6) and then asked to give an overall description of that person based on those words.
FINDING: People who briefly held a cup of hot coffee judged people to have a “warmer” personality
*Illustration of key themes → a very small detail of the situation (touching something hot or cold), generates cognitions in your head to influence judgments of something (in this case, someone’s personality)
Did the “Experiencing Physical Warmth Promotes Interpersonal Warmth” finding replicate?
NO
The reason why it did not replicate can be subtle.
For example, the temperature of the coffee may seem like an irrelevant detail, however, if coffee is too hot, that would change cognitions and would not allow the same effect
*illustrates key theme of subtleness of methodologies in changing result
What were the findings of the Open Science Collaboration to estimate the reproducibility of psychological science?
(for both strict and relaxed critera)
*know the percentages and what they mean
Strict Criteria:
* Approximately ⅓ of the new studies replicated the original results
* Subset of cognitive psychology studies → 50% replicated
* Subset of social psychology studies → 25% replicated
Relaxed Criteria:
* Approximately ⅔ of the new studies replicated the original results!
* Subset of cognitive psychology studies → 90%
* Subset of social psychology studies → 50%
What was the goal of the Open Science Collaboration?
To estimate the reproducibility of psychological science
They did this by identifying 100 previously done studies and tried to redo each study each one as faithfully as possible both using either strict criteria OR relaxed criteria
What can we generally infer based off of the findings from the Open Science Collaboration?
That psychological phenomena are fragile, especially social psychological phenomena…
Even seemingly irrelevant details between the details of the original study (methods) and the replication study can lead to different results.
How is it possible for both both the original results and the replication results to be right?
It’s a possibility because psychological phenomena are sensitive to context.
An interesting effect may occur in some situations, but not others (and the differences between those situations may be subtle)
What additional analyses was perfromed by the Open Science Collaboration on the 100 studies they replicated?
Researchers analyzed each study topic for context-sensitivity (to what extent is this topic something you would expect there to be a lot of context-sensitivity?)
Ex. visual attention to predators → would vary based on context, depending on cultural background, etc.
Ex. aggressive behavior → are people’s tendency to be aggressive vary depending on context, background, etc.
FINDINGS:
Studies more sensitive to context = harder to replicate
Social psychology topics = generally are more context-sensitive
Studies more sensitive to context are generally… _______ _______?
harder to replicate
This is why social psychology topics are less easily replicated because they are generally are more context-sensitive
Accoridng to the article by VOX on study replication, what reasons do they suggest for why psychology research is not always replicable?
- Experimenters doing the replication messed something up
- The original study was a false positive
- The human subjects have changed over time which makes it hard for a true replication
List the two examples of studies mentioned in class used to demonstrate how seemingly irrelevant details in methods can make big changes
- “Risky Shift” and Group Polorization
- Facial Feedback Hypothesis
These studies prove the strange idea that both of the original results and the replication results can be right, because of small details and context.
Explain the “Risky Shift” and Group Polarization Study.
Was it replicated?
People presetned with a scenario where one could either make a risky or safe choice. Participants made an individual choice and then all participants had a discussion. Participants were asked to make a group decision and then rethink their original discussion.
ORIGINAL FINDING = “Risky Shift”: people’s individual choices had the general tendency to be riskier after group discussion
Did NOT replicate: in some replications the opposite effect would be true.
* But with the replications, researchers would use new scenarios as they thought the scenario would not matter, but it definitely did. (subtle detail that has big impacts)
Because the effect went in BOTH directions (riskier or safer), we can gather from these studies that there is a tendency to agree to the general consensus of the group (group polarization)
Explain the Facial Feedback Effect Study mentioned in class.
Was it replicable?
Brought participants into the lab and gave them a booklet that had cartoons that were well known. Participants went through cartoons and rated how funny they found each one. While rating cartoons, there was two conditions of how a participant were to hold a pen in their mouth:
C1: Hold pen in lips
C2: Hold pen in teeth (mimics smiling)
FINDING: People who held the pen with their teeth rated the cartoons funnier
Was NOT replicated: did not replicate in 17 studies over 8 countries. WHY?
* all the replication studies had cameras when participants did the cartoon task when there were no cameras in the original study. (subtle detail that changes results)
What is the Facial Feedback Hypothesis?
The theory that facial expressions can activate and regulate emotions by influencing the processing of emotional stimuli
How many replications were performed with the Pen-In-Mouth Study to test the facial feedback hypothesis?
Researchers completed 17 experiments in 17 labs in 8 diff countries (hence lots of attention to methodological detail) → and not a single replication replicated the original finding (because cameras we’re being used)
Researchers replicated the pen-in-mouth study with cameras and without cameras. What did they find?
When the video camera is there, the effect does NOT replicate,
When the camera is not there, the effect DOES replicate.
What is perhaps a better name for the “replication crisis”?
“Psychology’s Renaissance”
Because this “crisis” is actually promoting better methods, deeper insights, etc.
What are the two systems we have when making judgements and decisions?
explain breifly what they do
- Fast Thinking (System 1) : thinking is unconcious, and influenced by emotions and heuristics
- Slow Thinking (System 2) : thinking is logical and effortful
What are some characteristics of System 1?
What are some characteristics of system 2?
Think of the copy machine example. How does system 1 and system 2 thinking apply to the scenario of the copy request
compare the difference between the 5 copy and 20 copy request!
5 copy request: the stakes are low so people hear a justification (“because”) and they comply quickly using fast thinking
20 copy request: stakes are higher so people hear a justification (“because”) and actually listen and think about what they’re saying using slow thinking
Illustrates the two different thinking systems:
* When the request is small, people are not thinking very deeply, they are just responding to a heuristic (because = mental shortcut to comply)
* When request is large, people pay more attention to the request (“because I need to make copies” = not a justification)
*chart is useful to visualize the pattern occuring
What is the anchoring heuristic?
A reference point where something is to be judged from.
Makes our judgements closer to that reference point than it would have been originally
We do not fully account other information because we are not going to stray far from the reference point we have.
“anchor weighs heavily on my mind, and makes it harder for us to leave it aside and completely ignore it.”
think speed of car example, campbell soup example, & judge dice example
What is the general pattern from the Campbell’s Soup Sale Study?
What is the general takeaway of this pattern?
Researchers arranged a sale on soup where they’re we’re two different conditions:
* C1: “No limit per person” = Average person bought 3.3 cans of soup
C2: “Limit of 12 per person” = Average person bought 7.0 cans of soup
PATTERN: Putting a limit acts as a cognitive anchor, whereas if there is no number specified, people are not buying as much.
Shows a kinda counterintuitive effect that anchoring has on consumer behavior!
What is the general pattern of the Judicial Dice Rolling Study?
What is the general take away from this pattern?
Researchers presented judges with a case of a shoplifter.
Judges were asked to determine what their sentence would be by asking them to roll a dice. Based on whatever number shows up on those dice, they have to say how many more or less months the sentence should be.
*These dice were weighted (but judged believed it was random rolls):
C1: roll of three = average sentence: 5.3 months
C2: roll of nine = average sentence: 7.8 months
Even when the roll is understood to be “random”, it still operates as an anchor for these judges’ decisions!**
What is the representativeness heuristic?
If something represents a stereotype of a category, we tend to engage in the fast thinking process of making a judgement on a member of that category (leads us to the more appealing category)
think linda example, coin flip example, base-rate fallacy
People are more likely to say that series B is more likely. Why? What heuristic does this represent?
Representativeness Heauristic!
We chose Series B because it looks random, whereas series B looks “clumpy” and not random. B looks like what is in our category of random outcomes.
We engage in fast thinking with the repesentativeness heauristic because series B represents the sterotype of random in our heads, so we make a judgement than series B is in that random category more.
Even though our logical brain knows both of the coin flips are equally likely
Which hueristic is the base rate fallacy connected to?
Representativeness Heuristic!
base rate fallacy = ignore the underlying probabilitiy of something in favor of specific information
With the description of Jack people will ignore the probabilities at the bottom (30/100 and 70/100). People’s probabilities for him being an engineer does not differ much between scenarios, because the description of Jack is REPRESENATIVE of what an engineer would be like (engage in fast thinking)
Are people more likely to answer with A or B? Why?
A) a bank teller
B) a bank teller and is active in the feminist movement
What heuristic does this represent?
Representativeness Heuristic
People are more likely to answer B, even though logically, A is the correct answer.
People feel compelled to choose the second option because that her being involved in social justice issues seems to jive stereotypically with the description in B)
Tendency to stereotype people, leading us to judge people as a member of a stereotype group without thinking carefully about other info that would help us make a logical decision.
*common example in psych - likely would be a midterm question like this
When people choose Option B and are engaging in the representativeness heuristic, what fallacy can explain this?
The conjunction fallacy
= thinking that a conjoint set of two or more specific conclusions is likelier than any single member of that same set.
What is the Availability Heuristic?
The tendency to use information that comes to mind quickly and easily when making decisions or judgements.
Which are people more likely to answer with? Why?
What heuristic does this represent?
Example of availability heuristic!
People choose words than begin with the letter R, because we are influenced by the way words are organized in dictionaries and it’s much easier to think of instances of that, rather than third letter.
*this is the availability hueristic because although the second option is actually correct, people go off of what comes to their mind the quickest.
Our minds’ reliance on the ———— heuristic can
lead us to form erroneous negative stereotypes
about members of minority groups.
AVAILABILITY HEURISTIC
*think about the minorities driving example.
Explain what the implications are of steroetype formation that occurs with the ———— heuristic
availability heuristic
Explain why our memory is stronger for minorities who have been bad drivers rather than non-minority drivers?
Minory drivers who drove badly act as a “double infrequency”, which makes it more memorable later on as a consequence
The implication of this is that people are using what is more memorable to make it a more common thing than it actually is → aka creating a stereotype!!
Resistance to change can be connected to what type of effect?
Spillover effects!
A person’s behavioural mindset in one domain activate cognitions in the brain that allow that mindset to flow into other domains
What is the proccess like of how a spillover effect happens?
Something happens that has a behavioural goal
→ that goal activates cognitions that facilitate behavior to help us achieve that goal
→ because everything is connected, additional cognitions are activated (creating a behavioural mindset)
→ similar kinds of behavior more generally in other situations (even that are irrelevant to that initial goal)
Examples:
- Buying more things (not only food) when hungry
What are bolstering and counter-argument mindsets?
bolstering mindset = is activated when you agree with something. It can spillover into other situations where you will be more pursuasive as a result
counter-argument mindset = is activated when you diagree with something. It can spillover into other situatns where you will be less persuadable as a result.
Based off of spillover effect research, the phrase “don’t go grocery shopping when you’re hungry!” should be changed to say what?
Don’t go shopping AT ALL when you’re hungry!
Because an aquisition mindset is activated because we are hungry, which leads to acquisitive behavior more generally (even in situations that are irrelevant to hunger or food)
Ultimately, what is the reason why people are so suseptible to fake news?
Simply that….
If information is consistent with prior beliefs = I believe it
If information is inconsistent to prior beliefs = I don’t believe it
For information or beliefs that are clearly debunked, why then, do people still hold onto their beliefs?
example: Loch Ness Monster
ATTENTION:
- If people beleive the monster is not real, they pay attention to the info that it does not exist.
- But, if they do think the monster is real, they ignore that information!
APPRASIAL:
- If people beleive the monster is not real, they accept the evidence that does not exist uncritically.
- But, if they do think the monster is real, they fight back uncritically
… ultimately the belief persists!
What is the congitive sequence that explains why first impressions are so important?
First impression causes two things:
- Biases in information acquisition: Once we have a first impression of someone, we will ignore information that is inconsistent with that first impression.
- Biases in Information Interpretation: People later interpret that information in a positive or more negative light
(*really intersting part! If you find out this person is a people pleaser, you could either think of this as a good thing or bad thing depending on what your impression of them was)
In this study explained in class, what were the findings?
*think about biases and expectancy effects
C1 = presented with a set of 6 words
C2 = presented with the same set of 6 words but in reverse order!
Participants were asked to give an overall impression of the person (how positive and negative)
People in C1 had a more positive impression than C2
The first few words give us our impression and we ignore the rest because we are lazy basically. Whatever words come after that we try and justify them into our initial impression.
Explain the methods and results of the study on expectancy effects with a man and women speaking on the phone.
Why did this happen?
Experimental manipulation: mans (erroneous) belief about woman’s physical appearance based on photo they beleived was the women they were going to speak to on the phone.
C1: photo of a woman that was attractive
C2: photo of women that was unattractive
Finding: mans belief about woman’s physical appearance → impacts how warm and friendly the women acted toward the man
WHY: the man was more friendly to the women they found attractive, which in turn caused the women to be nicer and friendlier.
What is the research on self-fulfilling prophecies in the classroom?
Teachers expectations about student’s performance → Students performance
The four items connect to the 4 factor theory in the middle box
What is self-evalutation maintence theory?
What is an example of this?
Another person’s outcomes may influence feelings about oneself, especially if there is some perceived connection between themselves and an other!
The nature of these feelings depends on:
1. Whether those person’s outcomes are positive or negative (success/failure)
2. How relavent the domain of the outcome is to one’s own self-concept
According to self-evaluation theory, you either “————–”, or “————–” depending on how relavent the domain of outcome is to self.
“basking in reflected glory” (happy)
OR
“Social comparision envy”
(sad)
What example was used in class to exemplify sociometer theory?
explain methods and findings
- Participants told to work on a task by themselves until the next phase where some participants were going to work on a group task
- Experimenter told participants that they were going to be include in task or would not be included. If not included, either told…
C1: exlcuded because other participants did not want to work with them
C2: excluded because of a random decision
FINDINGS:
Participants in C1 felt bad about themselves, self-esteem went down
Particiapnts in C2 felt the same because it was a random decision
*conisistent with sociometer theory (primitave system that alerts us when we feel exlcuded)
Explain WHY people feel physical pain when socially exlcluded?
*think back to the maps on the slides, redraw them!
What are some things that enhance feeling of belonging/social embededness?
think about social embededness article!
Main point of article is that real, dyatic relationships are not the only source of belonging, other sources are:
- taking part in collective experiences (going to class)
- talking to strangers
- spending time with “social surrogates”
(ex. following celeberties, characters in books, tv show characers)
Explain the findings/methods of the hair braiding study to test “precarious manhood”
Brought men into the lab and had them braid something:
* C1: task was to braid rope
* C2: task was to braid hair with the wig
Afterwards, moved into the other task of how hard they punched something:
FINDING:
Men who braided hair, punched the bag way harder than the guys who braided rope!
After the finding that men punch harder after braiding hair, what additional study was performed?
Before the braiding, they got a measure of how anxious they were feeling (baseline on graph).
After braiding hair…
* C1: Braid hair and then had them do another task that did not involve punching
* C2: Braid hair and then had them punch something
After this, took another measure of having anxious thoughts.
FINDING:
The guys who braided hair but did not have an opportunity to punch, they had an increased level of anxiety, but if had an opportunity to punch, their anxiety was the same as before.
WHY?
Braiding hair → threat to “manly” self-concept → Psychological discomfort → More powerful punching (to reduce that discomfort and make them feel “manly” again)
The “precarious manhood” study, in general, demonstrates what idea?
Exemplifies the concept of self-concept stability:
Things happen → Threat to self-concept → Psychological discomfort → Actions that re-assert self-concept
Draw the connections of the motivation we have to maintain our self-concepts
What study tested self-concept malleability using multicultural contexts?
Participants: Bilingual students in Hong Kong
- Measure: Questionnaire assessing individualistic vs. collectivistic values
- Manipulation: Questionnaire in either Chinese or English.
- Results: Participants expressed more collectivistic values when the questionnaire was in Chinese (compared to English).
What was the study on incidental perceptual context (things that happen to be around us) and self-concept?
*The other study with bilingual students in Hong Kong
Participants: Bilingual students in Hong Kong; Chinese-Americans in US
- Manipulation: Perception of Chinese or American cultural iconography.
FINDING: The image (aspect of the context) had implications on the self-concept that seemed to be cognitively activated and then actions/decisions aligned with that self-concept.
What effect does this graph/study demonstrate?
The Dunning-Kruger effect!
The people who did really bad perceived that they did well
What is an example of the Dunning-Kruger effect in a real life scenario?
Medical resident’s actual and self-perceived skills by responding to “how good of a doctor do you think you are?”
People who were bad doctors vastly overestimated how good they are at being good doctors (comes with the consequence of bad doctors not improving their skills)
