Midterm Flashcards
1
Q
What is social psychology
A
The study of individuals (thoughts, feelings, actions) in environments. Often empirical and experimental approach.
2
Q
Aristotle on social psych
A
To what extent is beauty “in the eye of the beholder”
3
Q
1900 - Triplett experiment
A
Noticed that cyclists were faster in the presence of others. Designed experiment to test this. Showed that context shapes our behaviours without our knowledge (even when trying our hardest).
4
Q
Allport 1924 on social psych
A
In particular stressed interactions between individuals and social context and focus on experiments.
5
Q
1930s-40s: Hitler
A
Social psych is very North American, because people fled here during WWII, and then started studying why these things happen - humans trying to determine how humans could do such things to other humans.
6
Q
The goal of any science
A
To slowly accumulate evidence in support of (or refuting) theories about the world. Impossible to “prove” a theory, the evidence in support of it just becomes overwhelming. The “evidence” is studies that people do testing various parts or predictions of theories.
7
Q
Replication
A
For evidence to be considered evidence, it is important that independent labs can run the same experiment, and get similar results, over and over again.
8
Q
Initial Spark experiment
A
100 participants were showed erotic and non-erotic photos. They guess behind which door was the erotic stimulus. Actual location of stimulus wasn’t there until AFTER participants made their guess. Work was generally considered well done. but no one believed that psi was a thing. So he followed all the rules, and published what many considered to be rubbish. Must mean that the rules allow rubbish… what else is rubbish?
9
Q
Ingredients that contribute to less replicable science
A
- Institutional Pressures: “Publish or perish”
- Flashy and significant effects needed to be published: Publication bias
- Lots of ways to analyze data: Garden of Forking paths, p-hacking, intentional and unintentional.
10
Q
Solutions for replication crisis
A
Establishing best (statistical and methodological) practices to avoid p-hacking. Revisiting established effects and support for replicating what we though of as real things. Registered reports. Pre-registration of hypotheses. Open data, open code, methods.
11
Q
Examples of effects proven to be wrong
A
Power posing: Posing with expansive posture will activate testosterone and lead to more confident behaviour.
Ego-depletion: self-control or willpower draws upon a limited pool of mental resources that can be used up.
12
Q
Stereotype Threat
A
The concern about confirming a stereotype leads to confirmation of that stereotype.
13
Q
Replication crisis on science in general
A
The replication crisis generally illustrates that science is working as it is supposed to. Weaker effects, not real effects, don’t replicate, and get dropped from the literature over time.
14
Q
Experimenter Bias
A
The experimenter having an effect on the study.
15
Q
Ultimate goal of science
A
To understand why things happen. If we have a good understanding, we can predict the future. We want to know to what extend X causes Y.
16
Q
Experiments
A
Key is manipulation. Two conditions are exactly the same, except for one thing. If outcome is different across conditions, we can have some certainty that manipulation caused that difference.
17
Q
Observation vs experiment
A
There are tons of stuff we can’t manipulate: age, race, tidal waves/earthquakes. So use observation then.
18
Q
Random sampling
A
Want to generalize our results to all humans. To do this we have to randomly sample from all humans. It maximizes odds that the we don’t have a “cohert” effect and that our results generalize.
19
Q
Weird problem of random sampling
A
Most research comes from western, educated, industrialized, rich, democratic places. Most data comes from psych undergrads and rats. This is because of convenience samples.
20
Q
Random assignment
A
We want the only thing different between different conditions to be the experimental manipulation. Humans vary in a lot of ways. So we randomly assign people to a condition, and trust that the random participant characteristics even out/is non-systematic enough that it doesn’t influence results.
21
Q
Control group.
A
Important for determining direction of effect, and if the effect is actually different from the baseline.
22
Q
Single-blind
A
Participants don’t know what condition they are in. Eg. real drug vs. placebo
23
Q
Double-blind
A
Participants and researchers don’t know what condition participants are in.
24
Q
Questions to ask when evaluating claims
A
- Based on any data?
- Questionable motives of people doing the research?
- How many participants?
- Who were participants?
25
Self-Concept
First, knowing there is a self. Knowing this is pretty human. Fairly unique to have this idea of "self". We tend to focus on things that separate us from others.
26
Self Schema
Templates or ideas for understanding the self.
27
Ways we can know ourselves (theoretically)
Introspection, perceptions of our own behaviours, comparing ourselves to other people, autobiographical memories.
28
Introspection
How well do we know ourselves? Tests of this: explaining why we did things, or predicting our future emotions in response to events (affective forecasting). But, we are pretty bad at both of these things.
29
Reasons we are bad at introspection
Impact bias: We overestimate strength and duration of responses.
We also underestimate influence of other stuff.
30
Perceptions of our own behavior
We know internal states are difficult to interpret. "Watching" our behaviours, and inferring internal states/traits. Only works for traits/states you aren't sure about.
31
Self-Perception Theory
Individuals come to "know" their own attitudes, emotions, and other internal states partially by inferring them from observations of their own overt behaviour and/or the circumstances in which this behaviour occurs.
32
Over justification effect
When receiving extrinsic rewards, can attribute rationale for activity to reward. Critically, this can make people lose interest in activity when reward is removed.
33
Comparing ourselves to other people
Tend to describe ourselves in ways that distinguish form one another. Other people help us to define ourselves.
34
Distinctiveness Theory
To avoid informational overload, we tend to selectively notice aspects of the self that make us distinctive in relation to others. This has more informational value.
35
Leon Festinger's Social Comparison Theory
Evaluating our abilities, traits and attitudes in relation to others as a way to learn more about the self. We compare especially when we don't have explicit feedback on how we are doing.
36
Upward social comparison
Comparing oneself with someone judged to be better than us. We engage in this when our goal is to improve ourselves.
37
Downward social comparison
Comparing oneself with someone judged to be not as good as us. We engage in this when our goal is to make ourselves feel better.
38
Lateral social comparison
Comparing oneself with another who is considered to be more or less equal (similar to us). We engage in this when our goal is to be accurate.
39
Autobiographical memory
Just as we can "observe ourselves" to determine self-concept, we can draw from memory/older experiences. But we don't remember all events equally or objectively. Recency effect, first/surprising events, positive events.
40
Trait and state elements to self esteem
For most, it is pretty stable over lifetime - peaks at 50, then declines. But short-term variation following pos/neg feedback. Some evidence that people fluctuate a lot in response to feedback, making them highly responsive to praise and overly sensitive to criticism.
41
Higher SE associated with
Higher life satisfaction, lower depression and anxiety, higher self-efficacy, more confidence in being liked by others.
42
Group differences in self-esteem?
No gender differences. In North America, some minority groups score higher on average. North Americans score higher than East Asians. But, when measured in other ways (not self-reported) we find similar results. All humans seem to care about it more or less.
43
Actual self
A representation of the traits/attributes that you believe you actually possess
44
Ought self
Traits you feel you should have, would help you meet duties and responsibilities.
45
Ideal self
Traits you want to have, that would help you meet your hopes, wishes, and dreams.
46
Self-Discrepancy Theory
More discrepancy between Actual and both others = Low self-esteem. Specifically: actual vs ought = guilt, shame. Actual vs ideal = disappointed, frustrated, sad.
47
Two options when feeling bad about ourselves.
1. Fix what we are feeling bad about. 2. Stop thinking about it.
48
Above average effect
People see themselves as better than average on most positive dimensions (and things they personally value).
49
Dunning-Kruger effect
Everyone tends to overestimate their own abilities. But some do it more than others. Participants with lowest scores on logic, humour, and grammar were the ones most likely to overestimate their own abilities.
50
Favourable Self-Views
Over-emphasize own skills in estimating percentiles. We use a heuristic - replace a tough question with an easier question to answer. In part a self-serving bias, in part self-focused thinking.
51
Self-Serving Cognitions
Take credit for success and distance from failure. Intrinsic explanations for successes and extrinsic explanations for failures. Protects our self esteem as we can blame other things for failure. Our ways of thinking have a number of biases that allow us to maintain a positive view of self and our future.
52
Self-Handicapping
Often make excuses for past performance. Sometimes make excuses for future performance. Behaviours that sabotage performance provide an excuse for failure. Protects SE with failure and enhances SE with success. But increases risk of failure.
53
Basking in reflected glory (BIRG)
We identify with groups/teams/friends/siblings when they experience success, and distance with failure. Its sibling: Cutting Off Reflected Failure (CORF)
54
Downward Social Comparisons
Comparing self to others important. But we aren't objective in who we compare ourselves to. Often do it downward. Can't always avoid going downward.
55
Dimensions of person perception
Trustworthy, dominant, attractive
56
Overgeneralization hypothesis
We infer personality characteristics based on similarity of one's appearance with learned associations. Emption overgeneralization.Eg. babyfacedness, resting bitch face.
57
Exception of appearances being not accurate
Extraversion: but presumably because its related to attractiveness and practice at being social.
58
Emotional expressions
Basic emotions are pretty universal. People from all over the world are able to accurately categorize faces as to what emotion the target is feeling. People slightly better at their own group. Less success at more complex emotion "blends".
59
Face in the crowd effect purpose
Since self-directed anger (with eye-gaze) indicates threat, important to detect (and avoid/respond) quickly.
60
Inferences from appearance
Faces capture our attention. Probably because the info in the face has consequences on our outcomes. We make inferences into others dispositions from their appearance and behaviours, while taking the context into account.
61
When are we accurate perceivers?
Even though we all think we are accurate when forming impressions, humans are pretty good at estimating some traits but bad at others. Accurate on Extraversion and Openness, not others. Tend to also be good at Narcissism of target. Shaky accuracy on things like gay/straight. Bad accuracy on trustworthiness/friendliness/intelligence.
62
Big 5 personality factors
Extraversion, Conscientiousness, Openness to New experience, Agreeableness, and Emotional stability.
63
Attribution theory
We observe and analyze others to explain behaviour. Can make two inferences: personal (intrinsic, extrinsic).
64
Fundamental Attribution Error
AKA correspondence bias. The tendency to overlook the impact of a situation and attribute someone's actions to their disposition. People say "it depends on the situation" more for themselves than for others.
65
Why does the FAE occur?
Underestimate the power of situational factors. Form impression (automatic), correct/update impression for context (takes effort). But, don't always have enough resources to consider situational factors.
66
Attributions and Reactions cycle
Behaviour --> dispositional attribution --> unfavourable reaction OR Behaviour --> situational attribution --> sympathetic reaction.
67
Cultural variation in FAE
In general, East Asians demonstrate the FAE to a lesser extent than Westerners. Seems they consider the context more.
68
Perceiver Factors: Motivation
A perceiver's goals/beliefs influence how others are perceived. Can improve accuracy/social sensitivity.
69
Perceiver Factors: Beliefs
FAE to the person, not the situations these people are in. People vary in "belief in a just world".
70
Perceiver factors: emotions
Current mood can also shift our attributes. People in happy moods tend to be more optimistic, lenient, and less critical in evaluations.
71
Negativity Bias
Negative information will be remembered and disproportionately inform our impressions. We perceive negative info about a target as more diagnostic of their character than positive info.
72
Primacy Effect
Learning about some traits first influence how all subsequent traits are perceived. First impressions matter, subsequent info less attended to, takes more to update impression.
73
Confirmation Biases
Once first impression formed, people have a tendency to look for information to confirm that impression, rather than to disconfirm. Results in attending to confirming info, and disregarding disconfirming info.
74
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy
Do teacher expectations influence performance in classroom? Teachers told some students were "bloomers", on verge of intellectual potential. But they were randomly selected. 8 months later, they were performing better in classroom. High expectations lead to more challenging homework, attention, praise, feedback, which positively impact students.
75
Stereotype definition
Associations with groups of people. No valence is involved: Can be positive or negative or neutral.
76
Prejudice definition
Judgments (negative) of groups of people. Valence is involved: Group X is bad.
77
Discrimination
Behaviours or differential treatment of groups of people.
78
Old software vs new of racism
Hanging out with small groups of similar others was safe and a successful evolutionary strategy. Avoidance of potentially dangerous outsiders still used in modern times, but signals of "otherness" have changed. Still use visual signals, like skin colour and variation in appearance.
79
Race as a social construct
No biological basis for what we think of as race. Meaning, no cluster of genes/DNA common to all people of one race. We can't look at DNA and know race - the lines are blurry.
80
Robber's Cave experiment (Sherif, 1961)
Summer camp for 22 11-12 year old boys from similar backgrounds who had never met. Observed and monitored by large team of scientists as camp personnel.
81
3 phases to Robber's Cave experiment
1. Ingroup formation: not aware of the other group, given team names.
2. Friction: Made aware of other group. Engage in competitive tasks. Hostility breaks out.
3. Integration: Hard to reduce hostility, superordinate goals ultimately worked. Groups became very friendly in the end.
82
Realistic Conflict Theory
Direct competition between groups for resources breeds hostility.
83
Relative Deprivation Theory
Actual/Absolute resources don't matter. Perceived resource disparities lead to conflict.
84
Minimal Group Paradigm
People were randomly assigned to groups but presumably based on something real. But even in these random groups, people will still show ingroup favouritism. Shows its not really race, religion, ideologies, etc... just group membership alone. Humans are very tribal/group-y and conflict occurs across these lines.
85
Explicit prejudice
Conscious and deliberate. They know that they are prejudiced. Measured via self-report.
86
Implicit bias
Automatic, difficult-to-control associations between groups and positivity/negativity. Everyone tends to have it to some degree. People are not always consciously aware they have these attitudes. Based on reaction times, or means other than self-report.
87
The job of the mind
To identify and manage the threats and opportunities in the physical and social environment. Stereotypes exist to help the mind accomplish this.
88
Social categorization and the costs
Lots of nuance and stuff to pay attention to in the world. Easier to slice people up into groups to which broad information generally applies. But this process leads us to overestimate differences between groups and underestimate differences within groups.
89
Outgroup Homogeneity Effect
Perceivers assume there is greater similarity (in appearance and in personal attributes) of outgroup than ingroup members. Why? Because less contact with outgroups, lack of information regarding outgroups.
90
Stereotypes as Schemas
Quick and convenient summaries of groups. Research indicates that they have basis in truth, but the truth is then exaggerated, and they can persist long after the truth has changed.
91
Confirmation Bias
We look to confirm hypotheses we have of other groups (stereotypes). So we seek out confirmatory, but not disconfirming, information.
92
Subtyping
Stereotype confirming behaviour: "That's because he's Singaporean". Stereotype disconfirming behaviour: "That's because he's Travis". We don't update our stereotypes with information.
93
Two options of subtyping when presented with new info
1. Update stereotypes, or 2. Make a new subcategory like "career women", which allows "women" stereotypes to remain the same.
94
Self-fulfilling Prophecy: Pygmalion Effect
Teachers led to expect enhanced performance from certain children - those children indeed performed better than their classmates.
95
Year-long field experiment in Rwanda
Half of the country listened to a soap opera about intergroup conflict (which paralleled daily life on Rwanda) and how this was resolved via intergroup cooperation and non-violence. Other half of the country listened to a soap opera about health. At the end of the year, those in the former condition had more positive feelings about the outgroup.
96
Stereotype Content Model
Warmth vs. competence of others effects how we feel about them.
97
Can we stop stereotype activation?
Not really, it is automatic and functional (but with unintended consequences). But we can control whether we act on stereotypes. Internal motivation: Egalitarian beliefs. External motivation: Social desirability.
98
Two components of bias
Could be "ingroup favouritism", or "outgroup derogation". MOST bias we encounter in the world is favoring the ingroup, without particularly caring what happens to outgroup. Don't necessarily want to hurt outgroup, just prefer to help ingroup.
99
When do biases manifest?
For most people, bias manifests in ambigious situations in which there is no clear norm or social script.
100
Aversive racism
Most people have egalitarian ideals, but will act prejudiced when safe, social acceptable, or when situation is ambiguous so that you can attribute behaviours to something other than racism. Often may not know or think they are acting in a biased manner. Potentially driven more by slight anxiety or uncomfortability rather than hatred.
101
Interracial Interactions
In modern times (most) people fear appearing prejudiced. If don't have much contact with people of other groups, may be worse. Interracial interactions can be mentally exhausting because people self-monitor to avoid appearing prejudiced. Also try to avoid these interactions due to fear/anxiety.
102
Sexism
Similar to other prejudices, but some nuances/unique elements. Women are in all groups, and not as driven by fear/anxiety as some forms of racism. Stereotypes of women are generally more positive than stereotypes of men, but not as valued in certain areas (business).
103
Hostile sexism
Negative, resentful feelings about women's abilities. Beliefs about women as incompetent, unintelligent, overly emotional, and sexually manipulative.
104
Benevolent sexism
Affectionate chivalrous feelings founded on belief that women need and deserve protection. Both men and women can be this. Doesn't seem as bad, but has negative consequences. Can undermine being taken seriously, and undermines protection against sexual discrimination.
105
Glass cliff
Women CEOs more likely to be hired when company is in turmoil. Company already in peril, high risk of failure. When company then fails, women CEO might be blamed, reinforcing stereotypes.
106
Consequences of sterotyping
Stereotype Threat: fear of acting in a manner consistent with stereotypes. Has received lots of attention in education. SOME evidence that when these groups are reminded of social category and stereotype prior to a test, they perform worse.
107
Stereotype threat
You don't need to endorse stereotype to have it still be threatening and influence you. Increases anxiety and physiological arousal, interfering with thinking and coordination. Focus on avoiding failure rather than pursuing success.
108
Contact hypothesis
Simple regular contact will reduce stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Generally works, but works better under some conditions that help to reduce anxiety about interacting with outgroup. Enhances knowledge (reducing outgroup homogeneity). Increases empathy/perspective taking (extrinsic attributions).
109
Attitudes definition
Positive, negative, or mixed evaluation of an attitude object, expressed at some level of intensity. Attitudes are not binary, we can evaluate both positive and negative dimensions.
110
Attitude object
Anything for which we can form an attitude (place, idea, people). Attitude towards ourselves = self-esteem. Attitudes toward others = prejudice.
111
Why bother having attitudes?
Cognitive heuristic (i.e. mental shortcut): Enable us to judge quickly whether stuff is good/bad, should be approached/avoided.
112
How to measure attitudes?
Self-report. Multi-question Likert Scale for more complex attitudes. Pros: Simple. Cons: people can lie.
113
Bogus pipeline
A mechanical device that supposedly records our true feelings like a lie detector test. Participants become more likely to admit to drinking too much, cocaine use, frequent oral sex, not exercising much.
114
Indirect measures of attitudes
Infers attitudes through observable behaviour. Reaction time (Implicit Association Test), heart rate, sweat, brain waves (EEG), brain blood flow (fMRI). Pros: aren't easily controllable, can give info on accessibility. Cons: not always very precise.
115
When do attitudes predict behaviour?
Generally, the stronger the attitude, the stronger the behavioural link.
116
What affects the strength of an attitude?
The AMOUNT of information people have of that attitude (the more info we have, the stronger the attitude). How the information was ACQUIRED (the more direct experience we have, the stronger the attitude). How ACCESSIBLE that information is mentally (the more quickly an attitude is brought to mind, the stronger the attitude).
117
Correspondence principle
Whether attitudes will predict behaviour depends on how well the measured attitude corresponds to behaviour. Specific attitudes predict specific behaviours. General attitudes predict aggregated behaviours.
118
The Theory of Planned Behaviour
Considers how attitudes operate within our social environment.
119
When do attitudes predict behaviour?
Attitudes are more likely to determine behaviour under specific circumstances: attitude corresponds closely to behaviour, subjective norms facilitate intentions, we perceive that behaviour to be easy, there are no other external/internal influences hindering our intentions.
120
2 Routes to Persuasion
Central: People being influenced by strength and quality of arguments.
Peripheral: When influenced by other, non-central cues.
121
Central Route to Persuasion
When people are motivated to think carefully about the issue (this might be rare). Most effective when you make strong arguments. Weak arguments will backfire; people will counter argue.
122
Peripheral Route to Persuasion
When people are not motivated, or are distracted or busy. Most effective when it includes cues that people use to make decisions without a lot of thought. Associating the product with cool and attractive people.
123
Mere Exposure Effect
The more we see something, the more we tend to like it. Eg. The more the woman attended the class, the more the students liked her.
124
Three factors of any message to be considered
Source: Who is saying the message?
Message: Elements of the message?
Audience: Who is receiving the message?
Central and Peripheral elements of each.
125
The Source
Characteristics of the source influencing persuasion. Credibility: competence & trustworthiness are both needed. Attractiveness & liking: physical attractiveness & similarity.
126
Sleeper effect (Holland & Weiss, 1951)
Reality 1: Doctor getting paid $75,000 to have patients use BirthX. Reality 2: Doctor getting paid $0 to have patients use BirthX. Right away: You listen to Doctor 2. 6 months lateR: You listen to both a medium amount. This is because you remember the MESSAGE, and you forget the SOURCE - therefore can't evaluate credibility, and you average the info.
127
The Message
Characteristics of the message influencing persuasion. Emotion induction. Fear is very effective. Historically, political demagogues / populists use fear in their messages. Russians using fear messaging.
128
Message Content: Big discrepancy vs Small discrepancy
Big discrepancy: Exercise for 60 minutes a day. Works best if it is a credible source (physiology professor).
Small discrepancy: Exercise once or twice a week. Works if it is not a very credible source (message from random person or friend).
129
Message Content: One-sided appeal vs Two-sided appeal
One-sided: Mention only the "pros". If audience already agrees with the message, and will not find out the cons, a one-sided appeal is best.
Two-sided: Address "cons" too. If audience already opposes the message, or knows the cons or will find them out, a two-sided appeal is best.
130
Message Content: Primacy vs Recency
Primacy: Info presented early on has more influence. Eg. Defence's opening statement more effective if comes before the prosecution's.
Recency: Information presented last can sometimes overwrite info that came first. E.g., If prosecution's testimony is one week later, then decide right away, recency wins.
131
Constructing a Persuasive Message
Make people feel good vs make them scared. Big vs small discrepancy. One-sided vs two-sided appeal. Primacy vs recency.
132
The Audience
When we change our own attitudes. Cognitive Dissonance.
133
Cognitive Dissonance Theory
The tensions that arises when one is simultaneously aware of two conflicting cognitions. Dissonance feels bad. We are motivated to resolve that conflict. When we can't take back the behaviour, we'll change the attitude.
134
Prophecy from planet Clarion call to city: Flee that flood
Dorothy Martin received a message from planet Clarion that the world would end in a great flood. Followers had left jobs, college, and spouses, and had given away money and possessions to prepare for their departure on a flying saucer which was to rescue the group of true believers. What will happen after doomsday doesn't happen? People continued with the cult even harder.
135
Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Comparisons
Choice between two attractive options produces dissonance. We reduce the dissonance by: derogating the one we didn't choose, and boosting the one that we did choose. It is like a built-in system that seems to make us satisfied with our choices. Takeaway: The choice is (partially) determining our attitudes.
