University Test 1 Flashcards
(128 cards)
Define construal
Construal is the author’s subjective understanding/definition of his or her own situation
- Interpreting the world according to one’s own experiences/needs
Construal = perspective/perception
What was Burner and Goodman’s 1947 study on construal?
Burner and Goodman had a group of 10 year olds look at coins/disks and told them to turn knobs to light up the coins/disks (turn the knob to make the size of the light in the box the same size as what you are holding in your hand). The children with coins perceived the coins as being bigger than the disks because coins have a socially constructed value (they are worth money) whereas the disks were worth nothing. Additionally, the more poor the child, the greater they perceived the coins to be.
What was the “They Saw a Game” Princeton vs Dartmouth Experiment in 1951?
In 1951, there was a very hyped up football game between Princeton and Dartmouth (two bitter rivals). The game was very aggressive and had many penalties. The Princeton students saw more Dartmouth penalties than the Dartmouth students saw (though the Dartmouth students saw no difference in # of penalties). Dartmouth alumni suspected that Princeton had tampered with the game tape.
What was Balcetis and Dunning’s Wishful Seeing experiment in 2006?
Balcetis and Dunning sought to understand how motivation influences visual perception. They randomly assigned people with numbers/letters. Depending on the number/letter that they were assigned, they would receive either a pleasant or a horrible drink. They would briefly show the number/letter, then would have the computer “crash.” They would ask participants if they saw anything before the crash happened. They found that many people saw what they wanted to see (they saw that they got the good drink, not the bad one).
What was Balcetis and Dunning’s 2nd Wishful Seeing experiment in 2010?
Balcetis and Dunning sought to investigate how current needs affect one’s perception. They found that people see objects that will satisfy a current need as being closer than they actually are.
- Thirsty people see a water bottle as being closer
- Poorer people with a chance to win $100 see the $100 closer
What was Xiao & Van Bave’s 2012 experiment on construal of distance from a threat?
Xiao and Van Bave interviewed NY Yankee fans about both their enemy (the Boston Red Sox) and Baltimore (not an enemy). They found that NY Yankees fans perceive the enemy Boston as being closer than Baltimore is. However, this only applies to NY Yankee fans (since they are the ones who perceive Boston as a threat).
This same test was performed on NYU and Columbia students (rival schools). 2 reports were releases; report 1 says that NYU and Columbia are equal in quality, report 2 says that Columbia is better in quality than NYU. NYU students exposed to report 2 perceived Columbia students as being a bigger threat and therefore thought that Columbia was closer than it actually was.
Also, Americans who are concerned by immigration view NY as being closer to Mexico City than it actually is (for participants who are from NY)
What was Caruso et al.’s study on skin colour perception in 2009?
Caruso evaluated how liberals and conservatives perceived Barack Obama’s skin tone. They found that liberals perceived Barack Obama as having a lighter complexion than he actually does, and conservatives perceived him as being darker than he actually is. This same effect occurred when presented with different African American political candidates.
They also found that this was not specific to liberals and conservatives; basically, the effect is more related to if the unknown African American candidate shares or does not share your ideology.
WEAPONS EFFECT LECTURE 1
What is wishful seeing?
Wishful seeing is viewing desirable objects as closer than they actually are?
What does it mean to “see threats closer”?
When enemies REPRESENT a threat, they are perceived as being closer than they actually are.
How are some social situations agreed upon/unambiguous is reality is subjective?
Some social situations are unambiguous because humans are socially attuned creatures; other provide cues which help us to understand what we should do in a given situation ➡ we develop/pick up on social norms
What is Stepanova, Strube, and Hetts’ “They Saw a Triple Lutz” study in 2009?
In the “They Saw a Triple Lutz” study, Stepanova et al. evaluated the Olympic Skating Debacle between Russia and Canada. The Russians had a history of winning and were expected to win. The Russians made some technical mistakes but had a very complicated routine, while the Canadians were flawless but had a more simple routine. Russians were given gold, everybody complained, so then they gave Canadians a gold medal too.
Researchers code articles from North America/Russia. They find that Russian outlets claimed that the competition was close, whereas the North American outlets claimed that the competition wasn’t close at all (UNTIL Canadians were awarded a medal too, then they find that the competition was closer)
Russian media saw the Canadians as having made more mistakes than they actually did.
American and Canadian media outlets saw the Russians as having made more mistakes than they actually did.
What is naive realism?
Naive realism is the idea that we see the world in an unbiased way
When we see that others view the world in a way that is different from how we do, we may make attributions like:
- They are lazy, dumb, following a particular ideology, etc.
While falsely believing that our way of thinking is the “right” or “real” way the world is
What was the Keltner et al. abortion study in 1995?
Keltner et al. asked pro-choice and pro-life people for what they thought about the opinions of people from THE OTHER SIDE. Keltner et al. found that participants underestimated the ambivalence of people who thought differently from them; they would see their own opinion as rational, and the other side’s opinion as ideological. Both sides assumed that anyone who thought differently than they did was an EXTREMIST with no reservations about their position.
What is the Hostile Media Effect?
The Hostile Media Effect is that most people with strong opinions believe that the media is biased against their side (leftists think the news is right-leaning, and right-wingers think the news is left-leaning)
What is Ross’ Israeli-Palestinian Conflict study in 2004?
In Ross’ study, he had participants (either on Israel’s side or on Palestine’s side) watch TV coverage of the Beirut massacre. He presented them with proposals from THEIR OWN SIDE but told them that they were proposals from the OTHER SIDE. Participants would reject the proposals (even if they were from their own side) because of the Hostile Media Effect ➡ they perceived the proposals as being biased against their side even when the proposals were actually written by their own side.
What is Pronin et al.’s Valid vs Biased Attitudes study in 2004?
In Pronin et al’s study, they found that people tend to view their own opinions as valid/unbiased, while viewing opinions that disagree with their own as increasingly invalid/biased. On issues like abortion, capital punishment, anti-terrorism measures, and Hillary Clinton, participants tended to believe that those who SHARED their beliefs were UNBIASED, but those who DISAGREED with their beliefs were VERY BIASED.
What was Goya-Tocchetto et al.’s study on Partisan Trade-Off Bias in 2022?
In Goya-Tocchetto et al.’s study, they looked at public policy and people’s reactions to is. All policies have some unintended consequences, regardless of their intentions. The researchers found that participants generally believed that the policies proposed by their side had unintended and unavoidable consequences, whereas the policies proposed by the other side had intended and avoidable effects ➡ liberals were more sensitive to negative side-effects of republican public policy and vice versa (they did it on purpose!)
What is the content free scenario?
In the content free scenario, researchers present a vague description of how either Republicans/Democrats want to propose policy A, which will help some people but will hurt others, and ask for participants’ opinions about the intentions of the policy. Like with the Partisan Trade-Off Bias study, Democrats thought that Republican policies were designed to hurt people and vice versa.
How do we reduce bias?
We reduce bias through introspection ➡ thinking about what our thoughts/attitudes are and questioning why we have them.
It should be noted that introspection does not reduce our bias, though it does make us more confident that we are not biased
Additionally, cognitive abilities neither increase nor reduce amount of bias (stupid/smart people = comparably biased)
What is the self-schema (or schemata)?
The self-schema is a cognitive generalization about the self based on past experiences ➡ who we are is guided by our past
- Some things are more integral to our identities than others
What was Markus’ Self-Schemata study in 1977?
In Markus’ Self-Schemata study, participants rated themselves on a Likert scale for how independent or dependent they were and whether it was important to them (independent = 1-4, dependent = 6-11, neither = 5). Three weeks later, participants were classified as 1) schematic for independent, 2) aschematic, or 3) schematic for dependent. The study examined how participants recalled information, predicted behavior, and resisted feedback about their schemata.
Results showed that schematic participants recalled more examples and predicted behaviors consistent with their schema (independent or dependent). When given false feedback that contradicted their schema, participants reasserted their beliefs. Participants also responded faster to traits aligned with their self-schema when presented with a list of independent or dependent traits.
What does it mean if you are aschematic?
Aschematic means that your core self is not captured by a given schema
Ex: If you do not care about sports, you are aschematic about athleticism.
If you DO care about sports, you are schematic about athleticism.
What is the phenomenal self?
Developed by Jones and Gerard, the phenomenal self is the part of a person’s identity that is most active and relevant in their awareness at a given moment, depending on the context. Different aspects of the self become prominent based on the situation, like identifying as a student in class or a performer in a theatre setting.