Social Psychology Exam 1 Study Guide
Social Psychology Exam 1 Study Guide PSYC 360
Popular in Social Psychology
Popular in Psychlogy
This 11 page Study Guide was uploaded by Cody Moore on Sunday January 31, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to PSYC 360 at Kansas taught by Dr. Mark Landau in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 46 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at Kansas.
Reviews for Social Psychology Exam 1 Study Guide
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 01/31/16
PSYC 360 EXAM 1 Lecture Tuesday, January 19, 2016 Introduction Social Psychology: the scientific study of how people think and feel about, influence, and act in social situations. 3 Big Ideas: 1. The social construction of reality People create their understanding of the world and themselves; often without realizing they are doing so. We filter information and tinker with that information. We sometimes don’t realize that we’re doing this. The eye’s blind spot: our brain fills in the information in our visual field to compensate for our blind spot. Our interpretation of the world can change based on temporary stakes. A lot of things can change how we make sense of things. Perception of a hill: people wearing a backpack perceived hills as steeper than those not wearing a backpack (chosen by choice). Slant of the hill depends on temporary feeling of weight. People act with regard to their interpretation of reality; thus, to explain behavior, we start with their interpretation, not “objective” reality. 2. The power of the social environment to influence people’s thought and behavior The environment in social psychology is in reference to the immediate environment. Students’ reaction to a D: there may be many factors that play into someone’s reaction to this. What we want to look at in social psych is what is influencing them right now.. Even very subtle features of the environment can have a big impact, without the person’s awareness. We think we are captains of our own ships However we are more like vessels, or little tug boats in a sea of social influences. Extroverts and introverts: half of the people in the class are extroverts, half are introverts, but only the professor is talking because of social constructs and norms. 3. The value of the scientific method for understanding social thought and behavior In social psych we come up with theories and test them in controlled environments. Balancing scientific research and common sense: social psychology deals with topics that we think and talk about every day. (How do people make decisions in groups? Why are some people attracted to certain people?) Sometimes, our common sense knowledge is wrong. “Opposites attract” is not always true. People conform to their environment, but do they always do so? Pick behavior apart, why, under what conditions: common sense does not answer these questions, but research does. Who cares? Selfish: If you get more sophisticated knowledge on social psychology, you can you use it in real life. Altruistic: For the benefit of others. Curiosity: Finding out what makes people tick, interesting topic. Lecture Thursday, January 21, 2016 What’s the fundamental problem with categorization? There is too much information in our environment for us to make sense of all at once. Also, it’s ambiguous what it means. Imagine your brain is like a computer. When you think of new things, it’s like bringing up a window. There’s only so much you can bring to mind before it crashes. This information is also ambiguous. Schema: a mental structure that organizes knowledge about a category of things. Beliefs and expectations Objects Persons “Impressions” Groups “Stereotypes” Events “Scripts” How an event unfolds in time. Ourselves “Selfconcept” Schemas organize information, but are different than file folders on a computer because they interfere, are active, and are constantly how we think, perceive, and remember. How do schemas influence perception? 1. Interpreting ambiguous behavior (Psychiatric patient study) Trained therapists watched a videotaped interview with a man. Half were told it was a job interview while the other half were told that he was a mental patient. Each therapist evaluated the interviewee’s mental health on a scale of 110 (very disturbed to very welladjusted). Results: The therapists that were told that he was applying for a job rated his mental health as higher, or more stable, than those who were told he was a mental patient. Although everyone watched the same interview, therapists who thought the man was a mental patient saw more signs of mental illness because they had that schema activated. 2. Interpreting others’ intentions (Gen or cell study) Participants were all white and viewed photos of men in public places. They were either black or white and armed or not armed (cell phone). As soon as they saw the picture, the Ps had to decide to shoot or not shoot. Speed and errors were measured. Results: people were faster to shoot if the guy was black. They were faster to not shoot if the guy was white. They were more likely to not shoot if the man was white and armed and more likely to shoot if black and unarmed. These white men had a schema for black men (aggressive). This influenced what they perceived when they looked at the photos. How do schemas influence memory? 1. Directing attention (Burglary study) Participants read details about the details of a house. Before they read these, they were told it was either for buying a house or burglarizing a house. They were asked to remember items on the list. Results: participants that read the burglary schema remembered the more burglary relevant items, Ps that read the housebuying schema remembered the more house buyingrelevant items. Memory is the process of constructing. 2. Adding missing information (Car crash study) Participants were asked to watch a video of a car crash. They were asked how past the car was going when the cars ______ each other. (Either smashed, hit, contacted) Results: people said that the cars were going 41, 34, and 31, respectively. The words created a schema in their heads. Discussion Friday, January 22, 2016 ***Read section in the book about methods*** Correlational Study: Both independent (IV) and dependent (DV) variables are measured. We cannot measure causation, only relationships. Experimental Study: The DV is measured but the IV is manipulated. The goal is to figure out whether or not the IV has an effect on the DV, and what that effect is. Ex: Instead of measuring happiness, Ps will be made to feel happy or sad. Operational Definition: how the variable is measured Ex: if the construct is anxiety, researchers could operationally define it by measuring heart rate. Random Sample: all people in the population of interest have an equal chance of being selected to participate in a study Ex: random digit dialing Random Assignment: all participants in the study have an equal chance of being assigned to one of the conditions in an experimental study. Ex: flipping a coin to assign participant to condition Pearson’s r: how a correlation is measured Ranges form 1 to 1 Higher absolute values = stronger relationship Positive or negative symbols mean if they are positively or negatively related to each other. Indicates direction. Internal Validity; how confident can we be that the IV causes changes in the DV? Lecture Tuesday, January 26, 2016 When do schemas influence thoughts? When they are “salient” Information is salient when it comes easily to mind. When it’s “flipped on” i.e. “what do you know about Lawrence restaurants?” is easier to access than “tell me about the Great Wall of China.” Priming happens when the current situation makes a schema salient A “cue” in the situation triggers the schema Anything in the environment can cue a schema Priming can happen without the person’s conscious awareness Schemas Primed Beneath Awareness Influence Examples 1. Impressions of others (Warm person study) Studying to see how friendly someone is, do people see friendliness in warmth/coldness? One person sits down to read about “Person A.” They are asked about how “warm” they are without many details. They were either handed a warm cup of coffee or a cold one. Then they were asked how warm the person was on a scale (7 points). Results: Ps holding a warm cup: 4.71 and cold cup: 4.25 on a 7 point scale to warm The temperature of the participants’ drinks influenced their thoughts about the people in question. 2. Moral judgments (Filthy act study) Participants were asked to judge how morally wrong some actions were (cheating, falsifying resumes, not returning a found wallet etc.) These judgments were made in either a dirty or clean workspace. Results: people in a dirty environment said it was more morally wrong than in a clean one 3. Behavior (Growing inside study) Participants were asked to make word judgments. They were primed with either a square with an expanding object, static object (stays the same), or fragmentation (growing, then breaks apart).). Judging based on looking at a picture, then rating it right after seeing others’ opinions. Results: static conformed the most, and then fragmented, then expansion. 4. Behavior (Priming rudeness study) Participants were asked to unscramble sentences. They contained rude words (i.e. bother), polite words (i.e. respect), or neutral words. It was then measured how many of the participants interrupted in a 10minute time span. Results: Rude interrupted 64%, polite 17% and neutral 37% Questions Q: The purpose of random assignment is to: A: Control the differences between conditions other than the independent variable Q: The results of the “Car crash study” suggest that schemas influence thought by… A: Adding information to memories of events and behaviors Lecture Tuesday, February 2, 2016 Attribution: Why do people do what they do? Attribution: the process of trying to explain why something happened That is, how do we figure out what caused someone to do something, or what caused some event to take place? Why did that person scowl at me? Why did I lose the game? Two types of attributions 1. Internal – the causes of a person’s behavior are located inside that person (i.e. their personality, preferences) 2. External – the causes of a person’s behavior are located in the person’s environment (i.e. it’s hot) The Fundamental Attribution Error The tendency for people to overestimate internal causes/underestimate external causes If we broke it down, we would see that people’s actions are equally internal and external but we tend to think people do what they do because of who they are as a person Study showing the FAE (Castro Study) Ps read another student’s essay. It was wither ProCastro or AntiCastro. The authors of the essays were described as freely writing the essay or being forced to write the essay. The Ps then had to determine their perceptions of the author’s true attitude toward Castro. Even when the authors didn’t have a choice, participants still thought the authors were more “proCastro”. The Fundamental Attribution Error is very common, but it is not inevitable Other motives influence the attributions you make Why do we make the Fundamental Attribution Error? 1. We make attributions based on the most salient information. For the actor (the other person), the situation is salient; but for the observers (us), the person is more salient than the situation. i.e. a man cuts you off: the man may have been trying to avoid a pothole, but you think it was rude 2. Internal attributions are easy to make (quick, effortless), whereas external attributions take more mental effort and time. Dual Process Model of Cognition We think using two basic mental systems 1. Controlled processing: slow, conscious, effortful, rational Has a finite amount of processing capacity. When we are in situations that make us “cognitively busy,” controlled processing slows down or quits Tired, stressed, distracted, thinking about a lot at once, drunk 2. Automatic processing: fast, unconscious, effortless, sometimes kneejerk Less constrained by processing capacity. Even when we are cognately busy, keeps on going. Two Step Model of Attribution 1. Identify behavior and automatically make an internal/dispositional inference 2. Make an effortful situational correction If you’re cognitively busy, step two won’t happen Attribution Study (Busy Attribution Study) Participants watch a silent video of a woman behaving very anxiously while being interviewed. They are either told that the woman is discussing an anxietyprovoking topic (sexual fantasy) or a mundane topic (idea vacation). Then, for a second IV, they are either made cognitively busy (memorize word list while watching) or not. Then they are asked to perceive the woman’s anxiety. Non busy people were more likely to rate it as mundane SelfServing Attributions We tend to make internal attributions for our success and external attributions for our mistakes/failures In other words, we tend to take credit for the good and blame others/the world for the bad The OverJustification Effect When external factors lead people to attribute the reason, or justification, for their action to an external incentive (money, candy, affection…) They are less motivated to do it They enjoy it less Thursday February 4, 2016 Review Been focusing on the social construct of reality and illustrating it with scientific evidence. Tools that people use to make sense of the world around them. Mental mechanisms (how): 1. Schemas 2. Attribution People seem to want meaning and don’t want the world to seem chaotic or confusing But why do people feel this need? 1. Cognitive Dissonance Theory 2. Terror Management Theory The Motive for Meaning: Cognitive Dissonance Theory There are three ways that cognitions and behaviors can relate to each other 1. Irrelevant to each other 2. Consonant with each other (consistent) 3. Dissonant with each other (inconsistent) Cognitive Dissonance Theory: When cognitions and behaviors are dissonant. It creates an unpleasant psychological tension known as dissonance People are motivated to reduce dissonance by restoring consistency between their cognitions and behaviors Littering example: littering is bad and I just littered Most people say that thoughts and behavior is a one way street, however cognitive dissonance says that it can go the other way Ways of Reducing Dissonance with littering example 1. Change behavior to bring it in line with the dissonant cognition Put the cup in the trash can 2. Add cognitions or rationalize “But I’m in a hurry” rationalizing the act 3. Alter the importance of the cognitions or trivialize Saying “In the grand scheme of things, it wasn’t that bad, it was only one cup” 4. Change a cognition to restore consistency Change your attitude toward littering and come to believe that littering isn’t so bad Example of dissonance and dissonance reduction Smoking I smoke But smoking is bad People want to reduce that dissonance 1. Stop smoking 2. “Yes I smoke, but if I didn’t smoke, I’d be a mess” 3. “Yes I smoke, but in the grand scheme of things, it’s not really a big deal” 4. Come to believe that smoking may not be so bad for you Lying I lied Lying is bad 1. Call her back and tell her you lied 2. “I lied, but to only not to hurt her feelings” 3. “Lying isn’t that bad” 4. Come to actually like the dress… you didn’t lie Studies that show cognitive dissonance 1. Peg Turning Study Ps perform a boring task for 1 hour. Then asked to tell the next P that the task is interesting (i.e., asked to lie). They were either paid $1 or $20 to tell the lie. Then at the end, they were asked how much they actually enjoyed the task. Individuals for got $20 added cognition and said they did it for the money and accepted that it was boring Ps that received $1 actually changed their attitude and say “the task was interesting.” Strong reasons for inconsistency: forced to, lots of money don’t change opinion Weak reasons for inconsistency: little money, asked to actually come to like it Applicationsof DT 1. Loving what you suffer for (Initiation Study) To become members of a group, Ps have to either endure a severe initiation, mild initiation, or no initiation. They got to listen in on a “typical group meeting”. Then they were surveyed about how much they liked the group. No initiation 81, mild initiation 82, severe initiation 98. People that worked so hard or went through more convince themselves that they love the group because they didn’t want to go through that for nothing 2. Loving what we choose (Appliance Study) Ps rate desirability of appliances. They must choose between either 2 highly desirable items (dissonance) or 1 highly desirable vs. 1 undesirable item. After choice, they rerated the items. Do they exaggerate their likes and dislikes? For Ps in the high dissonance condition, the choices polarize post choosing the appliance between two highly desirable items. Chosen got better ranked Unchosen got worse ranked Discussion Friday, February 5, 2016 Attributions review 1. Internal It’s about the person; personality, traits, internal to them: who they are 2. External Situational: environment Fundamental Attribution Error We tend to make external attributions for things we do, but we tend to make internal attributions for the things others do. Why? 1. Perceptual saliency: it’s just a function of what we see. When it’s us, we focus more on our environment. When it’s someone else, we focus on him or her as a person. 2. Automaticity: internal attributions are just easier to make. They require less mental energy, so we tend to make internal attributions. Lecture Tuesday, February 9, 2016 We’ve focused on how and why of social psychology Terror Management Theory Desire for selfpreservation: we’re all motivated to stay alive. Different species have different ways of staying alive. Humans are intelligent creatures. We have selfawareness “both awesome and dreadful” Uniquely human awareness of the inevitability of death. Death can occur from many different things. Both of these things combine for potential for overwhelming terror We avoid death anxiety by: believing in a cultural worldview that gives like meaning (order, purpose); and… that tells us how to be valuable (that is, how to feel selfesteem) Gives us order and meaning Some means of transcending our debt Some cultural offer an afterlife Some offer symbolic forms of immortality (you will live on after your death) Our culture tells us that if you do the right things, you will live on in a way High selfesteem: living up to the standards of value that society gives you The fear of death is constantly lurking beneath your consciousness This theory is provocative, but is it true Mortality Salience Hypothesis: If meaning and selfesteem protect us from mortality concerns, then reminders of mortality (Mortality Salience) should lead people to cling to meaning and selfesteem, and defend it against threats. (Not how people respond to actual threats to their life, it’s how people cope with the awareness that they will inevitably die). People with high selfesteem do not necessarily live longer It’s not about living longer, it’s about striving for immortality Mortality Salience Manipulation: Please briefly describe that emotions that the thought of your own death arouses in you Jot down, as specifically as you can, what you think will happen to you as you physically die and one you are physically dead Cling more onto the things that give their life meaning and purpose and structure (love their university more, political views, etc.) Mortality Salience increases performance for 1. Belief that things “happen for a reason” (Blaming the Victim Study) Ps are asked to think about mortality salience, uncertainty salience, or physical pain salience. They read about a NYU student that was shot in his dorm, he was disfigured. They gave them about 20 more pieces of information and were asked what they wanted to read more about (about half). Number of negative facts about the victim requested to read. Mortality salient: asked for more negative facts; much higher than uncertainty or pain salient A way to keep thoughts of their own death at bay 2. Selfcontinuity (Selfcontinuity Study) Ps generate events from their personal past. Randomly assigned to either mortality salience, future uncertainty salience, or neutral control. The number of meaningful connections drawn between past events and one’s current selfconcept were measured (drawing lines to experiences that have had a significant impact on who they are today). People primed in mortality drew the most lines, followed by future uncertainty, and then the neutral control. 3. Viewing the self as awesome (Strength Display Study) Men and women preselected for being either invested or not invested in displaying their physical strength. They were given either mortality salience or the control. Their strength output was measured on a “hand dynamometer” Mortality salience: Stronger when invested in physical strength, same for control but a much bigger difference for mortality salience. Lecture Thursday, February 11, 2016 Humans have a need for selfesteem. Terror management theory: people are fundamentally motivated to achieve selfesteem. SelfEsteem: a positive attitude toward ourselves. It’s always in danger of being threatened, so we work hard to maintain it. Can increase or decrease according to situations in our lives. Gaining and Defending SelfEsteem in Everyday Life 1. Above average effect: people tend to see themselves as “above average” on desirable traits, characteristics, and abilities (things that are culturally valued). 2. Selfserving attributions: we tend to make internal attributions for successes and external attributions for our failures. Behavior already happened. 3. Selfhandicapping: sabotaging your own performance and undermining your own ability to do well in order to keep your selfesteem in tact. Creating obstacles for ourselves so that we have an excuse to do poorly (and we have an additional boost if we do well). People do this before behavior happens, if they’re unsure if they can succeed. 4. Selfaffirmation: when our selfesteem is threatened in one domain, we often respond by bolstering ourselves in another domain unrelated to the first. This is how we cope with failures/deficiency. 5. Upward and downward social comparisons: figuring out if we are valuable by comparing ourselves to others. Upward comparison: comparing ourselves with those who are better off: decreases our selfesteem Downward comparison: comparing ourselves with those who are worse off: increases our selfesteem. Selfhandicapping study 1. Performance enhancing drug study Participants were asked to take a test on their intelligence. They experiment was described as studying drugs’ effect on intellectual performance. They were either given an easy or difficult IQ test. All Ps were told they performed well. Those in the difficult condition should be surprised. Then they are asked to choose a drug before they take a second. They were either performance enhancing or performanceharming. Performance harming: 13% when the first test was easy and 70% when the first test was difficult. The Dark Side of high self esteem 1. Noise shock study Ps measured in narcissism. They write an essay and either receive criticism or praise. Then they play an online video game with the person that critiqued their essay. Their aggression is measured while playing the game. Praise: no change; criticism: more aggressive Why? Discussion Friday, February 12, 2016 Difference between gender and sex Gender is socially constructed Not a set of unchanging traits, but roles that are performed in social interactions with people Gender is not something we essentially “are” or naturally have; instead it is something that we do We implicitly perform and construct gender Culture and self The self is constructed differently in different cultural settings Relationality Selfconcept: people’s knowledge about themselves, including one’s own traits, social identities, and experiences 1. Individualistic cultures independent self Who you are in relation to yourself See yourself as distinct from others 2. Collectivistic cultures interdependent self Thinking about who you are in relation to others Mostly in your ‘in’ group Both are part of a continuum If you take a person who is used to being in an independent society and put them in an interdependent society, selfesteem changes Gender is a socially constructed – and important – way of understanding ourselves and society. Gender is fluid – it changes across time We perform gender, making our identities visible and easily understood by others.
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'