New User Special Price Expires in

Let's log you in.

Sign in with Facebook


Don't have a StudySoup account? Create one here!


Create a StudySoup account

Be part of our community, it's free to join!

Sign up with Facebook


Create your account
By creating an account you agree to StudySoup's terms and conditions and privacy policy

Already have a StudySoup account? Login here

Exam 2 Social Psychology Study Guide

by: Resi Ridner

Exam 2 Social Psychology Study Guide Psy 3310

Resi Ridner

GPA 3.5

Preview These Notes for FREE

Get a free preview of these Notes, just enter your email below.

Unlock Preview
Unlock Preview

Preview these materials now for free

Why put in your email? Get access to more of this material and other relevant free materials for your school

View Preview

About this Document

This is a collaboration of all class notes, lecture slide notes, book notes, and article presentation notes. I have also added a couple of pictures and created it in a method that is an easy method...
Social Psychology
Study Guide
social, Psychology
50 ?




Popular in Social Psychology

Popular in Psychlogy

This 33 page Study Guide was uploaded by Resi Ridner on Monday July 25, 2016. The Study Guide belongs to Psy 3310 at 1 MDSS-SGSLM-Langley AFB Advanced Education in General Dentistry 12 Months taught by Foerder in Summer 2016. Since its upload, it has received 23 views. For similar materials see Social Psychology in Psychlogy at 1 MDSS-SGSLM-Langley AFB Advanced Education in General Dentistry 12 Months.


Reviews for Exam 2 Social Psychology 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: 07/25/16
Social Psychology Exam 2 Social Cognition, Lecture 1  Social Cognition: How people think about themselves and the social world; o more specifically, how people select, interpret, remember, and use social information to make judgements and decisions.  Are we rational thinkers? o Naïve Scientists – Harold Kelly  Consistency of the person’s actions  Consensus  Distinctiveness of the action o Video:  our brain processes very little of what comes through the eyes  due to this, we process very little of what we actually see.  About 75% of people don’t notice  It is possible that the people who notice might actually just be a coincidence.  This is known as change blindness o We are Cognitive Misers (Fiske & Taylor)  They said that we only have a certain amount of cognitive energy to use.  Positive – Makes decisions in less time  We don’t have to weigh all of the costs of everything we see in order to make simple everyday decisions.  Negative – More errors  Because we aren’t paying attention to everything we see.  Effects of Context on Social Judgement: o Pratkanis, et al. study  Nutri-burger – tofu and vegetables, very good nutrition, average taste.  Tasti-burger – very good taste, average nutrition.  Bummer-burger – good taste , average nutrition.  Decoy o The Contrast Effect  They are going to give you the worst option first so that they get the thing they want you to. o Kendrick & Guttierez  Participants (male) shown picture of potential blinddate.  ½ shown picture after watching an episode of Charlie’s Angels.  This group rated the picture as less attractive than control group.  Having done this affects you o Priming:  What you see before affects what you see now  A procedure based on the notion that ideas that have been recently encountered or frequently activated are more likely to come to mind and thus will be used to interpret social events.  Higgins, Rholes, & Jones.  Participants in 2 “different” experiments:  Perception – remember a list of words either positive (adventurous, self-confident, independent, persistent.) or negative (reckless, conceited, aloof, stubborn.).  Reading comprehension – Donald skydives, believes in his abilities, doesn’t rely on anyone, doesn’t change his mind often.  Describe Donald in your own words.  Bargh, et al.  Participants told to unscramble words and get experimenter when done.  Neutral  Associated with rudeness.  Had to interrupt experimenter in conversation.---- the people who had been reading/ given the rude words were more likely to interrupt the experimenter than those who hadn’t been messing with rude words.  Heath, et al.  Doctors asked to estimate their perceived risk infected by HIV on the job.  Half told to imagine themselves being exposed before making the estimate.  McCombs & Shaw  Issues that voters consider important correlates exactly with the amount of local media coverage.  Whatever is being concentrated on within the media, people are more likely to concentrate on that at the same time. o Ex. If there Is a concentration on forest fires in the news, then people might concentrate on water conservation to help with those fires.  Iyengar, Peters & Kinder  Edited evening news to give participants a steady dose of news reports on a specific problem.  Whatever problem they saw, they became convinced that was the most important problem to solve.  Supported candidate that addressed that problem.  The effects of Framing: o Framing: Decisions and judgments may be significantly affected depending upon how an issue is framed.  Ex. What is the best way to market ground beef — as 25% fat or 75% lean?  Hint: there is no difference, the way to get you to buy something is to rearrange the way it is worded to make it sound more appealing.  Behavioral economics: the study of how thinking and emotions affect individual economic decisions and the behavior  example: o You have to stop an epidemic. o Program A – 200 people will be saved. o Program B – there is a 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved and a 2/3 probability that no people will be saved.  Another example: o Program A – 400 people will die. o Program B – 1/3 probability that no one will die and a 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. o People want to avoid loss.  People are more likely to do something where it seems they will be gaining something  Aronson, Gonzales, & Costanzo o Homeowners sold home insulation by either being told how much they money they could save or lose. o People told how much money they could lose – 2x more likely to buy insulation  Meyerowitz & Chaiken o 3 pamphlets on breast self-examination o Contains only information o Information plus arguments on positive aspects of self-exam. o Information plus arguments on negative aspects of self-exam. o Only the last condition showed were more likely to self-examine. (more convincing) o Ordering of information:  The primacy effect—initial effects are the most important, first impressions last longer  Ex. Steve is intelligent, industrious, impulsive, critical, stubborn, and envious. Or Steve is envious, stubborn, critical, impulsive, industrious, and intelligent.  Jones, et al.  Participants watched someone taking an intelligent test.  Either started out getting answers right and ended getting them wrong or started out getting the answers wrong and getting them right at the end. st  People felt the 1 person was more intelligent. o Whatever that first impression was, that is how they feel and view that person throughout  Aronson & Jones  Similar to Jones but with participant as teacher.  Participants rated as more intelligent the subject who started out getting questions wrong but ended up getting them right.  Attention decrement – later items receive less attention as one’s mind starts to wander.  Interpretive set – 1 items create an initial impression and are used to interpret later information.  Dilution effect:  The tendency for neutral and irrelevant information to weaken a judgment or impression. o Zukier – Who has the higher GPA?  Tim spends about 31 hrs./wk studying outside of class in an average week.  Tom spends about 31 hrs./wk studying outside of class in an average week. Tom has 1 brother and 2 sisters. He visits his grandparents about once every 3 months. He once went on a blind date and shoots pool about once every two months.  They are both the same, BUT they put more information in there, so they diluted the information so that we don’t think about it so much.  Judgmental Heuristics: o Heuristics are simple, thinking strategies that allow us to make judgments and solve problems efficiently. Heuristics are less time consuming, but more error-prone than algorithms.  Representativeness Heuristic  Judging the likelihood of things or objects in terms of how well they seem to represent, or match, a particular prototype.  Example: here is a orange one, here is a yellow…. I like orange so I will chose that one, whether or not it is the best choice.  Example: o If you meet a slim, short, man who wears glasses and likes poetry, what do you think his profession would be?  An Ivy league professor or a truck driver?  We have this particular prototype that we tie everything to that leads us to make wrong decisions.  Availability Heuristic  Why does our availability heuristic lead us astray?  Whatever increases the ease of retrieving information increases its perceived availability. o Do more people die from shark attacks or falling airplane parts? o Fire or drowning? o Ex. The 9/11 attacks led to a decline in air travel due to fear.  Attitude Heuristic  A shortcut way of making decisions by assigning objects to either a favorable or an unfavorable category.   Halo Effect:  Stein & Nemeroff. o Women who ate health food were rated more feminine , more physically attractive, and more likable than junk food eaters.  False-consensus effect:  A tendency to overestimate the percentage of people who agree with us on any issue.  We tend to think everyone thinks the way we do.  Categorization and social stereotypes:  Darley & Gross o Participants were asked to estimate Hannah’s academic ability. o Saw one of 2 videos. Hannah playing in a hi-class or poor run-down neighborhood. o Rated Hannah as average. o Watched one of the 2 videos and a video of Hannah taking an achievement test with ambiguous results.  Participants who saw poor neighborhood video rated Hannah as having less ability than those who saw her in rich neighborhood. Also felt test was easier and that she did worse. o Self-fulfilling prophecy:  The case where people (1) have an expectation about what another person is like, which (2) influences how they act toward that person, and (3) causes that person to behave in a way consistent with those people’s original expectations. o Illusory Correlation:  Hamilton, et al.  Participants read 24 statements describing a person by name, occupation and prominent character traits. “Tom the salesmen is talkative and boring”. Participants overestimated frequency of steretypic descriptions.  Homosexuals and AIDS Your group will always seem better than the other groups As soon as you put people in a group they tend to think the way that their group is much better than all the other groups. o Homogeneity effect:  We tend to see members of an outgroup as being more similar to one another than to members of our own group – the ingroup  Park & Rothbart  Women in sororities perceive more similarity between women in other sororities than in their own. o Ingroup favoritism:  The tendency to see one’s own group as better on any number of dimensions and to allocate rewards to one’s own group. o Constructive predictions:  We tend to overestimate our predictions of the emotional impact of events and the durability of our reactions to those events, whether the events are positive or negative.  Example: Professors who predicted how happy or sad they would be upon receiving tenure overestimated compared to professors who had actually received tenure.  Memory Construction:  While tapping our memories, we filter or fill in missing pieces of information to make our recall more coherent  Misinformation Effect: Incorporating misleading information into one's memory of an event.  We can change your memory of an event o Misinformation and imagination effects:  Eyewitnesses reconstruct their memories when questioned about the event. o Self-schemas: Coherent memories, feelings, and beliefs about ourselves that hang together and form an integrated whole.  Ross, McFarland, & Fletcher  Students who received a persuasive message about tooth brushing recalled brushing their teeth more frequently than those who didn’t. o Recovered memory phenomenon:  During the ‘80’s and ‘90s thousands of adults seemed to remember horrifying childhood events that had been previously unavailable to them  Movement of accessing memories of supposed childhood abuse only because of a “Problem”  Basically, the therapists were implanting false memories in all of these people due to asking about a supposed family problem a couple of times. (refer back to learning about false memories)  Children’s eyewitness phenomenon: Children’s eyewitness recall can be unreliable if leading questions are posed. However, if cognitive interviews are neutrally worded, the accuracy of their recall increases. In cases of sexual abuse, this usually suggests a lower percentage of abuse.  Several cases came out where children were remembering horrible things that were supposedly about their past, and people were sent to prison based on multiple accounts and it came out that it was another case of implanted memory. - super difficult to interview children because it is super easy to plant memories in their heads/ they start making up things.  Memories of Abuse:  Are memories of abuse repressed or constructed?  Many psychotherapists believe that early childhood sexual abuse results in repressed memories.  However, other psychologists question such beliefs and think that such memories may be constructed  There isn’t a lot of evidence for repressed memories. o Cognition Tends to be Conservative:  We don’t want to do new things with our cognition because we inertly save energy on those things we already believe, rather than having to change that belief.  Confirmation Bias – the tendency to seek confirmation of initial impressions or beliefs.  Snyder & Swann o Female participants were told that they were about to meet an extrovert or an introvert and to prepare questions to ask them. o Questions sought to confirm the original hypothesis.  Hindsight Bias - the “I-knew-it-all-along” phenomenon. After learning the outcome of an event, many people believe they could have predicted that very outcome.  Fischhoff o Participants were told to predict one of 4 outcomes of an historic event. o Some told that one of the possibilities had happened but were to make estimates anyway. o Overestimated possibility of prior knowledge of answers.   Pro - Allows us to perceive the social world as a coherent and stable place.  We need stability in the world to survive  Con – leads us to make faulty decisions if you don’t do some critical thinking.  Attitudes and Beliefs guiding behavior: o LaPierre, 1933.  Asked innkeepers if they’d accept Chinese as guests. More than 90% said no.  When a Chinese couple arrived, only 1 out of 128 inns turned them away. o Correspondent Inference:  The behavior of a person is explained in terms of an attribute or trait that is just like the behavior.  Example: Jones & Harris  Essay writers who wrote pro or anti-Castro essays were considered to believe that whether or not they had been assigned that topic. o Attitude Accessibility:  The strength of the association between an object and your evaluation of it.  Something you are familiar with already, so you associate a specific attitude towards that person or object.  Example: You are familiar with Sam acting like a jerk, so your attitude with Sam may be negative due to an already accessible amount of information from prior experience.  Fazio & Williams  Asked questions of passersby in a mall including opinions of presidential candidates in upcoming election 5 months away.  Measured response time.  Those who answered the questions fastest were most likely to vote for that candidate.  Acting on Perceptions;  Herr o Primed participants by finding hidden names of people in a puzzle, either hostile (Hitler, Dracula) or gentle (Peter Pan, Santa Claus). o Read an ambiguous description of Donald and described him in their own words. o Contrast effect – Hostile, more gentle. Gentle, more hostile. o Met Donald and played a game with 2 strategies, cooperation or competition. o Hostile Donald - played competitively. o Gentle Donald – played cooperatively. o “Donald” noticed the difference.  Dweck, et al. o People believe that intelligence is either fixed or changeable. o Those that believe it is fixed avoid challenges that might reveal their limitations. o Those that believe it is malleable, seek challenges and try to improve their abilities. o 3 Possible Biases in Social Explanation:  The Fundamental Attribution Error  The tendency for people to over-emphasize dispositional, or personality-based, explanations for behaviors observed in others while under-emphasizing situational explanations.  Bierbrauer o Participants watched a reenactment of the Milgram experiment. o Estimated # of people that would go all the way. o Underestimated – 10-20%, and thought the person they were watching was an aberration and that he was particularly aggressive or obedient.  Ross, Amabile, & Steinmetz o Participants were randomly assigned as a questioner and a contestant in a “quiz show” and an observer. o Questioner looked smart and contestant looked stupid. o Observer thought questioner was smart and contestant was stupid even though they knew it was randomly assigned.  The Actor-Observer Bias  The tendency for actors to attribute their own actions to situational factors, whereas observers tend to attribute the same actions to stable personality dispositions of the actors.  Everybody does what they do except for me  adds you into the picture  Storms o 2 subjects engaged in a conversation while 2 observers watched. o Actors and observers judged behaviors, i.e. friendliness, talkativeness, etc. o Actors explained in terms of the situation, observers in terms of personality dispositions. o Then actors and observers watched the conversation from a reverse angle. o The opinions switched!  Self-Biases  Egocentric thought o A tendency to perceive oneself as more central to events than is actually the case.  Rober t Jervis – world leaders believe that foreign nations act in response to their prior decisions or to get a response from them. o We always think we are better and everything good happens because of us o We tend to think anything and everything is about us. (say someone is looking at you and whispering to a friend, we tend to think they are talking about us, though they may just be looking in a direction that is your way) o Langer  Participants bought lottery tickets. Either chose their own numbers or were given numbers. Then asked to sell them back.  Participants who picked their own numbers wanted 4x as much money for the tickets. o Gilovich  College student wore an “uncool” shirt (Barry Manilow) in a group of other students.  Estimated how many people noticed the shirt – 50%.  Actual – 20% o Barnum statement: A personality description vague enough to be true of almost anyone.  Example: horoscopes  Petty & Brock  Participants given a “personality test” and given either positive open-minded results (you see many sides of an issue) or positive closed-minded results (once you make up your mind, you take a firm stand).  Participants agreed that the statements described them accurately.  After - they were asked to list their thoughts on controversial issues.  Open-minded listed arguments on both sides.  Closed-minded - just one.  The self-serving bias o The tendency for individuals to make dispositional attributions for their successes and situational attributions for their failures. o Why?  Differential attention and memory  Ego defensive behavior to maintain our self- concepts and self-esteem. o Weary, et al.  Bias increases when:  The person is highly involved in the behavior.  They feel responsible for the outcome of their actions.  Their behavior is publicly observed by others. o Least likely when they feel they can’t get away with it. o Of what value are Self-Biases?  Grove  Winning basketball teams attribute their successes to stable causes. Losing teams to flukes, bad breaks, etc.  Keeps one from being psychologically devastated.  Taylor  Gave people who had suffered tragedies the feeling that they could overcome them and had control of their lives.  Seligman  Believing that defeat is due to bad luck and can be overcome by effort and ability leads to more achievement, better health, and an improved mental outlook. Self-Justification Lecture2  Self-justification: The tendency to justify one’s actions in order to maintain one’s self-esteem. - You did something and thought it was really stupid, but come up with a reason why you did it so that you don’t have to think of yourself as stupid o Schachter & Singer  Epinephrine/ Emotion experiment  Video we saw earlier in the class where researchers gave a drug and told half the participants and didn’t tell the other half (which freaked those out). Those who knew about the drug justified their feelings and reactions to the drug itself and not themselves. o Prasad  Analyzed rumors when an earthquake happened in a neighboring village in India. People who were fine and unaffected were saying all kinds of different reasons as to why they were nervous, such as:  Flood  2/26 would be a day of destruction  Another earthquake on the lunar eclipse  A cyclone  Unforeseeable calamities coming o Sinha  Similar study in village where earthquake had happened.  No calamitous rumors because they knew why they were feeling really bad and fearful---- i.e. their houses were the ones that were destroyed.  Comforting rumors:  Things were going to be okay etc.  Cognitive Dissonance: o A state of tension that occurs when an individual simultaneously holds two cognitions (ideas, attitudes, beliefs, opinions) that are psychologically inconsistent. by Leon Festinger  This idea that you have done or thought something that doesn’t go together with your beliefs and behavior, so you try to explain why. o We like to think we are a constant person, where there is harmony and stability between our beliefs and actions. o When there is inconsistency, dissonance happens which is where you find a way to explain why and restore the constancy of your beliefs and actions.   example: if someone gives you $5000 to kick a bum, you may do it but explain to yourself that you are a good person, you just did it because he gave you money for it.  Reward  Or if someone threatens to punnish you if you don’t do it, you explain to yourself that you would have had repercussions if you hadnt done it, basically making yourself feel better about kicking that bum. o External Justification works if:  One is forced or recieves a large reward.  Justification in order to put life back in harmony.  The less external justification someone gives you, the more you have to act like you actually believe.  Perceptual Distortion:  Hastorf & Cantril o Dartmouth vs. Princeton o One of the roughest, dirtiest football games in the history of either school. o Afterwards, when watching a film of the game, Princeton student saw twice as many infractions as Dartmouth students. Saw themselves as victims. o In reality it was pretty much equal. o While they were watching it, they changed their perception by ignoring themselves and focusing more on the negatives of the other team to make themselves feel better. o Internal Justification is needed to reduce the tension:  Cant change behavior but can:  Change attitude to fit behavior  Distort perception to fit behavior  Change view of “evidence” to fit behavior  Examples:  I smoke but the research does not apply to everyone. George Burns smoked and lived to be 100 years old. o Gibbons, et al.  Heavy smokers who attended a smoking cessation clinic quit smoking and relapsed.  Had lowered perceptions of the dangers of smoking.  I had a decent wife but she made me mad with her smart remarks and I had to hit her. She is mean and deserved to be hit but I am still a decent person.  You don’t pay attention to what you put on in the morning and spend the day justifying your crazy clothes. o Dissonance Reduction and Rational Behavior:  By reducing dissonance, we maintain a positive image of ourselves.  We want to feel good about our decisions  Jones & Kohler (1959)  Participants were deeply committed to a pro- or anti-racial segregation stance.  Read plausible and implausible arguments for both sides.  Remembered more of the plausible arguments for the side they agreed with and the implausible arguments for the other side.  no matter who you are, you remembered all the good reasons why you would believe it and all the lousy reasons from the other side.  Dissonance reduction is unconscious  None of these effects happen when we know it is happening o Biased information processing;  Lord, Ross, & Lepper  Pro- and anti-capital punishment Stanford students.  Read two research articles on crime deterrence of the death penalty – one that confirmed and one that disconfirmed.  After students were even more strongly convinced of their beliefs.  No matter what they believed, afterwards they were more convinced they were right because they paid more attention to what they believed and less to what they opposed. o Post-Decision Dissonance:  Before making a decision, we seek as much objective information as possible.  After the decision, we seek as much confirmatory information as possible.  Ehrlich, et al.  After purchasing a car, people spend more time reading ads about their car model than people who have not purchased that car.  After we choose a car, you only want to know about the car you made a decision on and only want to know the good things about that car.  Brehm  Showed women 8 different appliances (toaster, coffee maker, sandwich grill, etc.) and asked them to rate their attractiveness.  Given a choice of one of two equally rated appliances.  Rerated the appliances. Now rated the appliance that she chose higher and the other lower.  Romantic Post-decision dissonance:  Johnson & Rusbult o College students shown pictures of “applicants to a dating service” of the opposite sex. o Rated their attractiveness and enjoyment of a 1 st date. o The more committed they were to their own partners, the lower they rated the pictures  Simpson, et al. o Those in committed relationships found others less physically and sexually attractive. o But only for available others. Older and same-sex pictures rated more realistically. o Foot-in-the-door Technique:  When you want someone to do something for you, you get them to commit to something small first, and then ask for the larger commitment later.  Freedman & Fraser  Asked homeowners to put huge “Drive Carefully” sign on their lawn.  17% said yes.  A different group was first asked to sign a safe driving petition. Almost all signed.  A few weeks later, more than 55% agreed to putting up the sign.  Put them in this position where it is harder to say no.  Irrevocability of Decisions:  Knox & Inkster o Gamblers at the racetrack were stopped either on their way to making a $2 bet or after they made the bet and asked what were the chances of their horse winning. o Those asked after making the bet were much more confident in their horse winning the race. o Soon as you give them the money you have made a decision and cant take it back anyways.  Gilbert o Students interested in photography were asked to take part in an experiment. o They would shoot a roll of film and develop two pictures. After they had the chance to keep one. o 2 groups  Had the option to change their minds in 5 days.  The first choice was final.  they liked their picture the best because it is the one they were going to keep. o Students were contacted 2, 4, and 9 days after they made their choice and asked how they felt about their photo. o Students who had the option to change liked their photo less than students who didn’t  Lowballing: o Cialdini  Car salesmen tells you he can sell you a car worth $19,300 for $18,942.  You write a check for the down payment.  Salesmen talks to manager – oops! Can’t sell you the car for that price. The manager says no. The price is $19,384.  Far more people buy the car at the higher price. o Why?  Commitment made by signing check  Anticipated a pleasant experience, thwarting this produces dissonance or disappointment.  Price is only slightly higher than somewhere else. “I’m here. Why not?”. o Immoral Behavior:  Mills  Measured 6 graders attitudes towards cheating.  Took competitive exam with prizes for winners.  Almost impossible to win without cheating.  Some children cheated; some didn’t.  Asked about cheating again.  Those that cheated were now more lenient towards cheaters. Those that didn’t were harder on cheaters.  Rules for controlling people:  If you want people to form more positive attitudes toward an object, get them to commit themselves to own that object.  If you want people to soften their moral attitudes toward some misdeed, tempt them so that they perform that deed;  conversely, if you want people to harden their moral attitudes toward a misdeed, tempt them but not enough to induce them to commit the deed.  Inadequate Justification:  External Justification – a person’s reason or explanation for his or her dissonant behavior that resides not in the individual but in the situation (e.g., a reward or punishment).  Internal Justification – the reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g., one’s attitude or behavior).  The “saying is believing” paradigm: o Festinger & Carlsmith  College students performed a boring task – packing spools in a tray or turning screws for an hour.  Asked participants to lie about interest of task.  Paid them either $1 or $20.  How much did you enjoy the task?  $20 – dull.  $1 – enjoyable! o Cohen  Experiment took place after a student riot in which police overreacted and brutalized students.  Students were asked to write a pro-police essay.  Paid $10, $5, $1, or .50.  After .50 were most favorable towards police, followed by $1, $5, and $10.  Race Relations: o Leippe & Eisenstadt  Induced white students wrote essay demonstrating counter-attitudinal advocacy: endorsing twice the amount of funds for African American students which would reduce funds for white students.  Students came to deeply believe in the policy and their attitudes towards African Americans became more favorable and supportive.  They were able to change their attitudes by putting them into a position of cognitive dissonance.  What constitutes external justification? o Zimbardo, et al.  Army reservists asked to eat fried grasshoppers in study on “survival foods”.  ½ warm, friendly officer.  ½ cold, unfriendly officer.  Attitudes towards eating grasshoppers measured before and after.  Reservists who ate grasshoppers for unfriendly officer increased their liking for them more than the friendly officer group.  What is inadequate justification? o Mills  Further study on cheating in 6 graders.  Varied rewards for cheating.  Large reward for cheaters – less change in attitude towards cheating.  Small reward - more change.  Large reward for non-cheaters – hardened attitude against cheating.  Small reward – less change. o Dissonance and the Self-Concept:  Festinger:  I said x,( i.e. the task was interesting.)  I believe not x, (i.e. the task was dull.)  Aronson:  Says that dissonance is always between you and your own self-esteem.  I have told people something I don’t believe.  I am a person of integrity.  Dissonance effects are greatest when:  people feel personally responsible for their actions.  their actions have serious consequences.  Cialdini & Schroeder  Students acting a fundraisers went door to door asking for donations, sometimes adding “even a penny will help”.  “Even-a-penny” gave more often 2x as frequently and gave as much money as the other group.  Deci, et al.  College students worked on an interesting puzzle for an hour.  The next day ½ are paid $1 for each piece of puzzle completed. rd  3 session – no one paid.  How much did they like it? Free time spent on puzzle.  Unrewarded group spent more free time on it.  If rewarded, less likely to play with puzzle in free time when not rewarded again.  The students who didn’t get paid at all liked the puzzle more. o Effects of praise:  Henderlong & Lepper  Praise can be beneficial if done in moderation and makes children feel competent.  Not if the children are working for the praise.  Dweck  Effort vs. being smart.\ o Insufficient punishment:  Children in room of toys received either a mild or severe threat not to play with robot toy.  Several weeks later a different experimenter after some tests allowed children to play with the toys.  Mild threat refused to play  with robot.  Severe threat played with it. o Justification of effort (article 18):  Fraternity/Sorority Initiations  Aronson & Mills  College women joining a group to discuss the psychology of sex. Had to go through a screening test.  1/3 – severe initiation – recite a list of obscene words.  1/3 – mild initiation – list of sexual words.  1/3 – no initiation  Another example:  Listened in on a “live”, extremely dull, meeting discussion (taped).  Rated discussion, liking, interest, intelligence of participants, etc.  No initiation – thought discussion was boring.  Severe initiation – found it interesting and worthwhile.  Basically, the more effort one puts forth in order to join a group, the more likely they will enjoy that group no matter its content because they believe that If they went through a rough time to get into the group, they must have done it for a reason, therefore it has to be a great group.  Justification of Cruelty:  Glass o Induced participants to deliver electric shocks to other people. o After – victims were derogated as bad people. o Particularly for subjects with high self-esteem.  Dehumanization  Actor-observer bias  Dissonance reduction is unconcious:  None of these effects happen on conscious level.  We make the decision and are happy with it either way. o Self-esteem and cheating:  Aronson & Mettee  Participants took a personality test. o 1/3 given positive feedback o 1/3 given negative feedback o 1/3 given no feedback  Participants than took part in a “different experiment”. Played a card game for money and given opportunities to cheat that would allow them to win.  Low self-esteem cheated far more than high with control in the middle.  Manipulating self esteem in this study. o Self-esteem and grades:  Cohen, et al.  African American children had self-esteem bolstered through class assignments focused on personal strengths and values.  Children received significantly higher grades. o Artificial self-esteem:  Baumeister, Bushman, & Campbell  Participants wrote an essay which was criticized by their partner.  After – had the chance to blast their partner with noise.  Those who scored highest on self-esteem and narcissism turned it up the loudest. o Discomfort or self-perception?  Bem and Self-Perception theory:  Seems to work only if the person doesn’t have a fairly clear initial belief.  Elliot & Devine  People in a dissonance situation report feeling more agitated and uncomfortable than control.  Pallak & Pittman  People experiencing dissonance perform complex tasks more poorly than control.  Westen, et al. Found on fMRIs that reasoning areas of the brain shut down when shown dissonant info. and reward centers lit up when dissonance reduced.  So, in the brain the dissonance is actually causing pain, but when the discomfort is resolved we are rewarded by no more pain.  Physiological and motivational effects:  AIDs prevention: o Students who made video and were reminded of condom use failures in a state of high hypocrisy. o These students were far more likely to purchase condoms. Months afterwards, these a large proportion of these students were regularly using condoms. o So they had put them in a position where they had changed their behaviors towards condom use.  Water Conservation: o Dickerson, et al.  Students stopped on the way to the showers. Asked to sign a poster for water conservation. ½ also asked to respond to a survey on their own water usage.  Made aware of their own hypocrisy.  Students took 3 ½ minute showers. Shorter than control.  Cults: o Jst Jones o 1 asked for a small donation. o Next, they sell their houses and turn the money over to the church. o Moves to Guyana. o Made to work hard. o Cut off from dissenting opinions. o Has sexual relations with several married women and claims to be the father of their children. o Stages mock ritual suicides. o Dissonance reduction and culture:  Sakai  Ran Festinger & Carlsmith experiment in Japan.  Subjects who said a boring task was interesting for a small reward believed task was interesting.  Observers of someone who said a boring task was interesting, experienced dissonance and also came to believe it was interesting.  What to do about it?  Have a greater understanding of one’s own defensiveness and dissonance-reducing tendencies.  Realize that performing stupid or immoral actions does not necessarily mean that you are an irrevocably stupid or immoral person.  Develop enough ego strength to tolerate errors in oneself.  Increase one’s ability to recognize the benefits of admitting errors in terms of one’s own growth and learning as well as the ability to form close, meaningful relationships with other people. Lecture 3--- Aggression  Aggression: o Aggressive action: Intentional behavior aimed at causing either physical or psychological pain.  The intent to hurt o Hostile aggression – an act of aggression stemming from a feeling of anger aimed at inflicting pain or injury.  Ex. Punching someone in the face just because they made you mad. o Instrumental aggression – an intention to hurt the other person, but the hurting takes place as a means to some goal other than causing pain.  There is still an intent to hurt, but only for a gain.  Ex. Football players may hurt the person on the other team only because they are in your way to being able to score. o Is aggression instinctive?  Hobbes (1651) - humans are basically brutes.  Rousseau (1762) – “the noble savage”, man is gentle by nature.  Freud  Eros – an instinct towards life.  Thanatos – an instinct towards death, aggression. --- said these two things were fighting each other  The hydraulic theory: o You are pushing things down and it may be unconscious, but you build up pressure while doing it, and eventually you will blow up if you don’t ease that pressure every now and then slighlty.  Example: kitten and rat raised together will grow up as friends and the kitten will not kill the rat, or other rats as well.  Example: horned goats will only fight if there is a need to (i.e. to be the dominant male in the communities) or if they are close enough.  Being ready to mate is another form of when there is increased aggression  Learning Aggression: o Leonard Berkowitz:  Innate propensities  Learned inhibitory responses  Nature of the social situation o Many “primitive” cultures live with minimal aggression:  Lepchas of Sikkim  Pygmies of Central Africa  Arapesh of New Guinea o So not all aggression is inately instinctive. o Regional Differences:  Nisbett  Homicide rates for white southern males are substantially higher then for white northern males.  Southerners don’t generally endorse violence but only for protection of property and in response to insults.  Herding societies.  Nisbett, et al.  Male students were “accidentally” bumped and insulted by confederate.  Northern students shrugged it off.  Southern students  Thought their masculine reputation threatened  Became more upset-higher cortisone level  Primed for aggression-rise in testosterone level  More likely to engage in aggressive behavior  Cohen & Nisbett  Sent job application letters to companies across U.S. from people who had killed someone in an honor-related conflict.  Companies in the South and West far more likely to respond than those in the North.  How useful is aggression?  “survival of the fittest”--- not necessarily an aggressiveness trumps all thing. There are other tendencies that allows one to survive without aggression, i.e. hiting, foraging, climbing, hunting, etc.  Konrad Lorenz – “an essential part of the life-preserving organization of instincts”  Washburn & Hamburg – strongest and most aggressive male in Old World monkeys assumes the dominant position – mates, food, etc.  Pinker – creates dominance hierarchy which reduces aggression.  The value of nonaggressive behavior: o Ashley Montagu – survival of the fittest, a self- fulfilling prophecy.  If one says that they survived because of the saying “survival of the fittest,” then they will fulfill the fact that they are the fittest. o Kropotkin – cooperative behavior has great survival value.  Social insects (termites, ants, bees)  Prairie dogs  Chimpanzees share food  DeWaal’s empathy  Shows that animals do have empathy for each other. (elephants pay attention to animals that are either hurt or dead.) o Is aggression still a survival strategy?  If you are being aggressive, you are probably placing yourself into a 50/50 possibility that you will win the fights or lose them and die. o Catharsis:  The notion that “blowing off steam” – by performing an aggressive act, watching others engage in aggressive behaviors, or engaging in a fantasy of aggression – relieves built-up aggressive energies and hence reduces the likelihood of further aggressive behavior.  Instead of letting it out, catharsis leads you to be more angry more of the time.  Example: people say go punch a pillow, a wall, or do something to get the “built-up aggression” out.  Example from book:  Movie Analyze this- mob boss hires psychologist to help him with his panic attacks and help him with his stress. Psychologist says hit the pillow, mob boss pulls out gun and shoots it a couple of times. Psychiatrist asks: now, how did that make you feel? Mob boss: so much better!  Retaliation, Escalation, and Overkill:  “tit-for-tat” experiment  Pairs of people attached to a machine that exerted pressure on their index fingers.  Told to try and exert the same amount of pressure that they received.  Participants unable to do so, retaliated with considerably greater force.  Testosterone & Gender differences:  Dabbs, et al. o T levels higher in prisoners convicted of violent crimes. o Juvenile delinquents over college students. o Rowdier fraternities. o Behaving aggressively also raises T levels. o Video:  “Big time rush” -- high on testosterone  increased testosterone when sports are being played because emotions are completely involved and the thrill of victory may raise aggression levels.  The feeling of defeat causes all levels to decrease rapidly so much that they no longer have the “high”  Testosterone may even make a male more successful?  Confident feeling and conquering – on top of the world.  Maccoby & Jacklin o Boys consistently more aggressive than girls. o Children at play in different countries (U.S, Switzerland, Ethiopia), more pushing and hitting amongst boys. o Worldwide, the overwhelming majority of people arrested for violent crimes are men.  Crick, et al. o Girls more likely to engage in social aggression – relational aggression. o More likely to hurt others by sabotaging their relationships with peers – exclusion, false rumors, malicious gossip. o In general, women have other outlets for aggression.  In spite of advances in sexual equality, men still more likely to commit violent crimes, but women have increased in nonviolent crime.  Archer & McDaniel – internationally, teenage boys mor


Buy Material

Are you sure you want to buy this material for

50 Karma

Buy Material

BOOM! Enjoy Your Free Notes!

We've added these Notes to your profile, click here to view them now.


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'

Why people love StudySoup

Steve Martinelli UC Los Angeles

"There's no way I would have passed my Organic Chemistry class this semester without the notes and study guides I got from StudySoup."

Anthony Lee UC Santa Barbara

"I bought an awesome study guide, which helped me get an A in my Math 34B class this quarter!"

Jim McGreen Ohio University

"Knowing I can count on the Elite Notetaker in my class allows me to focus on what the professor is saying instead of just scribbling notes the whole time and falling behind."

Parker Thompson 500 Startups

"It's a great way for students to improve their educational experience and it seemed like a product that everybody wants, so all the people participating are winning."

Become an Elite Notetaker and start selling your notes online!

Refund Policy


All subscriptions to StudySoup are paid in full at the time of subscribing. To change your credit card information or to cancel your subscription, go to "Edit Settings". All credit card information will be available there. If you should decide to cancel your subscription, it will continue to be valid until the next payment period, as all payments for the current period were made in advance. For special circumstances, please email


StudySoup has more than 1 million course-specific study resources to help students study smarter. If you’re having trouble finding what you’re looking for, our customer support team can help you find what you need! Feel free to contact them here:

Recurring Subscriptions: If you have canceled your recurring subscription on the day of renewal and have not downloaded any documents, you may request a refund by submitting an email to

Satisfaction Guarantee: If you’re not satisfied with your subscription, you can contact us for further help. Contact must be made within 3 business days of your subscription purchase and your refund request will be subject for review.

Please Note: Refunds can never be provided more than 30 days after the initial purchase date regardless of your activity on the site.