Psych 221 (Social Psych) Lecture 4 | 1/21/16
Psych 221 (Social Psych) Lecture 4 | 1/21/16 PSYCH 221
Popular in Intro to Social Psychology
verified elite notetaker
Popular in Psychlogy
One Day of Notes
verified elite notetaker
This 4 page Class Notes was uploaded by Gabriella Morales on Thursday January 21, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to PSYCH 221 at Pennsylvania State University taught by Nicholas Pearson in Spring 2016. Since its upload, it has received 25 views. For similar materials see Intro to Social Psychology in Psychlogy at Pennsylvania State University.
Reviews for Psych 221 (Social Psych) Lecture 4 | 1/21/16
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: 01/21/16
Chapter 2 (Cont.) & Chapter 3 - Social Cognition Thursday, January 21, 2016 2:23 PM External Validity: The extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations or other people Generalizing Across People How do you ensure that the results that your participants gave would be the same as another group of participants Best way to generalize across people: Random selection from population Replicate the study with different groups of people Generalizing Across Situations How do you ensure that the results that you found in the lab would be the same as in the real world o Mundane realism: The extent to which the experiment is similar to real-life situations o Psychological Realism: The extent to which the psychological processes triggered in your experiment are similar to psychological processes that occur in everyday life o Replicate the study in different settings Researcher might observe things from the real world > The test hypotheses using experiments > that test results in different populations and settings > which leads to back to the beginning Ethical Issues: When does the cost of research (cost, in terms of harm to your participants) outweigh the benefit? o What are some situations where the potential for harm to your participants exists? Milgram (1963) - Zaps person, person begs to be let out, experimenter keeps going, participant doesn’t make any noise at all anymore and researcher keeps going Haney, Banks, & Zimbrado (1973) - Stanford prison experiment - where either prison guards or prisoners. A lot of guards tortured the prisoners (acted like they were real guards) Deception: o Used because of the kind of questions we ask, if we ask straight forward, people wont answer honestly. We can lie to participants, but there has to be a specific reason o As long as deception doesn’t increase harm too much How we can do this: o Must be informed (informed consent about your rights and how you can terminate your participation) o Institutional Review Boards: Peers look at research and make sure that harm does not outweigh benefit o Debriefing: If any deception has been used, must explain what happened in sudy and why you had to be decieved CHAPTER 3 Amadou Diallo o Feb 4, 1999, four white policeman mistook Diallo for a serial rapist o When he reached for his wallet, they fired 41 times, killing him instantly How did this happen? Self-esteem maintenance motive o The officers saw what they made them feel good about themselves Social cognition approach o They were doing their best to be accurate, but made a tragic mistake. o Thought he was a dangerous criminal, and they made a decision and a mistake Two modes of social cognition: Automatic thinking o Nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, effortless thinking Controlled Thinking o Conscious, intentional, voluntary effortful thinking Automatic Thinking: Payne (2001) People were presented on a computer screen, was either flashed a black or white face for 1/5 of a second Immediately followed a picture of a weapon or a tool Had fingers on keyboard, hit one button for weapon and the other button for tool Participants told to ignore face, judge as quickly as possible whether second picture was a weapon or tool Results: 2 X 2 experiment , 2 faces and 2 tools Proved the African American stereotype Other examples of Automatic Thinking: Schema: Describe how people structure and organize info to understand the world around them. Ex: How you walk up to the counter at a fast food place, even if you've never been to that restaurant before Schemas are automatic , non-conscious, involuntary, unintentional, and effortless o Schemas are Functional Guide attention and memory Help us interpret ambiguous situations What schemas are applied has important consequences for how we construe a situation Ex: Sitting down at a fast food restaurant because you think that a server is going to come to you Accessibility of schemas: Chronic accessibility Priming: Process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait, or concept Schemas can get us into trouble: o Distort what we can see and remember (Hastorf & Cantril, 1954) o Princeton Vs. Dartmouth o Princeton quarterback had to leave game with broken nose and mild concussion o Third quarter, Darmouths quarterback's leg was broken when he was tackled o Princeton and Dartmouth students watched film, was told to be accurate as possible o Princeton students said Dartmouth made more fouls, and vice versa Self-Fulfilling Prophecy: Step 1: Forming an expectancy o Category based o Personal experiences, first impression o Implicit personality theories Theories of what kinds of personality traits go together Step 2: Perceptual Confirmation We see what we expect to see " I wouldn't believe it if I hadn't seen it" But we really should say.. "I wouldn't have seen it if I hadn't believed it" We are not aware of this process - automatic Step 3: Behavioral Confirmation o Expectations lead us to behave in such a way that the target unintentionally confirms our expectation Believe target is unfriendly Act nervous Target responds with anxious behavior Study of self-fulfilling prophecy and behavioral confirmation o (Word, Zanna, & Cooper, 1974) Page 430 in text o Step 1: Procedure White people came to lab to interview job applicants Carefully trained confederates (black and white) give identical answers to questions o Step 1 Results: "Immediacy": White confederates received more smiles, interaction, encouragement, and time Black applicants were treated differently, interviewers were annoyed, etc. Perceptual confirmation: White interviewers saw what they expected in white applicants Better reviews of white applicants o Step 2: Procedure White people come to lab to be interviews Carefully trained confederates interviewed people Interviewers either high or low "immediacy" o Step 2 Results: Those in "high immediacy" condition interviews extremely well compared to those in "low immediacy" condition
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'