Exam 1 Study Guide

Social Psychology
 Chapter 1

Introducing Social Psychology

Social Psychology
• Social psychology is defined as:
• A science that studies the influences of our
situations, with special attention to how we
view and affect one another (our feelings,
thoughts, and behaviors in social
situations.)
• It is an environmental science in that it
reveals how the social environment
influences behavior
Social Psychology
• Social psychology is the scientific study
of:
1. Social Thinking
2. Social Influence
3. Social Relations
Social Thinking

• How people think about one another and

make sense of their world.
• How they decide what and who to believe,
evaluate other people’s motives,
personalities, and abilities, and reach
conclusions about the causes of events.
Social Influence
• How people influence one another
• Asch’s studies of group pressure:
• In “three-lines perceptual judgment”
experiment, three quarters did conform
and give the wrong answer at least once.
• Even though the right answer was clear to
them, they gave the wrong answer because
everyone else did.
Social Relations
• Bystander effect: The presence of other
bystanders greatly decreases likelihood of
intervention
• Woman murdered with 38 witnesses and
not one called the cops
• When dropping something in the elevator,
people were helped 40% of the time when
there was one passenger but less than 20%
of the time when there were 6 passengers
Related Disciplines

• Disciplines Related to Social Psychology

• Personality Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Sociology
Personality Psychology
• A close cousin to social psychology
• Social psych focuses on how individuals
react in social situations (outward
factors)
• Personality psych focuses on the effects of
individual traits & characteristics of their
reactions (internal factors)
Cognitive Psychology
• Studies how people perceive, think about,
and remember the aspects of the world
• Cognitive Social Psychologists focus on
perceptions and beliefs about other human
beings as opposed to memory for words or
objects
Sociology
• Studies people in groups and societies
• Social psychologists would look at why
people fall in love and get married as
whereas sociologists would look at how
government policy influences marriage and
divorce rates.
 Fundamental Principles

• Fundamental Principles of Social Psychology:

1. We construct our social reality
2. Our social intuitions are often powerful but
sometimes perilous
3. Social influences shape our behavior
4. Social behavior is biologically rooted
5. Personal attitudes and dispositions also
shape behavior (Cultural)
6. Social psychology’s principles are applicable
in everyday life
Is Social Psychology Common
Sense?
• Some findings are “counter-intuitive” – Stanford
Prison Experiment – Guards followed orders
rather than doing what was right
• Some are pro-intuition (ex. We tend to like people
who like us)
• “Common sense” is easy to have in hindsight –
students rated dueling proverbs both as true (ex.
“You can’t teach an old dog new tricks” and
“You’re never too old to learn”)
• This is why social psychologists must test
intuitions by using experiments to isolate the
cause of behavior in social situations
Research Methods

• Theories
• Testable theories can come from anywhere
• A theory is an integrated set of principles
that explain and predict observed events
• Ex. The theory of gravity predicts that your
keys will fall to the floor if you drop them
• Theories imply testable predictions called
hypotheses and use these predictions to
give direction to research
• A good theory is practical
Correlational Research
• Determines whether relationship exists between
two or more variables
• Ex. Taller grave markers were related to longer life
• Cannot determine causal relationship because:
• there may be a third factor
• The direction of the effect cannot be determined (which
variable is the cause and which is the effect?)
• Advantages:
• Gives ideas for experimental (causal) research
• Can study factors that cannot be manipulated
Experimental Research
• Purpose is to establish causal relationships
• Has a control group and an experimental
group
• Control group gets no treatment
• Experimental group gets treatment
• Participants are randomly assigned
Surveys and Questionnaires
• A random sample is one in which everyone
in the population being studied has an
equal chance of inclusion
• Must have a representative sample
• If a random sample of the population is
wanted, and participants are selected from
university class rosters, that sample is not
representative
Field Experiments
• Conducted in the real world
• Participants do not know they are involved
in an experiment
• Ex. Dropping a book in the elevator to see
who helps you pick it up with one person in
the elevator as opposed to with 6 people in
the elevator
Ethics of Experimentation
• Sometimes deception is used because
experimenters want their participants to
engage in real psychological processes
• Ex. They force people to choose whether to
give electric shock to someone else
• Debriefing is required
• Fully explain the experiment to the
participant afterward
 Chapter 2

The Self in a Social World

The Self in a Social World
• There are constant interplays between our
sense of self and our social world
• Our ideas and feelings about ourselves
affect how we respond to others
• Others help shape our sense of self
• Example phenomena:
• Spotlight effect—we tend to think people
pay attention to us more than they really
do
• Illusion of Transparency—we tend to
believe our concealed emotions can be
easily read by others
Self Concept: Who Am I?
• Elements of self concept:
• Self schemas
• Self Reference Effect
• Possible selves
• Self-discrepancy theory
Self Schemas
• Schemas are mental templates by which we
organize our worlds and generalized knowledge
about the physical and social world; how to
behave with different kinds of people
• Self-schemas are the specific beliefs by which you
define yourself
• They help us organize and guide the processing of
self-relevant information
• If being pretty is central to one of your self-
schemas, you tend to notice other’s beauty and
recall and welcome info regarding beauty
Self Reference Effect

• When info is relevant to our self-concept,

we process it quickly and remember it well
• We tend to remember things better if we
somehow relate them to ourselves
Possible Selves
• Motivational function of self knowledge
• Self-schemas that refer to the kinds of
people we hope or dread to be in the
future
• Ex. Imagining yourself successful ten years
from now might motivate you to work
toward that success
Self Discrepancy Theory
• Actual self is who we truly believe ourselves to be
• Ideal self refers to the selves we and others would
like us to be
• Ought self refers to the duties and external
demands we feel obligated to honor
• Violations of cultural and moral standards of the
ideal self and the ought self produce feelings of
guilt and shame
 Development of the Social
Self

• Influences of self concept:

• The roles we play
• Social identities we form
• Social comparisons we make with others
• Our successes and failures
• How others judge us
• The surrounding culture
Individualism vs.
Collectivism
• Individualism gives priority to one’s own goals
over group goals
• Defines one’s identity in terms of personal, fixed
attributes which exist across situations and
relationships.
• Expects one to be self-reliant.
• Collectivism gives priority to the goals of one’s
groups
• Defines one’s identity with group they belong
• Places a value on interdependent self
• Self definition consists of fluid, context-specific
attributes that exist in relation to other people
Self Knowledge
• Research shows our confidence in self
knowledge is not well founded
• We dismiss some factors that matter and
inflate some that don’t
• Impact bias—we tend to overestimate the
enduring impact of emotion-causing events
• Immune neglect—we tend to neglect the
speed and strength of our “psychological
immune system” which enables emotional
resilience after negative events happen
Self-Esteem
• Refers to the overall evaluation you have
of yourself; your sense of self worth
• Tesser believes we tend to choose friends
who we outperform in domains relative to
our self concept but who are talented in
domains that are not
• Types of self esteem include:
• Trait self esteem—confidence because of
abilities or characteristics
• State self esteem—changeable momentary
feelings about the self; rises and falls
 Processes of Self Esteem
• Top-Down view
• General self esteem which affects specific
self perceptions (having a high self esteem
in general makes you feel good about your
looks, abilities, etc.)
• Bottom-Up view
• Self esteem is domain-specific and there are
diverse sources of self esteem
• Contingencies of Self Worth
• Self esteem is contingent on successes and
failures in domains in which a person has
based his self worth
Self Esteem Maintenance
• We are motivated to engage in self
evaluation so that we can maintain our
self esteem and see ourselves in a
favorable light
• We do this through two processes:
• Reflection: we flatter ourselves by
association with other’s accomplishments
• We bask in others victory especially when
their success in not in a domain relevant to
our self concept
• Social Comparison: We notice when we do
better than someone else at something,
especially when the domain is relevant to
our self concept
The Dark Side of Self
Esteem
• Many murderers, bullies, and rapists tend
to have high self esteem
• When self esteem is threatened, those
who have high self esteem tend to be
more aggressive
Self Serving Bias
• The tendency to perceive oneself
favorably
• 5 types:
• Self serving attributions in explaining
positive and negative events
• Unrealistically positive views about the self
• Unrealistic optimism
• False consensus and uniqueness
• Exaggerated perceptions of control
Public Self
• The public self is concerned with self
presentation and impression management

• Self presentation refers to presenting to

others who we want them to think we are
• Impression management refers to how we
attempt to control the beliefs other people
have of us
• We control these using:
• False modesty
• Self handicapping
• Self monitoring
 Chapter 3

Social Beliefs and Judgments

Social Beliefs
• Our social beliefs emerge as we:
• Perceive events through the filters of our
own assumptions
• Judge events informed by implicit rules that
guide our snap judgments
• Explain events by sometimes attributing
them to the situation or person
• Why study social judgment?
• By focusing on errors in judgment and
decision making, we can come to
understand the way people make
judgments and learn to avoid mistakes
Priming
• Refers to activating particular associations
in memory
• Experiment:
• Wearing headphones, you hear the sentence
“We stood by the bank” while either the
word “money” or “river” was simultaneously
sent to your other ear. The word primes your
interpretation of the sentence; it determines
whether you interpret the sentence to mean
that they stood by the money bank or the
river bank.
Belief Perseverance
• Once a person rationalizes a belief, it is
hard to discredit it
• Experiment:
• One group led to believe risk prone person
was a successful firefighter and the other
group cautious person.
• They were then asked to write their
explanations for why this was.
• They were then given evidence that
discredited their belief
• They still continued to believe their own
belief
**More compelling evidence is required to
alter a belief than to create it**
Constructing Memories
• Memories are not exact copies of
experiences
• We can easily revise our memories to suit
our current knowledge
• Misinformation Effect:
• People incorporate misinformation into
their memories
• Misinformation may even be able to
produce false memories
• Ex. False memories of child sexual abuse
• People tend to underreport bad behavior
and overreport good behavior
Judging Our Social World
• Intuitive judgments are both powerful and
perilous
• Perilous side:
1. Overconfidence phenomenon: tendency to
overestimate the accuracy of one’s belief
• Incompetence feeds overconfidence
• Confirmation bias—our minds pay more attention
to info which supports our beliefs and ignore
disconfirming info
2. Heuristics: Mental shortcuts
• Intuitive mental operations that allow us to make a
variety of judgments quickly and efficiently
• Red/white marble experiment: most would choose
pot with more red marbles even thought the odds
are greater for the other pot
Perilous side of Intuitive
Judgments (continued)
1. Illusory thinking
• Illusory correlation
• Refers to our tendency to perceive random
events as correlated
• If a friend calls while you were thinking
about them, you remember that as a
correlation as opposed to just a
coincidence
• Illusion of control
• Feeds the ideas that chance events are
subject to our influence
• Regression toward the average:
extraordinary event likely to be followed by
a more ordinary event
• Shorter fathers tend to have somewhat taller
Characteristics of Heuristics
• Representativeness
• The process whereby judgments of likelihood are
based on assessments of similarity between
individuals and group prototypes
• Availability
• The process whereby judgments of frequency are
based on the ease with which pertinent instances
are brought to mind
• Counterfactual thinking: “if only”
• Thoughts of what could have or should have
happened if something had been done differently
• Emotional Amplification: A person’s emotional
reaction to an event is amplified if it almost did not
happen
Attributing Causality
• Assigning causes to people’s actions
affects how we judge them
• In prison experiment, were soldiers cruel
or were they merely powerless victims of
the situation?
• Experiment: for spouse’s negative act
• Happy couples blamed the situation (she
was late because of heavy traffic)
(situational)
• Unhappy couples blamed the person (she
was late because she doesn’t care about
me) (dispositional)
Fritz Heider (1958)
• Attribution Theory Pioneer
• Attribution: linking a cause to an instance
of behavior—one’s own or that of other
people
• When we observe someone acting
intentionally
• we sometimes attribute his behavior to
internal causes (dispositional attribution)
• Sometimes to external causes (situational
attribution)
• Also called Theory of Correspondent
Inferences, which specifies the conditions
Attribution Theory
• Three factors influence whether we
attribute other’s behaviors to internal or
external causes:
• Distinctiveness: whether the behavior is
unique to one situation or occurs in all
situations
• Does your friend like one math class or all
math classes? If one, it has High
Distinctiveness.
• Consensus
• How many people would behave the same
way
• If all students love the class, it has a High
Consensus
• Consistency
Situational vs. Dispositional
Attribution
• Situational attribution is called for when
consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency
are all high
• When her classmates like the class, she likes
no other math class, and she has been raving
about it all semester, there must be something
special about that class
• Dispositional attribution is called for when
consensus and distinctiveness are low and
consistency is high
• When few other students like the class, she
likes all math classes, and she has raved about
the course all semester, then her fondness for
the course must reflect something about her.
Fundamental Attribution Error
(Ross, 1977)
• Tendency to mistakenly attribute a person’s
behavior to his disposition rather than the
situation
• When explaining someone’s behavior:
• We often underestimate the impact of the
situation &
• Overestimate the extent to which it reflects
the individual’s traits and attitudes
Correspondence Bias (Jones,
1979)
• The tendency to draw an inference about a
person that “corresponds” to the behavior
observed
• We often see behavior as corresponding to a
disposition
• Experiment: Though people were told that
essay topics (pro- or anti-Castro), those who
read the pro-Castro essays thought the author
felt more favorable toward Cuba than those
who read the anti-Castro essay
• Implication: we often fail to see the inherent
advantages that some people enjoy and the
 Why are these errors made?
• Dispositional inferences can be comforting
• Life’s twists and turns can be unsettling
• Just world hypothesis: belief that people get what they
deserve and deserve what they get
• View victims of rape and abuse as responsible
• We observe others from a different perspective than
we observe ourselves (Jones & Nisbit, 1971)
• Actor-Observer Difference:
• To observers, another person seems to cause what
happens, whereas
• As actors, we attribute our behavior to the situation
• Camera perspective bias:
• When people viewed confession while camera focused on
suspect, they perceived it as genuine
• When camera focused on detective, confession was viewed as
Self Awareness
• Self awareness helps reduce making these
errors
• Ex. Having participants perform an
experiment in front of a mirror, it helps them
view themselves as observers; they typically
attribute their behavior more to internal
factors and less to the situation
 Chapter 4

Behavior and Attitudes

Behavior and Attitudes
• There is little consistency between
attitudes and behaviors
• Ex. Americans claim to think nutrition is
important yet calorie and fat consumption
has increased
• 2 possibilities:
• Attitudes determine our behavior
• Behavior determines our attitudes
Attitudes
• Defined as favorable or unfavorable
evaluative reactions toward something or
someone, often rooted in beliefs, exhibited
in feelings, and intended behavior
• Three elements:
• Affect
• Cognition
• Behavior
• Ex. You may believe a particular ethnic
group is aggressive (cognition), then may
feel dislike for such people (affect), and
therefore act toward them in a
discriminatory manner
Measuring Attitude
• Self-report measure
• Likert scales (eg.1= never, 7=always)
• Often fail to capture real attitude
• Likely to get strong positive responses (i.e. Social
desirability or demand characteristics)
• Accessibility of the attitude
• By assessing reaction time
• The faster the response, the stronger the feelings
• Physiological measures
• Facial muscle responses
• Galvanic skin response & pupil dilation in studies of
ethnic prejudice
• Wiring participants to a fake lie detector and telling
them it’s real
 When Does Behavior Affect
Attitude?
• Role playing
• Participants told how to behave
• Ex. Prison simulation experiment (Zimbardo,
1971)
• Saying becomes believing
• People tend to adjust their messages to their
listeners and, having done so, to believe the
altered message
• Foot in the door phenomenon
• More people likely to display large “drive safely”
sign in their yards after displaying a small one on
their cars
• Lowball technique: after customer agrees to buy
something because of bargain price, price
Why does our behavior affect our
attitude?
• Self-justification: cognitive dissonance
theory (Festinger)
• We feel discomfort when thoughts are
conflicting so we change our attitude to
match our behavior
2. Dissonance after decisions
• People tend to upgrade the chosen alternative
and downgrade the unchosen one to reduce
dissonance
• Ex. People tend to have more confidence in their
candidates after they have voted than before
 Cognitive Dissonance Theory
(continued)
1. Insufficient (external) justification
• Induced compliance paradigm
• Experiment (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959): participants
were asked to lie for either $1 or $20. Those asked to lie
for $1 tended to change their belief to the lie because $1
did not justify lying for them. The ones given $20 dollars
did not change their attitudes because they believed their
behavior was justified (“anyone would have lied for $20”)
• Forbidden Toy paradigm experiment
• No child played with the toy right away
• Weeks later, those who had received a mild threat were
less likely to play with the toys
• Possible that they had internalized the behavior and
changed their beliefs to reduce dissonance whereas the
severe threat was enough for the other group to justify not
playing
• Implication: allow children a free choice for their behavior;
use smallest incentives
 Self perception
• People observe their own behavior that occurs in a
particular context to draw inferences about their
attitudes
• Neither dissonance nor attitude change is required
• Ex. “If I chose this, I must have liked it”
• Over-justification effect
• Tendency to devalue those activities we perform to get
something else (we conclude we don’t like an activity
because we are getting something for it)
• Experiment: condition one—children could only play with
activity 2 after they perform activity 1. condition 2—
children could play with both freely
• Children in the former group tended to like activity 2 better
whereas children in the latter group enjoyed both activities
equally