135 A comprehensive break down of all the studies

pdf

School

University of California, Los Angeles *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

135

Subject

Psychology

Date

Oct 30, 2023

Type

pdf

Pages

Uploaded by MajorCoyoteMaster956

Positive illusion: most people have them, because we don't get negative feedback, and when comparing ourselves to others we define the comparison metric (biased) Counter Normative behaviors Losing Control Deindividuation and Taboos: Singer, Brush, and Lublin (1965) The students who were deindividuated were more likely to use obscene language while discussing a taboo topic (porn) while the individuated subjects did not and conformed to more socially accepted language Deindividuation and inflicting pain: Zimbardo (1969) Subjects who were deindividuated were more likely to devliever an intense shock as they felt less consequences Deindividuation and Transgression Two conditions, Deindividuated (anonymous) or not, in a group or alone. The deindividuated in a group were the most likely to take extra candy, group individuated and alone deindividuated nearly identical, alone and individuated highly unlikely. Deindividuation in the dark: Gergen, Gergen, and Barton (1973) The condition of the dark room is the deindividuation factor. Those deindividuated were more likely to engage with others? Self as impulse vs Self as institution: Turner (1976) ? Motivated Self Self-Serving Biases: Ross and Sicoly (1979) Married couples rate each other’s and their own participation in household responsibilities. Individuals ranked themselves higher, and their partner lower: why? Because they only see their actions. Self-Serving Biases: Epley and Whitchurch (2008) When asked to identify a picture of themself, subjects picked the morphed 20% more attractive face. Self-Esteem: Brown and Dutton (1995)

Everyone enjoys receiving positive feedback, those with low self esteem who receive negative feedback are likely to agree with it, those with high self esteem disagree with it and stay happy Accessibility of Positive and Negative Cognitions after failure: Dodgson and Wood (1998) Those with high self esteem are motivated to keep their belief the same so despite failing their strengths are more easily recalled; this prevents their self esteem falling. Those with low self esteem after failure access weakness as it agrees with their perception of self. researchers found among subjects with high self- esteem, subjects in the failure condition named their strengths MORE QUICKLY and named their weaknesses MORE SLOWLY, compared to the non -failure condition. Watching comedy after failure: Heimpel, Wood, Marshall, and Brown (2002) Low self esteem people match the situation (success = comedy: failure = no comedy); High self esteem people do the opposite to correct the internal conflict. Helping after failure: Brown and Smart (1991) Repeated findings, low self esteem match situation, high self esteem do the opposite as it is easier for them to restore favorable self views Gambling after Failure: Baumeister, Heatherton, and Tice (1993) People with high self esteem are more likely to gamble and lose after ego threat because they feel the need to prove to themselves that they are better, those with low self esteem quit while they're ahead. Without threat both conditions win about equal amounts. Threatened Ego and Aggression: Bushman and Baumeister (1998) Subjects with high self esteem are more likely to act aggressively when their ego is threatened as they protect themselves. Low self esteem subjects remain unaggressive as it agrees with their perception of their own ego. Self Evaluation Maintenance: Tesser and Cornell (1991) We give help to strangers regardless of situation, we give our friend a lot of helps during a game but not much during a diagnostic test because we want to know their natural score Self-Enhancement vs Self Verification: Swann, Pelham, and Krull (1989) People want feedback on their qualities but are more likely to ask for feedback on their best quality when given a choice, when not given a choice you want to hear positive

feedback on your best quality and negative feedback on your worst as it matches your sense of self. Self-Enhancement vs Self Verification: Swann, Griffin, Predmore, and Gaines (1987) People with high self esteem agree with the favorable feedback and heavily disagree with the unfavorable (protecting the ego), people with low self esteem agree with both, but more with the unfavorable feedback. Those with high self esteem feel great receiving positive feedback, those with low self esteem feel kinda okay with it, both feel bad (low self esteem more so) receiving unfavorable feedback. If we have to hear it, we want it to match our truth, but still feel bad when the truth is negative. Rationalization Insufficient Justification/Cognitive Dissonance: Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) After doing a tedious and boring task, subjects were asked to tell the new subject that the task was fun–and they were paid either $5 or $200 to lie. Those who were paid $200 did not change their personal opinion, as money justified their lie, but those paid $5 liked the study more because the guilt of lying caused dissonance, and they corrected it. THOSE WHO WERE PAID LESS /ACTUALLY/ LIKED IT MORE, the others probably liked the money but not the task. Free Choice: Brehm (1956) Ranked items in the ordered list to most liked to least liked. Either given middle one, or given a choice between two middle ones. Those given a free choice altered their answers more because they had to rationalize why they picked it over the other one. The toaster I would use more, the rug is just decorative even if it's pretty…Those with no choice didn't change their opinions. Effort = Liking/Initiation Rites: Aronson and Mills (1959) Women attempt to join a book club and are initiated in either reading something with no, little, or lots of obscenities. Those who had the most obscenity in their passage liked the club more because it was harder to get into so it must be worth it. Like frats. Counterattitudinal Essays: Bem and McConnell (1970) Subjects ‘asked’ to write an essay about something their belief disagrees with, they believe they freely chose to write the essay. Thus, their attitudes change because why would I write the essay freely if I disagreed with its position. Subjects do not think their belief changed because humans want their memory to be consistent. Misattribution of Dissonance Arousal: Zanna and Cooper (1974)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Given a pill that does NOTHING but told it does different things. They do the previous essay thing. Those given the arousal pill can blame their discomfort on the pill so their attitude does not change. Those given a relaxing pill, who feel anxious despite the fact that they're supposed to be relaxed, change their beliefs because if they're anxious on the pill they must be really anxious irl. That anxiety is dissonance so changing beliefs minimizes it. Amnesia and Cognitive Dissonance: Liberman, Ochsner, Gilbert, and Schacter (2001) Amnesiacs follow the same pattern as anyone else, because unconsciously they feel the dissonance. So the same results as the ranking appliances one. Money and Kids?: Egan, Santos, and Bloom (2007) Monkeys and kids also have cognitive dissonance. Attribution The Castro Study: Jones and Harris (1967) Given essays either pro and anti person and subject is asked to describe what the author’s personal attitude is; even though the subject knows the author was either given a choice or required. Yet subjects, no matter the condition, think that the essay reflects the author's actual belief. Why? Because we don't consider the situation someone else is in. this is correspondence bias bc it’s other people, not the person who wrote it (which would be cog dissonance). we can’t get past what they wrote. Fundamental Attribution Error: Ross (1977) Why do we commit the FAE?: Gilbert and Malone (1995) Situations are invisible and we only know our own mind, not the mind of the actor. Inaccurate theories of situational influence: Sherman (1980) We think people wouldn't go to the highest shock voltage in milgram's experiment because we don't comprehend the power of the situation. Salience/Actor-Observer Difference: Storms (1973) Based on the point of view we watch we understand that individuals actions, and not the person we are watching even if the person is ourself. we can only see what someone is doing and cannot know their reasons. when watching a video of yourself interviewing you now see how you look in the situation instead of the reasons, you see from someone else eyes Higher OSA when watching self

Consequence of Differential Attribution for self and others: Vorauer and Ratner (1996) When we are afraid to do something, we rationalize it, but when someone else does the exact same thing we say that their reasoning (say for not asking to go out on a second date) is because they don't like you, not because they are also afraid of rejection. Incomplete Corrections: Dan Gilbert (1989) We make automatic perceptions of behavior and traits, and it takes learning about a situation to correct or incorrect associations. We watched a man punch another, he must be aggressive, oh wait it was just for a play. [corollary 3b: we don't know the bias in our judgements because they are automatic] Incomplete Corrections: Gilbert, Pelham and Krull (1988) People anchor judgment based on initial behavior they witnessed, under cognitive load their opinion does not change because they are too focused on something else, but not under load they change slightly but still lean towards initial traits due to the anchoring. Cultural Bias: Norenzayan et. al (2002) East asians vote that they themselves value situational factors more BUT ↓ Culture: Liberman et al (2005) Thought that there was a cultural difference in ranking trait level based on but they were actually nearly identical. Circumscribed Accuracy: Swann (1984) Despite being wrong about why people act they way they do; or being right with the wrong explanation, this doesn't bother us because we don't care too much about strangers or acquaintances. They don't affect us enough to cause discomfort in being wrong. Stereotyping Stereotyping and Cognitive effort: Macrae, Milne, and Bodenhausen (1994) Subjects were either told or not told that ‘Julian’ is an artist and are then given a list of adjectives to remember about him while they take a geography lesson (making them cognitively busy). Those told he was an artist did better with the lesson and remembering because it took a weight off of how cognitively busy they were. The stereotype organizes information. Stereotypes reduce ambiguity: Kunda and Sherman-Williams (1993)

Subjects were told that the perpetrator was either a construction worker and then given one of three scenarios: a) hit someone who annoyed then–ambiguous b) decked a neighbor who teased them–clearly high aggression c) spanked a child–clearly low aggression Given the situation, both were somewhat similar during each scenario where the level of aggression was warranted (construction workers considered slightly less aggressive when spanking a child). But in an ambiguous situation the construction worker is stereotypes as more aggressive and the housewife less Conclusion: Factors like context, expectations, and stereotypes are more important for interpreting ambiguous situations than non ambiguous situations. Motivational account of Stereotyping: Spencer, Fein, Fong (1998) Told to complete a word missing a letter after either failing or succeeding a class AND either primed with asian stereotype or not. After failing, and primed, they were most likely to stereotype. Those who succeeded were more likely to stereotype primed than non, but not drastically. Those not primed at all had similar outcomes, both on the lower scale, no matter the feedback. Stereotype Threat: Schmader and Johns (2003) Stereotype threat leads to self fulfilling prophecy (white and black subjects took an SAT test, when told it was a test of intelligence they matched their stereotype, when told that it was unrelated they had nearly equal scores) Implicit Prejudice: Word, Zanna, and Cooper (1974) People match each other's nonverbal behavior, because black people's nonverbal communication is associated with hostility. The interviewee and interviewer ‘dance’ hostile with each other. Stereotypes are cognitive (associated beliefs), prejudice is affective (feelings/attitudes), discrimination is behavioral (acting on it) Self Fulfilling Prophecy and Nonverbal Communication Self Fulfilling Prophecies: Rosenthal and Jacobsen (1966) After being given an IQ test, teachers were told certain students were late bloomers, despite them being randomly selected. Those students improved more and fulfilled the prophecy because the teachers' beliefs and behaviors towards them were different than towards the non-bloomer students. Maze-Dull and Maze-Bright Rats: Rosenthal and Fode (1963)

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

The subjects treatment of their rats caused their success or failure because they believe the rat has the trait to succeed or to fail (smart or dumb) Snyder, Tanke, and Berscheid (1977) Men were told that the woman on the phone was attractive or unattractive, the conversations with ‘attractive’ people were rated by judges as more charismatic. The man treated the woman differently and then the two ‘danced.’ Thin Slices of Nonvrebal Behavior: Ambady and Rosenthal (1992) Subjects watched a very short video (30 seconds or 6) and rated how good a professor was. Another group was cognitively busy while analyzing. All were able to averagely-accurately assess the professors ability. Hyp 4: we are surprisingly accurate about other people (based on nonverbal communication) Social Influence Conformity: Sherif (1936) Conformity/auto-kinetic effect - alone people will give their personal answer, in a group their answers will converge to be very similar to each other Conformity: Asch (1951) When confederates gave the wrong answer, the subject will conform because they do not want to be viewed differently than the group even if their answer is true Informational pressure - the desire to be right Normative pressure - the desire to be accepted Cyberball: Eisenberger, Liberman, Williams (2003) It hurts to be left out and this lights up the same part of the brain that lights up for physical pain Still Face Experiment Babies cry when they do not get reactions because they need them to make sense of the world Rejection increases conformity: Williams, Cheung, and Choi (2000) Subjects are more likely to conform after being excluded (from cyberball). Those who were included or did not play cyberball conformed the same amount as expected Reciprocity: Regan (1971)

People are more likely to buy a larger quantity of raffle tickets after someone was nice to them bc we don’t like owing people. The favor must be relevant. Rejection increases compliance: Williams, Cheung, and Choi (200) On top of the compliance influenced by the technique used, when someone feel rejected they conform even more (bc cyberball) Theories Motivated Self Sociometer Hypothesis: Mark Leary Our measure of society's standard (subjective construal) and where we fall on the meter, to determine how likely we are to be accepted Our self esteem is a measure of how esteemable or respected we are in be eyes of others: what do others think of us. we need to be accepted by other people Gas in the tank: participation trophies, the gauge has been moved artificially so they have a false sense of where the stand when in reality their actual place in society is the physical amount of gas in the tank Social Comparison Theory: Festinger (1954) Upward comparison (comparing to someone better) makes us feel bad but is informative and motivates us to improve; downward comparison (comparing to someone worse) boosts ego. Self Evaluation Maintenance Theory: Abe Tesser We get upset when someone we have a strong social tie with does something better than us that we define as something we are proficient in (I am a strong writer but my friend got a better grade than me). When a friend succeeds in something we deem unimportant to us, we are very happy for them. When a stranger does either we are mostly indifferent, but are slightly happier when it is a trait we do not relate to. We don’t like when friends do well in something we consider a defining quality. it is a major threat when it is important to me Self Enhancement Tell me that I am great no matter what the truth is; want to be liked by others. Hence why people with HSE will uplift themself when they experience a damaged ego; they can do this by helping people (being viewed as good) or hurting someone else to lower that

persons self esteem in order to raise their own. high self esteem isn’t inherently narcissistic, some people are still good with it and humble others are like brad Self Verification Tell me the truth; want to be consistent and accurately known by others Rationalization Cognitive Consistency and Balance Theory We want our beliefs to match our actions. We like Jim and he likes stealing candy, but we don't like stealing. Either we can dislike Jim or we can like stealing so that our active beliefs and our action makes sense together. Balance theory- between two people; unbalance in our lives Cog Disonance - within the self; unbalance within ourselves—we don’t like being hypocrites change attitude - $1 people justify conflict - $100 people Balance Theory: Fritz Heider (1946) People want to be consistent. We develop relationships with those who like what we like. Cognitive Dissonance Theory: Leon Festinger (1957) When two of one's own cognitions conflict (health v smoking), causing dissonance which is a feeling we like to avoid. So, we can do three things but most do the first two: a) change your attitude (I no longer like smoking, I no longer care about my health) b) justify/minimize the conflict (well it's only one pack, most people I know smoke three) or c) changing the behavior (quit smoking) but this is rare Attribution Covariation Model: Hal Kelley (1967) The need to look at different situations in order to understand a persons trait, so the model shows the path to take in order to figure out a trait. across situations, across other people, across time. but we don’t do this we do | Correspondent Inference Theory: Ned Jones (1965) the fact that we jump to conclusions about behaviors when someone counteracts the social norm. If someone is loud in a library we assume that they are a disrespectful person even when we only see them, a stranger, in a single situation. We focus on

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

people's disposition and not situational favors because they are invisible. We assume someone who speeds is an asshole but we don’t know they’re wife is in labor. In the covariation model we consider how a person acts in other similar situations, while for the CIT we only need to know how most people would act in that same situation Social Influence Low ball: leaving out aspects of the request; attractive initial offer but surprise there are unfavorable conditions Door in the face: make a huge request, they say no, make a small request, they say yess Foot in the door: two separate requests; agree to something small and then later something big Norm of Reciprocity: oh they gave me a coffee i need to be nice back and buy a car. We hate owing people The dACC processes physical AND social pain, and is both a detection AND sounding mechanism The norm of reciprocity: We treat others fairly, expect them to do the same. If they don’t we’ll sacrifice personal gain to assert fairness as a social norm, also fairness feels good!