- Information
- AI Chat
TEST 2 and 3 Review - Lecture notes section 2 and 3
General Psychology (PSYC 10213)
Texas Christian University
Recommended for you
Preview text
TEST 2
self concept your perception or definition of yourself - your perception is what makes you you norms culture's standards for behavior Upgrade to remove ads Only $0/month
we become the people we ________ spend time with norms often function with our _________ - how we think we should act standards when our behavior is discrepant with our standards, we try to make ourselves feel better by:
- improving our behavior (good for self esteem)
- lowering our standards (directly bad for self esteem)
- escaping self awareness (indirectly bad because we don't deal with the issue ways people escape self awareness procrastination drinking Netflix after doing something bad suicide self-esteem our gauge for social acceptance self-esteem study participants read statements consistent (women are as smart as men) or discrepant (women dont belong in the work place)
go sit in chairs either facing mirror or wall; discrepant people face wall increases self awareness causes people to act better -people in front of a mirror are less likely to cheat on a test deindividuation increased anonymity increased anonymity causes people to act worse the self: game plan for social acceptance; ideal self- game plan; how we ought to be
real self- the execution
Sponsored by IBM
Predict and shape future business outcomes.
Make your data ready for AI.
See More
when are we bad at knowing our real selves?
- we dont like people to tell u sbad stuff
- we discard bad stuff when we hear i when it comes to ________, people are good at knowing what they feel, but not
-example: emotions and attitudes why stocking (always chose last they looked at but said bc its fuzzy or cute or sum) you are _____ more likely to be happy if your friend is too 25% urge to conform -example we choose to bc we wanna be accepted -line size with confederate: 99% right on own; 74% with confederate answering incorrectly our friends influence: our emotions, what we do, our habits we learn by ______
system 1 and system 2 sytem 1 way of thinking where you have AUTOMATIC, uncontrolled thoughts in response to sum; does MOST MENTAL WORK (next step and words to say) system 1: __________ egotism automatic -likes to pump you up system 2 SLOW, deliberative thoughtfulness (reasoning thru sum)
what we like to think drives our thoughts self-enhancement Research shows that college students would rather receive a boost to their self-esteem than eat their favorite food, drink their favorite drink, see their best friend, get their paycheck, or engage in their favorite sexual activity! system 2: has to do more with _______ modesty Upgrade to remove ads Only $0/month
automatic egotism things that have to do with you are good and things that dont are bad an example of automatic egotism -the endowment effect -women with names like Georgia and Virginia are more likely to have lived in those states -we believe we are happier than most -lotto tickets are valued higher if the number is CHOSEN 3 types of positive illusions
- above avg. effect
- illusion of control
- optimistic bias above average effect 90% of people rate themselves as above avg. drivers -look at other studies on slide -people choose self-serving definitions of positive traits people choose self-serving definitions of positive traits: further explination if someone is good at logical reasoning and bad at reading --- they define intelligence as a capacity for logical reasoning illusion of control
tendency of people to overestimate their ability to control events illusion of control examples
- yelling GO at a stop light -participants rolled a bunch of dice in a game similar to "craps"...
- if they needed a high number, they threw the dice harder number then they did softer optimistic bias tendency of people to believe they themselves are less likely to experience a negative event optimistic bias example the % of hands raised guessing if divorce, cancer, death by 65 would happen to them was much lower than the actual number that happens even tho we all know bragging is alienating, why do we still do it -When people talk about themselves, it activates the pleasure centers of their brain -Participants chose to talk about themselves, even when they could earn more money by talking about other topics Upgrade to remove ads Only $0/month
benefits of positive illusions
- Positive illusions feel good and are adaptive for mental health
- PI's make us more likable
- people dislike pessimists
- PI's make us more motivated and perseverant
- PI's are negatively correlated with depression risks of high self-esteem Bullies have high self-esteem -However, so do people who stand up to bullies -Victims tend to have low self-esteem
Detrimental persistence
Persisting, even when you should give up
HSE is a risk factor for unsafe ideas and behavior about sex risks of positive illusions -Outwardly bragging is alienating -People with high self-esteem can become mean when they encounter self-threats... ... increased stereotyping ... increased disparagement of others ... increased downward social comparisons
authority people follow the lead of credible, knowledgeable experts consistency people like to be consistent with things they have previously said/done liking people say yes to those they like consensus people look to actions of others to determine their own (especially when they are uncertain) heuristic a mental shortcut cognitive bias a predictable error in judgement/decision-making that results from a heuristic foot-in-the-door consistency example (wooden sign example)
when an initial request increases agreement to a BIG request foot-in-the-door study DV: send a survey team of 5-6 people to your house and ask to catalog your household products
IV: 1/2 were first called a few days earlier and asked to answer a few ?s on hh products -- 53% yes to DV and other 1/2 with no initial call 22% said yes low-ball for buyers: making a crazy low initial offer (leverages on anchoring heuristic)
for sellers: after initial deal is accepted (consistency and commitment bias played on), the sales person alters the deal (increases price or hidden fees) bait-and-switch when some amazing deal is advertised and then at the store the deal is no longer available (sold out) but you still buy something when you go (consistency) labeling "You look like a smart guy!... [etc etc BS BS]"
Children who were told, "You look like the kind of kid who understands how important it is to write correctly" were more likely to volunteer for a penmanship task several days later
Adults who were told they were "above-average citizens" were more likely to vote several days later
get you to do/buy something by relating the product/attribute to YOU legitimization of paltry favors small amount that is easy to give
-"Even a penny helps!"
This phrase doubled donations to the American Cancer Society
and donations were no smaller than usual door-in-the-face when an initial BIG request makes a subsequent request seem reasonable by comparison.
Miller et al., 1976
DV: "Will you come volunteer for two hours?"
IV:
Initially asked "Will you volunteer two hours per week for at least two years?"- 76% YES on the DV
control group: no initial request - 29% say yes
contrast effect: consistency and bad news Thats not all cupcake example study 2 principles based on the scarcity principle
- limited number
- limited time limited number item is in short supply and won't be available once it runs out limited time = fast-approaching deadline
"Offer available for a limited time only... Act now!" pique technique be SPECIFIC --> more persuasive
Researchers, dressed as pan-handlers, asked pedestrians for money
- IV:
any cognitive or perceptual process that is distorted by the need to maintain and enhance self-esteem, or the tendency to perceive oneself in an overly favorable manner decision fatigue the deteriorating quality of decisions made by an individual after a long session of decision making decoy effect the phenomenon whereby consumers will tend to have a specific change in preference between two options when also presented with a third option that is asymmetrically dominated endowment effect when you own something, you think its better/more valuable confirmation bias the tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that affirms one's prior beliefs or hypotheses
the tendency to search for or interpret information in the way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs, leading to statistical errors selective exposure bias the tendency to predominately seek out attitude-consistent information and avoid attitude-challenging information planning fallacy the belief that one's own project will proceed as planned, even while knowing that the vast majority of similar projects have run late Imagine I flip a coin 10 times in a row, and it comes up as "heads" all 10 times... ... On the next flip, what would you bet? Heads or Tails? If you felt strongly that the answer should be TAILS... Gambler's Fallacy If you felt strongly that the answer should be HEADS... Hot-Hand Fallacy framing effect people decide on options based on whether the options are presented with positive or negative connotations; e. as a loss or as a gain
people react to a particular choice in different ways depending on how it is presented, as a loss or as a gain gambler's fallacy when an individual erroneously believes that a certain random event is less likely or more likely, given a previous event or a series of events halo effect
the tendency for positive impressions of a person, company, brand or product in one area to positively influence one's opinion or feelings in other areas
our overall impression of a person influences how we feel and think about his or her character diversification bias when asked to make several choices at once, people tend to diversify more than when making the same type of decision sequentially
people seek more variety when they choose multiple items for future consumption than when they make choices sequentially on an 'in the moment' basis hindsight bias the common tendency for people to perceive events that have already occurred as having been more predictable than they actually were before the events took place ... ... hot-cold empathy gap call it an empathy gap, or call it a failure of imagination; when people are calm and comfortable, they have trouble appreciating the power of "hot" affective states--like fear, hunger, exhaustion, or thirst IKEA effect consumers place a disproportionately high value on products THEY partially created barnum effect individuals give high accuracy ratings to descriptions of their personality that supposedly are tailored specifically to them, that are in fact vague and general enough to apply to a wide range of people -zodiac less-is-better effect a type of preference reversal that occurs when the lesser or smaller alternative of a proposition is preferred when evaluated separately, but not evaluated together
An overfilled ice cream serving in a small cup with 7 oz of ice cream was valued more than an under-filled serving in a large cup with 8 oz of ice cream. licensing effect when people allow themselves to do something bad (e. immoral) after doing something good (e. moral) first mental accounting tendency of people to divide their money into separate accounts based on subjective criteria, like the source of the money and the intent for each account
people judge an experience largely based on how they felt at its peak (i., its most intense point) and at its end, rather than based on the total sum or average of every moment of the experience projection bias the tendency to falsely project current preferences onto a future event
The tendency of people to overestimate the degree to which other people agree with them. People tend to assume that others think, feel, believe, and behave much like they do reciprocity our tendency to reciprocate the actions of others creating a wave of indebtedness just-world hypothesis why we blame victims in order to rationalize why bad things happen base-rate neglect the tendency for people to mistakenly judge the likelihood of a situation by not taking into account all relevant data scarcity bias humans place a higher value on an object that is scarce, and a lower value on those that are in abundance social proof people reference the behavior of others to guide their own behavior
people copy the actions of others in an attempt to undertake behavior in a given situation sunk-cost fallacy tendency of people to irrationally follow through on an activity that is not meeting their expectations because of the time and/or money they have already spent on it -similar to commitment bias present bias / time discounting tendency of people to want things now rather than later, as the desired result in the future is perceived as less valuable than one in the present
the tendency of people to give stronger weight to payoffs that are closer to the present time when considering trade-offs between two future moments Dunning-Kruger Effect DUMB PEOPLE DONT KNOW THEYRE DUMB
people who are least competent at a task often incorrectly rate themselves as high-performers because they are too ignorant to know otherwise
people who are ignorant or unskilled in a given domain tend to believe they are much more competent than they are ratio bias people's difficulties in dealing with proportions or ratios as opposed to absolute numbers representativeness heuristic when we judge the probability that an object or event A belongs to class B by looking at the degree to which A resembles B
People tend to judge the probability of an event by finding a 'comparable known' event and assuming that the probabilities will be similar
HTHTTHTH more likely to happen than HHHHHHH social cognition the effects of automatic cognitive processes on social interaction and goal pursuit stroop test saying color of word; participants read lines 3-6 slower than 1-2 bc inadvertantly (automatically) reading word in 3-6 interferes with saying color
demonstrates the key features of automatic processing key features of automatic processing effortless and unintentional (occurs beneath conscious awareness) fast (before deliberate processing) false-consensus effect we biasly tend to think that everyone thinks what we think
participants asked to hold a "eat at Joe's sign" -those who agree: said 62% would agree to hold it -those who didn't: said 33% would agree to hold it
for NEGATIVE behaviors and traits false-uniqueness effect regarding their most admirable behaviors, people underestimate the number of people who also engage in these behaviors
for POSITIVE behaviors and traits MOST cognitive processing is _____________ processing automatic to get people to see your side.....
Attractiveness was 30% stronger predictor of men's initial email
Income was 90% stronger predictor of women's initial email testing evolutionary theory: relationship context (result for men and women/possible problem with each) the more attractive a wife is --> the higher status, occupational prestige, and income the husband has -third variable? -attractive people achieve greater occupational success
the more wealthy a man is is positively associated with their self-reported number of sexual partners and frequency of sex -BUT... power causes people to overestimate others' sexual interests and make more sexual overtures (intros) testing evolutionary theory: relationship context: assortative mating people tend to marry partners of same attractiveness and SES testing evolutionary theory: initial-contact context: 3 researches
- speed-dating research
- meta-analysis
- more recent meta-analysis on speed dating testing evolutionary theory: initial-contact context: speed-dating research findings mixed findings: -males more likely to say 'yes' to attractiveness -sex differences in attractiveness of partners DIDN'T predict romantic chemistry on subsequent dates -no sex differences in the influence of partners salary or earning potential testing evolutionary theory: initial-contact context: meta-analysis study no sex difference in association between romantic liking & earning potential testing evolutionary theory: initial-contact context: more recent meta-analysis on speed dating -biggest predictor of romantic liking = physical attractiveness (r=) - NO sex difference -salary = similar predictor (r=)
-moderator of influence of physical attractiveness on romantic liking *stages of relationship: -physical attractiveness most important for: -initial liking -long relationships Upgrade to remove ads
Only $0/month
do ideal preference relate to real ones? Typical study: rate your ideal traits; rate how interested you would be in this person (photo + traits listed)
- In this type of study, YES, ideals relate to reals.
- Especially when the trait is observable in the photograph itself do ideal preference relate to real ones?: speed dating research defined what as what defined "in-vivo preferences" as association between:
- rating of partners on trait
- rating of romantic desire for partner do ideal preference relate to real ones?: speed dating research: high in-vivo preference I rate my partner as "highly confident" and "increasingly desirable" do ideal preference relate to real ones?: speed dating research: low in-vivo preference I rate my partner as "highly confident" but "not desirable" do ideal preference relate to real ones?: speed dating research result "in-vivo preferences" for traits were unrelated to p's ideal preferences on these traits do ideal preference relate to real ones?: revaluation of opposite sex peers- study details -single p's chose 10 opposite sex peers -each p rated: ideal partner traits; each acquaintance on these traits; each acquaintance on romantic desirability
matching between ideal traits and acquaintance traits did not predict the romantic desirability of the partner. why ideal preferences relate to real ones predicts....
- relationship quality
- reduced likelihood of breakup measurement issue in why ideal preferences relate to real ones Most of these studies assess: 1) ideal traits; 2) partner traits;
- romantic liking/satisfaction/outcomes...
- Predictive validity is increased when people are asked to think about the traits in the concrete context of their partner.
- E., "To what extent does your current partner match your ideal for 'sexy'/'honest'/[etc.]?"(1=not at all; 9=completely)
- Procedures using this type of concrete measure have more strongly predicted (both self- and partner-rated)...
- Higher satisfaction, commitment, 'one-ness'
- Lower dejection, misery, etc.
Only $0/month
normal distribution with stereotyping average differences between groups are ALWAYS TINY compared to differences between random individuals -there's still wide variability between groups -even if 2 from each group are chosen - you don't group them -see spiral drawing
3 underlying mechanisms of prejudice (why we still do it)
- just-world hypothesis
- conformity
- efficiency of processing underlying mechanisms of prejudice: just-world hypothesis example each p observed 2 people work on a test --> watch --> 1 of 2 get reward (determined by coin flip; p do not know this) --> on average: p's rated the randomly rewarded worker as harder worker
people are born into coin flip situations self-fulfilling prophecy people's tendency to behave in ways that confirm their own expectations or other people's expectations underlying mechanisms of prejudice: conformity to ________ and example society Minard- study of black and white miners - whites are nicer to blacks under ground 80% and 20% below -shows prejudice is normal in society self-fulfilling prophecy: The Ugly 1 example -Experimenters trained white participants to 'interview applicants for a job.'
- When 'applicants' were black, the white interviewer sat further away, made more speech errors, and ended the interview 25% earlier self-fulfilling prophecy: The Ugly- another example Experimenters trained interviewers to interview white applicants in one of two styles. Either... -For HALF of white 'applicants' - interview 'normally'
-The other HALF - interviewers were trained to sit far away, make occasional speech errors, and end the interview abruptly. In other words, this half of the white interviewees were "treated like they were black."
- Independent judges rated interviewees in this group as more nervous and less effective than interviewees that were "treated white." underlying mechanisms of prejudice: efficiency of processing- stereotyping = quick
categorization self-fulfilling prophecy: The Good example IQ test at beginning of year tells teachers "IQ test showed 'bloomers' will increase in IQ this year are we marked them down on your class list" -bloomers actually random -result: at end of year- those labeled bloomers had experienced a significantly higher increase in IQ than those not what does stereotyping result from? a necessary psychological mechanism for navigating the world .... this is why our brain does it to people (bc its used to it) Upgrade to remove ads Only $0/month
self-fulfilling prophecy: The Bad example male p's talk on phone to female --> provided with fake profile of female --> profile pics cute and not --> p's rated convo w partners on various personality traits
- --> rated cute as funnier, more sociable, ect.
- --> 3rd party listeners do not see pic --- rated cute as more sociable, humorous, poised, and cute -being treated as cute --> acting better what does stereotyping result from? so.....
- some do not understand what it results from (we should be understanding of this)
- you (now) know this.... so catch yourself - just because its automatic doesn't mean you cannot inhibit it ________ can help reduce prejudice cooperation ironic thought suppression the more you are told not to think about something --> the more you do think about that thing ironic thought suppression's fix think of other exciting things to replace it with (not just "don't think about it" underlying mechanisms of prejudice: efficiency of processing example 1 p's judge lengths of 8 lines in 1 of 2 orders (see pic in spiral)
TEST 2 and 3 Review - Lecture notes section 2 and 3
Course: General Psychology (PSYC 10213)
University: Texas Christian University
- Discover more from:
