PSYCH 353 - Spring 2016 - University of Waterloo
Dr. Steven Spencer
Lecture 1: May 2, 2016
Lecture 2: May 4, 2016
Social Cognition between discipline and sub-discipline.
Intervening causes - A causes B, there's always something in between. With Social Cognition, it's the thoughts. A causes thoughts, thoughts causes B. Sticking cognition in the middle. Think of cognition as th eintervening cause between the power of th esituation and the outocmes that we care about.## - keywords $$ - list @@ - key term in a list
Social Psychology was always there at the beginning.
Emphasized Perception. Came to North America. Fundamental role in developing Social Psychology.
Huge progress on civil righs.
Social Cognition comes.
Social Psychology vs. Social Cognition.
Watching violent media causes violent thoughts. Violent thoughts causes violent behaviour.
Lecture 3: May 9, 2016
Sly & the family stone - Everyday people
Way too much stimuli in the world for us to pay attention to. The snesory information we have to condense and make sense of it. There's only a limited amount tha twe can process at a time. We need concepts:
Salience. What concepts are on your mind? Salients can be conscious or unconscious. We have thousands of concepts.
Abstract idea vs. Examples
Classical Approach discredited. The Probabilistic and Theory-based both have merit but two questions remain:
How do you abstract concepts together? There are three levels. Experts can move between the 3 levels. Non-experts usually think at mid-level.
Lecture 4: May 16, 2016
Both Sides Now - Joni Mitchell Clouds you can see from multiple perspectives. Love and life. Clouds, love, life you can view in multiple perspectives.
Once we have categoires, how od objects within the category relate with one aohter?
Heuristics are shortcuts. They are a lot like visual illusions. They are actually mistakes in reasoning.
In general, we are talking about making decisions about how likely things are. Anytime you don't judge for sure.
We base judgements based on similarity and not other things we should consider.
People ignore a bunch of statistical rules.
Representative is our default. Statistical heuristics are not our default, it's more like seeing both.
Lecture 5: May 18, 2016
We make decisions on how likely things are based on how easy it comes to mind, rather than thinking through how likely it may really be.Are there more words with "k" as the first letter or "k" as the third letter? People say start with "k" because it's easy to think about them.
Is it the number of objects, or how easy it is for the objects to come to mind?Schwarz et al. Come up with 6 or 12 examples of when they're assertive. Rate how assertive they were. If ease, more assertive if list 6. If number, more assertive if list 12.
Anchors end up influencing your judgement. You have an initial presentation of something that you know it's unrealistic, but yet it still influences your judgement.
fundamental Attribution Error and Anchoring: You look at someone engaging in a behaviour, you go "that's the person they are." Their behaviour acts as an anchor and we underadjust from that anchor.
Heuristics: People don't follow logic, statistics, only pay attention to what comes to mind easily
How do poeple understand causality?
Snyder & Swan suggests that the type of questions people ask brings about behaviour that is consistent with the questions being asked.
We tend to ask questions that will confirm our hypothesis.Snyder & Swan. List of 20 questions. We want you to interview this person and find out if that person is Introverted/Extroverted. People chose questions that imply the hypothesis - hard questions that make them sound like what they're not. Studies 1 & 2. Study 1 - choose questions. Study 2 - in part 2, actually asked the questions. If you expect them to be extroverted, you ask the most extroverted questions and vice versa. When people answered, and people listened only to the answers, they thought the respondents were like the questions asked. The questions determined what they were like. The questions can create the perceived reality in the respondent.
Giving base rates have no influence. Giving money for being right doesn't eliminate the effect.
Trope & Bassok Response to Snyder & Swan Study: I'm going to ask questions to determine if they're introverted or not. Questions that best test the hypothesis, rather than ones that lead to the confirmation of the hypothesis. When you go to a party, what do you do? Not when you go to a party, what do you do to liven up the party? Diagnostic Questions. People want their idea they're testing to be right, but will prefer diagnostic questions more.
Snyder, Tanke, & Berscheid - Behaviourial Confirmation: Beliefs can create reality. Brought men and women into a study. Paired up men and women in real conversations on the phone. Recorded only their half of the conversation. Given info about each other. Men were given 1 more piece of information - fake photo of women who were quite attractive or quite unattractive. Confirmatory Hypothesis Testing - people expect beautiful people to be kinder, friendly, nicer. Men asked women questions that elicit physical attractiveness stereotype. Men were more pleasant to women perceived to be attractive. Behaviour Confirmation - men's behaviour creates confirmation of the stereotype. Men's attitude toward the women created its own reality. Women's attitude were consistent with men's. Beliefs can create their own reality. The way I treat somebody else, can cause that behaviour.
Lecture 6: May 25, 2016
Infer causality. We have to observe correlation. Then establish time order (causes has to happen before effect). Then eliminte all other possible causes. The right way would be to engage in those steps. But we don't do that.
Nisbett & Wilson Studies. They say we don't have a clue why we do what we do. YOu don't know the cause of your own behaviour. You think you do, but you don't.
Raising the Tide. Remember a list of words. Salt, water, sand, surf, sunshine. While remembering, they had them write consumer preferences. What's your favourite coffee? etc. What's your favourite laundry detergent - 80% of the people say Tide if they're remembering those words. If not remembering those words, 30%. People made reasons for why they said Tide. Priming. Words related to beach -> Tide. Spread activation.
Power saw experiment. Watch movies. How much did you enjoy the movie that you saw? Every couple of minutes, power saw goes off. Told them they were pissed about the construction. 80% said it ruined the movie. Power saw had 0 effect, but people are saying it made them hate the movie.
Which pantyhose do you like? Department store. Set up a row of pantyhose. 9 pairs of identical pantyhose. Intendetion: influence women's influence based on scent of pantyhose. Smell didn't affect preferences. Huge effect: the last one. Why did you pick that one? Everyone said this is softer, it looks better.
Wilson Relationship Studies. Condition 1: List all positive, negative qualities of your partner. Think it all out.
Condition 2: What do you think about your partner? Predict: do they stay together or not? 1 is a lousy partner. Probably not why you like your partner. 2. Your overall feeling - better prediction - your gut. When you try to come up with explanations, you misperceiv eyour own feelings.
Why do people believe a bunch of things? Argument: People are horrible at understanding correlation.Belief: Vaccines causes autism.
We overemphasize A. You don't pay attention on X. We only pay attention to Yes/Yes. You need to look at A:X and Y:Z. In real life, we only focus on A which cannot tell us about any correlation.
Illusory Correlation You can give all information, but they only pay attention to the Yes/Yes cell. They believe there is a correlation even if there isn't. Chapman & Chapman. Suicide notes. Some real, some fake. Can you pick out which are real and which are fake? Gave them information: scores, tests, etc. Do you think any of this stuff predicts which of these people are likely to commit suicide. (data is real). Everybody thought they figured out a correlation. Some ttried to use gender, test scores, etc. None of the correlations were real. There were real correlations that were real. One of the Rorschach tests did correlate to suicide. Hamilton studies - stereotype formation through illusory correlation. Group A is 80% of people. Group B is 20% of poeple. Presented with cards. This person is in group A, flip over and see a behaviour. This person is in Group B, mugged somebody. Good behaviours more common than bad behaviours. Predicted that although Group A and Group B have the same ratio of good:bad behaviours, people will see Group B as more bad because doubly rare (rare group members, rare behaviours). Accurate with Group A. With Group B, they thought Group B is more likely to do bad behaviours than good behaviours. People are inferring causation that isn't there. Don't understand their own behaviour, misperceive other people's behaviours.
Sometimes we have better data than other times. When we want to figure out the causes of somebody's performance.
People are much more accurate in estimating consistency across situations for abilities than for personality. Personality can be inconsistent, but we don't think that way. Abilities can be inconsistent and we know that. Good at math, bad at english. They correctly perceived that people's abilities vary across situations (someone who is smart in math may not be in English). They incorrectly overestimated the consistency of people's personality (someone who is shy in class will be shy at parties). Shocked when the life of the party is quiet in class. There is no consistency with abilities or personality.
We understand things better when they are presented in a storyline. Story model of jury decision making. Higher conviction rates if in a timeline than if in a random order. Prosecution needs a good story to tie it all together. People spontatenously construct stories when viewing a trial. How easy or difficult it is to construct a story influences the verdict that juries make. Randomness -> difficulty constructing timeline -> not guilty. We like stories best if they have: Explanatory breadth - account for all the details. Simplicity. Extent to which they can be explained by other information. Good stories make good causal arguments.
We often infer causation when thing sdon't offcur. We imagine what might have happened. We focus on what we cna imagine. Imagiinigng something not occuring. Imagine you get to the airport and you missed your plane. By an hour(in traffic) or by 5 mins (very close). Which will make you feel worse? Almost everyone says 5 mins. Objectively, you have to wait for the next flight. Anticipatory Regret - You regret. So many things could have gone better. What if? Can come up with a million reasons of how you could've changed things. You have notions of normality wihch creates mental models. Variations from typicality makes you regret more. Take shortcut, miss. Take regular way, miss. Worse if you do it the non-normal one. When you deviate from the normal, you feel more regret.
Closeness of the counterfactual to the actual event. Olymbic Medals - happier with bronze medal, or silver medal? Only head of medal-winners. people judging happiness. gold > bronze > silver. IF you got silver, you could have gotten gold. IF you got bronze, you could have not gotten a medal.
Exception vs. Routine - exception causes more counterfactual thinking. Happens in a lot of catastrophes. Boston Marathoning. "I was gonna run xxx, I could have been bombed."
Controlability When we think we're in charge, we have a lot more counterfactual thinking.
Lecture 7: May 30, 2016
This Wheel's On Fire - Serena Ryder (Bob Dylan) - If your memory serves you well, all these things are going to happen. There's a dependency on memory for things to work out.
Major theme: How expectations guide our cgonition much more than reality. Our reasoning, thoughts, memories are not as good as we thought.
10 M/c. A couple short answers. 1 big long essay. Choice.
Darley & Gross - Brought people in and they learned a bit about a girl named Hannah. Sometimes they saw a video of Hannah being brought in: 1 condition - picked up at mansion, taxi. other condition - picked up at a trailer park. It affects people's expectations of how smart Hannah is. Asks Hannah questions - all answers the same for both conditions. They have to make evaluations in math and reading - place her at a grade level. They also see Hannah do a standardized test - her performance is all over the class. Ranges from Grade 2 to Grade 9. You have to remember what she got right and what she got wrong. What you remember will affect how smart you think she is. When they didn't view the standardized test, pegged at her Grade 4 (not given any information about how smart she was. She said she was in grade 4). When they viewed her performance, mansion -> smarter, trailer park -> dumber (a whole year difference). Exactly the same thing except of where she was picked up. Done at Princeton where most people grew up in mansion (in-group bias). Maybe stereotype that wealthy are smarter than poor. There's an expectation that when she comes from the mansion, she's smarter than if she comes from the trailer park.
Why do you think she's at that level? They remember what she got right (mansion), they remember what she got wrong (trailer park). They saw a different performance based on expectations.
What we expecte is more easily to remember.Macrae, Milne, Bodenhausen. Different sorts of stereotypesStrong stereotypes about skinheads/neonazis, artists, doctors, occupations. Looked at how well that information got remembered. Stereotype inconsistent. Gave a list of sterotype consistent and non-stereotypic traits. Told about a person - name or name and occupation. Tested memories for that trait. Here's Fred, here's a list, oh, and he's also a skinhead. Given the stereotype, you remember the traits about the person that are consistent with the stereotype. If not given stereotype, you can barely remember anything.
Information that violates our expectations is very memorable too. It stands out and gets noticed. When somebody does something that's out of character, we notice and remember it.Hastie & Kumar - Looked at neutral behaviours unrelated to stereotype - things everybody does. Congruent behaviours. Incongruent behaviours - with stereotype. Incongruent remembered the most, neutral the least. We remember both that violate and are consistent.
We recall expectancy incongruent information better when we're motivated to try what's going on. only when we're paying attention. (Dual-process model). Really focused, incongruent owns. When not focused, consistent owns.
When we interact with other information, it doesn't take us much to kick into the conscious process. Goals can aid encoding. When it comes to other people, it kicks into that conscious processing. People are powerful stimuli.Devine, Sedikides & Furhman. 2 conditions - just form an impression of another person (thought it would be basic), plus you are going to have to interact with them later. Presented with 4 people, given lots of information about them, things they could be quizzed on. One person waas singled out because they anticipated interacting with them. People are really bad at memorizing if you tell them to just memorize. 1. you're going to interact with them. 2. you're going to make an impression. 3. you're going to just memorize them. Singling someone out -> better memory. Being told you are going to form an impression, or interact with them makes memory better. No one tells them to memorize, they just do it and better.
Flashbulb memories - memories for a significant event - seems to them they remember it very vividly. Initially thought these were frozen in memory - that they were accurate. Vivid memory that's complete crap. They can be totally wrong. Neisser & Hatch - Space Shuttle Challenger Explosion. When followed up, they could point to very clear errors in their vivid, certain, sure memories. People have these vivid, strong memories because they retell the story. The story changes, but you don't recognize that it's changing. You start remembering the story as how it actually happened. You feel the emotions as you retell the story. We cant' tell the difference between reality and what we tell people. Our memory is social because emotions matter. The emotional significance of retelling can be the same as expereincing it for the first time.
We often remember what we expect to remmeber. Hindsight Bias - once you find out the results, you tend to think you knew it was going to happen. Fischoff - Relied on unknown Histories about wars in south asia. Who do you think would win war between the Gurkas and the British in India. Told them Gurkas won, or British won. Asked people: who do you think won and how confident were you. Told British, and expected British victory, were 60% confident. If they were right, they were 60% confident. If they were wrong, they were 15% confident. Expected Gurkas to win, told British won - 30% confident. IF they were right, more confident. Wrong, less confident. Big tendency to think that they were right and right all along. People will make one prediction, when different results, will say they predicted the other thing all along. Some information that's consistent. You remember information that's consistent with the outcome. You can selectively focus on information that's consistent with the outcome. When you get it right, you focus what's consistent. Wrong, you think about other info that you didn't weight strongly enough into your prediction.
REasons for Hindsight Bias: Preceding events take on new meaning in light of outcome. Reinterpret relevant information. We have little or no access to our prior understanding.
Lecture 8: June 1, 2016
Wheat Kings - The Tragically Hip. 2nd verse. David Milgard falsely accused of rape and murder. Eyewitness testimony. Someone picked him out of a lineup. Memory in the legal system. Legal system assumes memory is great.
Where expectations come from. The effect of mood on memory. Lots of hypotheses.
Mood isn't that great at setting up memory. When you're in a happy mood, you'll remember things that make you happy. When you're in a bad mood, you're not going to remember things that kept you in a bad mood. Mood maintenance - trying to keep the self in a happy mood.
We think what we experience is what we remember. If we imagine things vividly, they can be seen as memories and remembered as memories. When we imagine somehting, how do we later know that it was imagined and not real? We don't know.Suggestion: Loftus & Palmer. Eyewitness Testimony. Automobile crashes. If people watch a film of an automobile accident, how good is their memory of it? Eyewitness Testimony vs. Circumstancial Evidence (everything else). Had people atch a series of car crashes and asked question slightly differently. How fast the car was going when they smashed, collided, bumped, hit, contacted. The question is influencing the answer. (contacted - anchoring and adjustment.) Brought them back a week later. Key question: Was there any broken glass? When asked Smashed, hit, control. They said broken glass if smashed much more than hit, control. When asked smashed, you construct a bigger story of the car crash.
False memories - cna be believe something happened that didn't actually happen. Can you remember you were sexually abused when you weren't? Kids reported they were when they weren't. When there's an allegation, many people ask children if they were abused, "did they do this to you?" Kids say no. After they're asked several times, they say yes. Could someone believe something is true if it didn't happen? Kids report all kinds of things.
Loftus & Coan - With university students. First year students. As a child, were you ever lost in a mall? As a child, did you ever tip over a punch bowl in a wedding? Assumed nobody did both. Contacted parents and had them plant false memories. At least 2 weeks later, they ask them the same questions. Do people know remember something that didn't occur? 20-25% remembered false memory as actually occurring. They gave a big, long description.
The Recovered Memories controversy - about people discovering that they were abused while in therapy. Under hypnosis. If you expereince something in hypnosis, you're going to think that iti actually occurred. They can't distinguish between reality and imagination. Demonstrated that hypnosis can manufacture memories that didn't happen. When people recover memories, it's unclear if they're false or real. Woman. best friend was murdered. Therapist had her in hypnosis. What she remembered was that her father had murdered her best friend. Father was tried and convicted. During the time, father was in Boston. Memory was totally false. Affected their relationship. People really can't distinguish between imagination and reality.
False memories can be recovered. Can real memories be recovered? It's hard to do studies. Freudian theory that they get pushed into subconscious.
Children's Eyewitness Memory - when accusation, how youa sk questions. You have to ask questions in a non-leading way. Ask more general questions. What happened today? Anything unusual? Never specific until the kid suggests it first.
Libby, Eibach, Gilovich. First person vs. Third person memories. Easy to adopt a first or third-person perspective. We can construct a memory pretty easily. Third-person is a construction. When you remember things from first person vs third person perspective, what does that do to your ideas of change? Argument: 3rd person, you're focusing on you and that shoud cread a fcus away from the situation and focus on yourself which makes stability. IF you're first person, you're seeing changes in the world. First person would give more of a sense of change.
Study 1: people in psychotherapy. Ask how much change they experienced since psychotherapy.
Think about a time in high school when they wre socially awkward. First person - you focus how you're not feeling socially akward now. Third-person - you don't see change. Then have them interact with person. Confederate rated and coutned how many statements they made. First person - not socially awkward. Third person - socially akward. Perspective of memory can influence things.
The importance of looking for change vs. continuity. When you take first person, looking at change in environment. From third person, you look the same.
We have bad access of where a memory came from. If we could remmeber it was imagination, we wouldnt make memory mistakes. Common mistake. Source memory - what is the source of our memory? We're really bad at source memory. Taylor et. al. Watch a group interact. If people watch a mixed race group. mostly white, 1 or 2 of other race. People mix up what people of the same race say. Get black guy 1 and black guy 2 mixed up. Stangor et al. Don't confuse people with the same shirts. 2 wearing black shirts vs. white shirts. People don't make the mistake. Prejudice people are more likely to ocnfuse the two black guys. Not just perception, it's about expectations and beliefs. They think race is significant and shirt colour isn't.
The sleeper effect - present people with evidence that's hard to believe. ex: cure for cancer. What happens a month later? Persuaded by McCleans, not persuaded by Weekly world news. A month later, you're persuaded by both. Initiallu unpersuasive, and over time it becomes more persuasive. Hard to demonstrate this, initial studies hard to replicate. Best way to replicate is to make up a source that's hard to remember. Source has to be easier to forget than the story. PEople have to remmeber the story, but forget where it came from. "I heard somewhere..." - could've been in an advertisement - could be made up and unreliable. We use vividness as a cue to how close it is to reality rather than where it came from.
Lecture X: June 8, 2016
You're So Vain - Carly Simon ft. Mick Jagger - Motivated cognition. Full of themselves. When they go ointo the room, they think every woman wants them. Vicious. Outed an affair.
Book calls it hot congnition
Because of cognitive revolution, there was a preference for cognitive motivations vs. motivational motivations. The self-serving bias in attributions - when things go well for us, why did it go well? It's me (internal). When things go poorly, it was everything else (external). Miller & Ross wrote a paper that everyone's assumed the self-serving bias and that it's motivational, if you've succeeded most of your life, it is consistent with it being part of your general success. If you have failure, then it makes sense that it's everything else. Cognitive, rational explanation. Motivational account - make internal attributions to make you feel good. Cognitive account - account for all the knowledge you have with yourself. Cognitive account is more parsimonious because we know we need to make sense of the world. The motivational account requires something extra. Tetlock & Levi analyzed the findings and said there's no way to differentiate between these two accounts. They were wrong.
Goals and motives were seen as the basis of why they do what they do. Cognitive Dissonance proposed by Festinger. If you hold two thoughts that are psychologically inconsistent, it makes you feel discomfort and you are motivated to change it to decrease discomfort. Cult. Aliens would beam them up and destroy the world. Psychologically inconsistent with the world not ending. What happens the next day when the world doesn't end? They were waiting for the spaceship, the leader gets a message: "Your devotion has taught us that the poeple of your owrld are worth saving." No more inconsistency. (The Original Theory) First study by Festinger Carlsmith - inconsistency when you lie. I believe X, I said Y. Brought people in. Wood block with pegs. Tell them to turn pegs for half an hour. After over, give them thread and spool and then roll it up for 30 mins. It was boring. One was a more careful control, one was high dissonance. Asked them to be their confederate - $1 or $20 ($5 or $100). Everyone lied about how fun it was. Do they start to believe their lie? You can't change what you said, you can change your belief so it isn't a lie. $1 -> said was way less boring. $20 -> no change in attitude. I said it was fun and exciting, I know it was dreadfully boring - why? I got paid for it. It makes sense to be paid to lie - not inconsistent. When you're paid a little bit of money for a huge lie, it doesn't make sense so you change what you thought about the task.
Along came Bem with Self-perception theory. He argues that the way w edecide waht we did what we do and what our own beliefsa re is based on observing our own behaviour, not on our motivated processes. We watch our own behaviour and infer our attitudes from what we see. Redid Festinger Carlsmith. Had observers. Observers rated how fun/exciting the task was. What happens when you get paid a lot of money for something you like to do? No inconsistency. AAccording to self-perception theory, somebody may think they're doing it for the money. Young man marrying old woman - you think they are in love. You find out she's rich, he must be a golddigger. Discounting information.
Overjustification effect - Lepper, Green, Nisbett. Daycare - no markers normally. Brought markers for kids. 3 conditions - 1. played with markers, 2. make me a pretty picture and you get gold stars, 3. after they drew picture gave gold star. Come back a week later with markers, see how much they played with markers.
Expected award - getting paid for it. Played with markers less. Unexpected Award - doesn't affect. If you get a lot of award for something you like to do, you like it less.
Zanna & Cooper - Dissonance and the Pill. SEparated cognitive and motivational account. Wanted people to engage in behaviour that was inconsistent with their beliefs. Everybody has to share the same belief: That nobody wants a tuition increase. Get everybody in experiement to write a letter to the board of trustees arguing for a tuition increase. Said they needed things for a tuition increase - will you do it? When you ask people that, everybody said yes (high-choice). After that, you act really surprised that they agreed to do it. Decided that you're gonn awrite for something you don't believe in and it has consequences. Control condition - the same except no choice - you have to write a letter - there's no inconsistency - why did I do it? the idiot made me do it. People in high-choice condition actually think tuition should increase more. Had everybody that the next part of study, they're going to look at the effect of a pill they took. Told 1 of 3 things about pill: 1) make them feel anxious, 2) do nothing, 3) make them feel relaxed and mellow. If it's psychological discomfort, if it can be explained by pill, you have a reason for the inconsistency - it was the pill. No increase in attitudes for tuition increase if pill made them feel anxious. Same amount of dissonance if ill did nothing. Dissonance is high if pill makes them feel relaxed. Self-perception would just coldly evaluating. Doesn't fit at all with self-perception account, but fits with motivation.
If it's a small inconsistency - self-perception. Big inconsistency - cognitive dissonance. $350 (Acceptable -> self-perception engage in behaviours aren't your preferred, but can live with) vs $450 (unacceptable - cog diss - engage in behavours you cant live with) increase. $
Self-affitmation theory - one of our prime motives is to think of ourselves as decent, reasonable moral, and adaptive person. To not think of ourselves as a schmuck. We are basically okay. That's a strong motive. Theory argues that you can fulfill that in many ways. IF you feel abd about yourself, you can feel better about yourself with something in a different domain (you can remember your mom loves you). IT doesn't resolve the dissonance, but it makes you feel better. Reduce motive to justify the decision you just made that caused the dissonance. Steel & Liu - same tuition study. Had people have low choice - no affirmation (standard control), high choice with affirmtion, high choice with no affirmation. Selected people absed on pretesting where they wrote that business and economics was important to them - money makes the world go on. They're going to be fine with the tuition increase. Value-oriented people - people who say give me lot sof money. Non value-oriented don't care about that value. Non-value oriented - classic dissonance. People who care about business and economics - low choice - change attitude a little bit. high choice - don't justify their decision at all - 0 dissonance. Part of uncomfortableness - you feel bad about yourself. IF you feel better about yourself in another way, you don't feel that much dissonance. Any thought that makes you feel good about yourself.
Steele, Spencer, Lynch. Different sort of dissonance. Whenevr you make a choice, the good things about what you didnt choice are inconsistent, the bad things about what you did choose are inconsistent. Buying cars. Lots of positives and negatives. After you pick, negative of choice - you ignore, positive of nonchoice - play them down. Justify choice by thinking about how great their choice was, how bad the nonchoice was. Rate their choice at a higher than they started, nonchoice lower than they started. Spreading of Alternatives Free Choice Paradigm. Pick between two CDs. High self-esteem vs. Low self-esteem. If you have high self-esteem, you should show higher self-esteem. If low self-esteem, motivated to make yourself feel better with your choice. Normally, high and low self-esteem dont differ if not reminded. IF reminded of self-esteem by self-esteem scale, low self-esteem show extra dissonance - really glamourize choice and crap on nonchoice. High self-esteem don't glamourize their choice. One of the motivations behind dissonance is how you feel good about yourself.
Selfa-ffitmation theory has effects on other variables. People are respnding in a way to feel better about themselves. Self-affirmed -> less prejudice (prejudice is a way to feel better than people - motivated process). Persuasion is a motivated process - pay attention to arguments consistent with point of view. Har dto persaude people because they're motivated to hold onto their views. If people are affirmed, you see that the whole behaviour, if motivated, won't be there anymore.
Not just feeling good about yourself, it's a broader processs- Reactive Approach Motivation. When we feel threatened, poeple are looking for a way to make sense of the world. Look out at the world and how you can do something about a potential threat. More likely to display religious zeal - not self-related. A different hierarchical motivation. Differnet levels of abstractness of describing th emotivation people feel. Study 2 - He primed people with an achievement or relationship motivation. Either unscramble sentences about achievement stuff or about relationship oriented. Have them talk about their daily goals for the net week. What are the things they're interested in? Interested in achievement or relationships? Primes them then threatens them. Given a test suggest they're not good at achievement or relationships. When you have achievement threat and achievement prime, thats when you really seek after achievement goals. ARelatopnship prime and threat, lines up. The opposite threat don't get you motivated. Only if the prime and threat line up do they get motivaed.
How is it different if it's motivated? Ziva argued that people engage in two things which are easy to demonstrate when motivated: motivated memory search and motivated belief construction. They construct beliefs consistent with the motivations that they have. Study 1: Borught people in - read article about how introversion or extraversion leads to success. Told that there was a second study - they had people list their memories from the last week. Interested in the first memory - is it introverted or extraversion. They're going to focus on the sucessful one. Extravertsuccess -> extravertedfirst memory. study 3: latency study. Show that it's not only motivated memory search, but story-telling. Introversion leads to scuess or extraverison. Given a bunch of different words and some introverted, some extraverted. How quickly people processed those words. People told extraverted leds to success, processed exraverted words faster than introverted worods and viceversa. Response latency - is it a word or not a word.
one more mechanism - Dunning, Memerowitz, Holzberg. How could you use motivation to feel better about yourself? There are some things you can think about where you have lots of wiggle room. Kind - if you say you're kind, you can say you're in the top 10% - no one can disprove you. Lots of ambiguity. Athletic, strong, fast have no wiggle room. Tendency for poeple to think they're above average - should be for things with wiggle room, shouldn't be for things with no wiggle room. Had people estimate percentile for both positive and negative attributes. Low ambiguity vs. High ambiguity. High ambiguity - engage in "I'm better than average". Close to 50/50 if low ambiguity. Ambiguity matters way more than importance. this is how people in genral can feel better about themselves. Why don't people feel average about themselves? Motivated reasoning mechanism - allows us to fele positive about ourselves even if we're not above average.
Lord, Ross, Lepper - How it's the reverse of self-affirmation. Death penalty. Presented with exactly the same evidence - correlational, nondefinitive evidence. Balanced evidence. IS death penalty deterrent to murder? When against view, recognize flaws of evidence. When supports view, they say it's good evidence. Criticize inconsistent, but accept what's consistent with point of view. Realyl motivated. IF you self-affirm people, it goes away.
motivations and cognition are on equal footing. goals -> cognitive component of goals. is a goal a cognition or a motivaiton? It's both. There has to be content - cognitive, but it has to be moving in a direction (motivation). Should we use motivation or cogniton? Relationship vs. Phone. Positive illusions predict really good outcomes. Leads to good processes that make your relationship better. If you assume worst, will screw up. If you assume best, makes relationship better. Assume positive things about yourself, creates a cycle that creates stronger mental health. Motivations may serve goals.
Lecture X: June 13, 2016
Finishing up cognition.
In early 1970s, field decided default was cognition. Went through a bunch of studies - no not really this or that. Most findings have a little motivation involved. Cognition would say we know we need to perceive to make sense of the world, but we also know poeple are motivated and affect how people make sense of the world. CCognition and motivation are on equal footing. Goals can be both - motivated to pursue, but lots of thoughts involved. Should we use motivation or cognition in making decisions? Not clear if one is better than the other. /Taylor & Brown, Murray Holmes Grififin - better to have an optimistic view of ourselves and relationship partners that is justified by reality. Everybody thinks they're better than average, even though they can't - but this is good for us - it makes us mentally healthy. If we had reality, we wouldn't view ourselves so positively -> depressed. Depressed people have a view of themselves that's the same as reality. Most people rate their relationship partner higher than other people do. The more people do this, the more they glamouize them, they more they are to stay together.
Motivation has 2 parts: defense/feeling good about self, goal-directed behaviour. Mood is sort of like that, but it's not goals or about the self. Comedy puts you in a good mood - doesn't make you feel good about yourself and doens't help you in achieivng goals. Mood is a third thing. People ant to be in a good mood - people want it, but it's not related to goals or self.
Mood and persuasion - Wagner, Petty, Smith - Ellaboration Likelihood Model of persuasion - whether you're persuaded on information or not depends on how much you think about the information. If you think abut it, youll be persuaded by the arguments, if not, youll be persuaded by peripheral arguments. Happy moods - leads people to process information peripherally. Systematic processing is going to make you happy. Sad mood -> ssytematic processing (paying attention to arguments).
Mood and stereotyping - people are happy, more likely to stereotype others.
Mood and helping - Had people report to study, sitting in waiting room. Confederate acts as participant and says all the answers are all c or not. Go in, take test, almost all answers are c. Beforehand, experimenter asks if they've heard about the experiment. Every single one of them lied. People who lied felt guilty. Asked if they would type in data for them. Guilty people helped for 63 minutes, non guilty helped for 2 minutes. People in negative mood working to get out of it.
Mood maintenace- when in happy mood, don't wanna think about anything that could ruin that mood. So process persuasive information peripherally. They don't think too much, and tend not to do anything that could ruin mood. People in bad mood, will think about things like crazy. Will process things systematically. Negative mood - will try super hard to not stereotype.
Mood congruency - thinking about mood like any other memory cue. Memory cue will aid memory. Can mood function as a memory cue?
Mood as a source of priming. Esses and Zanna - mood and rating of ethnic groups. can mood change the way you think about things? People filled a feeling thermometer about different social groups. English-Canadians, First Nations people, Arabic people, Middle Eastern People, Pakistanis. Looked at stereotyping score of each of these groups when they were in a positive, neutral, negative mood. Positive, negative - about same. Negative mood - groups rated more stereotypically. Start to take traits that used to be positive and make them negative.
Proud, Religious, Hard working - proud is much less positive, religious is negative if under negative mood, hardworking - less positive. Mood can change the way you think about the traits you have ascribed to a group.
Mood can be a source of information. Schwarz & Clore - the weather and your satisfaction with your life as a whole. Better predictor of that was the weather. Crappy day - my life sucks. Beautiful day - I have a wonderful life. The weather has a large effect on how satisfied they say they are.
Study: argued that people use their mood as a source of information without realizing that it doesn't make sense. People think how they are feeling right now. You could get rid of this if they realize that how they're feeling is affected by the weather. "What's the weather like down there?" Once you remind people that the weather could affect their mood, then weather won't affect their life satisfaction. 1. How satisfied? 2. Waht's the weather, how satisfied? Sunny day, No reminder + weather reminder - same results. Rainy day - no reminder - sucks, reminder - effect goes away.
Automaticity related to intuition. People don't know why they're doing what they're doing.
What is automatic processing?
Subliminal presentation of information. You present something so fast that they can't see it - does it influence people?
Nisbett & Wilson studies - arguing that all the effects are based on awareness. TIDE. Influenced that they're not aware of, but not subliminal.
Bargh, Chen, & Burrows. Cognitive monster. Much of our behaviour is caused by factros that are outside of our awareness. Controversy.
Study 1: Subliminally prime rude or polite. Just about done, confederate and interrupts the experimenter and goes on and on and on. When do they interrupt this person? How quickly when they're primed with rude or polite. Over 50% interrrupt quickly in Rude condition. 18% interrupt in Polite. Big behavioural differences. You become more polite, more rude.
Study 2: Priming old age and walking to the Elevator. Unscramble 10 sentences. Critical - elderly (bingo, Florida, nursing home, etc.). Primed with old age or not. Done with study. Have someone with stopwatch - how long it takes to walk to the elevator. If primed with old age, they will walk more slowly. If primed with old age, takes a second longer. People didn't believe because walking slow is not closely related to old age.
Study 3: Priming African-American and hositlity. People doing task on computer. 1 condition: different parts of screen - flash african american. other condition: not. Told to be careful - if you bump into this key, you have to start over again. After 45 mins, get system error -> have to start over. Camera on computer - they take short vide of their response. Other people rated how angry they are. Does the african american prime make their face look angrier when something bad happens. White faces vs. Black faces. Hositility rating in their face is more negative.
Replication crisis - couldn't replicate. Methodological - if letting out early, then they would walk slower. If letting out 5 mins later - do they still slow down? Had to debrief after elevator walk/exit. Pashler had to debrief after he measured - he had RA who was running study run after behind them. Methodological quirk. Get another RA. Can somebody else replicate them?
Cesario, Plaks, Higgins - criticizing Bargh, Chen, Burrows. Said you're not priming the concept of old age, but a goal. Not priming African-American hostility, but an intention to interact with people - when you see AA, you're worried youll have to face this hostility. Priming Gay stereotype and action - sterreortyped negatively, but not physically.
Study 1: Primed Gay, Straight, or None. Hostility ratings are much higher for Gay than striaght or none. Not responding to hositlity of AA face, when you're angry you might want to stereotype other groups. The motive to be hostile. Gay stereotype doesn't include hostility.
Study 2: Priming Old Age among those with positive and negative views of ederly. Old people for a lot of people are viewed positively. Not fond, will zip right along and will walk fast. If fond, will walk with them. People who have positive view, end up walking just as slowly as old people. If negative, they walk fast. Priming goals not constructs leads to automaticity. Study 3: Old age prime or no prime. Imagine na interaction or a morning routine. Old age - much slower at responding. Morning routine - opposite response. You have a goal of interacting with other people, prime primes goals. You will walk more slowly because of the interaction imagination of old people. If imagining smething frustrating -> hostility.
Wanted a real replication - want to set it up as a social interaction situation, want strongest manipulation, best conditions, good old age prime, situation where people can walk slowly easier, have no one running after them. Haven't resolved this debate yet.
Participants not aware of the factors that influenced were, but are they really unaware or did they just forget that they aware? Maybe they were aware of the face and then forgot they saw it. Maybe they don't want to say they were aware. How would you know? What if somebody acts against their intention, then clearly they are unaware of the influence. Can you set up a task where they're incentivized to walk the elevator faster, but when primed, they walk slower.
Implicit memory - brain damage and implicit and explicit memory. Saw a brain-damaged patient - phenomenal golfer. Have you ever heard of the game of golf? They've never heard of it cause amnesia. Took him golfing. The guy plays really well. He had implicit memory for golf, even though no explicit memory of golf. You can have powerful comeplete memories without awareness of having those memories.
Word-stem completion (uninjured people). There's a memory there even though they have no awareness of it. Response latencies - list of words week 1, come back week 2 - recall words. Pick which are words, which are not. Faster at respodning to words they saw last week.
Jacoby et al. List of names - way too many to remember. Week 2 - different list of names: this is a test of whether you can identify famous names are not. Don't include the ones you learned last week. People misremember the names that they saw last week as famous names. If they could really recognize where the name was, they wouldn't identify it as a famous name. Failure of source memory.
Banji & Greenwall - male and female names - people are more likely to mistake male names for celebrities than female names. Social cues.
Another list - famous people for being politions, criminals. Some were black, some white. Black names were more likely to be misidentified as criminals and not more likely to be misidentified as famous politicions. White - more likely to be misidentified as politicians and not more likely to be misidentified as famous criminals.
James Vickers. Wanted to start own ad frim - Think Mad Men in the 1950s. Flash eat popcorn and drink coke - more sales. He made the whole thing up.
Greenwald - called bullshit on subliminal stuff. Self help vs. Memory tape. Switched labels. Measures memory and self-esteem. Self-esteem or memory. 0 effect. Memory - Tape label creates a placebo effect. Self-esteem - no effect. Content of tape is crap. He said subliminal tape does not work. If you thought a tape was a memory tape, there was a placebo effect. Little placebo for self-esteem. Label had a bigger effect than what was on the tape, so subliminal message had no effect.
Zanna and Spencer - Maybe you can't affect complex things, but can highlight a psychological state that they already have. highlight, not create, then exploit it. (Present a word, now complete word stem with anyword except the word that was flashed. They completed it with that word - they can't see the word. 250 ms -> they don't fill with that word. Subliminal means below the threshold.) Can you subliminal prime for persuasion. People came in and could not have eaten/drank for 3 hours. Tell them interested in marketing products. They'll taste them. Computer tasks. Manipulate whether people are thirsty or not. Manipulate psychological state and target with subliminal prime. 1st: taste test crackers. Really salty crackers. Control - not thirsty - given a glass of water. Thirsty vs. not thirsty. Computer task: respond to different words. Subliminally flash "thirst". Control - "pirate". Subliminally primed thirs or not. Next test: What you think of two sports beverages. 1. Super quencher - way better at quenching your thirst. 2. Power pro - way better at replacing electrolytes. Equally compelling to non-thirsty people - 50/50. They rated. Gave them up to 9 coupons. Neutral prime - equal. Primed thirst - preferred superquencher. When not thirsty, equal. Prime only does something when they are thirsty. Make people thirsty, then subliminally prime so they're focusing on thirst, then have an ad focused on that thirst, then it works. The effects are mild and subtle. Music preferences - happy or sad mood - primed with happy or control. 2 bands - upbeat vs. complicated. When motivated to be happy, picked upbeat band. (Replicated with different paradigm). Subliminal prime can bring out that motivation.
Lecture X: June 15, 2016
Subliminal priming is limited.
Theory of automaticity is no. You have to do things over and over and over again. Some people will have that experience, but others will not. Expect some poeple to be well-practiced and others where it's not automatic.
Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, Williams. The real pipeline studies. Automatic processing of race. (Concept activation - Trish Devine. Everybody automatically has negative stereotypes). They say we cna't assume everyone does it. Implicit vs explicit. Implicit measure of how people automatically use stereotypes. The basic task - memory experiment - show a whole bunch of faces - 80 faces - 40 are white - 40 are black - tell them they're gong to test them for words - a bunch positive, a bunch negative, judgements if positive or negative. At what extent does it make it harder for black faces to identify positive words and black faces to identify negative words. Does black faces speed up negative processing and slow down positive processing? Individual differences. Not related to explicit racism. Had them talk to a research assistant who's black - RA will rate how comfortable they are. People who score higher on implicit racism, are much less comfortable in the interaction with the RA. Motivation to control prejudice - people who are motivated to control prejudice, implicit measure doesn't predict it. Who are low in motivation, they dont care if they look prejudice to others, their implicit scores predict their explicit and interaction. Some people are trying to overcome their automatic first reaction. These measures can pick up meaningful differences in automatic reactions. It's implicit measure, but do we know if the process is implicit? No. Driving stickshift - automatic process - you just do it, but you are aware you're doing it. About intention. Nobody intends on being faster/slower. Measure is implicit. But process of feeling uncomfortable, they're aware of it.
4 horsemen are 4 markers of automaticity - like prototypes. What's most automatic has all 4 of them. Continuum.
We often think of things we don't intend to do as being automatic.
Jacoby fame judgement studies - lack of intention demonstrates lack of control. List of ordinary names. Do you rbest to memorize the list. Brings them back a week later - make distinction between famous and nonfamous names, some were on the list last week but don't misidentify them. People misidentified names from last week as famous names. They weren't able to control the process. Source failure in source memory. Intention can show a lack of control because they didn't have source memory, they couldn't control the response. Didn't show lack of awareness. Might be aware that you don't know if it was on list last week. They're fully aware that they don't have source memory. They're aware of the process, but can't control it.
complete the word stem - lack of control. Flsh violent, give vio___. No control. Doesn't make sense that you say "I saw violent", I'll just put violent. It's easy to come up with another word. Key: they can't control because they aren't aware of it. If they were aware of it, they could control it.
Any time you show lack of intention, you show lack of control.
Rather than both judgements of Fazio, key is which buttons you're pushing. 2 keys - 1 & 2. Press 1, if AA, press 2 if white. 1,2,1,2,1,2. Now do words - pos or neg. 1 is pos, 2 is neg. Now use 1 for AA or positive, 2 for White or neg. Rather than looking at how they respond, looking at how using the same keys speed up or slow down judgements. Did it vice versa as well. Adapted to more situations (math and me). IAT can work with 3 stimuli for each category - can study how people feel about themselves - me, myself, I.
Greenweld + banaji - Classify objects - Insects and Flowers. More positive associations with flowers,. Calisfy as insect or flower, then pleasant vs. unpleasant. Flower + pleasant - faster, Insect + unplesaant - faster.
Fazio's Revision - insects and flowers, then classify other words as I like vs. I don't like. Argued that when talking about attitudes, talking about how I feel about them, not generally unpleasant or pleasant. Whether I like or don't like peanut butter is different from ahwt I think is pleasant or unpleasant. Personalized IAT.
Spencer et al. Normative IAT. Insects and Flowers. Then classify "Most poeple like" and "Most people don't like" Only moderately correlate.
Original IAT > personalized IAT + normative IAT. Original is your personalized and normative views. Do you want what people think, what they think other people think, or the mismash of them together?
Yoshida, Peach, Spencer, Zanna, Study 5. Had people watch comedy clips. Embedded one - Dennis Miller - who had an awful comedy set after 911 which said racist things about muslims. Crowd is laughing at jokes. Manipulat ethe audience reaction. Tell them at Just for Laughs festival - local. 1 condition: let audience laugh. other condition: turned down laughter so it's quiet after muslim joke. put in clip of audience looking around (before the show started). Audience condoned or didn't condone the racist joke. Normative response - it's ok to tell racist jokes or its' not. Measured implicit norms toward people from Middle East with normative IAT. Had people vote on budget reductions for groups funded by the Feds including the Muslim student association. Amongst 10 groups is Muslim student association. Budget cut is 18% - hard. Can't cut all the groups the same amount. DV: cuts on fundings for MSA. does acceptance of racist joke affect? Laughter vs. laughter lead students to have more negative implicit norms about people from Middle east and to vote for less money for the MSA. Normative views can affect prejudice. If they think being racist is a common view - it can impact. Separate from impact personal views. Can normative views change their actions? Study suggests they can.
Don't have to put resources into it. People fall into the behaviour. Efficient. What people naturally do.
How people make decisions when under time prssure or with very little presentation of information.
Automatic Activation of Affect - Fazio - How positive/negative judgements with strong/weak primes. People made good/bad judgements for dif words. Strong primes lead to automatic activatioin of affect, and only worked for short intervals. Happens with repeated tihngs over short time periods. Not so quick that you get AAoA.
Bargh & Chaiken's - it happens with weak primes and you have AAoA no matter what. Based on the ease, not awareness, control, or intention.
if someone is effortless, it cna't be disrupted. IF you take away their processing resources, it shouldn't stop. Cognitive Load - manipulation is that you have to remember something (8 digits - have to rehearse, cant think about other stuff). Cognitive load - includes fatigue, time pressure.
Gilber, Pelham, Krull - FAE. Write an essay - forced or chose to write it. In FAE, if forced, then people should understand it's not their attitude. We often think that it's so persuasive, they must believe it even if it was forced. Put poeple under cognitive load or not. Remember 8 digit number while evaluating essay. How much does this reflect their attitudes? Under low cognitive load - make FAE. High load - even bigger FAe. Low tries to correct it.
Two step model of attribution - People automatically make FAE. Then they correct from FAE if they have enough resources. People efficiently with little effort (spontaneous trait inference) say oh, that's the person they are. Efficiently, automatically make attributions, and then correct it (not automatic).
Ironic Process in though control - add intention. Ironic processes and thorugh control - when poeple try to suppress thoughts, they end up thinking about them more. Wagner's Model of thought suppression - clear your mind, not think of a white bear. When you do think of a white bear, raise your hand. Hard to suppress thoughts. In order to suppress a thought, you have to be looking for it, and looking for it, you're thinking about it. Pushing down thought takes effort. Looking for it is automatic. Tie up resources, they can't push it down. Low time pressure vs. High time pressure. Low TP + concentrate - think about it more. High TP + suppress - think about it more. Can use intention to demonstrate efficiency.
Lecture X: June 20, 2016
Stayed on Freedom - Eric Bibb. Civil Rights song. Blues area. Facing discrimination and fighting in the face of discrimination. Nobody knows who wrote the lyrics.
Dramatic decrease in expression of stereotypes. 1950s-60s - common for there to be blatant, overt discrimination. Highly expected that there was prejudice and discrimination, it was a part of society. Now, people pretend they aren't.
Katz & Braly (1933) - first study on stereotype. Same time as Nazism, Fascism in Europe. Done at Princeton - rich white men. Prejudice was not uncommon. Gave them 144 adjectives. Which of these things go with which of these groups? They wrote down the percentage of what they went with each group. Identified common adjectives that go with each group. We can see dramatic decrease in expression of stereotypes because they did replications (1950s, 70s, 80s). "Negroes" -> "Blacks". 1930->1951 (pre civil rights) - huge decrease. 67 - still all white and rich. 70s, opened up.
Same with Jews. Stereotypes were same as the ones Hitler were promoting. There's a decrease, but they're not going away.
Despite evidence, subtler forms of stereotyping are still evident. Would you move out of the neighbourhood if a black family moved in - 80% said yes. Now, 10% still say that. It's less common, but still there.
Sagar & Schofield - Pencil poking study. Grade 5 class. Half the kids were black, half black. Ambigious instances - tell me what's going on. One kid is poking the other kid with a pencil - is he getting his attention or is he jabbing him? When you see a picture, it could be really mean or friendly. Does the race of the kid affect people's interpretation of what they're doing? It does with these grade 5 students. If black, they see it as mean and aggressive. If white, they see it as getting their attention.
Word, Zanna, Cooper (1974) - Interview Study. Black applicants are treated differently that undermines their performance - self-fulfilling prophecy.
Darley & Gross (1983) - SES and performance.
Rogers &; Prentice-Dunn - Insult Study. Somebody getting strapped in. When they do something, how do you respond? They can indicate shock to you, you can indicate shock to them. Sometimes the partner is black or white (confederate). Sometimes the person says "I'm paired with an intro psych student? They're in idiot" or not. Shock levels - no insult, white victim gets more shocks. insult - black victim more shock. The insult doesn't matter if the guy is white. Sometimes, people are trying hard to not be prejudice - that's why less shock on no insult.
Dovidio &am; Garrtner's Aversive Racism. Less conscious level - impulse to be prejudice. At conscious level, override unless there's a reason to not hold back. When somebody insults you, now you don't have to hold back. When you have an excuse to treat them negatvely.
Helping Study. Working in teams. In some conditions, they could ask their partner for help, in other conditions, they could offer help. If you are working, you don't have to ask anybody for help - no ones gonna know you're prejudice. If you offering help, no problem there. If you think the other person is equal, you should offer and ask for help the same amount. If African-American, they offer a lot of help, barely ask help. If white, offering and asking help at same level. "I need to give you help, I don't need help from you"
Inadmaissable Evidence Study - reading about a guy who may have committed a murder. Alibi witness testifies. Then judge rules that the witness is inadmissable - you should ignore that witness and not consider them. When you tell a jury to ignore a witness, they don't. When defendant is white with alibi evidence, much less likely to be judged as guilty - they don't ignore the evidence. When black, they actually pay attention to the judge's instructions and ignore the evidence and see him as guilty regardless. "With Evidence" - when alibi is testified and told to ignore it. "Without evidence" - no testimony. When given an excuse, they perceive things differently.
Devine (1989) - everyody automaically activates negative stereotypes. What differentiates whether they're prejudice or not, people who score lower on prejudice scales will supress their prejudice.
Study 1: everybody knows the stereotype. Tell me what the stereotype is. Everybody comes up with the same stereotype.
Study 2: Everybody automatically activates it. Subliminally primed people with words related to AA stereotype. Had them read the Donald paragraph - rated him as more aggressive. People's level of prejudice didn't affect that.
Study 3: Not everybody applies it. Low prejudice people control the application of stereotype. What part of the stereotype do you actually believe - low believe none of it, high believe most of it. People have a strong tendency to stereotype, yet they don't want to appear prejudiced, but it comes out in places where you have excuses and subtle situations.
Does everyone automatically activate the stereotype? Divine said yes, but maybe not.
Lepore & Brown (1997) - Used faces isntead of words. If you activate the stereotype, it might spread to other parts of the stereotype - doesn't mean that if you activate the category, it spreads to stereotype. You could activate exemplars or prototypes. Examplars may not lead to activation of broader prototype whereas examplars should. Faces that are black and white does not automatically activate the stereotype for all people. Activating category is realated to prejudice.
Fazio et al (1995) - real pipeline. Showed black and white faces - hwo that sped or slowed down positive and negative words. There was underlying individual differenes in activating stereotypes. Put automatic activation with motivation and control prejudice scale. If you automatically activate stereotypes and you have low motivation to control prejudice, they are the most prejudice. High in automatic activation, and high in motivation to ocntrol, they don't say anything on prejudice scale. If low on automatic, their motivation doesn't matter because the activation isn't there. He did it with real interaction with real AA. Automatic is there. Conscious control is there.
Does stereotype activation take cognitive resources? Does it happen easily?
Gilver & Hixon (1991) - RA dressed in white tshirt and holding up word stems. "RI_E". RA is Asian or White. RICE or RITE, etc? NI_. NIP - WW2 - Japanese derogatory term. Half time, Asian, half, White. HAlf, high cognitive load. If automatic, should be same whether under cognitive load or not. Not busy - more stereotype completion. It may not be automatic.
Does motivation effect stereotype? wht happens when you're motivated?
Soencer et al. What if they give them negative feedback on an intelligence test? Threaten intelligence. Half took it and got a bad score, half just took it for the sake of taking it. Then did Gilbert and Hixon with AA. Positive feedback (actually neutral) - very little stereotype activation. With negative feedback, way more stereotypic completions. They flashed African American faces subliminally or European/white. They didn't see it at all. True even if they were cognitively busy. Shows that automatic activation could be a function of whether people are motivated to stereotype. When people feel threatened, stereotyping is one way to feel better about yourself.
Implicit and Explicit Racism. Implicit racism is measure by IAT or by response latencies. People may be aware of their racism, but may be unaware of the measurement. Implicit MEASURE. We don't know if people are unawre of the process of being racist. Explicit racism is measured by self-report questionnaires - people know what's going on.
Aversive Racism - high implicit, and low explicit racism. Measured as people who are high when you measure their implicit racism and low when you measure their explicit racism. Are they aware of the process? When they're activating the stereotype and not expressing it, are they aware? Nobody has been able to demonstrate it. "Hey were you aware that you were gonna have a glimmer of prejudice there?" People will say no.
Penner, et al (2010) - look at Doctor-patient interactions based on Doctor's racism. Black patient's rating sof a White doctor - when high ex, high im - no trouble with interacting - can deal with racist doctor. HiExLoImp - will say prejudice things, but don't automatically activate stereotypes - no trouble dealing with this doctor. Lo Ex/Hi Imp - condescending and acting as if they're unprejudice, but giving off vibes of negativity - they don't like to interact with them. LoEx/LoImp - really good interactions with black patients. When person says and respons in a way that they don't think they're racist, but they actually are, it is a problem.
Can you try to push stereotypes down? Can you try not to think about them?
Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne - Skinhead stereotypes - most people think pretty negative things about them. Write about htis person, but don't use stereotypes. Now presented someone else, how much do they stereotype this person? They stereotype them more. Inhibiting stereotypes makes them think about them more.
Sinclair & Kunda (1998) - What baout when people are motivated to inhibit stereotypes? Brought people in and told them they were doing research on the coop experience. Turns out interviews suck, they are poor predictors of performance. Brought people to view interviews, they're former alumni, expereince interviewers. The person who is interviewing them is Black or White, Doctor or Not. Stereotype: if AA, do you want to say that they're less achievement-oriented. Generic feedback, or meh. When person gives you positive feedback, you may well want to inhibit the stereotypes. If they say you're meh, you might be motivated to play out the negative stereotypes. Found when Black and negative interview, activated stereotype. If positive feedback, inhibited the AA stereotype. Motivation can invludence whether you activate the stereotype or not.
We don't see application even if we see activation. Can people control the use of the stereotypes?
Macrae, Bodenhausen Milne, Jetten - stereotypes on the rebound.
Fein Spencer - people can use stereotypes as a way to feel better about themselves.
Study 1: Whether self-affirmation could affect the way they use the stereotype. Get rid of most pressures to inhibit stereotype. Used local stereotype: at UofMichigan - Jewish American Princes - 1/3 are Jewish - lots from NY - nasty stereotype - vain, superficial, only care about fashion, finding somebody rich to marry - "Missojinny" and part anti-semitism - regularly talked about. Protrayed same woman as Jewish or Italian. Her name: Julie Goldberg (Jewish) - wearing a necklace with star of david, in a sorority that has always been Jewish women, did service work at Halal foundation, wore a clip (a JAP clip). Italian - Maria Daigostina - wearing cross, different sorority that has never had Jewish members, did service work at Catholic social services. Interview of her for Personnel Manager. Interview was exactly the same. Saw Julie or Maria. Found: when self-affirmed, rated them the same. When not self-affirmed, Julie got a much more negative evaluation for hwo good she was for the PErsonnel Manager position.
Study 2: Replication of Study 1 not using the JAP stereotype. Stereotype about gay men. Implied that he was gay or not. Director invites him up for a drink - ambigious why he's excited - could be career opportunity or into him. Condition: say that Greg is living with his partner Alice in a part of the city where a lot of gay people live or living with his partner (no name). Only hint that he may be gay. DArk - no feedback, light - Negative feedback. Neg and gay, rate greg more negatively. USed all straight men for the study participants.
Study 3: Show that stereotyping in response to threat makes you feel better. Julie Goldberg or MAria Dagostina. Give them intelligence test - positive or negative feedback. Then after, they measure state self-esteem. Negative -> feel worse. Then they rate julie or maria and measure self esteem again. Replicate ratings of target again. AFter positive feedback, everybody goes up a little. Goes up if they rated julie negatively and got negative feedback. People are motivated.
American Skin (41 Shots) - Bruce Springsteen - Early 2000s - man named something, out, police looking for rapist/murderous suspect. All had guns pointed at him, pulled out his wallet, shot him 41 times. Is this a perceptual problem? Are they racist? Carell, park, judd - shooter bias - Shoot or not shoot - if you make poeple go fast, they're more likely to shoot a black suspect over white suspect - true for all people. How prejudice can matter.
What is it like to have stereotypes about you? All of us have some stereotypes in some situations by which they're going to be viewed. In those situations, there is a big dilemma and it has big consequences. Big topic in Social Cognition. First 50-60s only looked at people who did the stereotyping instead of the targets of the stereotyping.
Crocker, Major - Stigma and Self-Esteem - What you're a group with negative stereotypes. African-American, woman, etc. Looked at groups that were stigmatized. Does that affect your self-esteem? They used to say that based on looking-glass, those people would have lower self-esteem. But none of them actually have lower self-esteem. 3 explanations:
Crocker, Voeklk, Testa, Major - Blinds up/Blinds down study. Subjects were black or white. One way mirror. 1 condition: blinds were up so could see race, 2nd condition: blinds were down so couldn't see them. Manipulated if they could have been prejudice. If they can't see who you are, shouldn't be based on prejudice. Got good feedback or negative feedback. Blinds up - black subjects do not feel bad about negative feedback, don't feel good about positive feedback either (condecending). Blinds down - ratings of blacks/whites are about the same. People are making attributions to prejudice.
Crocker, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, Crocker - Priming bias leads to disengagement - how people feel after they get feedback. Dependant v - state self -esteem. Everybody got negative feedback. Do they feel bad? Black and white subjects. When bias was rasied as a possible influence on performance - self esteem didn't suffer. White subjects go down regardless of bias or not. Black will go down if bias isn't raised. Race prime - Whether there might be racial bias in this measure. Black really good self-esteem when bias is raised. Suggests that people will protect their self-esteem using a number of strategies.
Could those stereotypes not just affect self-esteem, but affect actual performance.
What is a stereotype threat? You could be evaluated by a stereotype. Just out there, not specific.
Cultural Stereotypes -> Stereotype Threat -> Performance Deficits(grades) OR Disidentification with Stereotype Domain(dropout)
Disidentification with STereotype Domain - chronic disengagement.
Steel & Aronson
Study 1 - the effects of test diagnosticity. Whether stereotype threat could undermine the performance of african-americans on a standardized test (GRE). One condition: standardized test (Diagnostic), other condition: this is a new test(non-diagnostic). If it's not diagnostic, and there's a stereotype, then it lets you off the hook - so AA will do better. REally hard test (matters that it's hard). Non-diagnostic - both black and white performed the same. Diagnostic - AA are underperforming by quite a lot.
Study 2 - relation to stereotype activation and avoidance. Tried to measure whether people were thinking about the stereotype or not. Manipulation: diagnositc or non-diagnostic. ARe the AA students thinking about the stereotype, are they concerned about it? Trying to avoid thinking about it, at the same time, thinking about it. Stereotype activation - bunch of words from the Devine study - More than whites in diagnostic. Stereotype avoidance - how much do you like hiphop? do you like basketball? AA say they don't align with strereotype in the diagnostic condition. Thinking about the stereotype, but when you ask if it applies to them, they say that's not true about them.
Study 3 - the effect of the subtle priming of race. In non-diagnostic. Cued race or not. After they described study, first question on test was "what's your race". When race isn't primed, get exactly what you had before - blacks, white preforming equally. Race primed - blacks performed significantly worse. How oyu perofrme on a standardized test can be affected by stereotypes.
Spencer, steel, & Quinn - stereotype threat and women's math performance. Women who were very talented in math. Scored in 90th percentile in SAT. Math was important to them and they were very good. The test needs to be difficult. Standard GRE math (highschool math - quite easy) or Advanced GRE math (for majors). Women and men performed equally on satandard GRE. Women underperformed on advanced GRE math. Wanted to get rid of stereotype threat. Tell them there's no gender differences on this test -> women do just as well as men. Also, AA vs. whites.
Davies, Spencer, Quinn, Gerhardstein (2002) - stereotypic commrcials and women's math performance. Could you get a stereotype threat ust by showing cultural information in the stereotype. Watch a set of commercials. In one set (control) - no people (Petro Canada blizzard, Geico insurance - gecko). Other condition - two commercials with women who were really ditzy - martha quinn - cosmetic product, enamored with a brownie. Counter-stereotypic (woman who was pediatrician). Stereotypic: women underperform compared to men.
Logel et al - Study 2 - Men and women studying engineering interact and then take an engineering test. What is it about the engineering program that makes women feel stereotyped threat. What is going on as they're studying together, working together, etc. Work on a work-related problem. Came into the lab - interested in the way that people solve problems. First study: female confederate and the males were the subjects. Gave them a NYTimes about HP Compact merger - current CEO of Compact was a woman, CEO of HP didn't want it, was gonna happen anyways. Then collected information. Men and women interaacted with one another - interested in how they interacted with the woman confederate based on a subtle measure of sexism. Measure - 20 sentences they have to complete. 3 of them can be completed in a stereotypic way - Jenny went home to cook dinner ______ (because her husband cooked dinner last night, naked). How did the men's sexism affect the way they interacted with the female confederate. Couches in an L shape. Female sat in middle of one of the couch, male could sit anywehre - how close did he sit to her. Measure in inches. Looked at body posture. Some had closed body posture, some had open body posture. Female confederate rated how much she felt they were looking at her body. Coders looked how seually interested, dominant. Found: Men who filled out questionnaire in sexist way, engaged in more sexist behaviour. They didn't touch her, didn't say anything overtly sexist. All subtle behaviour, but behaviour that can matter. Women are the real subjects and got men actors as confederates that acted like the sexist men. Other times, act like the guys with low sexism. Have women take engineering test (really hard). Low sexism - women do just as well on exam. High sexism - women do worse on exam. Real study - real men and women participants - same results as actor. For women, interacting with sexist men can undermine their performance.
Contact Hypothesis - Argument that schools should be desegregated: if there's contact between different groups, the contact will reduce the prejudice and animosity. If you have people interact with each other, it will reduce prejudice and increase the performance of the subordinate group. Factors that make it work better: between group friendships, endorsement of integration by authorities (people agree that it's good for them to get together), no inter-group competition (this will make it fail), equal status among students (they all have the same rights, etc.). Friendships trumps all of this. Competition is a no-no. The Robber's Cave studies - boys in summer camps. Set up 2 different groups. Made in-group hostility. Rigged competitions o one group would screw the other group. Picnic - gives 1 group a shortcut. Only unlimited supplies of nice food. Soccer match - can kick them. Doesn't take long and the groups hate each other. By the end of the week, all of them said every kid in their group was better than every kid in the other group. All going to a movie - cut down a tree in front of the road. All had to work together to move the tree. Set one of the buildings on fire - had to work together to put out the fire. superordinate goal -> mixed together and formed friendships. igsaw Classroom and Superordinate Goals - each kid has something that can contribute - in order to compelte, they needed everyone. Each person with individual roles.
Difficulty of contact hypothesis - when people ahve contact, there's a perpensity to categorize the people they know as different fromt he group. As you get to know somebody, does that affect your idea of the group as a whole? People tend to subtype. Oh, my friend is just a different sort of a member of that group. Subtyping can limit the effectiveness of contact. Kinda Olesion - extreme people get subtyped
Lecture X: June 27, 2016
In Your Eyes - Peter Gabriel. He thinks he knows everything about who he's talking to by looking in their eyes. He has strong beliefs about them by looking into their eyes. We all do that to some extent. We draw firm conclusions about other people really easily. We think we figure out who they are. Person Perception. Falls into Social Cognition. Gestalt Psychologists - figure out how we perceive the world - cognitive approach. Early social psychologists, they wanted to figure out how poeple decide how other people are like?
Why are people betting 8:1 that England is going to remain in the EU when the polls suggested it was close to 50/50 and the election went the other way. People thought they were making a good bet. Tehre's a false consensus. They thought most people would vote that way - why do they think this?
The Ross, Greene, House - what do you think other people would do. Would you wear this placquered around campus? Will other people wear it? How do you measure false consensus? People who'd do it, estimate 80% would do it. People who wouldn't, estimate 20% would do it. Compared people who did it to people who didn't do it. What is the actual number of people who would wear the board? The way we measure: compare two groups - somebody's wrong, but we don't know who. Have to have estimate of what the real population would actually do.
Explanation: Differential Exposure we tend to know people like ourselves. When everyone agrees with us, we think everybody agrees with us. A few is majority. If you're only exposed to people with the same views, you can think these views are very common. Really bad sampling. We don't sample random people, sample people we know.
Self as an anchor Sometimes you don't even get a chance to talk to someone else. YOu know how you will respond so you use yourself as an anchor as the starting point and we don't correct enough. Do you pee in the shower? George thought everyone does. Jerry thought no one does. Easy to overestimate that people would do what you do.
Motivation we want our actions and beliefs to be popular.
Bliefs about causation We believe that the situation causes us to do it, then we should think that other people would be affected by the situation as well. Misunderstanding situational causes. If you recognize how poerful the situation is, you think other people will do it. If you're just watching, you think I wouldn't do it so others wouldn't do it.
False Consensus is a general thing people do, but some cases theyd o the complete opposite (2 opposites)
Doing something, believing it, thinking that nobody else does, but everyone else is doing the same thing as you. YOu think you're unique in feeling that way, but you're not. When our private attitudes don't match our public behaviour. Our behaviour is not an indication of our true beliefs, yet we take other people's behaviour as an indication of their true beliefs.
Pluralistic Ignorance and Bystander intervention - smoke study. Alone or groups of 4 people. As they sat in, within a min, smoke starts wafting into the room. Did they leave the room and say hey there's smoke. When they were alone, everybody got up right away. In groups 4, just sat there as the room filled with smoke - no one was a confederate. 5 mins and act like nothing's happening. Private attitude: omg the rooms on fire. Public behaviour: I'm just going to fill out my questionnaire. They're thinking the other people aren't saying the same thing - that their behaviour is saying it's not an emergency.
Pluralistic Ignorance and Drinking at Princeton - what do you feel about people who are going to parties and getting drinking all the time? Argument: I don't want to get wasted, but it seems like everyone else is. Assume that other people who are getting drunk don't care.
Study 1 - simple measure of pluralistic ignorance. Ask how much they drink, how they feel about drinking. How comfortable are you with the amoutn of drinking on campus. How do you feel and how does the average student feel? The self is more uncomfortable than the average student. Comparing the actual to the perception of what most people are doing. Most poeple are pretty comfortable, I'm not.
Study 2 - where do your friends stand? Not as dramatic pluralistic ignorance for friends. Friends are less comfortable than average. REporting the Self is less comfortable than friends. Nobody recognizes that they're not the only ones that feel that way. Study 3 - what happens over time? In the fall, both think self is less comfortable is average. Women still think this way. Men become as comfortable as average. PI allowed them to be more comfortable with drinking on campus. Men fit in with the PERCEIVED norm.
Study 4 - took advantage of naturally-occurring thing. Keg Ban study. Administration banned kegs on campus. Asked people what their beliefs were about the keg ban and what do they think the average students beliefs about the keg ban. People were thinking it could be a good idea. Thought the average student is gonna hate this. Protest was predicted by pluralistic ignorance rather than by their own attitudes.
You think your view is not shared by others, and the reason you think this is because you think the dissociation your private attitudes and public attitudes is rare. You think people's public behaviours reflect what they actually believe.
When you think yo're the only one who believes/does what you believe/do. Doing something that's really examplary. Doing something that can be seen as good, you think you're the only one who does that. Motivational belief. Saying that I'm the only one who does the right thing.
Suls & et al. Estimates of how much people drink and use seat belts. In 1980s no one used seat belts. Insurance companies estimated only 5% or less. Do you use your seatbelt? How many other people use their seatbelt? People who used, said no one did. When people are doing good things, they think nobody else does it. They dont' drinka nd drive, think everyone else drinks and drives.
False Uniqueness - people who do it think it's less common than it is is exact opposite of False Consensus - people who do it think it's more common.
FAlse consensus and uniqueness are relative effects - If they think more or less, it's one or the other. Comparing people who do it and people who don't. Independent of what people actually do. You don't know where the population falls.
PI is an absolute effect. Comparing to the group mean to know whether it's actually there. You get the group mean wrong.
False unqieueness cannot be explained by some of the cognitive mechanisms that the others can be.
PI - Not taking situation into account for other people. Actor-observer bias. When thinking about yourself, you know much more about the situation.
FU - motivational effect. I'm the only one who would do this, nobody else would. REquires motivation. I'm a different and better person than other people.
Underestimating shows PI - everybody is underestimating it. Relative Difference in estimate of self and average other shows FC or FU.
Morewedge, Preston, Wegner - When do non-humans have agency? Agency - make decisions and plan out course of own actions - seen as a human feature - takes memory of past, planning of future.
Study 1: movement and mind in animals. When do you infer that an animals has a mind, has agency - depends on movements of animal. Cartoons where animals talk and make plans. Movement and response => less agency than immediate movement .
Study 2: Can infer agency if they are objects.
Study 3: Movement and mind in people. Same thing happens with people. Movement can be a cue for agency. Their argument: the way we process movement, it's not necessarily true that only humans have agency.
Study 4: movement and mind in a blob. Initiating movement is important for agency.
How do we decide what people are like? We decide that soembody has a certian type of personality. We think that they're nice or mean, outgoing or quiet, openminded or closedminded, etc.
Walter Mischel - 1960s - argument: people are not consistent across situations. behaviour in one situation predicts behaviour in another situation correlates with 0.3. If someone lies to their friends, are they going to lie to their family, the authorities, a stranger, etc. Everybody lies, but they lie in different areas. Calling somebody a liar doesn't make sense. Want to know in what situations they lie and what situations don't. Very few people consistently lie all the time. When do traits come out and when they don't. Arguing that personality doesn't exist.
Reactions: Aggregation Approach - look at many behaviours and sum them up and not look at just one behaviour, you get a better estimate. Can get a 0.6 correlation.
Lecture X: June 29, 2016
Fashionable People - Joel Plaskett and the Emergency
Mischel's Critique continued...
Aggregation Approach acknowledges critique, but you can predict behaviour over time in many situations. Over multiple interactions, will they lie to me more than somebody else? In the long run. Don't look at one behaviour to another behaviour, look at how many times over a period time do they do this behaviour. But you still can't predict behaviour. "You're not finding if someone is consciientuos, you're finding if someone's conscientious at work." Maybe someone is conscientious at work, but a slob at home. Long-term, multiple intereactions are useful.
Can't predict traits in a specific instance because you don't have the right instances. Should predict traits better if the isntances are prototypical of the trait. Don't predict if someone is gonna lie or not unless you have a prototypical lying instance. Think of the 3 most dominant males (or females) you know. What are the type of things that they do. Yell, forbid, etc. Ask people - how many times have you done this? These traits predict these prototyupical behaviours. Better relationship between personality traits and prototypical behaviours of that trait. 0.4-0.5.
You can't predict people all of the time, you can predict some of the time. Some people care about some traits and not others. Traits that do define them should predict their behaviour. Traits that don't define them, shouldn't predict their behaviour. If central to who they are, there should be consistency across domains. If don't care, should be weaker correlation.
Bem & Study - how much do you vary from one situation to another in how friendly and outgoing you are? How much do you vary from situation to situation? Monitored subjects self-reports of behaviour, others reports of their behaviour and observations. Their reports, roommates reports, and observe. They say they're consistent, see if this is true. Friendliness findings - Consistent - were more consistent. PEople who see themselves as inconsistent, they see themselves as inconsistent. Conscientious findings - low correlations.
Mischel & Peake - used Bem & Allen's conscientiousness procedure. Did the one that didn't work. Additional measures of conscientious behaviours. They had self, parent, friend, behavioural measures. For high consistency people, self, parent, friend ratings correlated highly. No relationship to their actual observed behaviour. Appears consistent from reputations - but doesn't mean you actually are.
Mischel's critique is still powerful. Inferring people's traits as a way of trying to understand people is an inadequate way of judging people. We automatically make trait inferences. We learn to undo these automatic tendency. We tend to think about people too much in terms of traits. As we grow, we thinka bout people less that way.
We way overestimate the cross-situational consistency of behaviour. We don't recognize this.
Kunda & Nisbett. Figure out how people perceive correlations between different settings. Picked ones where they know the actual correlation. Wanted to see how good people wre at estimating. On average, cross-situational consistency is 0.3. Sometimes there's really good/bad cross-situational consistency. Trait-related consistency - based on this trait, what do you think the correlation will be on these behaviours. You know this trait, predict how they'll be in this situation. People predict 0.8 correlation. Interview - how do interviews predict job performance. Correlation is very close to 0 - very unrelated. People think it's a 0.6 correlation. Ability-related - people who do well on GRE, will tend to do well in a number of different subjects. 0.5 correlation. Estimated correlation is similar. Estimated correlations are backwards of what the real correlations are. People think personalities are highly correlated but more skeptical about ability. People have theories of correlations. OCcassionally right, but most of the time wrong.
The Fundamental Attribution Error - correspondence bias. Attribution - when you see a behaviour, how do you decide or not decide that the behaviour reflects the type of person they are. We usually see someone engage in a behaviour, we think they are that type of person. We don't know why they do it, why do we assume they are that kind of person?
Jones & Harris - the process of attribution. Model of attribution. You should pay attention to whether they chose to do the behaviour or not. Choice. When people don't choose to do it, the behaviour should be irrelevant to their personality. Corresepndant inference - the behaviour correseponds with the type of person they are. When people choose, then you make a corresepondant inference. Cuban Missile Crisis. Close to the world getting blown up. JFK. Fidel Castro took over Cuba. Essay - one was anti-Castro, one was pro-Castro. Condition - people go to choose or they were assigned which side. When assigned, you should not make an inference about whether the person is pro- or anti-Castro. Like if they had a gun to their head.
Ross, Amabile, Steinmetz - quiz shoe study. Do people realize how roles can dramtically affect people's behaviour - no. Brought people in - play 1 of 3 roles - make up the questions, contestants, audience. How smart are each of these people? The truth is: nobody is smarter than anybody else. Thought that the questioners were smarter than the contestants. Everybody thought this. We tend to infer people who know information that they're really smart. Professors are not as smart as you think.
Spontaneious trait inference When you just watch someone engage in a behaviour, you make a trait inference. Automatic.
Winter & Uleman - Gave people a list of behaviours. Name + behaviur they engaged in. Memory task. Joel helps old lady across the street. Fred beat up his little brother. Martha got an A on her chemistry tests. Think of the trait, think of the meaning, just memorize. How well they could remember the traits. Think of trait (trait cue) - best memory, think of meaning (semantic cue) - not the best cue, . Thiknking about things in terms of traits - best memory.
Carlston & Skowronski - Give other information to see if they do the same things with the trait cue. List of behaviours. In one, told to think about in traits, just told to form an impression, familiarize themselves with the list. TRaits are really helpful for recall - made spontaneious trait inference - naturally do and aids memory.
Shelton, Richeson, & Birgsieker - interracial friendships and how prejudice can affect those relationships. Interests, concern and prejudice in interracial friendships. Low prejudice whites- not conceerned lack of interest, concerned with other has lack of interest. Concerned with rejection. W are thinking oh no, I'm going to be rejected. B are thinking that person isn't interested at all. What people are concerned with is not wha tthe other person are inferencing. If you're concerned with rejection, you tend to withdraw, you say things carefully - looks like you're not interested. Attribution process can get in the way of good interactions. High prejudice whites - not concerned with rejection, but actually show lack of interest. Now everyone makes same attributions - both don't want to be there. Less discomfort. Discomfort comes from mismatch from attributions are being made.
What is it tht is consistent? personality psychologists - It's the type of person that matters, social psychologists - it's the situation matters. Both are right. The person in a particular type of situation.
Shoda, mischel, Wright. - summer camp. Lots of different activities - looked at consistency of traits within each type of activity. No consistency across activities, but consistency within acitivties. Wothin a particular domain, there is consistency, but there isn't consistency across domains.
Situations that affect some people and not others. Self-monitoring - some people are very consistent between attitudes and behaviours because they don't modify their behaviours for the situation that they're in. If very liberal, they don't care who is around, they're going to express those views no matter what. Other people are high self-monitors and adapt the expression of their attitudes to the situation. Low self-monitors - doesn't matter if conformity or autonomy situation - consistent. If high self-monitor - conform a lot when conformity situation, if autonomy, completely atonoumous - change with the social situation - low consistency across situations.
Self-handicapping - strategy - screws up their performance just so they have an excuse afterwards. Effective way to blunt negative impact. Take test, take a pill - whether expected to do well or poorly. It might screw up your performance. Expect to do poorly, no one wants to take pill if not a self-handicapper. IF self-handicapper and expect to do poorly - want pill. IF self-handicapper and expect to do well, don't want pill.
Some situations have more of an effect than others - some situations influence people and others don't. When situational pressures are strong, no cross situational consistency, when weak, a lot more. Self-awareness and deindividuation - in some situations, people feel disconnected from who they are - situation has low impact. Kids at halloween - huge bowl of candy - kids can pick - 1 condition - can you take off your mask or not. Then tell them go alone or in groups. Take just 1 piece of candy. More deindividuation when you're anonymous and in group. OVer 50% of kids take extra candy when in group and anonymous. If take mask on alone, only 20%. In groups with mask off - 20% - everybody's doing it.
Lecture X: July 4, 2016
House of Gold - Andy Stohansky. Sociometer - How we fit in with those around us. I see them point, ... WE're not good enough. You feel about yourself how you stack up to others around you - could make you feel not very good at all.
4 articles - this or that - know 3 of the 4. Self, culture - same length exam, but less material. Final is optional - cumulative, exactly same format. More integration - tell me about X article and how it relates to concept Y.
Markus' Model of the Self - Cognitive view of the self. Applying what people learned in cognitive psychology to the self concept. What we have about ourself is a collection of schemas - way of organized thinking. Self-schemas - schemas that determine who we are. What could I do for a self-schema that would be pretty common for first year unviersity students - establish their independence. Independent schematics. Other people - homesick - focused on trying to maintain connections with the people back home. Called them Independent schematics and dependent schematics.
Study 1: Made me and not me ratings. Computer task. Target words: things that cued independence or dependence and other words. Me and not me latencies. If self-schematic, should be quick and automatic. Looked at Behavioral evidence (memory) and predicting likelihood of behaviour(project behaviour forward). Asked: how independent are you from the other people from your life? (9+ for independent) How important is this to you? (9 or higher). How dependent are you from other people from your life? Howimportant is this to you? Third group - people in the middle - 4-6, 4-6 or below. Schematic for being independent, dependent, or aschematic. Results: independent schematics endorse independent words more than rest. dependent schematics endorse dependent adjectives mmore than the rest. LAtency for me words: dependent schematics are really slow for independent words. independent schematic quick for independent words. slower at dependent words for independent schematics. dependent and aschematic same speed for dependent words. Not me latencies: dependent adj may take a long time for dependent schematics. Behavioural evidence: asked people in the last week, how many times have you been trusting of other people? Independent -> independent adjective examples. Didn't work for dependent. Predicting th elikelihood of behaviour - how likely theyll do the independent/dependent things? People are processing just the words in a way that's consistent with their schemas. Independent --> say me to more words to independent and quicker. Dependent --> say me to more dependent words and quicker. When they say not me to dependent --> really slow. Wha tis it that are the defining features of other people? What are the things that strongly affect their memories?
Study 2 - false feedback study - give schema consistent --> buy it. give schema inconsistent --> don't buy it.
Self-schemas and processing info about others - how a self=schema can afffect seeing the same event. Schemas acan affect how you process the same information that's coming in. Schema is for gender. Most people can identify their gender - how important is that to you? If important - gender schema. Made videotape that's gender-based - guy in apartment watching football game, drinking beer. Supposed to have a clicker - every time they saw a meaningful behaviour, click the clicker. Do people who are gender-schematic see more important behaviours than people who aren't? Yes. See more identifiable meaningful behaviours. Going beyond the information given. Different condition: click a button and hold it for the sequence of behaviours. Chunk it into a larger group - "Commercial time". Can categorize at broad level and fine level.
We have ways of thinking about ourselves, but at any given moment, most of those are not active. The Working Self-concept - the part that's active. We have lots of self-schemas.
The Working Self-concept in Action - Uniqueness Words. List of 20 different preferences. What's your favourite movie, colour, etc. After they finished, experimenter said: scantron machine broke, read me your answers. first person: real subject. next person: confederate. Other person gives answers that are exactly the same - 19/20. You might activate the self-schema of being unique. Other condition: only 2 of 20 are the same. Differnet in every way - makes you feel like a weirdo. Activate self-schema for connection. Response latencies for me and not me words: uniqueness words for me --> fast. uniqyeness + not me--> slow. differnet + me --> slow. different from you + not me --> fast. Reverse for similarity words.
Possible Selves - building blocks for self-schemas. How do self-schemas come into existence? When we project ourselves in the future, we see it as a possibility of something we may possess. Name 3 things they expect to be, hope to be, fear to be. Expect to be - stragithforward self-schema, likely to be consistent with self-schema. Hope to be - hope for something you don't expect.
Importance of Balance study: Study of Juvenile Deliquents. Do your possible selves affect delqiuints to be convicted for crime later on? Recitivism. If people want to be an NBA star, that needs to be balanced with a fear. When hopes are balanced with fears, people are less likely to commit crimes. I hope to have a job, I fear falling back into crime - balance. Focus on more reality - strong possible selves that lead to self-schemas in that domain and it is predictive to be less likely to be convicted later on.
Very few people who have negative views of themselves. High and low self-esteem - High are sure they feel good about themselves, and low - meh feelings about the self - "I'm not sure I'm that great", not "I suck". PEople who have low self esteem have less clear views of the self. Self-clarity - fewer self schemas if low SE. Few people scoring in middle of self-esteem scale. Msot people have very high self-esteem. Small amount below low self-esteem.
Self-serving strategies - people high on self-esteem have unrealistically positive views of themselves. Failure - blame others, success - self. False uniqueness a lot more. Any biases - HSE do more than LSE. LSE have a much more accurate view of themselves. HSE put themselves at 90%. LSE put themselves at 60%.
Self-attributes - took high and low SE people. Take remote associates test - hard to know how you're performing. Give 3 words, come up with 4th word. 2 version: 1 is really hard and typical gets 3/10, other is really hard and typica lgets 8/10. Give them real feedbakc, or no feedback. Have ahead of time: strengths and weaknesses. Everybody has to say me if the word can ever describe you. (Hit me for ugly). If the word is shingled, can't apply to you. Pulp-free. Words that describe people vs. non-people. Negative, success, or no feedback. Results: after success, high and low are the same in terms of how fast they respond to weaknesses, same with no feedback. After failure, HSE are really slow to say me to theri weaknesses and LSE are really fast. Working self-concept comes to mind, their weaknesses. LSE aren't thinking about their weaknesses at all. Strengths - HSE after failure are much faster. LSE aren't particularly slow. If you're HSE, when you fail, you're thinking about strengths and not weaknesses. IF LSE, thinking baout weaknesses and not as much htinking about strengths. High and low SE have different schemas.
Views of relationship partners - View of self extends to view of partner. HSE - unrealistic views of partner. LSE - accurate views of partner. Do you want an over-optimistic view of your partner or realistic view? HSE - relationship goes better - higher relationship satisfaction and stay together longer. More realistic - less satisfaction, less likely to stay together. Set up situations where you're not sure if your partner is saying good or bad things about you. Fill out questionnaire. 1 partner gets - list partner's weaknesses, other gets list partner's strengths. If HSE, nothing happens - trust partner - no negative impact. If LSE, you don't trust them, worried about relationship. People who have LSE --> not trusting, pull away, don't depend on other person --> undermine relationship.
Lecture X: July 11, 2016
I don't want to be
HSE after Pos --> strengths, neg --> strengths. LSE after neg --> weaknesses.
Scholer, Ozaki, Higgins - REgulatory Focus and Self-Esteem. REgulatory focus can interact with self-esteem to affect how people are thinking about themselves. REgulatory focus - promoting positive things happening or preventing negative things from happening. Promotion or prevention focused. Focused on either promotion or prevention.
Study 1: Negative-Positive. REaction time - speed. Slow --> big numbers. Fast -> small numbers. Positive numbers = positive traits. Pretest - positive and negative traits. Both are the same - in general show activation of positive traits. Experiment - promotion or prevention focus (not a prime). Think about ideals. Pursuing ideals - promotion. Prevention - duties and how they will live up to them - how we're going to screw up and not meet them. Ideals - promotion. Duties - prevention. Not a prime. Promotion - quite positive of attributes you have. Prevention - negative. Promotion - positive about self. Prevention - negative about self. Self-esteem related to promotion and prevention focus. LSE spend a lot of time to prevent things - contributes to SE. HSE spend a lot of time to promote good outcomes - contributes to SE. What you pursue on a daily basis could affect your self-esteem.
Normal way to measure self-esteem: scale of 10 items. "I have high self-esteem." Narcissists - people who say positive things about themselves, but underlying have deep-seated negativity. Not gonna show up on an explicit self-esteem scale. Implicit self-esteem - IAT test. Positive and negative categorization of objects. 2nd categorization: me and an object. pictures of objects. me, myself, I. objects. Me and pos, object neg. Me and neg, obj pos. Implicit self-esteem barely correlated to explicit self-esteem. Are there some high self-esteem people because they're defensive people? CD experiment. 2 dishes at a chinese restaurant that they were getting a coupon for. Pick 2 dishes. Pick 1 of the 2 for coupon. Spreading of alternatives. Defensive. High implicit SE - both high and low Explicit show a little bit of CD. LowLow - tiny bit. 3x CD if high Ex and low in Imp. Show more defensiveness, ingroup bias, prejudice, narcissism. HSE aren't all the same.
Self-esteem differences and self-serving tendencies - HSE tend to engage in self-serving tendencies more than LSE people. Self-Verification Theory - people with LSE don't engage in self-serving biases because they want to maintain their view. Everybody would like to solidify their views of thesmelves. If neg, want to verify neg. Prefer negative. Had people come in that were high or low self-esteem. Got positive or negative personality feedback. Wanted to see how much they wanted additional feedback. Do you want the full report? Positive feedback - everybody wants the report, but esp HSE people. Negative feedback - LSE want it, HSE don't want it at all.
LSE feel bad about negative feedback, but still want the negative feedback in the long run. Long term: seeking out.
Self-enhancement - everybody would prefer positive feedback about themselves. Contrast with self-verification theory. LSE don't self-enhance because trying to protect their fragile sense of self-esteem. They seek neg feedback because it helps to protect their self-esteem. Worried if they seek positive, it'll fall apart and they'll feel worse about themelves. Personality test feedback situation: feedback from 2 raters. 1 rater: positively. other: negatively. Only have time fo ryou to read 1 full report, which oen do you want to read? description: changeable or stable. LSE - would you take positive feedback if it's changeable? It could collapse. They say all these things, but it's not gonna last. If it's stable, you should go for that positive feedback - self-enhancement. % choosing positive: high/low are the same when stable, changeable - high want pos, low want negative. Whether you're worried if your decision could come back to bite you later. LSE: I could see positive, but it could crumble later. LSE don't have clear or negative views from the start. Unclear what verifying that self view would mean.
How self-enhancement motive operates between people. SElf-Evaluation Maintenance - Is that something that really matters to you? Connected to someone - when they succeed. Bask in reflected glory - when it doesn't matter to you. 1. Is it important to you?(how relevant is the domain to you) 2. how close is that person to you? When comparing, if important to both, you'll become less close. Biggest threat to self-image. Not close, it wouldn't be a big deal. DV: helping someone. People are playing a game "Password" - read clue words and guess target word. What kind of clues do you give to the other person - good clues or crappy clues. Friend or stranger. Who do you give the good clues to? Whoever wins gets money for winning. Do you help your friend or stranger? When self-relevant, help stranger more than friend. Irrelevant dimension - just playing a game. Grey - friend, lightgrey - stranger. Help friend more than stranger. Relevant Dimension - Intellectual test - both are competitive in terms of intelligence- help the stranger more than friend. As we try to maintain positive views of ourselves, the relevance of the dimension really matters to how you define yourself nad so do the relationships you're in. sometimes it's hard when you're both pursuing the same goals. "Screw Your Buddy Study." --> Self-Image Maintenance
Self-affirmation. Used self-affirmation to make the case that basic self-evaultion maintenace is a motivational force for feeling better about yourself. Brought people in. Relevant dimension to everybody. Half are self-affirmed. Half are not. Does it go away if you're self-affirmed? Self-affirmation doesn't change irrelevant. If it's relevant, help stranger if no affirmation. If affirmed, reverse - people help friend way more than stranger - help their friend the most.
Self and others in evaluatin - how somebody else is doing affects how we feel about ourselves. Social comparison theory - how you compare yourself with other people. No way to objectively measure - naturla way is compare self to others and see where we stand. Whether we make upward or donward comparisons - both are cognitive and motivational. Compare upward because that's where the most information is - learn from them. Motivational, but also cognitive. Unidirectional push upwards - compare with people who are better than us. Upward - cognitive. Downward - more motivational. Downward can make you feel better. You wanna go down to see how people cope with being down.
How self-esteem affects social comparisons. Wood et. al. Actual number of social comparisons people did in a day. Diary study - ask them about social comparisons they made during the day. After successf feedback, no feedback, failure feedback. High vs. Low SE. High, make few after success - I'm good. Low, make most after success. After falture, HSE extra social comparision, LSE make few -they're good. No feedback - HSE make more than LSE (about the same). High make more after failure, low make more after success. After success, HSE in everyday life if they make any social comparisions are upwards. LSE after success more downward social comparisons. After failure - HSE make downward social comparisons, LSE tend to be upward. LSE can take negative feedback more adn can make upward social comparisons.
Are upward always bad? Lockwood and kunda. How do people make social comparisons based on how attainable it is to become what the other person is. Accounting students. Got an article about a superstar accounting student. 1st year students or 4th year students. See how people fele about themselves after reading the article. Superstar vs. Bottony/no target. No difference in self-rating sbetween first and fourth year when no target. When superstar, first year have higher self-rating becaue they believe it could be them. fourth year - lower self-rating - they can't become superstar - feel like crap. Upward that makes you feel good/bad. Social comaprisons can affect how you feel about yourself.
Lecture X: July 13, 2016
boulevard of broken greens - greenday. Western society - separate from other people. Song - prototype of defining the self from other people. I walk alone. My shadow. Someone OUT there will find me.
Test: slef + culture - essay - 1 of the 2 papers. scholer or grossman.
Are these processes universal? Or do they only apply to Western university students? Culture does matter - it shapes the way processes happen. The details are going to be different. Prejudice - there's prejudice everywhere, but it's not the same groups that they're stereotyping and prejudicing.
Eastern (Asia) vs. Western (NA, Europe) cultures.
Western - promote individualism, people are ##independent##. Eastern - promote ##collectivism##, people are interdependent.
Cultural aphorisms. Western - "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" - if you complain enough, you'll get you want. Eastern - "The nail that stands out gets pounded down" - complain too much, you get squashed.
Culture and the self - self-concept is different between eastern and western. Western people tend to think of traits that make self-schema - things that defined you as separate and different from other people. Eastern - self-schemas are characteristics of relationships that you have with other people - a good son - not defining of all relationships, but defining of an important relationship. Defined within relationships vs. abstract traits that carry across situations that aren't within relationships. Relative differnece, not avsolute - eastern will have some traits, western will have some relationship ones.
Cousins - 20 statements test. 20 answers to "Who am I". In US and Japan. Traditional - Who am I? Another - Who am I with my family/friends - define group and what traits they have within that relationship. Looked at how easy it was. Proportion of Self-descriptions that they make. Global who am i - porportions of self-descripttions much higher for western than eastern. Contextualized (with something) -Eastern provide more self-descriptions, Westerners have a hard time.
Cognitive Dissonance and Culture
If people in Cultures have interdependent selves, you might have less cognitive dissonance. Inconsistencies may not be a big deal because you're different in situations.
Study: Gave them a choice about which CD. Picked two. Rated. Picked one. Rated. the more you up your choice - the bigger the spread of alternatives. Feedback - positive would be like self-affirmation, neutral - typical, negative - more cd. Westerners - pos - little spread, neutral - mod spread, neg - greater spread. Easterners - no cognitive dissonance at all. Problems: they used western music - maybe that's why they didn't care.
Study: Decisions for the Self or for a friend. Easterners may not care about choices about the self. What people value you for is the choice you make for other people? Decisions for somebody else is very important. Students were making a chice between 2 chinese dishes. In one condition - you get the coupon, you get to give it to the friend. Either for self or for friend. Euro-Canadians - lots of dissonance for self, very little when for friend. Asian-Canadians - no dissonance for self, lots when making for friend.
Study 2: replicate with japanese uni students
Study 3: looked a tself-affirmation. People wrote about why this is important to you, or write about how you share that with your family. Western - affirmed by own value. Eastern - affirmed by value that they share wiht family. Asian Canadians + choice for friend - no self aff - huge spreda, ind self-aff - some reduction, interdep self-aff - no spread. Independent self-aff only for half the people - taken on more of a western identity. Bicultural - ind self aff reduces and so does interdep. If only with Eastern - ind self aff doesn't work at all.
Everybody experiences Cognitive Dissonance, but culture structures the details. Western - dissonance if independent self is threaten, indep affirmed, cd goes away. Eastern - dissonance when threat to interpersonal, affirmed when interpersonal is.
The Fundamental Attribution Error and Culture. Is it really fundamental?
Miller - Study of attributions in India and the US. What's the cause? the person or situation? How much was it the person, how much was it the situation? Looking at behaviours. Deviant behaviours - doing something that's not socially approved. Deviant behaviours - should be more likely to make a person attribution because situation is less likely to be creating the behaviour. Proportion of statements. Dispositional with US than context. More context than dispositions for India. India tends to do the opposite of FAE. The older you are in India, the more you show the attributions to context. The older you are in the US, the more you show attributions to the person. Prosocial behaviours - Light are india. Opposite of FAE for india. US - little less of a FAE, but still FAE. India - strong tendency to make external attributions. Maybe they don't do it in Eastern cultures.
Morris and Peng. Analysis of Murder incidents. Two murder incidents. 1 - fired from post office, shot up everyone including boss, "going postal". 2 - IOWA state uni - committee failed graduate on his dissertation, got a gun, tracked down all and shot them. Differences - postal was western, graduate was chinese. Graduate one got extensive coverage in China because he was Chinese. Newspaper accounts of these 2 murder rampages. Looked at descriptions in the newspaper coverages. Strength of attribution - in chinese newspapers for both incidents, they made a situational attribution. US - much more of a person attribution.
Analysis of Fish movements. Graduate students who recently came from an Asian country or from US. Watch cartoons of fish swimming. Green fish, school of orange fish go across. Why did the green fish swim across the tank? He was leading the fish across the tank - the driving causal force. Or the orange fish are chasing the green fish - situational. Is the fish the cause or the effect? Respond to same stimuli. Strength of Attribution. Both chinese and US graduate students did FAE - green fish was the cause. effect was bigger in the US.
replications in JApan and Korea. chose to write an essay or forced -- how much does tht tell you about the person's own attitude. Results were same in Japan and Korea. If you just replicate, see FAE in both japan, korea, and north america. What if you cued in people from both to potential situational effects? First had people write their own essays - forced or let them choose. Then they evaluate the essay. In japan, After being forced, they didn't make the FAE - oh, this isn't their true attitude just like mine wasn't. In US, doesn't matter - you're forced, still make FAE.
Tendency for everyone to make the FAE. Western suck at correcting no matter what condition. Eastern - when think about in terms of own experience, or real world, they make an over-correction.
Eastern - think about the situation. WEsterners don't.
Lecture X: July 18, 2016
You don't mess around with jim - jim proachee Jim in 42nd st in NY. He's big and dumb as a man can come. He's big and scary. Was a pool shark - took money from Slim from south alabama. Slim finds jim- nasty fight. Slim beat the crap out of jim. Now slim is the boss. Culture of Honour
Effects of subculture. Effects within cultures.
Emotion and Culture. 2nd wave on culture - emotion and culture - in european culture the diff between russian culture and the rest of europe.
Cultures differ in what emotions are appropriate to express. North America - we have an emphasis that people should be positive, optimistic, should express positivity about self and others, it's good to be happy. Not supposed to say negative things - inhibition of negative emotions. Eastern societies - positivity about yourself isn't good. Emphasis on humility, don't be too showy, don't talk about how great you are. It's not okay to say you're the best even if it's true.
Russian Cultures - encouragement of expression of negative emotions and especially sadness and melancholy. Wallowing in the sadness is good. Out of that sadness arises creativity and strength.
Grossman et al - tendency for poeple to describe the pictures that they see with more negative meiton in russian culture.
Study 1 - Russia and US. Examine pos, neg pictures and report how they make them feel. Just see a bunch of pictures - some are sad/horrible, some are positive. People report how they make them feel. Look at the length of time they look at the pictures. Tendency for russian participants to spend less time looking at the positive pictures than the people from US. US look a littl ebit longer at positive than negative. avoidance of positive pictures by Russians. Positive pictures are emotions that aren't appropriate - not supposed to spend time thinking about that.
Study 2 - Looked at Russian Latvians. Latvia has a lot of Russian people. Dual-citizens - identify as LAtvians and Russians. Looked at poeple who were Bi-cultural. Primed them with pictures that cued their LAtvian or Russian identity. Symbols of Latvian society, symbols of Russian society. When Latvian identity cued (more like Western Europe - positive emotion) - they're looking at pos stuff longer than negative stuff. When Russian identity cued, same as study 1. It's about which culture is on your mind, not the people. Latvian - focus on positive. Russian - focus on negative.
The culture of honor in the Sotuhern US. Cohen & Nisbett. Nisbett - grew up - had one guy shoot another - 3 times. Murder rates in Pensylvania vs. Texas - 20x higher in Texas. Why is it that in the Southern US, why is the murder rate on average at least 5x higher? Oliver Wendell Holmes - "Wouldn't have been a man if he didn't shoot him." The culture of honour. Study in North and South. (A Time To Kill - illustrates study.) Described a scneario - imagine you have a 12 yo daughter. Imagine that a man rapes her. Would you call the police? Would you find him and kill him? Find him and beat him up, etc. In the south, much more find him and kill him. In the north, it was call the police. If you knew someone who called the police - south: not much of a man, north: smart. You have to stand up for yourself and for your family in the south - argued that it came from lawless - stuff could be stolen, taken, etc. If you didn't stand up for yourself, you would've gotten everything you worked for stolen and taken. Like the Wild West. Honourable thing to do is to stand up to challenges.
Cohen, nisbett, bowdle, schwarz. Lab study on culture of honour. UMichigan. Got every single from the South to participate in the studies. Half from north, half from south. Insult and anger. Set up a situation where the person as they come in, is insulted. Laboratories. Filing cabinets in hallway. RA opens up filing cabinet, bumps into participant and calls them an asshole or not. Northerners vs. Southerners. Insulted or not. Mood measure to see how they're feeling - measured anger. Feelings of anger after been called asshole - Southerners have a lot more anger than northerners.
Next study: insult and testosterone. If it's creating differences between people, then it should have a physiological effect. Put cotton tubes in [pepoples mouth and colelct people's spit to measure testosterone. Control - to show southerners don't always have higher testosterone. Insult does nothing to northerner's testosterone. Doubles southerners' testosterone
Insult and playing chicken study - looking at actual behaviour. Are you going to stand up for yourself more if you've been insulted this way? Fill out a brief questionnaires. Walking out - recruiting an offensive tackle from football team. 6'6, 340 lbs and as wide as that wide space and he's not going to move. The questin is, how close to they get to this enormous man before they turn back. Are you goin gto try to stand up to this mountain or do you back off more quickly? and is that affected by if you're insulted or not? Control - everybody backs off quickly, but especially the Southerners. Insult condition - got pretty close - southerners got really close.
We can learn patterns of behaviour from our culture. Subcccultures differ because for years, systems/areas within a culture had their own ways of working. In the US, there was a big difference between the north and the south - civil war. A huge part was slavery in the south and not in the north. LAw enforcement didn't do as much in the South. People were killed for nothing and law enforcement ignored it. Consequence: society is going to develop a way to try and protect themselves when you have that kind of law enforcement - have to put on a show of toughness.