留学生社会心理学课程dissertation写作需求-Social Psychology

英语Social Psychology Lecures
Lectures posted after the lecture is give in class.
• Lecture 1
o Eichmann
 Nazi war criminal
o Lewin
 Father of Social Psychology
 Lewin's Equation
o Milgrim
 Milgrim Obedience Experiments
 Authority - Shock experiment
o Social Psychology Defined
o Triplet
 Effect of presence of other people and imagined presence of people.
 Winding reel
o Characteristics of Social Psychological answers
• Lecture 2
o Solomon Asch
 Asch conformity studies
 Line matching
 Group conformity - wrong answers
 Social force
 Being judged
o Bib Latane
 Law of social impact
 Social Impact
 Strength of the force
 Immediacy of the force
 Number of forces present
o Milgrims multiple teacher variation
o Social Characteristics of war
o War as an abstract idea
o Prevention of nuclear war
• Lecture 3
o Norman Triplett
 Winding study
 Faster in presence of others
 Social facilitation
o Gordan Allport
 Vowel study
 Faster in presence of others
 Social facilitation
o Animals
 Cockroaches/Chickens
 Faster in presence of others
 Social facilitation
o Social Facilitation
 People perform better in the presence of others
o Wordlists memory study
 Social inhibitions
 People performed worse in the presence of others
o Cockroaches on maze learning
 Social inhibitions
 People performed worse in the presence
o Bob Zajonc (zyons)
 Presence of others increases physiological arousal
 Arousal enhances the dominant response
 Physiological arousal
 Easy/Good = Do well
 Complex/New = Do poorly
o Pool Hall Study 1982
 Those who were good performed better when watched. Those who were bad performed worse when watched.
o Distraction note
 Distraction can be replaced in some cases with presence of others to cause the same effect.
o Evaluation apprehension
 Fear of being evaluated poorly by others
o Jogging Study UCSB
 When the girl could evaluate the jogger the jogger behaved differently. When girl could not evaluate jogger they behaved as if there were no one there.
 Evaluation causes a change in behavior, not simply the presence of others.
o Evolutionary notes
 Humans are social animals
 Group acceptance is important
 Evaluation matters
o Social Facilitation redefined
 The presence of others enhances the dominant response. When other people are around we get aroused and when we are aroused we do more of what we do well, we do more of what we do most often, even if what we do most often is mess up.#p#分页标题#e#
o Couple dinner example
o Josh relationship example
o Presence of others sometimes relaxing
o Max Ringlemann 1880's
 Tug of War
 People pull less hard when in groups and performance is being measured.
 Diffusion of social responsibility
 Diffusion of social impact
o Bibb Latane
 Shouting experiment
 People shouted louder when alone
 When people knew they could be evaluated personally they worked harder
o Social Loafing
 People work less hard on collective tasks if the group is being evaluated as a whole.
o Maze study
 Task complexity matters.
 Complex tasks better if group is evaluated because it allows you to relax.
 Easy tasks are better if an individual is evaluated.
o Model of social influence on task performance
 Are other people absent or present?
 Collective task or individual task?
 Individual evaluation or evaluated as a group?
 Is the task easy or difficult?
o Example usage: Medical School (Brain Surgeons)
 Easy or complex task?
 Complex
 We don't want them to be aroused so we let them practice alone until they are experienced brain surgeons, then we want them to be evaluated and aroused so we let new brain surgeons watch them.
o Example usage 2: Midterm exam
 Study
 While you are figuring out the right answers you want to be alone because you don't want to be evaluated, you don't want to be aroused, while you develope a dominant response.
 Take the test
 When you take the test, after you have developed a dominant response then you WANT to be around other people, you want to be aroused, you want to be evaluated, because arousal enhances the dominant response, which is the right answer.
o Other examples given
 Office building with professors and administrative assistants.
 Choir
 Pledge drive
 Calling you all by name
o Law of social impact relativity
 If it is a situation for example where you want the person to be evaluated. You can change things according to the law of social impact to get better response. The strength of the evaluator, the immediacy of the evaluator, and the number of evaluators present.
o Some image slides I used in class here
• Lecture 4
• Moral behavior of individuals in groups
o Rodney King Trial
o LA Riots
 Angry
o UCLA Riots
 Happy
• Gustav Le Bon
o The Crowd
o French Revolution
o Collective mind
o New characteristics
 irrational
 emotional
• 1960s
o Civil Rights Movements
o Vietnam war protests
o Peace Movement
o Feminism
o Social Scientists in protests for the first Time
o Group mind disproved
 People doing different things
 People rational in context#p#分页标题#e#
 People not losing Control
 No Unanimity
• model of group behavior as individual behavior in groups
• get bad things to happen
o consequence of weekend force of authority
o competing impulse
o trigger
• weakened authority
o large numbers decrease power of authority
• Kid Halloween/Candy Study
o Give name
o Not give name
o wearing masks and costumes
o anonymity
• Phil Zimbardo
o shock test
o free will shocks
o white hood
o no white hood
o anonymity
• Daryl Gates
o ordered all police out of LA the night of the LA Riots
o immediacy
o visibility to authority
• relationship to authority
o drugs
o alcohol
o excitement
• self awareness
o wearing a uniform - logo jersey/shirt
o less identifiable
o part of a group
o less self aware
• Kids Halloween/Candy Study II
o Mirror or no Mirror
o Self aware
o Increases power of authority
• New York Parking lot
o Mirror in front of cash box
o Self aware
o Increases power of authority
• Darkness
o lowers awareness
• Competing impulse
o Anger
o Racism
o Common transgressive impulses
 Invisible Study
 Number one answer
o Getting away with something
o Experience something bigger than self
o Excitement
o Coolness
o Make a scene
o Something awesome
o Putting fear into someone you hate
o obvious
o less obvious
• Strengthening competing impulse
o Crowd communication
o News
o Crowds look for norms
 Sherif
 Crowd Study
 moving non-moving light
 auto kinetic effect
 all agreed
 emergence of group norms
o New norms appear
o forces that usually support status quo now support
o transgressive behavior
o evaluation apprehension works in the opposite direction
o supporting transgressive behavior
• impression of universality
o people in groups believe "everyone" is doing it
o forces pushing people towards transgressive behavior
• trigger
o people do not move all at once
• Threshold theory
o trigger - threshold of 0
o threshold of 1 will act if at least 1 other person is doing it
o threshold of 2
o threshold of 3 etc
o people move in waves
• Using our model to strengthen authority to prevent bad behavior in Crowds
• Some image slides I used in class here
• 留学生社会心理学课程dissertationLecture 5
o The dominant metaphor will be human beings as meaning makers. Human beings as intuitive scientists trying to understand the complicated world in which we live.
o Social cognition.
 the study of how people select, interpret and use information to make judgments about the social world #p#分页标题#e#
o Rosenthal and Jacobson.
 Teachers beliefs about their students
 Elementary School
 False IQ test
 Told teachers who would do well and who would do poorly
 Turned out to be true
 The expectation that a student would do poorly on behalf of the teacher, led the student to actually do poorly. And the expectation on the part of the teacher that a student would do well led the student to actually do well on average
 self fulfilling prophesies
 teachers treated those students differently even though they said they didn't and even though they didn't know they did.
o Harold Kelley
 Substitute teacher profile described in two different ways
 Positive profile caused students to like
 Negative profile caused students to dislike
 Information prior to lecture affected opinion of the lecturer
 Warm person schema activated - paid attention to warm details
 Cold person schema activated - paid attention to cold details
o Expectancy effects
 What we expect to see affects what we see
 Again our intuition is our judgments are sort of our rational reflection of what we see.
 we bring something to the active perceiving that changes what we perceive
o Schema
 a collection of related beliefs or ideas that people use to organize their knowledge about the social world.
 Organized set of beliefs
 student
 object reference
o script
 restaurant
 classroom
 A sequence of events
 Normal behaviors
o stereotype
 a schema about a group of people
 student
 American
 French
 Chinese
o schematic processing
 using a scheme
 using a schema to organize new information
 activating schemas
 SYSU shirt verses Guangda student
o advantages to schematic processing
 organize new information quicker- We don't have to relearn everything over and over again
 It gives us better memory. If you can fit something into a schema, you tend to remember it better.
 Predict the future in important ways - to survive we need these schemas.
o White boxes - objects versus telling you it's a man doing laundry
o Claudia Cohen 1981
 a video tape of a woman coming home to her apartment after a day at work
 librarian
 waitress
 Librarian people remembered librarian related material
 Waitress people remembered waitress relevant material
 Librarian people filled in gaps with librarian relevant material that wasn't actually in the video
 Waitress people filled in the gaps waitress relevant material that wasn't actually in the video
 inserted in their memories were schema consistent information
o Sick person example - see sick - stay away #p#分页标题#e#
o Cave person example - hear growl - run away
o Disadvantages - misapplied - wrong schema
o Fight example versus playful fight
o Prejudice
 a schema for some group applied to an individual
 Racism
 Misapplying schemas
 What's wrong with misapplying schemas? Stereotypes? Prejudice? Racism?
 If I think you are warm, I will see and remember all the warm things you do. If I think you are 'bad'.. If I think you are 'lazy'..
 Disadvantages
 distorted memory
 fill in gaps of stuff you don't know
o New York Times - 2007 Example
o Affects on attraction
o People you know very little about maybe more liked because you fill in the gaps with things you like, you will use the 'liked person' schema to fill in the things you don't know about the person with the things that you like during schematic processing.
o primacy effect
 Once you activate a schema, it's hard to apply a different schema even if the first schema is wrong. The first schema that you activate has a lot more weight.
o 20 Questions observation research
 Condition 1 person gets a lot of answers right at first and wrong later
 Condition 2 person gets a lot of answers wrong at first and right later
 Schemas activated accordingly
 participants claimed those in condition 1 were more intelligent
o First impressions matter
o Rudy Giuliani example
 decided not campaign in the first four primary states
1st - 4th lost
 by the time got to Florida where he did campaign people saw that he doesn't win primaries
o perseverance effect
 once you have activate a schema, it's very hard to stop using the schema.
o 1975 Study Ross, Lepper, Hubbard
 Told people that they had a personality trait for knowing the difference between people who had real pain and those who didn't have real pain.
 Then told those same people that what they told them was false.
 The people still based their judgments of themselves as having those qualities based on that faulty feedback.
perseverance effect - hard to stop using the first schema
first quality schema already lit up, activated
o self fulfilling prophesies
 a belief can be made to come true
o Gender differences in math and English
o Depression in intimate relationships
 The schema creates a reality
o Conflicting opinions
o Changing other peoples opinions
o Gathering data is filled with opportunities for schematic processing
o hypothesis confirmation bias
 When people have a hypothesis, a guess about how the world is, they tend to seek out information that confirms the hypothesis. And as soon as they get it, they stop looking for information.
o Job interview example
 work well in teams
o looking at totally different pools of evidence#p#分页标题#e#
o pro or anti abortion
o Pro or anti gun control
o people don't gather very much evidence
o a friend of mine thinks this is true
o Vivid stories can be treated as evidence
o vivid stories carry more weight than statistics
o People use their own experience.
o Evidence I agree with is reliable evidence
o Evidence I disagree with is unreliable
o We are selective
o Vaccines and Autism example
 No proof
 Foundations exist to stop it
o ambiguous cases are interpreted as, confirming
In 2003, Iran suspended their nuclear weapons program.
'look, until 2003 they had a nuclear program, and they could start it up again'
 look, they haven't had a program for five years'. The fact that they suspended it in 2003 shows that they aren't a threat.
 The same evidence can be used to support my position regardless of what my position is.
o Psychics example
o California
 Pauline Klas
 Abduction
 Laws changed because of the vivid story
o heuristics.
 'a short cut, a quick way of solving a problem'. heuristics work. They succeed in making life easier for us.
 The problem is, that sometimes these shortcuts can lead to erroneous conclusions.
o availability heuristic
 If something is easy to think about, we think that it is more likely.
 Airplanes easier to understand as being dangerous than cars, so may feel fearful of cars. However more people die in cars than airplanes.
o representativeness heuristic
 If something meets our schema we think it's more common than something that doesn't meet our schema.
 Imagine you meet a woman, she wears no makeup, never wears dresses, only pants, she seems sort of brash, and she is kind of aggressive. Do you think it's more likely that she is a librarian or a librarian and a feminist? The larger group 'librarian' is always going to be more likely that the small group, 'librarian who is also a feminist'. But, people frequently get that wrong and say and she seems like you have described my stereotype of a feminist, so she's probably a feminist.
o anchor and adjustment heuristic
 If you give people an initial idea about a judgment, and then you tell them that idea wrong, it will serve as an anchor and people will sort of adjust from that initial idea, but they don't adjust very well.
 If I asked you, how long is the Mississippi river? If I gave you different anchors I would get different answers. Half the class gets this anchor. The Mississippi river is longer than 300 miles. How long do you think it is? Now I've told you, it's not 300 miles, it's longer. But now I tell half the class. The Mississippi river is shorter than 3000 miles. How long do you think it is? The anchor is 300 versus 3000. People don't adjust well. So if you do that, the people who have been given an anchor of 300, say 'well if it's longer than 300, maybe it's 500'. The people who have been given an anchor of 3000 say 'oh it's shorter than 3000, maybe it's 2500'. But that's not the point. The point is, that you can anchor people's estimates, and it pushes their judgments around. #p#分页标题#e#
• Lecture 6
o Attributions
 Attribution Theory is the theory of how people come up with explanations for each others behaviors
 how people link the behaviors they observe in themselves and others, to causes
 When do we make attributions?
 unexpected events
 negative events
o Holtzworth, Monroe and Jacobson
 Happy Couples Attributions
 Unhappy Couples Attributions
 Happy couples attributions for negative and unexpected events
 Unhappy couples attributions for negative and unexpected events as well as positive events
o What kind of attributions do we make?
o Fritz Heider Dimensions of categorization
 Locus
 Internal
 External
 Stability
 Temporary
 Permanent
 Controllability
 Controllable
 Uncontrollable
o Perfect excuse
 External
 Temporary
 Uncontrollable
 requires no forgiveness
o Reactions to success and failure
 Succeed
 Internal
 Permanent
 Controllable
 Fail
 External
 Temporary
 Uncontrollable
o James Shepard SAT study
 Opinion of SAT based on test scores
o Berry Schlenker Group Involvement study
 Active group participation
o Marriage example
 Happy couples
 External, Temporary, Uncontrollable
 Unhappy couples
 Internal, Permanent, Controllable
o How do we make attributions
o Harold Kelley
 Dimensions of information we use to make attributions
 Distinctiveness - Is this object the only object that makes something happen?
 Consensus - Do all people agree about the object?
 Consistency - When you put this object and actor together does the actor always behave the same way?
o John And Sheryl Example
 John was object
 Sheryl was person
 Situation was situation - date
 Example 1
 Consensus High
 Distinctiveness High
 Consistency High
 John is the cause
 Example 2
 Consensus Low
 Distinctiveness Low
 Consistency High
 Sheryl is the cause
 Example 3
 Consensus Low
 Distinctiveness High
 Consistency Low
 Context - Concert tickets was the cause
 If consistency is high it suggests that the cause is NOT the context.
 If consistency is low it suggests the context
o Correspondence bias
 tendency to believe that people's behaviors correspond with their dispositions
 tendency to explain other people's behavior in terms of their own personal traits, choices, and values
 What a person does reflects who they are as a person.
 tendency, a leaning, to interpret people's behaviors as reflecting who they are#p#分页标题#e#
o Jones and Harris 1967
 Castro Speech
 Pro and Against
 Those watching said they believed the people giving the speech really believed in what the speech said even though they were assigned roles of being either for or against Castro
o Trivia game show experiment
 Who is smarter?
 Host or contestant
 Both agreed it was the host even though the host was asked to come up with questions he/she new the answers to
o Fundamental Attribution Error
 Same as correspondence bias
 to call something the fundamental attribution error is to say it a fundamental property of human perception, that we tend to focus on the figure and ignore the ground. We tend to focus on the person and ignore the environment, even if there are excellent reasons to pay attention to the environment
o Self serving attribution bias
 the tendency to make flattering attributions for our own behavior.
 protect yourself with attributions
 when our behavior is good, to make what kind of attribution? Internal, permanent, and controllable attributions for our own behavior.
 if it's negative it's our tendency to see our negative behaviors as external, temporary, and uncontrollable
o Nisbet et al in 1973
 Your friends romantic relationships
 Your own romantic relationships
 More likely to say it was your friend's fault
o Salience effect
 the information that is more salient is perceived as more causal.
• Lecture 7
o Cognitive explanations and motivational explanations
o A cognitive explanation
 says, 'we explain the world in a certain way, we have these biases, as a consequence of the natural way that we form conclusions and judgments'.
 So the processes that we use that work well most of the time, also lead to biases some of the time.
 It's just the way our brains work.
o In contrast a motivational explanation
 says, 'it serves a function to have these biases, these biases make us feel good'.
 makes us feel better to have them.
o Salience effect
 says that whatever we pay more attention to when we observe something, that's what we perceive to be more causal in the situation.
 cognitive explanation that's the way our brains work
 Explains the fundamental attribution error quite well
 When you do something I see your behavior and you, so I blame you.
 When I do something I know all the external reasons why I might have behaved that way
o Storms 1973
 Double Camera
 Whoever people were assigned to stare at, that's who they perceived as more influential in the conversation.
o covariation principle
 if two things go together, if we observe two things going together, there is a strong tendency to believe that one causes the other. Cognitive explanation, it's how our brain works. #p#分页标题#e#
 the tendency to think that correlation equals causation
o Divorce rates example
 United States Government example promoting marriage based on the idea that divorce causes poverty because of a covariation principle and decision.
o Bell Curve example
 where Harvard Professors identified a correlation between race and IQ scores and based the assumption of the book on the correlation which was a mistake. Because correlation is not causation and other factors, 3rd variables could be, and were the cause. Covariation principle.
o discounting principle
 We tend to think that a specific cause is less likely if we can easily imagine other possible causes.
 The presence of other possible causes, leads us to discount the likelihood of a specific cause.
 Cognitive explanation, it's how our brain works.
o Happy person example
 Happy person, fundamental attribution error, 'You are a happy person', Someone tells me another reason that you were happy and that other reason would make me discount the first reason because now I have another possible reason why you are so happy. Not really that you are a happy person. The first reason is less likely because I have another reason.
o augmenting principle
 If I have a reason why you shouldn't do something, and you are still doing it, that augments, that enhances, that strengthens my tendency to blame you, for the behavior.
o Dancing on table example
o All these things are sort of describing human beings as naive scientists. We're just trying to figure the world out, just trying to figure the world out, using the information we have to make meaning, the best we can. To accurately understand the world. We don't always get there, but we are trying our best with the information we have. That's what cognitive explanations of these judgments say.
o Motivational examples
o the motivational explanation
 does not describe us all as 'naive scientists', patiently trying to figure out the world. No, the motivational says 'we're not dispassionate observers of the world, we have an agenda, we have multiple agenda's. We want things from our judgments and that affects how we look at the world.' In other words, we have motives, we have desires, and our desires and motives change the judgments that we make.
o Motive to enhance or protect the self
 We make judgments to protect our self image.
 If we have a choice between some judgments, we will choose the judgments that make us look and feel great. Motivational explanation
o Room full of people, likeability example. 90% of the people say they are in the top 10%.
o Divorce rate example - opinion about own divorce. 50% average, 1 or two people will raise their hand.
o We make judgments to protect ourselves and make us feel good
o TAT Deficiency test Study
 20% of all students - everyone said my chance is not 20%
o False consensus effect #p#分页标题#e#
 the mistaken belief, that lots of other people do what you do.
o False uniqueness effec
 It's the mistaken belief, that you are somehow unique.
o We see a false uniqueness effect when it's good to be an individual, 'I succeeded and I am the only one who can succeed like that', and false consensus effect when it's good to be in a group, 'the test was hard, nobody did well on it'.
o Whenever they are given the choice, will often gravitate to make judgments that puff themselves up, that allow them to believe the most positive things that they can about themselves.
o motive to feel justified.
o Nisbet and Wilson 1977
 panty-hose study example
o Nisbet and Wilson, movie -
 construction noises and their evaluation of the movie example.
o motive to verify the self
 I want to be known. I'm motivated to be known
o Bill Swan - University of Texas at Austin
 'The world is an uncertain place, and that feels bad, so we want certainty, certainty feels good.' And part of making the world more predictable is being known to others. I want people to know me, accurately.
o Bill Swan study
 do people who don't feel good about themselves want to be known positively or accurately? Study, could choose which kind of feedback to receive about yourself. People would rather have accurate feedback, true feedback about themselves, even if it's negative than purely positive feedback, if it's false.
o Genetic vs learned skill example
o in general, we still see this tendency, that people with low self esteem are more likely to solicit negative feedback about themselves. For a variety of reasons. And high self esteem people are more likely to solicit positive feedback about themselves.
o Healthy way to think
o Martin Seligman
 Dog Study (Electric Shock)
o Learned helplessness
 the phenomenon that attributing negative outcomes to uncontrollable causes, leads to diminished effort on future tasks.
o Seligman - Exam student study
 looking for those without a self serving bias, found depressed people. that attribution was associated with depression, he concluded, that attribution might even be a cause of depression. It is to believe that negative events are uncontrollable, are beyond your control, he said 'that's an unhealthy way to think.' Later those who believed it was uncontrollable. the people who did poorly on the first exam, those who believed that their scores were uncontrollable, studied less for the second exam. Learned helplessness.
o Ellen Langer
 if having no control is bad, is having control good - nursing home study *
o Depressed people don't have a self serving bias
o Lights and buttons study
 light not connected - healthy people claimed a sense of success, depressed people didn't.
o Depressive realism - depressed people do not have biases -they perceive the world accurately and miserably #p#分页标题#e#
o Sandra Murray - couples study
o Newly Weds 6-4 study
o Burglass and Jones 1978 - water and alcohol
o Self handicapping - the phenomenon whereby people raise obstacles to their own performance as a way of avoiding the consequences of possible failure
• Lecture 8
o Attitudes are a positive or negative enduring evaluation of an object or idea. Some people like Pepsi, some people like Coke.
o Three different ways of expressing attitudes
 Cognitive Component
 Positive or negative beliefs about something
 Affective Component
 Emotional reaction to something, how you feel about something
 Behavioral aspect
 How you behave / act towards sth.
 Behavioral positivity
 treating something in a good way
 Behavioral negativity
 treating something in a bad way
o Common assumption is that attitudes predict behavior
o Why does anyone care about what you like or dislike?
 Because they care about you behavior.
o La Pierre
 Chinese couple
 Traveling across america
 92% said they would not serve Chinese people in their restaurants or hotels
 Over 92% actually already did serve them in their hotels.
o College students
 Safe sex
 Most college students believe that condoms are a good idea.
 Many college students reported not using a condom the last time they had sex.
o Florida
 Family values
 Poor families reported strong family values but untraditional family structures
 Weathy families reported less family values but had traditional family structures
o Attitudes did not predict behavior
o There are ways to begin to bridge the gap between attitudes and behavior.
 Measure specific attitudes
 Make sure attitudes are accessible
 Remind them of their attitudes
 Eliminate environmental effects
o (Kids Halloween - mirrior study mentioned)
o (Fundamental Attribution Error study mentioned, the idea being that we often forget about the environmental causes of behaviors)
o (Conformity pressure study mentioned, again if the assumption is that attitudes predict behavior, and conformity pressure exists the attitude might not predict the behavior.)
o bogus pipeline
 If people think you have a pipeline, or that they can't avoid the consequences of judgment, they're more likely to express their real attitudes. To behave in ways that express their real attitudes.
o (Pantyhose study mentioned as a point showing that sometimes people don't know where their attitudes come from. Everyone chose 1 set of pantyhose and explained why, why they really were found to just be choosing the one on the right.)
o (One motive is the motive to feel justified.)
o Cognitive dissonance theory
 There exists a thing, a feeling called cognitive dissonance. And dissonance is a feeling of discomfort, that arises from holding two ore more inconsistent cognitions in your head at the same time.#p#分页标题#e#
 The idea of cognitive dissonance theory, is that it feels bad to experience dissonance. It's irritating
o When you have that tension in your head, you have to resolve it. You can't let it go, you have to resolve the tension, reduce the tension, reduce the dissonance. And the theory says there are three ways to do it.
 Three ways to do it.
 Change the behavior
 Change the cognition
 Add new cognitions
o Leon Festinger
 Doomsday cult study
 Cult leader added a new cognition when their beliefs turned out to be false to reduce the cognition.
o Leon Festinger And Carl Smith
 Blocks on pegs
 Paid $1 or $25.
 Asked if they liked it.
 $1 people liked it.
o Insufficient justification
o Over justification
o Kids Crayons Paper study
 Paid $.10 first then nothing
o Justification of effort. If doing something requires a lot of effort on your part, you end up liking it more when you get it.
o Aronson and Mills in 1959
 Discussion Group
 Embarrassing situation
 Embarrassing situation group were more excited about it
o Armed Forces - Boot camp
o The idea being that the armed forces have boot camp so the individual has to go through something very difficult to get in, and because they have to go through something very difficult, then they will use the justification of effort effect to justify their behavior and become more loyal, and more proud of being in the military.
• Lecture 9
o Cognitive Dissonance Theory
o Ways we dissolve dissonance
 Derogate victims
 Select information that agrees with you
 Change your attitude about the thing you chose and didn't choose.
o Derogating victims
o Berscheid
 Milgram variation where she wanted to see the reaction of people who were giving a shock, and people who were giving a shock and going to get a shock back. She found that those people who were not going to get a shock back derogated the victims, and those people who were going to get a shock back didn't derogate their victims.
o Jones and Kohler
 Essay study with good and bad arguments for both pros and cons. People who were pro read it and remembered all the good arguments for the pro side and remembered the bad arguments for the cons. People who were con read it and remembered all the good arguments for the con and bad arguments for the pro. They selected information that agreed with them.
o Post Decision Dissonance
o Brehm
 Suburban housewives study. Let them rate products 1-10 and then said he would give them either the 5th or the 6th item for free. They chose one and then he asked them to rate them all again. The item they chose was rated much higher and the item they didn't choose was rated much lower.
o Counter Attitudinal Essay Paradigm
o 3 things for attitude change to take place in the Counter Attitudinal Essay Paradigm#p#分页标题#e#
 negative consequences
 responsible
 no other attribution for arousal
o Zanna and Cooper
 Put people in the counter attitudinal essay paradigm but gave people an attribution for arousal. A placebo, sugar pill. Those that could attribute their strange feeling (dissonance) as an effect of the pill didn't change their attitude.
o Daryl Bem
 Self Perception Theory
o Cognitive Dissonance and Self Perception Theory
 If you have an answer - Dissonance
 If you have no answer - Self Perception Theory
o Prejudice
o Stereotype
o Discrimination
o Social Identity Theory
o Realistic Conflict Theory
o Jane Elliot

Lecture 10
o Kelley And Tebo
 1959
 Book 'The psychology of group behavior'.
 Relationship - interdependence - a state of mutual influence.
o Five dimensions along which relationships vary
 Frequency of contact
 Duration of contact
 Diversity of interactions
 Direction of influence
 bi-directional
 uni-directional
 Strength of influence
o Harold Kelley
 1983
 Book 'Close Relationships'
 a close relationship is a relationship that is characterized by strong, frequent and diverse inter-dependence that lasts over a considerable period of time.
o Romantic relationship
 Erotic Charge
 Possibility of sex
 Limerance
o Dorothy Tennov
 characterized what is unique about romantic love
 Limerence
 this feeling of sort of a heightened, emotional feeling that's characterized by a number of different things
 intrusive thoughts about the other
 Can't stop thinking about them
 reciprocation
 I want to love and be loved back
 possessiveness
 I want to be special to that person
 I want them to think of me as much as I think of them
o A romantic relationship is something that is characterized by inter-dependence, and limerance and possibility of sex, or erotic charge
o A successful relationship is a relationship that fulfills the needs of both partners.
o Stability
 Divorce rates
 Cohabitation
 Men suffering from divorce
 Emotionally
 Women suffering from divorce
 Financially
 Children Suffering from divorce
 Both emotionally and financially
 Conflict
o covenant marriage
 people not choosing covenant marriage which shows that people don't want to make divorces harder to get
o Cognitive dissonance and marriage/divorce decisions
o Why, in intimate relationships, is it hard to maintain a positive belief, despite our very powerful desire to do so?
 hierarchical model of satisfaction in relationships
 experiences support specific beliefs and specific beliefs support global beliefs#p#分页标题#e#
 If the experiences are positive those will cause the specific beliefs to be positive as well
 If the specific beliefs are positive that will cause the global beliefs to be positive as well
we are more motivated to hold positive global beliefs than positive specific beliefs
 The higher up you go in this hierarchical structure, the more general your belief, the more it matters
What matters? That my partner was late today or that she is awesome? That she is awesome, even though she was late today, that doesn't matter.
o Successful couples say Globally, they love their partners, their partner is great, but specifically they do have some flaws, but those little flaws don't matter.
o Bad things occasionally happen or irritating things occasionally happen, what do we do with them?
o See Cognitive Dissonance Theory
o How do we stay happy? Staying happy relies on two things
 1. try to have a lot of positive experiences and few negative ones to maintain that global belief
 try to be nice to each other, if there is an option to have a good time versus having a bad time, go have a good time.’ If there is an option to be nice, or be mean, choose being nice. If it’s an option to say something that hurts, or say something that’s kind. Say something that’s kind.’
 2. do cognitive work to minimize the implications of those negative things
 if all I care about is the global stuff, in protecting the high feeling like, ‘My partner is awesome’. Then I can do it by having nothing negative happen to me or if something does happen to happen to me, I can say, ‘The negative thing doesn’t matter.’ I can prevent the negative thing, that negative experience, from trickling up.
o You can maintain that positive belief based on very little
o Social cognition can protect relationship satisfaction
o Happy couples tend to focus on the good things in the relationship and say, ‘That’s what’s important.’ And the bad things, they say, ‘oh those aren’t important.’
o The happiest couples said, the things my partner is good at, those are the most important things to a happy marriage. And the things that my partner is bad at, not so important, doesn’t matter. ‘My partner is not spontaneous, spontaneity is over-rated, who needs it?’
o The happiest people were the people who changed their standards. Who said, ‘Oh, I used to think this was important, now, what I really think is important is this other stuff.’ ‘I used to think that it was important to show affection, that was the most important thing. Now, that’s not important, the important thing is, being a good parent, coming home on time.’ ‘I used to think that the most important thing in my relationship was having great sex, that’s not important at all, the important thing is that we both have the same values and raise our children well.’#p#分页标题#e#
o What are they doing? We’re essentially talking about people sifting through the specifics of their relationship in whatever way that will allow them to draw the global conclusion and the conclusion that 'this is a relationship worth maintaining'
o People choose standards, that favor their relationship.
o Sometimes, there’s just not enough specific information to focus on, to justify a global belief. So one way relationships go bad is, the accumulation of too many negatives and not enough positives.
o Cognitive stuff that we’re talking about takes work. It takes effort.
o Sometimes people are distracted or overwhelmed and can't put in a lot of effort into their relationships
o Couples under stress are not good at maintaining their relationships. Why would that be? Well because maintaining relationships takes effort, and if you are under stress you can’t make the effort. So a lot of research shows, that couples who are under stress, who have bad things happen to them. Who have chronic illness, who have bad jobs, who are under financial stress. Their relationships, even if they start happy, decline quicker.
o If you are under stress, it changes the kind of time that you spend with your partner.
o If you are not under stress, you have time to go to the movies
o How can you get the love back? Here’s some advice, ‘go on dates’, ‘go on vacation’, ‘go to an island for a weekend’
o Some don’t have the luxury, and if you don’t have the luxury, then you are spending time talking about stress, and that’s a problem. So stress affects what you do in the relationship. It also affects how you do it. Stress is a double whammy. Because if you are under stress, couples that are under stress have to talk about the stress instead of talking about fun things.
o When you are under stress you are not as good at making adaptive attributions.
o You are more likely to make the fundamental attribution error when you are distracted.
• Lecture 11
o Helping
o Air Florida flight 90
o Kitty Genovese
o pro social behavior
 any act that is intended to benefit others
o Altruism
 an act that is intended to benefit others without benefiting the actor
o personality trait that correlates with actual helping behavior
 none
o Darley and Latane decision making model of helping behavior
 notice the event
 need for help must be clear
 take responsibility for helping
 weighing rewards and costs
 know how to help /able to help
o pluralistic ignorance
 when nobody knows anything about a situation, and they look to each other for answers. And since nobody has the answer, everyone remains ignorant.
o Diffusion of responsibility
 The more people that are witnessing an emergency, the less any one of them will take action.
o Reciprocity (reward)#p#分页标题#e#
 the phenomenon that I do something for you, and you'll do something back for me.
o Social Approval (reward)
o Good feeling (reward)
o Reduced guilt and arousal (reward)
o Any cost is a cost (risk of life)
o attractive victims get more help (reward)
o because they pose less of a threat. (cost)
o threat of violence - (cost)
o smoke vent study - notice the event
o raising money for diseases - notice
o actor actress/husband/stranger study - ambiguity
o radio in the park study - responsibility
o group discussion study - epileptic seizure - responsibility
o CPR example - responsibility
o 9/11 example - responsibility
o good Samaritan study - weighing rewards and costs
• Lecture 12
o Aggression - Any behavior that is intended to hurt someone
o Instrumental aggression is aggression that has a goal and is driven by reason. Instrumental aggression is aggression that has a goal that is independent of the aggressive act itself. The aggressive act is not an end unto itself. It has some other goal.
o socially sanctioned aggression. Socially sanctioned aggression generally falls under the category of instrumental aggression.
o instrumental aggression, it's socially sanctioned. It's actually not a mystery. It happens because sometimes people believe that aggressive behavior will help them achieve what they want to achieve, the price you pay for something like peace of earth, disciplined children, winning a game etc. (War, Capital punishment)
o We will define hostile aggression as aggression that is driven by emotion when the only purpose of the behavior is to inflict harm on another person.
o not socially sanctioned.
o Biological explanations
 amygdala - seat of aggression - seat of fight or flight
 testosterone - aggressive people have higher levels - males - only physically - behavior causes higher levels - prison causes higher levels
 no gender differences in other kinds of aggressive behavior, only in physical aggressive
 rates of violent crimes vary widely across countries and across cultures. Now that wouldn't be true if violence had a biological basis because the human animal hasn't evolved that much since we separated into countries and cultures.
o What is it in the environment and what environments specifically inspire aggressive behavior?'
o Frustration Aggression Hypothesis.
 John Dollard said, 'You know where aggression comes from? I'll tell you where it comes from. It comes from people being frustrated.'
o Kids - Toys study - Kids stand behind a fence watching others play with toys - they were more aggressive - Dollard said their frustration lead to their aggressive behavior
o frustration didn't lead to aggression actually.
o "you didn't wait long enough"
o if you can't predict aggression - it's not a theory
o The initial definition of frustration was, 'the negative feeling you have when you don't get what you want'. #p#分页标题#e#
o current definition of frustration is, 'The negative emotion produced by interrupting a person's progress toward an expected goal'.
o Stanley Milgram - line study - front of line - back of line
o Leonard Berkowitz - two insights
 1.Frustration is not the only thing that leads to aggression. You don't have to be frustrated to be
aggressive. Anything that puts you into a bad mood leads to aggression.
 2. aggression is more likely when people are aroused regardless of their mood.
o Berkowitz did Milgram style experiments.
 Put people in a bad mood to see if they would be more aggressive.
 Bad moods lead to more aggressive behavior.
 Any manipulation that puts you in a bad mood, led to more shocking
 Example Manipulations
 Noisy Room compared to quiet room
 Crowded room compared to being alone
 Uncomfortable chair compared to comfortable chair
 hand submerged in very cold water as opposed to not
 What he found was that any time people were irritated, they were more likely to shock.
o Depressed people are generally not aroused and depressed people are generally not aggressive
o Berkowitz Other Milgram Style Study
 People were irritated by confederate
 Other people did exercise
 Irritated People shocked more
 Aroused people shocked more
 Irritated Aroused people shocked A LOT MORE
 Interactive effects
 arousal can intensify your mood. Arousal intensifies whatever mood you are in.
o Berkowitz The Cognitive Neo Association Model of Aggression
 1. People have unpleasant experiences
 2. Those experiences produce arousal
 3. External factors modify interpretations of arousal
 4. Rewards and costs
 5. Your conclusion
o our arousal is essentially free of meaning in an of itself, we have to associate meaning to something
o Schachter and Singer in 1962.
 Drug induced arousal
 Some were told what the drug did
 Some were not told what the drug did
 A confederate irritated them
 If they knew about the drug they weren't irritated, aroused, or angry
 If they didn't know what the drug did they were irritated, aroused and angry.
 The people who associated their arousal to what they thought was likely to cause the arousal and for the people who took the drug and knew what it did, they associated that arousal with the drug. For the people who took the drug and didn't know it's effects, they associated their arousal (drug induced arousal) to the irritating person
o Aronson and Linder bridge crossing study
 Some people crossed a suspension bridge which was scary -made them aroused
 Some people crossed a concrete bridge -no arousal
 A girl was standing on the end of the bridge and told them about a study she was doing and asked the people to call her #p#分页标题#e#
 The people who crossed the suspension bridge were more likely to call her because they associated their arousal to the woman, thinking they were aroused by the woman, and so they called her. The people who crossed the concrete bridge weren't aroused and were less likely to call her.
o Sometimes we don't know why we are aroused and when we don't know, we look around us, we look around to the world around us to try to figure it out. And we use the information in the world around us to draw a conclusion about ourselves. It doesn't always happen. But it sometimes happens.
o The environment gives us clues to our own arousal. Sometimes it gives us false clues. In both of these studies, people were really aroused for a reason totally different than they thought. They weren't really irritated by the obnoxious person, they were given a drug. They weren't really attracted to the woman, they had crossed a suspension bridge.
o Berkowitz - Weapon Effect Study
 Shocking
 One condition - a badminton racket on the wall
 Second condition - a gun on the wall
 Neither of them were mentioned or talked about, they were just on the wall
 The gun caused more shocking
 The gun is 'associated' with violent behavior, aggressive behavior, power
o Social learning is a theory which basically says that you can learn behavior without being personally rewarded or punished for that behavior. It was a response to behaviorism.
 Al Bandura says, 'no, actually you don't have to be punished.'
 Aggressive behavior can be learned
o Al Bandura's study - BOBO Doll
 Children brought into a room watching an adult behave aggressively towards a Bobo doll
 Some children watched it, some children didn't
 Some children had the model of aggression some didn't
 The children who watched it were more aggressive toward the Bobo doll
 Learned behavior through social learning
 Watching the adult on television being aggressive toward the Bobo doll had the same effect
o reciprocation effects
o When people have been aggressed against, they are very likely to aggress back. In fact it's almost socially sanctioned. - bible 'eye for an eye'
o Johnson and Rule in 1986
 Shocking scenario
 Confederate says something to make you angry
 Experimenter tells you that the confederate is having a really bad day.
 Condition 1 - tells you before you are insulted
 Condition 2 - tell you after you are insulted
 The people who were told about the confederate having a bad day after they were insulted shocked more because those people were already aroused.
it is the arousal that is key to determining levels of aggression.
o when you are aroused, arousal doesn't have it's own meaning necessarily. The environment gives it meaning. The meaning comes from the environment
o So, the conclusion of this model is, if you have gone through all of these steps, you've had a bad experience, you're aroused, there's negative cues, aggressive cues in the environment, and you say, 'and I bet I could get away with it.' That's when you get aggression#p#分页标题#e#
• Lecture 13
o Hostile aggression
o Media Violence
o The average child leaving elementary school has witnessed 8,000 murders, and 100,000 other acts of violence on television
o George Gerbener
 'Human kind has had more blood thirsty eras, but none as filled with images of violence as the present.'
o Correlational research
o The kids that were rated higher for aggression by their teachers watch more television
o 22 Year longitudinal study
o Kids who watched violent tv were more likely to grow up to be violent as adults.
o Violent kids didn't grow up to watch violent tv
o Kids don't seem to gravitate toward violent tv if the are aggressive to begin with but tv seems to make them more aggressive.
o correlational research and the third variable problem
o disadvantaged kids watch more tv
o Perhaps the disadvantaged life was the cause of the violence
o violent media effect
o Al Bandura
 Aggression doll study mentioned again except in television condition
o Belgium Dorm study
 After watching a violent film subjects were more aggressive for up to two weeks
o Kids Floor Hockey study
 Violent films
 Arousing films
 Violent films more aggression
 Arousing films some aggression
 Nonviolent films least aggression
 Violent kids who watched violent films MOST affected
 cognitive neo association model - the movies bring out all of the aggressive thoughts that you have in your head
o violence in films or movies and violence measured not identical
o APA 'viewing violence does increase violent behavior to some extent.' Violent media may not be the biggest cause of violence
o Arousal effects causes violence
o cognitive neo association - possibility of violence brought into your mind
o social learning - subtle messages in movies
o Berkowitz Study
 two conditions
 violent films
 one violent film where you identify with the victims
 One violent film where the hero is violent
留学生社会心理学课程dissertationthose who watched hero being violent shocked more
 subtle message - if there is a villian kill him
o pro social behavior also encouraged by media
o habituation - the more you see the more you become accustomed to it
o pornography
 arousal
 cue effects - cognitive neo association
 social learning
o Niel
 sexual violence increased mens shocking toward women
o censorship problems
o education and teaching people about effects of violent media
•
• Lecture 14
o Social Psychology in the Legal Environment.
o WATCH THIN BLUE LINE
o http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XMjQ3NzIxMzY=.html
o NOTES WILL BE ON TONIGHT
o Officer Robert Wood 1976, Dallas Texas
 Randall Adams - Hitchhiker
 David Harris - Murderer#p#分页标题#e#
 Eye Witnesses - Said Randall Adams did it
 Thin Blue line
 Randall Adams convicted
 12 years later David Harris said Adams didn't do it.
o How does it happen that people claim to see things that we now know did not happen?
o How is it that eyewitnesses have so much weight in the criminal justice system?
o How accurate is an eyewitness to anything?
o Memory
o 3 Stages of Memory
 1. acquisition and encoding
 2. storage
 3. retrieval
o inaccuracies can arise in any of these stages
o acquisition
 You can't pay attention to everything, the world is simply too complicated. So when we pay attention to the world we select stuff, we select what we encode.
 arousal affects what we select
 we tend to do is we tend to narrow in on highly salient details
o weapon focus
 when there is a weapon involved, people have worse memories for faces because the salient detail is the weapon.
o Cross Race Identification Bias
 in a highly arousing situation like a crime scene people are worse at identifying faces of someone from a different ethnicity or race
o expectancy effects
 People tend to process information that is consistent with their expectations and to ignore information that is irrelevant to their expectations
o poor conditions
o two models of memory storage
 video tape recorder model
 our eyes are like two video cameras constantly rolling
We may not pay attention to it, we may pay attention to it, but everything we see goes in the brain. We can't always get it out, we can't always play the tape back very well, but it's there. It's in the brain
 process model
 Elizabeth Loftus
 memory is NOT a video tape. It's a process. It's like a jigsaw puzzle. Every time we are asked to remember something, we're putting our memories together on the spot a lot of the time. And what we remember is going to be a function of what pieces we have from the past AND what pieces we have in the present.
the process of remembering something can change what we remember
o Loftus Slide Study
 Stop sign
 Yield sign
 Did another car pass the car when it stopped at the stop sign?
 Did another car pass the car when it stopped at the yield sign?
 Showed the two different slides a week later
 Which sign did you see?
 People who were asked the yield sign question but saw the stop sign remembered seeing the yield sign.
 The memory they had stored was changed. Was altered by the question that they had been asked. The question changed the memory
o Loftus Slide Study
 estimate how fast the cars were going when the accident occurred
 How fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?
 How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
 The people who were asked about cars bumping into each other gave lower estimates#p#分页标题#e#
 The person asking the questions changes the memory.
o source monitoring problem
 we have information in our heads and we don't always remember how it got there
o memory construction
 associated word list
 false memory of the object being described
o Loftus false 'lost in mall' memory set onto kids
o criticism of hypnosis
o explanation of false memory leading to belief in reincarnation
o Leading questions
 Did he have a hat?
 What color hat was he wearing?
o Problems with lineup
 forced choices
 Multiple choice needs an answer
 Loaded lineups
 Better lineup suggestions
 1 at a time
 lineup without the suspect to see if they choose one.
o Confidence not a good indicator of trustworthy witness - explained
o Details not a good indicator of trustworthy witness - explained
o Strength of eyewitnesses on juries opinions - discussed
 Loftus study on eyewitness strength on a Jury
 without eyewitness 18% conviction
 with eyewitness 72% conviction
 with discredited eyewitness 68% conviction
•