Human social behavior Behavior people exhibit in a group (or not alone) Individual interacting with other people Analyze and observe many different types of behavior First tried to understand through fables and stories (try to explain human behavior) A sense of collective wisdom is used to explain why people do the things that they Collective wisdom itself has to do with human behavior Problem to think of it as a starting place to understand human behavior Like two statements that are opposites but still voted to be at least somewhat accurate Sources of information Folk wisdom (not a good source of information for human behavior) Pennebaker Clinical psychologist, the influence of self-disclosure (writing, talking, conversations about private thoughts and concerns Research suggests ⅔ of us get emotional and physical benefits from self-disclosure Decrease feelings of shame Criminals often act more relaxed after confessing Self-disclosure is the power behind most talk therapy Through telling of the story, the benefits of therapy occur Comes from within the client Has tremendous physical benefits too Boost the immune system, increases white blood cell production, increases production of antibodies “Confession is good for the soul” still has a flip-side “Let sleeping dogs lie” (if it's not an issue, don’t bring it up) “Least said is soonest mended” (if you talk about it less, it will heal faster) There will be times when self-disclosure can be harmful → forced confession is not beneficial Can be harmful if the confidant is unfairly judgemental or not respect the confidentiality Can look at folk wisdom through the lens of social psychology that will be accurate and verifiable Social psychology deals with feelings of well-being (not the soul) Get information that is not just folk wisdom Psychomythology Lilienfeld and cognitive illusion Sources of cognitive illusions Word of mouth- just because it's said a bunch of time does not make it true Desire for easy answers/quick fixes- everyday life is complex, not making things easy Selective perception/memory- rarely perceive reality exactly as it is, world with pre-existing beliefs, remember and perceive things in accordance with pre-existing bias, assumptions, and expectations, what you believe can influence what you see Causation and correlation- not equitable, being related to each other does not mean they cause each other Post hoc Ergo propter hoc Placebo Exposure to bias sample If something precedes something it must cause it Some small amount of truth in some statement-exaggeration of a small piece of truth Terminology- incorrect use of terminology or jargon, leads to confusion, applying a different meaning entirely How to distinguish fact from fiction with regard to what is heard, passed down, etc. The collective body of misinformation about human nature Feels like it has the trappings of truth It typically jives with common sense, making people susceptible to it Human behavior is not always reasonable or sensible More familiar with visual illusion than a cognitive illusion In subjective areas, humans are also susceptible to illusions (like looking at human behavior) Social psychology is seen every day is trying to understand human behavior Social psychology wants to tell us about non-common sense To know the truth about human behavior have to go beyond folk wisdom, myth Look for scientific basis through studies and experiments Social psychology: Scientific study of feelings, thoughts, or behaviors of the individual in social situations Seeks to understand the causes of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors in social situations (individuals) Feelings, thoughts, and actions can be influenced by feelings and actions and thoughts of other people The person doesn’t have to actually be in a social situation, could just imagine it, and that could still impact their behavior Deals with the scientific inquiry that deals with the individual, thoughts, feelings, and behaviors in a social or implied situation Inquiry: takes a scientific approach to answering questions about human social behavior Values Methods Variables   CHAPTER ONE NOTES: Social Psychology-  the science of the social side of life Social psychology: the scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior, feelings, and thoughts in social situations The way in our thoughts, feelings, and actions are influenced by the social environments in which we find ourselves- by other people or our thoughts about them Science refers to set of values and methods Core values Accuracy: commitment to gathering and evaluating information about the world in as careful, precise, and error-free manner as possible Need to be replicable Objectivity: commitment to obtaining and evaluating such information in a manner that is as free from bias as possible Skepticism: commitment to accepting findings as accurate only to the extent they have been verified over and over again. Importance of replication Open-mindedness: a commitment to changing one’s views if existing evidence suggests that these views are inaccurate Common sense provides an inconsistent and unreliable guide to understanding social behavior Social psychology wants to understand the many factors and conditions that shape the social thought and behavior of individuals. Most variables fall under these categories The actions and characteristics of other persons Observe other people and respond to them Indicates that other people’s emotional expressions often have a powerful impact upon us Affected by other’s appearances Cognitive processes Like if your friend is late, your memory and perception of them will impact how you respond Are they late all the time? Or did something bad happen? Try to make sense of people in our social world by attributing their actions to something about them or something about the circumstances Environmental variables: impact of the physical world Aspects of the physical environment can influence our feelings, thoughts, and behavior Biological factors Biology and social experience is not unidirectional Environmental factors and social experiences, through the epigenetic processes, can turn on or off the operation of certain genes. This can influence behavior, sometimes long after their initial exposure Emphasized in the field of evolutionary psychology Variation (organisms vary in many ways) → inheritance (some of these variations are heritable) → selection (variations that are adaptive become increasingly common in the population) ← THIS IS THE CRUCIAL OUTCOME OF EVOLUTION Suggests that this applies to at least some aspects of social behavior Does not suggest that we inherit specific patterns of social behavior, but that we inherit tendencies or predispositions that may be apparent in our over actions, depending on the environment in which we live Cultures vary is social thought and behavior Social neuroscience: studies how feelings, thought, emotions, and behaviors present themselves in the brain   January 22nd A scientist would look at values, methods, and variables Values Accuracy: gather information in an error-free manner Objectivity: commitment to obtaining and evaluating information in a manner that is as free of bias as humanly possible Skepticism: to accept findings as being accurate only to the extent that they’ve been verified repeatedly Converging evidence- evidence from different perspectives that come to the same conclusion Open-mindedness: it's okay to change your view/mind/preconceptions. Be willing to change your view if existing evidence suggests these views are inaccurate Methods Engaging in experimentation, not just using common sense Focus on the individual as the measurement unit Clear in methodology for social psychology Clear in types of questions for social psychology Evident in theorizing Universal theories → would be able to explain all aspects of human interaction Like instinct, imitation In attempting to explain everything, it essentially explains nothing Mid-range theories → interested in some limited aspect of social behavior Function of theories: Explain behavior that it's discussing Predict future behavior Description, explanation, and prediction Relatively cohesive description Organize empirical findings → common way of thinking about a range of facts (explanation) Focusing on future research (prediction) Major approaches (mid-range approaches) Learning theory Conditioning (operant and classical) Closest to being more broad or universal Cognitive consistency Individuals strive for consistency in thoughts, beliefs, attitudes, and feelings Festinger → cognitive dissonance (when an individual holds inconsistent beliefs, produces unpleasant motivational state) Balanced pattern of liking and disliking Attitude change is sometimes a drive for cognitive consistency Attribution When people try to people figure out why someone behaves the way they do Focus on thought processes that cause someone’s behavior Relies on active information processing How you process, retrieve, interpret stimuli Equity/exchange Seek to reduce to all human interaction to what’s the cost of it and what’s the benefit from it Someone thinks what’s the cost of me doing this and what will I get in return?   Goal is to gather information about human social behavior (not to solve social problems Special consideration in regard to research in social psychology Like people have strong beliefs about this human behavior Participants are aware that they are being studied Hope that it can be applied to social problems Measurement Objective and subjective Reliability and validity Variables Defined and quantifiable Levels of explanation of social behavior → Lippa Group level explanations: Broadest level Like cultural and social groups Biological groups Individual-level explanation: Experience that shape or form individual Like family expectations that influence behavior Heredity and physiology Past environment and socialization Current environmental and social situation   Powerful influence on human social behavior Mediating (internal) variables: Personality traits Like an authoritarian need Beliefs and attitudes Beliefs are cognitive (something that you think that you know about someone/a particular group) Attitudes are evaluative Cognitive schemas Focusing on thought processes Role of cognition in social behavior Emotional states More transient than personality traits Involves arousal and cognition Can motivate and direct behavior Explanations can emphasize certain levels Like different biological groups exhibit different levels of aggressive behavior individual → males tend to be more aggressive (physiology)

  January 24th → Kelman reading Methodology Focus on the individual Measurement unit Methodology Types of questions Evident in theorizing Universal Mid-range Major approaches Learning theory Cognitive consistency Attribution Interested in what causes someone else’s behavior Equity/exchange What’s the cost and benefit Goal of social psychology research is used to gather information, not to solve social problems Goal- scientific method advance science social problems? Special consideration in regard to research in social psychology Like people have strong beliefs about this human behavior Participants are aware that they are being studied Highly relevant to social policy Measurement Objective and subjective Subjective is like self-reports → introspection, report on own experience (through an interview, questionnaire, survey) They filter their response through their consciousness Objective is like directly observing behaviors, observation of behavior that is overt (like physiological responses) Things like self-report are not always reliable → can then observe behavior and assess results from something like a survey Most confident in converging data Some subjective and some objective that come together Multiple corroborating measures All measures that have two important characteristics Reliability Validity Reliability and validity Reliability: consistent over time, repeatedly and consistently obtained Validity: internal (the measure assesses what its designed to measure) and external (can it be applied to a generalized population, not a natural consequence of reliability   Operational definition is going to tell us about the procedures and units we are going to measure Like defining what aggression is (making someone bleed vs making someone cry) Research design (all ways of gathering information) Experiment itself Need a hypothesis Manipulation Independent variable Dependent variable Control group (not exposed to independent variable) Random assignment: any participant has the same possibility of being in any group Set of experimental and control conditions Allow us to make cause and effect types of statements Correlational studies No random assignment No manipulation of independent variable Measure variables are they occur in some setting and note how they related to each other Learn about what things go together and how they go together Tell us what goes together (not about directionality or causation) Can’t rule out alternative explanations Considered to be more realistic, true to life, less contrived Way to gather information if an experiment cannot be performed For ethical or other reasons Quasi-experimental Not exactly a correlational study or experimental study Parts of each Manipulation of independent variable But no true random assignment Used pretty commonly in social psychology Like looking at the effects of change in social policy This is all orthogonal to a lab study vs a field study Lab will be more controlled Field seems more “real” Consider realism Mundane realism: how much is a study like everyday life Milgram shock study is really low mundane realism because no one is going to tell you to shock someone in real life Experiential realism: deals with the subjective experience of the individual that’s participating Whether they feel what’s happening  is actually real Milgram shock studies really high experimental realism because the subjects thought they were going to be punished if they didn’t shock the other people Generalizability Validity Internal: independent variable manipulates what it's supposed to External: is the finding specific to the particular sample, can it be extended to other people or settings? Ability to repeat Exact replication: reproduce exactly someone else’s study Conceptual replication: use same type of conceptual variables but use different procedures or operations to measure it Systematic replication: theoretically extending original work, might add new variables Concerns Experimenter bias Unconsciously influence participant’s behavior Standardize procedures, keep data collector blind to study Participant bias Try to figure out purpose/outcome of the study Don’t behave naturally Avoid it by measuring participants without their awareness, using deception (not told the real purpose) Raises ethical concerns   January 31st → ch. 2 and G & S reading Goal of social cognition is to determine how people select, interpret, and use information What information is available, noticed, not noticed, how it’s used, and what is ignored Social cognition Information Accurate impression of the world → a goal of social cognition Types of processing Automatic: don’t stop to pause and think through all available options → implicit knowledge Do not consider whether the assumptions are correct Comes from the amygdala Use a schema (using what’s already known to understand the situation) Controlled: involves careful consideration and deliberation as many of the facts as possible Much more cognitive effort Careful attention to the details of the situation Both are important to social cognition Automatic processing Utilize already known schema Schemas are mental structures to organize information about the world Can be applied to be specific to person or place Framework for the thinking you’re going to do Social schemas don’t always have clear cut boundaries Dynamic mental categories based on prior knowledge or experience used to perceive or remember information Primary function is to help categorize information Most often evoked when a situation involves some sort of ambiguity Important part of remembering information New information can be seen as consistent, inconsistent, or irrelevant Seeks to understand new situations by relating them to something you already know or have experienced Types Taylor and Crocker Social schemas have 3 types Person schema → used for describing a specific individual Like Dr. Strock is annoying Roll schema → deal with larger social groups B school kids are scary and snakes Event schema → standard characteristic of a social event Script will tell you acceptable behavior and restricted behavior of a social event You don’t act crazy in church How they provide structure   Reduce ambiguity Kelley → college setting, guest lecturer coming in, people are given a brief biography of lecturer, line was different by describing as nice vs mean, then students rate the lecturer Hypothesized that students would use information in biography as a schema for reviewing the lecturer   Information consistent with the schema is more likely to be recalled Works well, but not all the time Influence memory Information mation consistent with a schema is more readily remembered than something that is inconsistent Cohen → research on role schema on memory, half were told woman is a waitress in a bar and other half were told she was a librarian What you think is consistent is what you remember Hastie → sometimes we have good memory for inconsistent information Sometimes you will think about inconsistent information and try to explain it to fit a more consistent schema Essential memory is reconstructive Fill in blanks with things we find consistent Carli → read a story about a couple and their relationship, for half the story says he proposes, other half says he rapes her Schema consistent information becomes stronger and resistant to change over time   Memory not concise, but reconstructed Which schema? Accessibility → extent to which the schema and its related concepts are at the front of your brain Chronic → due to past experience, consistently active, ready to be used to interpret any ambiguous situation Temporary → not always accessible might be primed or prompted by thinking about/doing something before you encounter the event Priming → accessible and applicable before it can be used as a prime Perseverance Beliefs and ideas can stay after someone was told to dismiss it People’s beliefs created by schemas tend to persist even if evidence is not good Heuristics “To discover” Make a judgment quickly but maybe not accurately Used a lot because they are highly functional Apply specific rules and shortcuts Can be useful, but can lead to erroneous conclusions Mental shortcuts 3 types Availability how easily does something come to mind. ex.- base your judgment of how assertive you are, based on how easy it comes to mind. but things that easily come to mind may also be atypical and that’s why you remembered it. things more vivid and unusual, typically come to mind. most medical diagnoses are done based off availability heuristic. Representativeness ​​​​​​​judging by resemblance, how similar is this to that -base rate information- frequency with which given events of categories occur in the total populationpeople use representativeness judgment much more than they use base rate info ex. Guy goes to Wisconsin state school, weaving in and out burger shirt, likes to surf, has tan, says dude. Representativeness- we would say he is from Cali.  Base rate- we would say he is from Wisconsin   Anchoring ​​​​​​​taking things at face value - involves the tendency to deal with uncertainty in many situations by using something we do know as a starting point (the anchor) and then making adjustments to it -selectively retrieve info that is selective to certain values -even if you know anchor is wrong, you don’t make sufficient judgments -controlled processes: -thinking that is conscious, intentional, voluntary, effortful, requires motivation -ability to turn on or off this type of processing to think more deeply -fully aware of what you are thinking about -requires mental energy, can only think about one thing at a time -controlled processing serves as checks and balancing for automatic processing -requires time and energy – used in high stakes, or when you care for the outcome   -automatic believing/ controlled unbelieving: -two process system -when people see or learn something people take it at face value and accept it is true -once the truth is accepted- people go through the effort of figuring out if it actually is true -Gilbertà says that people have a predisposition for everyone to believe the first thing they hear- automatic, seeing is believing. -Social cognition is a two process system -controlled unbelieving does not always follow- must have motivation and effort   -counterfactual reasoning: -mentally undoing some event that has happened in the past in order to reach a more positive outcome -a tremendous influence on emotional events -easier it is to think of how to mentally undo some event, the stronger the emotion you felt at that moment -losing a race and coming in second place – thinking about how that happened. Ex- could’ve had a better start, had a better stride   what we need to change about social cognition: -improve thinking -more humble about abilities -overconfidence barrier – we forget that we are bad thinkers. Predictable errors we make in thinking ​​​​​​​

Social perception: process of judging traits and characteristics of other people that generate beliefs which guide behavior and interactions Goal: asks how do people know reality? Concerned about social reality How accurately can someone make judgments about intention, character, personality Goal for sensory and social perception is pretty much the same Abstract the stable qualities from inconsistent information Social vs object Objection perception- not living thing (like the color of a table) Don’t have to worry about intention or causal agents Social perception- you can’t always look at a person and perceive all the important qualities of that person Not all the information we get about an individual is consistent with other information we have Have to determine what’s important and what’s accurate Still, think of people as having relatively stable traits and relatively stable way of responding More susceptible to error and bias compared to object perception Intangible qualities have to be inferred from behavior Perceive people (not objects) of being causal agents Self-directing entities have wishes, motives, and intention To determine the underlying intentions People can try to deceive or mislead with false information (not a characteristic of object perception) Perception of a person may  change that person (not an issue with object perception) Self-fulfilling prophecy Perceptions will guide how you interact with them   Could change their behavior too First impression Direct judgement - surface ques → could be accurate or inaccurate, made on the basis of little information, can impact the nature of future interactions and influence behavior Physical characteristics: making assumptions on traits that an individual possesses Attractiveness Assumed to have a lot of better qualities Thought to be more sensitive, kind, sociable, better romantic relationships, job prospects Gender Different traits ascribed to men and women Ethic/cultural background Think of different traits based on the characteristics of their background Whether they are true, in a sense it doesn’t matter because the judgments happen automatically Whether someone believes them or not doesn’t matter either because they still come to mind Names → play a strong role in how people respond to you Career success: the name has a certain assumption about the occupation If a name matches the characterization of an occupation, it is believed that the person will be more successful in that occupation Bruning Gender: gender expectations about an individual based on their name Cause people to believe that they know about an individual more than they actually do Nilsen Personal happiness: judge happiness based on the name Which would most likely attractive, successful or lucky Ryan or Sophie more attractive Jack and Lucy luckier James or Elizabeth more successful Wiseman Static information Behavior → offers different kinds of information than static stuff Ekman- Non-verbal Thought to be more truthful than verbal behavior Hard to have your body lie for you Tend to place more emphasis on what non-verbal tells you Dynamic, ongoing Gesture and body movement (non-verbal behaviors) → Ekman talks about Emblem: culturally learned kinds of things Specific meaning in a specific culture Important sources of misunderstanding and communication between people and cultures Like I bite my thumb at you was really offensive during Shakespeare time Illustrator: non-verbally indicating a physical event or thought process Like when a kid shows how you big something is with their hands Regulator: body movements that lend structure to social interactions Like if you’re trying to explain something, you look for head nods, eye contact Regulators in conversation (when you know when you can talk, other stuff) Needed for social conversation → smooth facilitation of communication Signal attention Use of them is often unconscious Adaptor: or manipulator, self-directed gesture, indicates that someone is into their own thoughts When people aren’t paying attention, conflicted, or distracted If someone fiddles while you’re not talking → they’re not paying attention Ekman also interested in facial expression Some expressions not bounded by culture or ethnicity   Universality Maybe but Bailey…. Sources of error in identification of facial expressions DANVA - diagnostic analysis of non-verbal accuracy scale 4 emotions looked at were happy, sad, angry, fearful How readily could participants accurately identify facial expressions In terms of accuracy of identifying facial expression, common errors, international students tended to identify angry faces as happy faces African American and European American students identified fearful faces as sad So universality of facial expressions is not necessarily true Most important one to identify an angry face because it has the potential to be the most harmful Nowicki and Duke - dyssemia → dysfunction is doing so Nonverbal communication is the language of relationships, about 10% of the population have issues with this → dyssemic Nonverbal communication is constant Producing appropriate non-verbal social cues ‘Seme’ and ‘dys’ Deficit in a skill, not a disorder Types Rhythmicity of interaction Difficulty with timing Conversation with an individual who can’t adapt to the pace of the conversation (butts in, leaves long weird pauses) Can’t adjust their own pace to fit the pace of others or the interaction Spatial awareness Personal space Not aware that they may be intruding on someone else’s personal space   Gestural/postural Information conveyed through body language Like standing back and crossing their arms (not interested, etc.) Non-verbal cues Facial Information conveyed through facial expressions Use eye contact inappropriately Facial expressions might be absent or inappropriate Often have difficulty decoding other’s expressions    Paralanguage How something is said Someone who talks too loudly or quietly Dyssemia is associated with lower social competence, poor peer relationships, sociometric status (idea that other people would say who they would rather be friends with) Relationship between this is more common in females Dyssemia have higher instance of depression, social anxiety, externalizing behaviors This is stronger in males Related to the idea of direct judgment and first impressions

February 12th → Snyder and chapter 4 Other non-verbal behaviors Eye contact Eye contact with people you like Gazing vs staring Gazing can be a sign of affection, more positive Staring is seen as more uncomfortable Lack of eye contact is strange too Sing of preference Personal space Invade personal space on purpose to make someone feel uncomfortable Touching Sign of positive regard between individuals (usually) Sign of affection Can be a sign of preference or power Provides information about (applies to all above) Power Signify their domination or authority over someone else More powerful person will touch first, invade the other’s personal space Preference Gaze at the person you love, allow them to invade our personal space, more comfortable with touching Power of first impression → first impressions are often wrong but impacts are relatively long-lasting Primacy and recency effects If there is conflicting information, info received first carries more weight Primacy effect is more strong if you have little time to make a judgment or there are low stakes for a bad judgment In recency, information received more recently carries more weight Personality - Luchins What information do people use most Focus more information at the beginning or the end of the story (adding Jim and John) Emphasize the information that gives the first impression Ability - Jones, et al. Participants observe someone taking a test of ability Some saw the people get the first 15 correct Others saw them making a lot of errors at first but finishing strong But both had the same number of correct answers Those who started strong were rated higher in terms of ability and being better at the task → power of the first impression Carries less weight when you warn the observer to pay attention to all the information I If there’s a delay between early and late information, primacy carries less weight Caveat for privacy Attribution Use it to assess a situation and someone’s response to that situation Guides your interactions with that individual Focuses on thought processes used to explain behavior Understanding causes of behaviors People respond based on the perceived cause of the behavior Why is your friend late for lunch? Total accident Or they’re all the time Both will affect how you react to the situation Basic question- source of behavior Weiner- Internal vs external sources internal - part of the individual Stable vs unstable behaviors Unstable is temporary and fluctuating Makes little table External and stable is like bad luck All other things being equal, when you make attributions about other people, we appear to prefer making internal explanations over external, often fail to distinguish between behavior and underlying cause → leads to internal attributions Cognitively easy to move from a behavioral observation about a person to inferring internal traits from that behavior Tend to focus more on people and behavior than the power of the surrounding situation Tend to see people rather than the setting as the cause of the behavior Called the fundamental error of attribution Disposition attributions over situational Fundamental error of attribution Prefer disposition inferences about other people Process of making attributions about behavior 1) Correspondent inferences: individual’s behavior corresponds to some internal state or quality Jones & Davis 3 characteristics Freely chosen Was the behavior freely chosen? Has to be if it is going to reflect something about the individual Non-common effect Look at what is different   Social desirability Deals with expectation Cognitive bias - personalism  

February 21, 2019 Self-description Developmental sequence Kuhn & McPartland - TST Historical A conception of the self-concept did not occur until the Puritans, who believed in predestination, which forced people to ask themselves who they are and whether they would be saved. Baumeister Cross-cultural Independent Western Cultures define themselves in terms of their own thoughts and actions. A focus on the individual over the environment. Interdependent Does not see the individual as unique or a positive attribute. Thoughts feelings and behaviors are a reflection of those around you.   How come to know self? Self-schema Organize and guide information about the self. Different than schema for other people, because it is rich in accumulated information. You remember things from a very long time ago, and not necessarily for other people. You also know yourself by who other people know you to be. The looking glass self by Cooley is that the feedback provided by other people informs who you are. You are the reflection of other people. There is a great potential for complexity compared to the schema used to know other people. Narrative continuity - we remember our life events over a long period of time. It allows us to compare and contrast and make send of our life history. Self-referent effect We tend to remember information about ourselves better than other people. Rogers, et. al. Listen to an adjective and make four types of judgment. Structural (is the word capital), phonemic (does it rhyme with heat), semantic (does it mean the same as clean and tidy), the self (are you a neat person). Individuals remember judgments about the self better. Recall was even better when answers were in the affirmative for questions about the self. Resistance to change Self Schema is even more difficult to change. There is a lot of inertia, or resistance to change. It has self-conserving quality. You are trying to maintain a sense of integrity around the sense of self. Useful because if your sense of self-changed with every new piece of information, you would be in eternal turmoil. The self would prefer to be defensive about change and relatively conservative. Research suggests that people may be willing to distort or forget facts, in order to preserve some preconceived notion of themselves. Swann & Read A process of self-verification We tend to engage in behaviors and thoughts to prove the validity of the self-concept. Selectively seek out feedback that confirms the self-concept. Then we selectively recall information that is consonant with our view of yourself. You will actively try to the validity of your self-concept. Selectively seek Selectively remember Actively Proove How do we develop self-schema? Introspection Thinking about yourself. Looking inwards and reflecting on information that only you know about yourself. Your thoughts feelings and emotions. Objectivity may be impossible because we may unconsciously prevent yourself. People rarely do introspection, mostly adolescents.    C&F Participants wore beepers, when they went off they were asked questions about their moods. Responses were content analyzed into categories. Reported thinking about themselves, only about, 8% of the time. They thought about work, leisure activities, mundane thoughts, etc. Self-awareness Self-awareness theory - you evaluate yourself and become more objective. Does your behavior match your internal standard? Not always an enjoyable state because we are not always congruent with our standard. Very painful and unpleasant. Duval & Wicklund After you lie, if you walk in front of a mirror, you will become self-aware and realize you have violated your values or standards. You will then change your behavior or you will try to stop trying to be self-aware as soon as possible because you feel uncomfortable about being self-aware. You could also change your cognition - changing standards to match behavior. Diener & Walborn Anagram test that they could not do well on but were told it would measure their intelligence. Given the opportunity to cheat. Participants agreed that cheating was wrong. Half of them were in a state of self-awareness. These people resisted the temptation to cheat (7%). Non-self aware people (71%) tended to cheat. Observation Comparison February 21, 2019 How develop self-concept? Introspection Observation Comparison How loyal I am. It is difficult to understand certain qualities.   Festinger Important to compare against people so that you can assess where you stand. When there is no good reliable process. With who do you want to compare yourself with. (good sign if similiar) (if goal is accuracy)   Swimmer is going to the olympics. Upwards comparison. (striving for a goal) Swimmer believes swimming is the most important, Downwards comparison. (self-enhancement)   Comparison Woob - Cancer Cancer patients made immediate comparison with people that are in worse shape then they are.   Strive for positive self concept: We like to think we are ok people. We do this in a process of self-enhancement. Share the idea of your self to other people. An important part of the self-concept. So that they have the same idea who you are as you do. If you want to be a good person, other people ought think you are a good people.   Self presentation & impression management Self-Verification Selectively seek feedback that is congruent with the self-schema. Its all about the ways you make yourself look good. Maintain and present the most positive aspects of yourself.   Jones & Pittman Ingration: Making yourself likable at the target so that they think you are wonderful. You can use compliments, agreement with ideas (i have the good sense that we are smart), a wonderful person!—Target directed—Sucking up   Self-promotion: Pointing out the most positive aspects of yourself, what you are good at. But how can you maintain the image of being good in all things? You bask in reflected glory. You affiliate yourself with someone who is successful in an area that you are not. Self directed—Basking in reflected glory—Bask or compare   Tesser We tend to bask when the quality in question is not important to your self-concept. Self handicapped set reasons ahead of the task for failure or negative outcomes. They want an external attribution to a suboptimal performance. When we do not fail then we believe that we have overcome this external attribution and feel better about ourselves. Create obstacles. Generate excuses. Time management, reduced effort, i am sick, can cause the poor performance. Self-protective. Upside for individual is that you are able to mantain positive self-contruct. Damn, this is deep. I am not good enough. Protect self-schema.   Attribution and the self Biases: We are more likley to be aware of what others are doing when we think about ourselves. Attribution of Cognitive bias - More external attribution Motivational bias Self-serving bias - if you do well you will prefer internal attribution over external attribution. More likely to deny responsibility for failure, it will set yourself up for more self-failure.   Depressive realism. Depressed people are more accurate Others overestimate success and downplay failure.

February 28th stimulus stage- demographics, appearance, gender, age Value Role- who is going to take on the roles associated with our various values Murstein says - begins w stimulus stage Similarity is going to predominate If you dont pass second stage, never will get to role stage Eliminate potential others based on dissimilarities or undesirable characteristics   Rubin Liking vs loving Two very diff types of attraction Liking- focuses on feelings or respect or perceived similarity Loving relationship- preoccupation w the other, jealousy, intimacy Loving unidimensional , liking unidimensional, but diff dimensions Love scale- Liking and Loving Relationship with others Proxmire - no unity of opinion to study love What makes life meaningful or is necessary for relationships? Romantic partners… Why do people fall in love? Why do we want to have friends?   Relatedness motive Interpersonal needs Attachment - proximity, comfort, intimacy (warmth, mutual sharing) Affiliation - interaction, called social needs   Alone - isolation from others No uniform response, objective state Shachter - $50 a day, free to leave whenever they wanted. No windows, comfortably furnished, nothing to do, no human interaction How long do people last? People grew uneasy and anxious. Some people have a greater tolerance.   Lonely & Loneliness Perceived deficiency in social interaction (panic, depression, negative emotion) Subjective experience - difficult to measure because you can be lonely among others 2 types  Emotional - lack of close intimate relationships  Social - an absence of friends and family to provide moral support or share interests Trait - individual predisposition - some people are inclined to loneliness Dispositional trait, tend to feel lonely no matter the situation State - situational - some situations cause loneliness Recently moving can cause loneliness. Getting married can also cause loneliness because it is a transition from your network of friends and status Coping - How to cope with loneliness Depends on what you attribute loneliness too. Trait - hardest, you must rethink what you think about yourself State - easiest, make plans to address a social deficiency Become open to new friends, engage in new activities, adapt… 1/4th of college student report loneliness throughout the week   social relationships protect in terms of psychological health and physical wellbeing   Why affiliate? Shachter & Dr. Zilstein What can you gain from being with people that can’t be gained by being alone?   Reduction of anxiety and safety in numbers. High anxiety group is more likely to wait with other people than the low anxiety group. Misery loves company?   Anxiety reduction - Distraction, and Comparison How do groups reduce anxiety? Talking to others may distract you from what is going to happen, what gives you anxiety. Social comparison can also reduce anxiety. This ambiguous situation needs more information on how to respond. Others allow you to compare and gauge how one should respond in this high anxiety situation.   Misery loves the company of other people who are going to experience the same type of misery Hill & IOS Social comparison Positive stimulation Emotional support Attention Hatfield & Sprecher    2 dimensions of love Companionate / compassionate love, intimacy, trust, commitment and affection Caring deeply for the other person, truly knowing the other person, being committed to the other person thru good n bad times When disagreements take place, remain in love, remain dedicated, work thru disagreements Long term commitment- behavioral Deep intimacy / mutual sharing of feelings n concerned Marked by deep trust   Passionate love Hot love A state of intense longing for union with the other person More common at the onset of the relationship Powerful feelings for each other, need to be near each other and think about each other, experience distress when apart Best in a requited relationship- feel the same about each other Intrusive thoughts and persistent, idealize each other   Sternberg, 3 dimensions to love: intimacy, passion, commitment Can combine in various ways A triangle   Longevity of relationship Rusbult & exchange Costs and rewards Compassion level Investment Clark & Communal   When love goes wrong- love hurts Unrequited love Baumeister Disengagement strategies Process- duck Role- akert breakers breakee Mutual Can we still be friends? Probably not, but civil Its time to move on

Attitude — Prejudice Are evaluative, prejudice evaluation of a person based on membership of a group RECALL ARONSON 3 components affective Emotion and intensity cognitive component - stereotyping Beliefs and thoughts Behavioral Discrimination, action taken to harm a group   What are attitudes? Mediating variables Aronson definition: evaluative, not emotion or mood Source of attitudes Learning Media culture History Realistic conflict theory- prejudice comes from conflict and perception as threat Powerful and those who are different Allocation of resources Who will get the resource and how? When resources are limited- real conflict between groups exist Conflict for Limited and competition for scarce resources (limited in someway) Political power Social status Access to healthcare Economic competition Dollard _ germans Jacobs & Landau- Chinese Simpson & Yinger Whatever the previous wave of new workers/immigrations were are in direct competition with the most recent wave Ex: Irish people hating latino immigrants? Study of relation between competition and prejudice experimentally Campers, Boy Scout camp could be assigned to be an eagle or a rattler Depended on location of cabin Tried to create a sense of we-ness inside your group Cohesion Sherif — Eagles & Rattlers Realized that yes, cohesive groups competing for scarce resources can result in conflict and negative feelings toward the other group Once conflict had been aroused, eliminating the competition did not stop the hostility, it continued to escalate eQual contact & super-ordinate goals Goal that could only be reached if they cooperated with each other rather than competing with each other Social cognition Social perception & attribution     March 19th Categorization by product of how we process and organize info In group bias, product of categorization Special treatment — must negatively impact another group Minimal groups Tajfel Studied the impact of minimal groups on the creation of in-group bias Behaved as though the members of group they had been assigned to Liked members of their own group better, rated them as more likely to be pleasant, likely to do better work Out group homogeneity - they are all alike In group perceives members of out group to be much more homogenous than they are If you know something about a member of out group must know this about all the members Group according to similarity, those that are different - disparity   Failure of Logic Emotional component, affectively based attitudes Activation of stereotypes Stereotypes reflect cultural belief Followed change b.w 1920s- 1980s Stereotypes of people they didn’t know In 20s easy and not uncomfortable 80s, society pushed the cultural belief onto them and a bit uncomfortable since might disagree with cultural belief Patricia Devine- says well these beliefs will impact processing but makes a distinction Automatic and controlled processing of information Prejudiced person and automatic vs controlled Cultural belief will be present but can engage in active controlled thinking to dispute that belief Illusory correlation We tend to see relationships b/w things even when they don’t exist Distinctive or conspicuous Created an illusory correlation b.w membership in group B and undesirable behavior, fewer of them and less undesirable behavior made them distinctive to the other groups Hamilton & gifford Problem w cognition   Revising stereotypes webber & Crocker     March 21, 2019 Prejudice, Stereotyping, & Discrimination   Activation of stereotypes - Devine Illusory Correlation - Hamilton & Gifford   Revising Stereotypes? Webber & Crocker How do you get people to change their stereotypic beliefs? Override social cognitive processes? What kind of information do you need? In what context? Depends on how the disconfirming is presented (How and the Type) Book Keeping Model  A cumulative process (slowly introduce disconfirming information in increments) Conversion Model A radical and salient piece of information (major upheaval) Subtyping Separate the stereotype into categories. Where stereotype remains intact but the subgroup explains the disconfirming information. Book-keeping model works well Conversion Model kept stereotype intact - people simply did not believe this information   Emotionally held attitudes are harder to change than non-emotional attitudes.   Social perception & attrubution processes   Ultimate attribution error Unfairly attributing behavior due to internal rather than external factors Then, expanding this perception of the individual to a whole group of people That these people behave in such a way due to internal causes - not situational Behavior is a reflection of the entirety of the group   Expectations - Ickes When a member of the outgroup behaves in an unexpecting and non-stereotypical way? Fancy attributional footwork to emerge with a dispositional stereotype still intact. You make situational attrubutions about the exception.   Ickles - scheduled college men in pairs Condition 1: Partner is likely to be extremely friendly Condition 2: Partner is likely to be extremely unfriendly Participants in condition 2 interpreted friendly behavior as being phony: dispositional attribution remains They create a special category, saying that at this point in time their friendly behavior was situational.   Blaming the victim The individual is seen as being responsible for their own victimization Something about the victim that is causing their own victimization A deficit in character or a deficit inability, rather than external causes Motivated by the desire to see the world as a fair, just, and equitable place. In a fair place, people get what they deserve and vice versa. So, evidence for inequitable outcomes is difficult to explain Individuals who are poor or homeless are often blamed for their own victimization.   People convince themselves that this bad situation will not happen to them. They cope by blaming the victim. They convince themselves that the person has done some behavior that led to their victimization They need to make a dispositional type of attributions in order to make themselves feel safe.  

  Three types of social influence: conformity Group standards compliance request Feel like have the right to refuse obedience Command How to respond to bids for social influence? Kelman: Private and public variable Response and conviction   Conformity: All about norms & serendipity (unexpected good finding) What is expected from behavior 2 major paradigms: Auto-kinetic effect Line length judgments   April 9th, 2019   Conformity Auto-kinetic effect - by Sherif Perceptual effect Stationary light appears to move in a darkened room due to our eyes automatic movement. How much does the light move? To participants. At first, there was a lot of variabilities. Over time judgments converged to a value that all participants agreed with. Did hearing what other people say about how far the light moved to impact your judgment? In ambiguous situations, a group will create their own norms and standards. No pressure or coercion, decisions about how far the dot moved converged onto a reality that is defined by the group. “Converging Reality” defines reality. Participants were influenced by group norms for up to a year later.   Jacobs & Campbell Reality persists for 11 generations. Norms that a group defines persists and influences people long after the original conditions. (must be group decisions)   Asch Line length judgments - significant differences between lines Asked participants to assess which line is similar to another from a set of options.   Unambiguous perceptual judgments Role of confederates - 7-9 confederates with one participant. Participants were asked to respond out loud. Confederates went first, participants are last.   Lots of variations! 75% conformed at least once. There was tremendous pressure for participants to conform. Voting needs to be made private. Otherwise, conformity will impact decisions. People knew what the right answer was, but they choose to say the wrong answer.   Developmental data Adolescents are very concerned with conformity. Age group from 5-18. 18-year-olds were no more conforming than adults. 12-13-year-olds were the most conforming. They are starting to move their social base away from their families. Peer opinions become increasingly more salient. 5-year-olds say what they think. They don’t understand social pressure and the value of agreeing with the group.   Deutsch & Gerard Two different types of conformity. Normative & informational influence   To gain reward or to gain punishment by the group. Informational - looking toward the group for accurate information   Conform to be liked and conform to be right.   What are the consequences of violating a group norm? Rejection if you do not conform. Let’s go watch a movie, I will only watch one movie. Fuck bitch, you are not our friend anymore. You suck, seriously. Go die in a shallow grave.   Schachter & Johnny Rocco How should society respond to a youth committing a petty crime? 3 Confederates. Deviant - To disagree with the participants. Take the position that is opposite to evolving consensus of the group. Model Man - Agree with the group consensus. No matter what. Slider - Appear to be won over by the group. Start disagreeing and change opinions.   Groups tended to like the model man and the slider. The deviant was unliked. When it became clear that direct persuasive communication did not work, they rejected the deviant. When the group had to vote for someone to leave or do some boring task, they voted for the deviant.   Informational Conformity When a situation is ambiguous. People will often look at other people. Social Comparison to get additional information. The more important a decision is, the more they will rely on other people around them. For example, personal safety and 911. People shouldn’t go up, idiots.   War of the World - 1938 People thought that this was actually happening. It was on the radio and the Martians have landed in new jersey. It was an era when people got most of their information from the radio. They turned into the radio show late and did not get the cue that this is a play. Also, listening to the radio was a community affair. They misinterpreted actual events to fit the reality they created in their minds. Cars are outside? People must be fleeing! No cars outside? The bridges are gone!   People actually committed suicide because they did not want to live under a martian rule. Byrne People who conform are changing their perception. What they are seeing is actually changing. The areas in the brain that have to do with spatial perception were changed during these studies. Amygdala has to do with emotional salience. Not conforming will have a negative response, so there is a negative emotional response.   Affective state, good moods more likely to say Yes! Be an attractive person. A thing of beauty is a joy forever. Reciprocity -   April 11th: Obedience, Compliance, Conformity Compliance vs conformity   Compliance- to ask is to receive, make request hope to be granted How to increase compliance? Affective state reciprocity Return favors, normative in our culture Door in the face- Cialdini Opportunity to refuse, important part of that technique Would only succeed in high legitimacy conditions   That’s not all- Burger Like on TV, no opp. to refuse Foot in the mouth- Arne & Baset Commitment Foot in the door _ freedman & fraser Lowball - Cialdini Lowball condition showed up, felt committed Comparing effectiveness and reciprocity and commitment time between requests Who is making the request Legitimacy of requester   Reactance Psychology of scarcity Home shopping channels All compliance professionals use these techniques Becausee they work Don’t be taken in Listen and see if you are being manipulated into spending time/money Knowledge is power Obedience Most demanding of all social i Not to expect or ask, order Do as you are told do Rise in interest after WWII, result of world events Most famous, classic study- Milgram at Yale Series of studies, many variations Clear subject trust believed in the reality of situation Situational variables: 1) e assume responsibility 2) visible sign of authority 3) gradual nature 4) fast pace 5) emotional distance Is there a universal urge to inflict pain

Aggression Relevant variables to aggression: target damage intentionality Physical/psych damage Who is it directed at? Inner or outer? Thrill, sport Is it emotional or rational? Duty, job demands, monetary reasons Pain in best interest Killing for food Self defense Harm to living vs not Harm to human or non-human Which variables are most important defining characteristic? Intention Is there damage Emotion Types of aggression: hostile instrumental definitions motivations Reduction Role in evolution? Adaptive Species will fight if they must Prefer to bluff or flee Neuroscience Brain structures involved with aggressive behavior Amygdala Even docile animals can become violent when stimulating the amygdala When amygdala blocked, violent animals become more docile Neurotransmitters involved w aggression serotonin Hormones involved Testosterone Fighting, Culture and gender Are men more aggressive than women? Cultural factors- influence expression Individual differences Dispositional trait Continuum Relatively stable and consistent Attributional bias- hostile intent Environmental factors    Situational influence frustration Provocation Aggressive stimuli Frustration Role of cognition - Baron Recognized the relationship b/w frustration and aggression is mediated through cognition Expectation - Kulik and Brown   Proximity to goal- Harris     April 23, 2019 Aggression Intention determines aggression! Culture and gender may encourage or discourage aggression.   Aggression is a stable and consistent trait.   Does frustration lead to anger/aggression? Thwarted from reaching some desired goal. Not being able to have what you think you want. This relationship is moderated by cognition. What is your expectation of success?   Kulik + Brown   High expectation and low expectation / manner in which refusal is made? Verbal aggression, how loudly hung up? Snarky follow up letter.   Depending on your expectations, you are likely to be more aggressive Also note proximity to a goal. The closer you are to reaching the goal, the angrier you become if you do not make progress.   Jumping into lines! 2nd place and 12th place. When butting into a line closer to the front. People are far more aggressive.   Provocation and reciprocity People are likely to respond to aggression with aggression.   Baron Make ads! One group gets insulted and the other group is supported Then the participants are given an opportunity to retaliate.   Johnson + Rule Mitigating circumstances, just because you are provoked, doesn’t mean you will retaliate! Must be made in advance of the provoking incident!   Berkowitz Aggressive Stimuli An object associated with aggression. Can increase the probability of an aggressive act! Participants are given an opportunity to shock another person. They administered more intense shocks when exposed to aggressive stimulus. Gun and Badminton.   Hostile versus instrumental aggression   How do you deal with the repressed aggression? Catharsis, a release of emotions. Hitting a doll? Keeping your emotions in is bad for you! It is not healthy and not a good coping mechanism. Apologies! Can defuse anger Model non-aggressive behavior. Teach children how they should behave when they feel a certain way Training and problem solving skills! There are positive ways to express anger in non-violent and constructive ways. Role of Empathy, lacking empathy makes the target non-human! It lowers inhibitions toward committing violence.

Prosocial Behavior Help others with no immediate benefit for the helper Altruistic Behavior Prosocial behavior that involves some personal cost to the helper   Why might people help others? Evolutionary Motive. Social Exchange Motive. Empathy Motive.   Evolution Darwin - natural selection favors genes that promote the survival of the individual which promotes the survival of the species.   Evolutionary Psychology - Emphasize instinct & genes. We pass down these traits through our genes and are responsible for much of our behaviors. If not all.   We help other people out of self-interest.   Kin Selection - we help others that are related genetically. It means that our genes will be passed down.   Reciprocity - help now for future consideration.   Social Exchange Piliavin - There is a cost and reward associated with helping and not helping. So we do a complex form of calculus to determine whether or not we'll take action. Reciprocity. Relieve Distress. Recognition.