Class Notes (834,149)
Canada (508,378)
Psychology (2,075)
PSYCH 253 (142)

Psych 253 notes first 2 thirds of the class

12 Pages
Unlock Document

Hilary B Bergsieker

Psych 253 Monday, January 13 Social Judgement • Conspiracy theories • How people are motivated to see what they want to see (polio murders in Pakistan) • Beliefs are hard to change • Scientific vs. intuitive thinking o Works hard to get correct understanding o Look for things you don’t want to see (i.e. people with HIV/AIDS are relapsing) o Doesn’t try to alter reality to conform to beliefs • Intuitive: o Goes for what is easy/mental shortcuts o Won’t seek out info that goes against beliefs • Inferential Heuristics – instinct • Feeling Heuristics o Life sat. by current weather – once weather comes to consciousness, realizes that the weather should not interfere with overall happiness • Representativeness Heuristic o When an example seems typical o i.e. slower to answer if an ostrich is a bird vs. a robin o conjunc. Fallacy-Linda is in school for accounting, goes to feminist rallys on weekends, being bank teller is more probable than being bank teller and feminist • Availability Heuristic • Schemas o Fill in the gaps/info we don’t have o Helps us make judgements o Video—will you remember schemas assoc. with librarian better than waitress (glasses, books, classical music, vs. prototypical things about waitress)  Expected to watch movie with librarian, info will match schema  Participants remembered better the info that was consistent with their notion (seeing what wanted to see) o Guiding interpretation  Sentence scrambling (3/4 words) o Pros: efficient o Cons: lead us to make irrational choices) o Stereotypical schema (black vs. white shooting) Wed. Jan. 15 Social Judgement Cont... • Broca – measured brain size o Adjusted for stature (height) to make French and males seem smarter • Beer study • Suicide note study • Self fulfilling prophecy o i.e. on the phone with someone, knowing they’re nice/pretty, illicits good responses o manipulating perceivers expectations o failure expectations of an interviewer may cause interviewee to fail Lecture 4: Attribution and Person Perception (how people perceive others) • Polaroid camera = makes an instant impression/snap judgements of others • Movies to make you feel lonely, neutral, afraid o i.e. Made people see pets as more human like Wed. Jan. 29 Self Perception cont and Self Deception Self in action: self efficacy cont… Self in action: Culture and agency: • “What you do” • How the self is meant to act • Existing/being • How to be a good person in a given context; what you should do • Disjoint: o Action that you as an isolated person produce depending on belief o You do what you want, follow your passions, dreams, etc. • Conjoint: o A good person is acting in such a way that they are in harmony with his/her social environment o Considering doing what family/spouse may want you to do o Don’t arise from just one person contemplating and feeling certain things **models of agency** on next midterm Self deception: • Q: Doing better than average student vs. worse vs. the same • Motivated reasoning o i.e. want to not believe that your partner is cheating on you, find ways to genuinely disbelieve something that obvious to everyone else o experiment: half students were told being extrovert was associated with being successful o people wrote down memories of shy vs outgoing memories o people who were told extroverts were successful, first thought/latched on to outgoing memory o first told that introverts were successful, thought of an introvert memory  search for memories that support this • evolution and self deception o i.e. self deceiving that you are a great driver o able to deceive self, able to deceive others? • the temporal self o hold constant view of self or criticize past self? o Tend to see ourselves as improving o Temporal self appraisal theory: to desire/think highly of oneself o Ex. wouldn’t say I used to be bad at hockey because not gaining anything o Experiment from chump to champ: wrote out self descriptions, went back and read descriptions as positive, neg, neutral – saw past self as more positive vs. negative, but now see lots more positive traits, hardly no bad traits (self deception bias) o Study 2: asked to rate themselves or friend now or 3.5 months ago, ratings improved over time for self but not for other • Seeing the self: memory perspective st rd o Seeing yourself through 1 vs. 3 person differs in vote • Forecasting: “predicting” o Strong tendency to think we are going to get even better in the future o Also mispredict how we will react/feel to certain events that are going to happen o Impact bias: we think we are going to be more effected by future events than we actually turn out to me  i.e. I couldn’t live without him = forecasting error b/c people don’t actually die when relationship ends  focalism – when u forcase how you would feel ie when parents die, you will imagine future self with dead parents, nothing about passions, etc. you overestimate everything focus on that one piece of info.  Also underestimate how good our coping defenses are/psychological immune system o Experiment: how happy they thought they would be in their dorms(black), how happy they actually were (white) desireable form vs. undesireable • Impression management o 5 dimensions/goals in which we may want other people to see us o When we have these diff goals, we act in diff ways Attitudes: • ABC’s o Affect – how we feel about something o Cognition – o Dentists are friendly-cognitive o I visit the dentist twice a year-behav o I like dentists-affect o Dentists are expensive o I am a ver ucopp-behav Monday, February-03-14 • Challenges to file drawer model: (not a good model) o i.e. say they really want to be healthy, eat a ton of junk food o attitude = an intention, what you claim to say you would do (vs. behaviour) o people’s attitudes shift based on the implied question • inconsistent attitudes: o i.e. asked peoples feeling on sona and if they would like to be in these studies o inconsistent attitudes = showed the least attitude/behavioural correlation – least likely to participate – didn’t matter that they were high on positive thought about sona, low on feeling/behaviour o i.e. loving justin biebers music, hating his behaviour, wouldn’t be able to predict if youd hangout with him or not vs. loving him or hating him • attitude-behav inconsistency: o attitudes didn’t explain behaviour very well o study: 91% said they would discriminate, 1% did discriminate therefore mismatch between attitudes and actual behaviour • question wording: o can shift what people will say by how you frame/tweek your question • constructionist model: (more descriptive) o our attitudes are structures we create o contrast vs. assimilation  i.e. the less I like cats, the more I like dogs vs. all house pets… (?)  study: assimilation – think of a nasty politician asked about politicians in general – have a less trustworthy opinion of politician vs. contrast: think about rob ford, ask about trudeau (specifics), have a more trustworthy opinion  think of a + or – thing that happened to them, recently or 5 years ago, then asked how satisfied with your life are you: good thing that happened recently and bad thing that happened long time ago = happier with cur
More Less

Related notes for PSYCH 253

Log In


Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.