Class Notes (837,998)
Canada (510,614)
Psychology (3,528)
PSY220H1 (190)
J.plak (9)
Lecture

lec notes

23 Pages
123 Views
Unlock Document

Department
Psychology
Course
PSY220H1
Professor
J.plak
Semester
Fall

Description
“Motivation” in social psych jargon: the systematic influence of our desires, goals, and feelings on our cognition and behavior. how we want influence how we think. Two way, our cognition also influence our motivation IQ test, did poorly, most likely to disparage the test, even disparage the whole idea about measuring the intelligence. If you score high in the test, unlikely to against the test. People are highly motivated to protect their self-esteem- if receive something that threat our self-esteem we try to neutralize that. Student at top university have a long history of achieving high in test---such people should do well on any test they take? Result: disparage with those who failed in the test. (motivation is not: Tony Robbins) THE MOTIVATION VS. COGNITION DEBATE Although there may be an intuitive motivational explanation for many phenomena, there is often a competing cognitive explanation that does not involve any motivation. Often a cognitive explanation is based on expectancies. Would Mr. Spock reach the same conclusion? Q. HOW DOES MOTIVATION INFLUENCE OUR BEHAVIOR mediated by our cognition A. BY SYSTEMATICALLY INFLUENCING OUR COGNITION. Self-serving bias. Motivation  Cognition  Behavior 1. Motivated memory search We often don’t realize that our search in memory is not as objective or systematic as it could be (e.g., confirmation bias(have motivational factor), hindsight bias). 2. Creating a (plausible) theory to support your conclusion We often don’t realize that the theory we concoct to support our conclusion could also support the opposite conclusion. Example: Sanitioso, Kunda, & Fong (1990) 1.informed subjects that a given trait (randomly varied: extraversion or introversion) is associated with academic and professional success. (In other words, experimenters instilled motivation to possess that trait). 2.asked to list memories of past behaviors that reflected their standing on the introversion- extraversion dimension. Results: those who told introversion, remember many introversion behavior they have done Kunda (1987) Subjects were: one group who, in childhood, had mothers who had worked (a job) vs. a second group whose mothers had not worked. Subjects asked which type of mother (working vs. nonworking) would more likely lead to children who are happily married. Results: whichever mother you have, you think it is a better predictor for happily married child They are equally plausible opposing theory Motivated bias in our cognition: see what they want to see The eternal balance: self-enhancement vs. “reality constraints” We continue try to balance ourself How do we accomplish the task of boosting ourselves without being delusional? Dunning and colleagues: 1. We take advantage of ambiguity in the world. Vastly people claim they are above average, how’s this possible? hard to define but you can measure if someone is punctuality. We can measure morety, it is concrete trait. Everyone said they are intelligence, we can measure intelligence. We only say we are above average if we can justify it Dunning found that people rated themselves as extraordinary on ambiguous traits (like “sensitive” and “idealistic”), but more honestly on unambiguous traits like “punctual.” 3. Playing fast and loose with inferential rules. People always think small sample is different than large samples Doosje et al. (1995): 1. ½ subjects given desirable info (their group is more prosocial than a rival group) or ½ undesirable info (less prosocial). 2. ½ told this info based on a small sample, ½ told info based on a large sample. Results: Desirable info Undesirable info Large sample accepted accepted Small sample accepted rejected People knew the rule but selectively apply it, they accept it when provide desirable information. Shifting standard. NEED FOR CLOSURE (desire to reach closure) Kruglanski and colleagues: reaching cognitive closure, just simply finishing the task, can often be a goal in its own right. Situational variables that increase need for closure: 1. time pressure 2. task tedium 3. no costs for making an error Also: NFC can vary as a chronic, personality variable (assessed using the NFC questionnaire). Vary at individual difference When in a state of needing closure, our cognition is often characterized by “freezing” early on, as soon as we settle on some provisional answer. Avoid closure-prolong reaching judgement, task self is very interesting. Need for closure can be high or low. Need for closure-dispositional inference, less likely to make situational correction Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm. 1. But 1/3 of the subjects told that after this task, they would get to watch a collection of comedy clips(more interesting, need to closure). 2. Another 1/3 told that after this task they would have to listen to a lecture on statistics (avoid closure). 3. Final 3 told afterwards they will do task as interesting as the current task. Quick closure Neutral Avoid closure Essaywriter 3.76 No choice 2.31 7.08 Free choice 1.69 2.89 2.18 Quick closure: less effort, more exaggerated FAE Avoid closure: more effort, less FAE. Certain motivations can increase or decrease the likelihood of stereotype activation. Fein & Spencer (1997) 1.subjects took intelligence test 2.randomly given positive or negative feedback 3.in a seemingly unrelated study, asked to evaluate a woman described as a candidate for a job, based on her application and videotaped excerpts of her interview. 4. woman portrayed as Jewish vs. non-Jewish by giving her a Jewish name or a non-Jewish name and having her wear a visible star of David or a cross in the video clip. I.e., same woman, different ethnic markers RESULTS: Sinclair and Kunda (1998): 1.Subjects (Whites) received feedback on a test they had taken. 2.Feedback was: positive vs. negative 3.Evaluator was: Black vs. White 4.Other subjects only observed someone else receive one of these types of feedback. 5.Then, as part of an apparently unrelated study, subjects did a word-fragment completion task in which several fragments could be competed with words related to Black stereotype. (Example: P_ _ R) Rationale: You will be motivated to inhibit Black stereotype when you receive praise from a Black person (you are motivated to think highly of people who praise you); you will be motivated to activate stereotype when you receive criticism from Black person (you are motivated to think negatively of people who trash you). Results: SELF Evaluator Black White Positive no stereotype activation little stereotype activation Feedback (even less than for White evaluator) Negative LOTS OF stereotype activation little stereotype activation Feedback Open the door for stereotype activation, with negative feedback from black OTHER Evaluator (watch from mirror) Black White Positive little stereotype activation little stereotype activation Feedback Negative little stereotype activation little stereotype activation Feedback Purpose of evaluator condition: evaluator is not involved, not motivate engage. Provide evidence of motivation explanation. Many ppl belong to more than one group. Black doctor, how do you know which is coming to front. If some one cure by black doctor, more activation of doctor than black. If he appraise you, he is a doctor, if he blame you , he is black Sometimes st
More Less

Related notes for PSY220H1

Log In


OR

Join OneClass

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

Sign up

Join to view


OR

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.


Submit