In this weeks content we learned that some people process information peripherally whereas others process information centrally (Elaboration Likelihood Model).? One factor that
Answer each question in 150 words using only the sources provided
1. In this week’s content we learned that some people process information peripherally whereas others process information centrally (Elaboration Likelihood Model). One factor that can determines which route people use is one’s Need for Cognition (how much someone enjoys thinking). If I told you ‘People who are low on Need for Cognition should not be allowed to serve on juries because they won’t process the case facts in a thorough, meaningful way.’ How would you respond to that? Do you agree or disagree? Support your position.
2. Does Heuristics have a big impact on social issues? Can it be rectified? How so?
Chapter 5
Social Cognition Part 1
Today’s outline
Social cognition in general
Elaboration likelihood model
A model that explains two possible routes for processing information and making decisions
Controlled vs automatic processing
Knowledge structures
Schemas, scripts, priming, framing
Cognitive coherence
A model that explains how people make decisions in the real world
Development of social cognition
Behaviorism had been focused on observable actions and not internal states
But social psychologists contended that we can still measure/access thoughts, both directly and indirectly, using clever methodology
E.g. Measuring behavior after a discussion with someone of another race, in order to assess racist attitudes
Social cognition
Social Cognition: the study of any kind of thinking by people about people or social relationships
It’s a good thing social psychologists decided to look into social cognition because it turns out we think more about people than any other subject (Fiske & Taylor, 1991)
Social psychology
Do you like to think?
Humans have the largest prefrontal cortex of any animal, but…
Do humans like to think???
Turns out, no!
Conscious, rational thought requires a lot of energy and effort
Social cognition
Social psychologists developed the term ‘cognitive miser’ to describe human thought
Just as a miser doesn’t like to spend money and does so rarely, so do cognitive misers avoid thinking
*Notable exceptions:
When it comes to people’s favorite things (hobbies, sports, interests, etc.) people can and do readily think and devour knowledge
Some people do like to think in general, how do we know?
Need for cognition
Caccioppo & Petty (1982) developed a scale called Need for Cognition (NFC)
It measures the “tendency for an individual to engage in and enjoy effortful thinking”
Going back to persuasion from last lecture, someone’s NFC level is an audience (to whom) characteristic
Those high in NFC are more easily persuaded by strong arguments, but do not find weak arguments compelling
Example of strong argument: college students should have to take comprehensive exams at the end of senior year because that boosts starting salaries
Example of a weak argument: college students should have to take comprehensive exams because graduate students complained that because they have to, undergrads should too
Brief Note:
Before we continue, we are going to use a lot of terms in this chapter to mostly express the same things concerning the two different modes of thinking and the duplex mind:
Conscious vs. non-conscious
Central vs. peripheral
Systematic vs. heuristic
Controlled vs. automated
At different points we will use different terms, only because those were the terms the researchers used for their specific studies
But it’s important to recognize the themes and similarities
Elaboration Likelihood Model
Petty and Caccioppo (1986) later proposed a general model of how people process information to make decisions
Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM):
There are two routes to processing information or something a speaker says
Central route: conscious, systematic, slow, deliberative processing that evaluates the content of a message
Peripheral route: involves automatic, heuristic, non-conscious decision-making that is influenced by simple cues, e.g. the speaker is attractive
Elaboration Likelihood Model continued
So which route of processing (central or peripheral) will someone use?
Well, it depends!
How high is their ‘need for cognition’?
If high, they will most likely use the central route
The other huge determinant of route is motivation
Someone who is only passingly concerned with whatever they’re hearing/reading will most likely digest the information through the peripheral route
I suspect this happens with evaluating the arguments of politicians
Whereas if the information is extremely important, e.g. about your health, your bills, etc., someone will likely use the central route
Elaboration Likelihood Model continued
Which route
Distraction is also a factor, it often forces people to process the information peripherally
Ability to understand the aspects of the decision matter as well
E.g. if you had to sit in on an advanced lecture on biochemistry, you may be processing it peripherally because you lack the requisite knowledge to process it centrally
In 1980 Petty & Caccioppo demonstrated this by showing that men were more easily persuaded by an article about current fashion trends, whereas women were more easily persuaded about a football article
Elaboration Likelihood Model continued
Attitude change from a message processed peripherally tends to be weaker than one processed centrally
Some peripheral cues people often attend to:
Experts know best
What’s beautiful is good
The more arguments the better
Good products are more expensive
Controlled vs automatic thinking
There are 5 key differences:
Effort
Automatic processing does not leave one feeling tired and taxed like controlled thinking does
Intention
Automatic processing occurs regardless of our intention, like when tried reading the Stroop test (black) quickly but automatic processing got in the way
Efficiency
Automatic processing happens faster
Awareness
Automatic processing happens outside of awareness, e.g. driving a very familiar route
Control
We don’t have control over automatic thinking (which is good and bad)
Automatic thinking
One way that automatic thinking is able to help us and save us time/effort is by making use of ‘knowledge structures’
Organized packets of information that are stored in memory
When people think about a concept, it becomes active in memory, and so do related concepts
When activated enough times, those concepts become a set, they run together like an airplane on autopilot
The following are some examples of this; automatic thinking in action
Schemas
Schemas are an important way we go through life without expending too much effort to understand the world
We have schemas for everything
A fish (scales, slimy, gills, fins, etc.)
Playing golf (club, golf balls, tees, golf carts)
Driving in a car
When something unexpected occurs that violates our schema, this can give us pause and shift us into conscious, controlled thinking
Scripts
Scripts are schemas for events
They guide our expectations and behavior in social situations
E.g. how to act at: a job interview, lunch with your mom, a party, a grocery store, etc.
They can be learned from direct experience
Or just from observational learning
You probably saw movie scenes from what a college party looks like long before you ever attended one
Priming
*Priming is an incredibly important concept
Concepts are linked together in memory
E.g. chalk and board, apple and juice
When a concept becomes active, so to do the other nearby/related concepts
William James described priming as, the “wakening of associations”
Let’s review how we know this happens from the wide variety of research on priming
Priming continued
If you are doing a word sorting task, and you sort ‘nurse,’ and then you are given ‘doctor’, you will sort doctor faster if the preceding word was nurse but not if it was aardvark
Participants were primed with a set of words that included neutral words (him, as, usually) and then either a rude word (bother) or a polite word (courteous)
Participants then have an interaction with an experimenter and a confederate; the participant must wait until they are finished talking
If primed with a rude word, participants are annoyed they had to wait and rate the experimenter as rude
This does not occur if primed with the concept of polite
Priming continued
Other studies in priming have yielded interesting results as well
If participants do a study during which subliminal images of old faces are flashed
Those participants walk down the hall more slowly when leaving the study than control condition participants
Legal psychology studies have demonstrated really clearly that guns prime violence
When participants came in for a study and saw objects on a nearby table, some saw a gun, some saw a racquet
Those who saw the gun behaved more aggressively (gave more shocks and higher voltage shocks) to an imagined confederate
Priming continued
Consider, for a moment, all of the implications of priming
If you have a bad interaction/argument with your roommate, how does that taint your perception of ambiguous events that follow it?
Would you think the cashier at the store was rude to you too?
If Sue works with kids all day, would the concepts of youth, energy, naivety, etc. all just be permanently primed for Sue?
If someone carries a gun, does that prime them to interpret ambiguous events as hostile?
Will that person be more likely to escalate a situation that could have been diffused because concepts of violence are already active in their mind?
Framing
Would you rather eat a hamburger that’s 10% fat or 90% lean?
Functionally, the same thing
But research says you’d be more likely
to eat it if it said 90% lean
Gain-framed appeals
Eating vegetables will prevent diabetes
Gain-framed appeals more effective when targeting behaviors that prevent a disease
Loss-framed appeals
If you don’t floss, you’ll have bad breath
Loss-framed appeals more effective at getting people to detect a disease they already have but are unaware of
Automatic processing
We just covered different ways in which automatic thinking can occur
Schemas
Scripts
Priming
Framing
We will essentially cover more next lecture when we discuss heuristics
For now though, let’s take a break and consider how some legal psychologists explain decision-making
Coherence Methodology
Participants read through a legal case and rated evidence at 3 different times while going through the case
Evidence Rating # 1 – Abstract Evidence Vignettes
Here participants read about unrelated, abstract situations relating to evidence, they’re not part of a story
E.g. How compelling would you find it if a witness who observed a crime identified the perpetrator from a line-up and stated he/she had 90% confidence in his/her identification
These same evidence scenarios comes up again later, as part of the case
-baseline. Unrelated. E.g. fingerprint
-Complex trial, both sides compelling. individ dm
-Same as earlier, just fleshed out now.
Mistake, no input from vet judge.
23
Coherence Methodology
Participants told they will now play the role of a trial judge & eventually render a verdict
Evidence Rating # 2
They now read through case narrative and provide their initial feelings about the case by rating each piece of evidence
These are the same pieces of evidence from before, only now they have the names from the trial and are strung together to form a narrative/story/case
The case is deliberately ambiguous, some pieces of evidence point to guilt, others point to innocence
Coherence Methodology
Participants are then given some time to consider their decision
Finally, participants were asked to render a verdict of guilty or not guilty
Evidence Rating # 3
Then they rated each piece of evidence again, after having provided their verdict
Results
~ 50/50 split among participants in terms of voting guilty or not guilty
we would expect this, the trial was designed to be ambiguous
but…..
Almost all participants had 'near maximum' confidence in their decision
how?!?! How can they be so confidence with so much contrary evidence starring them in the face
Acquitters vs. 'Convicters'
50/50 with respect to verdict. Amazing finding, pretty strong opinions. Little insight into these shifts when asked about them.
27
Coherence Results continued
Results from the previous slide
Over time, people’s decisions began to ‘cohere’/shift
Meaning, when a participant rated the evidence during the second set of ratings, if a participant was leaning toward the evidence implying the defendant’s guilt
Then by the time that participant reached a guilty verdict and rated the evidence one final time, he/she strongly believed the evidence implied the defendant was guilty
Even though everyone saw the same evidence, convictors strongly believe in the suspect’s guilt, acquiters strongly belived in the suspect’s innocence
And everyone’s ratings of each individual piece of evidence shifted in correspondence with their eventual decision
And remember, the evidence itself never changes
Discussion
Every participant came to a polarized decision
we would have expected people to be more neutral, as that's what the evidence reflects
When participants rated the evidence the first time, they rated it as neutral
Implication:
***this is a huge problem for the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' standard***
look how much reasonable doubt there should have been in this trial. Half the evidence pointed to the defendant being not-guilty
yet 50% of people convicted the defendant
Discussion Cont'd
What was Simon's explanation
of these 'coherence' findings?
1. The mind does NOT like ambiguity
it seeks to make complex decisions simple
coherent decisions that result in a confident choice
2. Each piece of evidence doesn't seem to have a discrete 'weight' or 'value'
they're not just added up. Or we would have seen participants with neutral opinions
because half the evidence was inculpating and half exculpating.
Discussion Cont'd
Different from confirmation bias
they had no prior opinions to confirm
their initial ratings of evidence in the abstract were neutral
Different from Dissonance
it's not a post-decision dissonance reduction finding
their opinions shifted throughout
a follow-up Simon study had them just try to memorize the case info (not make a decision)
people still ended up with polarized opinions!
Discussion Cont'd
The Coherence study results are an interesting illustration of conscious vs non-conscious decision-making
Participants were consciously trying to weigh the evidence and arrive at a verdict
Yet, when asked follow-up questions, participants did not realize their opinions had shifted so dramatically
The non-conscious/automated mind seems to function in such a way as to help us feel confident and secure when making our decisions
Even when the decisions are incredibly ambiguous
Take-home point
Try to be aware of coherence in your own complex decisions
is your mind shifting towards one conclusion just to shift? or is there really good reason for it?
Many facets of decision-making occur non-consciously
Be aware of overconfidence in decisions
,
Chapter 11
Attraction & Exclusion
Today’s Outline
Attraction
Belongingness
Similarity
Physical attractiveness
Reciprocity
Rejection
Causes of rejection
Effects of rejection
Loneliness
Attraction & Exclusion
As social animals, humans are, at their core, truly concerned with attraction and exclusion
Indeed the point of social psychology may be to understand why some are accepted and loved, while others are rejected
Take a moment to consider times in your life where you might have been afraid of romantic rejection or perhaps were seeking social acceptance with a new group of peers
Attraction & Exclusion
The need to belong is defined as the desire to form and maintain close, lasting relationships with some other individuals
Needing to belong is considered a fundamental drive or basic need of the human psyche
Warren Jones, “In two decades of studying loneliness, I have met many people who said they had no friends. I have never met any one who didn’t want to have any friends.”
Need to belong
From an evolutionary psychology perspective:
Attraction and acceptance are necessary for reproduction
Additionally, humans likely developed a herd mentality to increase our odds of survival
Consider all the ways we know our behavior changes in groups
Monkeys can recognize that any two monkeys may have an alliance, be forming one, or might be likely to fight
One theory is that the human brain developed more to keep track of a highly complex social world
Two components to belongingness
1. Regular, positive social interactions
Regular is key here, many of us have formed friendships but moved on to new situations in our life and lost regular contact with old friends
Positive is also key, hanging out with that person you always argue with doesn’t fill that social need
2. Stable relationship/friendship in which people share mutual concern for each other
Typically research has shown people want about 1-5 close friends
People are less concerned with casual friends/acquaintances
How bad for you is not belonging?
Belonging is called a need, not a want, perhaps for these reasons
Death rates from various diseases increase among people with no social connections (Lynch, 1979)
People who are alone have more mental and physical problems (Uchino, Cacioppo, & Kiecolt-Glaser, 1996)
Loneliness reduces the ability of the immune system to heal the body (Cacioppo & Hawkley, 2005)
Attraction – Similarity, complementarity, & opposites
Which old saying turns out to be true, “Birds of a feather flock together” or “Opposites attract”
The research has pointed to birds of a feather being the clear winner
In any relationship ranging from acquaintance to lover, opposites are unlikely to stay connected in the long run
Typically, but not always, our friends are similar in age, race, education level, political leaning, economic status, etc.
Note this is kind of a bad thing too, as it can lead us to assume everyone shares the opinions of your social group
How often do you see people unfriend others on Facebook over political disagreements?
Attraction – Similarity, complementarity, & opposites
Similarity
We tend to like friends who do the same activities that we do
Some researchers have even suggested that when a romantic couple gets into a relationship, if their levels of physical attractiveness aren’t quite similar, they will be more likely to break up
Have couples who are in different physical leagues stuck out to you as unusual?
Attraction – Similarity, complementarity, & opposites
Indeed, matching
hypothesis has been
supported, couples
are more likely to break
up if there’s a difference
in physical attractiveness
(even serious couples)
Attractiveness & Attraction
Speaking of physical attractiveness, most of us would say ‘we know it when we see it,’ but how do researchers define and measure it?
For starters, which of these 3 faces is the most attractive?
Attractiveness & Attraction
I chose the middle one. According to research findings, most people would choose either the middle or the right photo
The left photo is the original
Attractiveness & Attraction
Facial symmetry
Symmetrical faces are almost always rated as more attractive
The more symmetrical, the better
The implication is that facial symmetry implies genetic fitness. Asymmetry is a sign of genetic imperfections
To demonstrate that genetics are the explanation behind this, researchers (Thornhill & Gangestad, 1999) took the t-shirts that men slept in and asked women to smell and rate their scent
Some of the men had clear genetic asymmetry, length of pinky fingers or ear lobes
Women preferred the smell of men with genetic symmetry
They especially preferred the symmetric men’s scent when
at the point in their period when reproduction was ideal
Attractiveness & Attraction
Facial symmetry continued
More research has used computer software to merge/combine faces
For example, people rate the attractiveness of two faces, and then the faces are combined, and they rate the composite of the previous two faces
People mostly like composite faces better
In fact, the more faces that one combines, the more people liked it
E.g. a 16-face facial composite is preferred over a 4-face composite
Symmetrical, or ‘averaged,’ faces are preferred
Consider how saying someone looks inbred is the opposite
Lack of genetic diversity causes issues and is unappealing
Attractiveness & Attraction
Alright, we’ve covered faces, what about bodies?
Attractiveness & Attraction
Studies by Singh (1993) measured male ratings of silhouettes of woman’s bodies
He manipulated the size of the waist (belly fat) and the size of the hips
He find found that a low waist to hip ration, like .7, was preferred. This matches the standard hourglass shape people talk about
A small effect was found for women preferring men with a .9 waist to hip ratio
Subsequent research found the male shoulder to waist ratio was much more important, e.g. a V-shape
Attractiveness & Attraction
Alright, but how does physical attractiveness stack up to other aspects of attractiveness (having things in common, warmth, career success, etc.)
It can be summed up by one of my favorite quotes from your textbook authors:
“The fancy theories about matchmaking and similarity and reciprocity couldn’t shine through the overwhelming preference for the best-looking partners”
Attractiveness & Attraction
Attractiveness predicts date satisfaction more than any other dimension
Relates back to the Halo Effect, which can also be called ‘what is beautiful is good effect’
People (presumably) have other good traits if they’re attractive
Attractiveness & Attraction
Hortacsu and Ariely (2006) found that women stated a preference for taller men
But that preference could be offset if the man made enough money
E.g. for a 5 foot 8 inch guy, he could get as many dates as a taller guy if he made roughly 150k more
E.g. a 5 foot 2 guy could keep up with taller guys if he made 277k more than them
However, other research has shown that while women state a preference for taller guys, they don’t find them more attractive once having met them (Sheppard & Strathman, 1989)
Similarly, short men don’t report having less dates than tall men
Attractiveness & Attraction
Beyond considering romantic or sexual partners, being good looking confers other benefits. Good looking people are more likely to:
Do better in job interviews
Receive more help from strangers during emergencies
Be more popular among their peers
This even applies to young children
Teachers like attractive kids better as well
Finally, even 3-month-old babies show a preference for staring longer at attractive faces
Attractiveness & Attraction
According to principles of behaviorism:
We like people and romantic partners when they praise or compliment us (feels good, so we have positive associations with them)
We also like people who do us favors. This can take the form of help, gifts, cooking food, etc.
The exception in both of those cases is when the favors or compliments are seen as manipulative
Attractiveness & Attraction
As we discussed in the social influence chapter, reciprocity has compelling effects
As such, when someone likes us, we are inclined to like them by default
One exception is when we don’t like someone back and don’t want to spend time with them
Can cause us to feel guilty and/or turn them away
Attractiveness & Attraction
Nonverbal reciprocity
Lakin & Chartrand (2005) found that participants liked confederates better who mimicked their behavior (giggling, putting one’s hand on one’s face, etc.) than those confederates who didn’t mimic
Try it out in your life! Just don’t make it too obvious ;p
Attractiveness & Attraction
A few final points about attraction
The ‘mere exposure effect’ (Ch. 7) applies to liking people too
Also called the propinquity effect, we like people that we encounter regularly
Makes us feel like our environment is stable and predictable
But like the mere exposure effect, if our initial response is dislike, disliking gets worse
Social allergy effect: a partner’s annoying habits get more annoying over time
Rejection
Rejection is a broad term, referring to being turned down for a date, being dumped, being fired, being kicked off of a team, not invited to an event with your usual friends, etc.
Ostracism is another word for it, being excluded, rejected, or ignored by others
Why does rejection occur?
What causes rejection
Reasons differ by context
Among children, other kids are rejected if they’re:
1. Aggressive
physically or verbally
2. Withdrawn
Often just by him/herself
3. Different/deviant
Just unlike peers in some way
What causes rejection
Among adults
Typically deviance
Just being too different from people around you
Shame on some level, because that stifles uniqueness
Bad apple
Making others of your group look bad
What causes rejection
Romantic Rejection
When turning people down, people often cite external reasons (too busy, not looking for a relationship, etc.)
But the reason is almost always internal (not attracted to person, don’t like them, etc.)
Those external answers are polite, but can lead to confusion
Rejected people can become a stalkers
There has also been a trend lately of men rejected by women to become violent and go on a shooting spree as a result
Psychological effects of rejection
The effects of rejection are uniformly bad
Pain
Illness
Depression
Suicidal thoughts
Life seeming pointless
Risky sexual behavior
People can develop rejection sensitivity
Reluctance to open up to new people for fear of being hurt
Psychological effects of rejection
Similar to shocking physical pain, sometimes the psychological response to an important rejection is numbness
The mental distress, anxiety, and sadness come later
Rejection makes people temporarily stupid, in terms of cognitive performance
Rejection also suppresses people’s ability to self-regulate or control their behavior
More likely to binge eat sweets
Behavioral effects of rejection
Less generous, cooperative, and helpful
More impulsive and destructive
Higher levels of aggression
Before shootings in the U.S. became so frequent, the narrative was that school shooters were often rejected outcasts
There may be some truth to that narrative, but it’s not always the case and it certainly doesn’t excuse shooting people
Loneliness
When we discuss lonely people, we mean chronically lonely, not temporarily because someone moved to a new city
Comparing lonely to non-lonely people defies a lot of the stereotypes about lonely people
There are no appreciable differences in attractiveness, intelligence, or general social skills between lonely and non-lonely people
But, lonely people do seem to do a bad job of detecting the emotional states of people they interact with
This may lead to friction in social relationships
Lonely people interact with others as often as non-lonely (quantity), but the interaction quality is poorer
Loneliness
Recommendations:
Someone who is often lonely should get a pet! They help a lot
Improve at monitoring emotional states
Continuing to attempt to form meaningful bonds with people
Live closer to family
Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers
Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.
Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS
Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?
Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.
We write plagiarism Free Content
Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.
Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.
