100% satisfaction guarantee Immediately available after payment Both online and in PDF No strings attached
logo-home
PSY 102 class note/cheat sheet all chapters_social psychology $6.99
Add to cart

Class notes

PSY 102 class note/cheat sheet all chapters_social psychology

 90 views  5 purchases

This is the class note and course summary of the course PSY 102 social psychology at UCSB. It can be used as a study guide or a cheat sheet for quizzes, midterms, and finals. Each chapter has its own section and the document is typed in bullet points.

Preview 2 out of 6  pages

  • August 3, 2023
  • 6
  • 2022/2023
  • Class notes
  • Hongbo yu
  • All classes
All documents for this subject (1)
avatar-seller
meowww
Intro ○ A systematic investigation, including research development,
● Social psychology definition (Gorden Allport 1954) testing and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to
○ The scientific attempt to explain how the thoughts, feelings, generalizable knowledge
and behaviors of individuals are influenced by the actual, ○ Ethics
imagined, or the implied presence of other human beings ■ Risk assessment; Informed consent; Deception; debriefing
■ Empirical: based on systematic analysis of data ○ Statistics (Descriptive & Inferential)
● Social situation: the people we interact with every day Self
● Social influence: other people change our thoughts etc. and we ● Schema
change theirs ○ Mental structures that organize information
○ Kurt Lewin formula: Behavior = f (person, environment) ○ Eg. person, self, social, event schemas
● Self-concern: motivation to protect self and people related to us ● Self-concept
○ Kin-selection: strategies that favor the reproductive success of ○ A knowledge representation that contains knowledge about us,
one's relatives, even at a cost to our own survival including our beliefs about our personality traits, physical
○ Ingroup: we share close social connections characteristics, abilities, values, goals, and roles, as well as the
● Other-concern: motivation to affiliate with others knowledge that we exist as individuals.
○ Altruistic behaviors; behave morally towards others ● Self-schema
● Social norms: they ways of thinking, feeling, or behaving that are ○ A variety of different cognitive aspects of the self
shared by group members and perceived by them as appropriate ○ Organized from self-concepts (more abstract and complex
Research Methods version of it)
● Importance of scientific research ○ Information related to it is better remembered (self-reference
○ Hindsight bias: the tendency to think that we could have effect)
predicted something that we probably would not have been ● Self-complexity
able to predict. (we exaggerate how much we could predict ○ The extent to which individuals have many different and
after knowing the outcome) relatively independent ways of thinking about themselves
● →theory→hypothesis→prediction→study→data→ ○ People with high self-complexity tend to experience more
● Different Research designs positive outcomes (eg. self-esteem)
● Self-concept clarity
○ The extent to which one’s self-concept is clearly and
consistently defined
○ High clarity is positively related to high self-esteem
● Cultural differences of social self
○ Independent view of self
■ Individualism
○ Interdependent view of self
■ Collectivism
Looking inward: predicting feelings
● Affective misforecast
○ People have difficulty predicting the duration and intensity of
their future emotions
■ Focus problem - focus on the salient aspect, not else
■ Immune neglect - we are more resilient to cope with
negative events
■ Adaptation - hedonic saturation and wanting more
○ Observational
Looking inward: see the self in certain ways
○ Correlational (r)
● Self-enhancement motive
■ Correlation does not mean causation
○ We want to see ourselves (and others to see us) in a positive
○ Experimental
light
■ Control (experimentally manipulating A and examine its
○ Build or protect self-esteem
effects on B)
○ Basking in Reflected Glory (BIRG)
● Manipulation check
■ Associating with others who are successful
■ Random assignment v. sampling
○ Cutting off Reflected Failure (CORF)
■ IV; DV; control variables (irrelevant)
■ Distancing from others who fail
■ High internal validity (IV causes DV; ΔDV is bc of ΔIV)
○ Self-serving bias
■ Limits: construct validity (manipulation check,
● Self-consistency motive
operationalization) & external validity (be generalized
○ Self-awareness theory
outside the lab)
■ When we focus our attention on ourselves, we tend to
■ Factorial research designs (2 or more IVs)
compare our current behavior against our internal
● main effects & interaction
standards (we are self-conscious: observers of ourselves)
■ Deception: cover story; experimental confederate
○ Self-discrepancy theory
(experimenter pretends to be another participant)
■ When we perceive a discrepancy between our actual and
● Conceptual variables → operational definition (method that we use
ideal self, we feel distressed
to measure conceptual variables)
○ Cognitive dissonance theory
○ Method: Archival; Behavioral; Self-report; Physiological
■ We prefer cognitive consistency
● Research definition
■ Cognitive dissonance: discomfort that occurs when we
respond in ways that we see as inconsistent

, ■ Discomfort resolved by rejecting or changing one or more ■ Tendency to attribute others’ behaviors to dispositional
of the inconsistent cognitions factors and ourselves’ to situational factors
○ Self-affirmation theory ■ Self-serving bias
■ Reduce the threat to our self-concept posed by feelings of ● Attribute our success to dispositional reasons(stable,
self-discrepancy by focusing on their worth in another internal) and our failure to situational reasons
domain, unrelated to the issue at hand (unstable, external)
● Self-verification motive ● We see ourselves more favorably than others
○ People have a need to confirm their self-concept–positive or (better-than-average effect)
negative ■ Cultural differences
○ People want others to see them as they see themselves ○ Trait ascription bias
■ May conflict with self-enhancement motive ■ Tendency for people to view their own traits as more
Looking outward variable than those of others
● Reflected self-appraisal (social mirroring) ● Group attribution error
○ We develop our self-concept by observing what others think of ○ Tendency to make attributional generalizations about entire
us (not necessarily in line tho) outgroups based on a very small number of individuals
● The spotlight effect and illusion of transparency ● Less likely to correct FAE under “cognitive load”
○ We think that we are judged by everyone because of the illusion ● We are both intuitive scientists and cognitive misers
of transparency that everyone else is aware of our thoughts Stereotypes, Prejudice, Discrimination
● Social comparison theory ● Social categorization
○ We learn about our abilities and attitudes by comparing ○ We place individuals into social groups
ourselves to others ○ Outgroup homogeneity: view members of outgroups as more
○ When no objective standard or experiencing uncertainty about similar to each other than we see members of ingroups
self; compare is automatic ○ We tend to see others as members of a group, less as unique
○ Upward: if we want to be better individuals
○ Downward: if we want to feel better ● Stereotypes: Beliefs (cognition), positive or negative
● Social identity theory ○ Generalization about the characteristics of members of a group
○ We draw part of our sense of identity and self-esteem from the (any group faces it)
social group that we belong to ○ Stereotype content model
Attribution ■ Evolutionary pressure: one needs to assess others on two
● Attribution basic dimensions
○ How people explain the causes of behaviors ● Warmth/intention (primary) & competence
● Dispositional (internal) (secondary)
● Situational (external) ○ consequences:
● Hypothesis 1: the intuitive scientist ■ Pervasive effects in everyday life, affecting attributions,
○ We make attributions based on rational scientific-like evaluations (prejudice), and behaviors (discrimination)
case-effect analysis ■ Stereotype threat: Fear that one’s performance in a
○ Kelley’s Covariation Model: people make attributions based on domain may confirm a stereotype about one’s group
how behavior varies across people and situations ● Eg. women in STEM; Bian 2017
■ Consensus: other people also do it ● Prejudice: Negative attitudes (Affect)
● Yes → high → situational ● Discrimination: Negative behaviors (B)
● No → low → dispositional ● Explicit bias: speech or behaviors that demonstrate a conscious
■ Distinctiveness: this person behaves similar across acknowledgment of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination
different situations (aware of)
● Yes → low → dispositional ● Implicit bias (automatically, unintentionally)
● No → high → situational ○ Implicit association test (IAT)
■ Consistency: this person usually do this in this situation Bian study 2017: “Brilliance = males” stereotype
● Yes → high → situational OR dispositional ● Study 1
● No → low → combination of situational and ○ “Really really smart” (only adult targets)
dispositional ○ At 5, boys and girls associated brilliance with their own gender
● Hypothesis 2: the cognitive miser to a similar extent
○ We have limited attention and time for effortful logical thinking, ○ Girls aged 6 and 7 were less likely than boys to associate
so we try to avoid engaging in effortful thoughts brilliance with their own gender
○ Fundamental attribution error (correspondence bias) ● Study 2
■ Eg. the castro study; unfair competition ○ Replicated initial findings with a larger sample & rate both
■ Tendency to overestimate dispositional factors and children and adult targets
underestimate situational factors ○ Similar results as study 1
■ Reason 1: role of perceptual salience - people are often the ○ Tho older girls believe girls get better grades (same as reality)
focus of attention, not the situation ● Study 3
■ Reason 2: system justifying beliefs (“just world”) and ○ Girls aged 6/7 were less interested than boys in the game for
meritocracy smart kids but not in the game for hard-working kids
● “Just world” belief: people get what they deserve in ○ Kids’ beliefs about who’s brilliant may guide their decisions
life ● Study 4
● Meritocracy: “if chances are equal, the winners ○ 5 year olds show no gender difference in interest
deserve their winnings” ○ 6 years olds show gender difference (in line with study 3)
○ Actor-observer bias

The benefits of buying summaries with Stuvia:

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Guaranteed quality through customer reviews

Stuvia customers have reviewed more than 700,000 summaries. This how you know that you are buying the best documents.

Quick and easy check-out

Quick and easy check-out

You can quickly pay through credit card or Stuvia-credit for the summaries. There is no membership needed.

Focus on what matters

Focus on what matters

Your fellow students write the study notes themselves, which is why the documents are always reliable and up-to-date. This ensures you quickly get to the core!

Frequently asked questions

What do I get when I buy this document?

You get a PDF, available immediately after your purchase. The purchased document is accessible anytime, anywhere and indefinitely through your profile.

Satisfaction guarantee: how does it work?

Our satisfaction guarantee ensures that you always find a study document that suits you well. You fill out a form, and our customer service team takes care of the rest.

Who am I buying these notes from?

Stuvia is a marketplace, so you are not buying this document from us, but from seller meowww. Stuvia facilitates payment to the seller.

Will I be stuck with a subscription?

No, you only buy these notes for $6.99. You're not tied to anything after your purchase.

Can Stuvia be trusted?

4.6 stars on Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)

50843 documents were sold in the last 30 days

Founded in 2010, the go-to place to buy study notes for 14 years now

Start selling
$6.99  5x  sold
  • (0)
Add to cart
Added