Transcript social psych 315 - Arts and Sciences at Washington

Welcome to Social Psychology 315
• Introductions
• How to enjoy and do
well in this course
– Class attendance
– Reading
– Do not hesitate to ask
questions during class!
• My availability
• Course website:
• http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/
~alambert/socialinks.htm
• Grading
– 3 exams
• Syllabus
What is social psychology?
• Famous definition:
• Scientific study of the way in which people’s
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by
the real or imagined presence of other people
(Gordon Allport, 1985)
An example of the “social psychological
approach” to understanding human
behavior
Amount
probability you would keep
(0% to 100%)
$1
$10
$50
$100
$1,000
$10,000
anticipated conflict
(0-10, with higher #s = more conflict)
Factors or “forces” that might be relevant here
High levels of force
anticipated guilt from keeping money
Subjective expected utility
(what you could do with the money)
1 dollar
10 thousand dollars
amount of money
High levels of force
Alternative Model II
Subjective expected utility
guilt
1 dollar
10 thousand dollars
amount of money
Other potentially relevant factors
•
•
•
•
Assume anonymity, or not?
Specific context?
Need state of individual
Does your model allow for person to
keep some of the money, and return the
rest?
Issues raised by this example that are
common to many if not most other areas
of social psychology
• Seemingly “simple” phenomenon likely to be driven by
multiple and possibly competing forces
– But: empirically testable
• Theories often focus on simple forces, but allow for
possibly complex dynamics between those forces.
• Social desirability problems
• Predicted vs. actual behavior
• “Background assumptions”
• Personality differences
Some common questions/complaints/sources of confusion
• This is pure speculation on your part. How do you know
you’re right?
• There must be a near infinite number of variables that
could be relevant here. Your models are way too simple;
they must be wrong.
• But everyone is different! How can you develop general
theories in this area, and assume that everyone will act the
same?
• What good is your theory if you can’t change people’s
behavior?
Social Psychology vs. Psychology 100?
Depth!
• Methodology (Chpt. 2)
•
Group Processes (Chpt. 9)
• Social Cognition (Chpt. 3)
•
Interpersonal Attraction (Chpt. 10)
•
Pro-social behavior (Chpt. 11)
•
Prejudice (Chpt. 13)
• Self (Chpt. 5)
• Self-justification (Chpt. 6)
• Attitudes (Chpt. 7)
• Conformity (Chpt 8)
• Introductory courses:
– “Laws”; generalized theories
– A convenient, useful starting point
– But in reality, human beings are much more complicated
– There are few “psychological laws”, and almost none in social
psychology
• More advanced courses (including this one):
– It’s all about boundary conditions, baby!
– The conditions under which “psychological effect X” occurs, or
doesn’t occur.
• E.g. conformity; automaticity of stereotypes and prejudice
– Highly complex and sometimes controversial issues
• e.g. Different bases of attraction for men and women
• e.g. Video games and aggression
Let’s begin.
Chapter 2: Methodology
Hypotheses
Choices in Methodological Approaches
Hypothesis
“A belief or assertion as to the causal
relationship between two or more variables”
Guns cause people to become violent.
Pornography makes men rape women.
Prejudice can be reduced by intergroup contact.
Watching too much of “American Idol” can result in brain damage.
A fundamental assumption in our field: Social problems (such as
those above) can be studied empirically.
“Let the data decide”
Where do hypotheses come from?
• Current debates in our culture
• Public, puzzling events
– E.g. Kitty Genovese murder
• Researcher’s own experiences
Methodological choices
• The identical social problem can be
studied in different ways
• Choices reflect fundamental values held
by scientist
– Precision vs. Realism
– Manipulating vs. observing
• Four major “types”: experimental, archival,
observational, correlational
I. The Classic Experimental
(Logical Positivist) Approach
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
Borrows from the so-called “hard” sciences
Experimental method
Manipulation of variables
Emphasis on control, precision
Random assignment to condition
Usually focus on concrete (easily measurable,
quantifiable)
ADVANTAGES VS. DISADVANTAGES
Logical Positivism
B. F. Skinner
John Watson
• Basic idea
• Examples of phenomena that a strict positivist
would not study
I. Typical experimental designs
random assignment to condition; measure everyone once, more or less at
the same time
II. Quasi-experimental design: less control, allows
more noise into the system.
Here are three different examples of a “pre vs. post” design
X = a manipulation of
some sort
O = observation
TIME
Social Psychologists and
logical positivism
• Many social psychologists want both:
– Precision of measurement, AND
– Be able to focus on “messy” variables that
are fairly difficult to define, let alone
measure
How?
Operational Definitions
• Examples
Abstract variable
Self esteem
Happiness
stereotypes
operational definition
questionnaire
Facial muscles
Reaction time
Note: some operational definitions are better than
others—we shall return to this point.
Validity and the
experimental method
• On the “market value” of experiments
• Three types of validity:
– External
– Internal
– Construct
1. External
• Are the results generalizable across…
– Situations
– People (Sears, 1986)
• “The psychology of the college sophomore”
• REPLICATE, REPLICATE, REPLICATE!
– “One replication is worth a thousand t-tests”
2. Internal Validity
• Definition: Confidence in making a causal
link between your IV and the DV.
• Avoidance of confounds
• Random assignment
• Absence of demand effects
3. Construct Validity
• Two related parts:
– Are you measuring what you think you’re
measuring?
– Are you manipulating what you think you’re
manipulating?
Construct validity for measurement of variables
Abstract variable
optimism
?
happiness
?
stereotypes
?
concrete measure
questionnaire
Facial muscles
Self report; RTs
•In this context, CV is defined as the certainty with which
the abstract variable is being accurately measured by the
concrete variable.
•Higher certainty = higher construct validity
Construct validity for manipulation
of variables
Similar as before, but here concerned with link
between abstract variable and its manipulation.
Abstract variable
Concrete manipulation
“media violence”
Randomly assign participants
to watch 1 hour of either “Kill
Bill” or Mr. Rogers’
Neighborhood
“Tricks” (tools of the trade) used by
experimental social psychologists
• Hard to be completely realistic, but they can try
to compensate by…
– Use of confederates, “staging”, sometimes deception
– Make psychological dynamics as real as possible
(even though the setting may be artificial)
• Best example: Milgram (1963) study!
If the experimental method is so great, why
doesn’t everyone use it all the time?
Other methodologies
• Observational and Archival
• Correlational
1. Observational methods
– “hidden camera” or “behind the bushes”
approaches
– Ethnography
• Strengths vs. Weaknesses
Correlational
• Often, through surveys
• advantages
• Main disadvantage: Correlation does not
equal causation
– Note: it is not the observation that is being
challenged, it is the interpretation
• Interpretation of correlational designs are
often made more difficult by “third
variable” problems
X
Y
Z
some examples of thirdvariable problems
• Eating breakfast and academic performance
• General diet and health
– E.g. people who regularly eat broccoli are….
• Condom use and incidence of STDs (vs. diaphrams
and contraceptive sponges)
• Coffee and heart attacks
• Sports cars and accident rates
• People who watch public TV and frequency of sex.
Some famous goofs in
methodology
• 1936 presidential race
– Franklin Delano Roosevelt vs. Alf Landon
–Poll by Literary Digest (based on telephone
surveys) predicts Landon will win
–Affluent voters tended to be conservative, and
affluent voters also more likely to have phones
–Non-representative sample
History repeats itself in 1948 presidential election
Same problem—telephone polling
Exit polls in 2004 presidential
election