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

Social Psychology vs. Psychology 100?

Depth!

• Methodology (Chpt. 2) • Group Processes (Chpt. 9) • Interpersonal Attraction (Chpt. 10) • Social Cognition (Chpt. 3) • Pro-social behavior (Chpt. 11) • Self (Chpt. 5) • Prejudice (Chpt. 13) • 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 • 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

More musings on social psychology

• Straightforward observations, reasonably straightforward forces, but

complex dynamics between those forces

complexities .

Longer looks reveal greater Example from physics: – Commonly-used constructs: • Centrifugal force, Centripetal force, Gravity, Entropy – But there are a host of complexities having to do with the

interrelations between these factors:

So too with human beings

• Simple concepts… – Hunger – Desire to be thin • But complex interrelations among these processes – Self-regulation of food intake • Simple concepts… – Associative learning – Social desirability • But complex interrelations among these processes – Self-regulation of stereotyping

Why reasonable-minded people might strongly dislike social psychology

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 Whites Blacks Bad at jazz Good at jazz

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 operational definition questionnaire Facial muscles stereotypes 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 concrete measure questionnaire happiness ?

Facial muscles stereotypes ?

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 – Archival analyses • 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 third variable 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

Bias vs. error

Bias vs. error

Ethical Issues

• Informed consent • Debriefing • Cost-benefit analysis

Deception High Low

Impact vs. deception

Impact high low