Favorite Social Psychologists
Dr G.: cuz she uses the word 'sexy'
Dan Gilbert: Because his writing style is very engaging
Milgram: Because he's not just famous, but he's also notorious for his experiment
Zajonc: Because he has a cool/funny name (and I pronounced it 'zuh junk' for a while, which is hilarious)
Sherif: because his experiment was so environmentally realistic (robber's cave at a camp) (you could put asch here too)
Mark Leary: Because he's also a very good writer and can dumb down involved concepts and theories
Favorite Theories/ Concepts
self-perception theory- its just amazing, it shows how little access we have to ourselves, that we treat ourselves like we do others when trying figure out our emotions or motives
central/peripheral routes - I've always wondered why some people make decision based on reason and others based on weird, superficial stuff, and it always angered me and now that I know a term I can attack it
relative deprivation - it hits head on one of the stupidest parts of our existence, that the grass is always greener on the other side of the fence
availability heuristic - these kinds of consistent fallacies of human reasoning are just intriguing
cognitive dissonance - it shows how we fool ourselves all the time, and don't even know it, that we don't know the reasons for our attitudes is so shocking that the only conclusion one can draw is our sense of self and control (even freedom) is all just a nice little illusion neatly held together by any number of processes like cognitive dissonance
Friday, December 5, 2008
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Book Project: Podcast Blog
This is the full version of my podcast blog which I did on the book I read, The Curse of the Self, by Mark Leary. The purpose of this project was to bring the material into a compact, digestible form to college students while making it clear why this material was applicable and important to their lives.
This is the shortened version.
This is the shortened version.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
The Wealth Re-distributor
Don't ask me why I'm still talking about Obama and the election, I swear I really don't think about it all that much now that he's won, it just seems like campaigns offer so many interesting social psychological concepts to draw on. Maybe I was also primed by the JFK quote on page 287.
Public goods dilemmas (Olson, 1965) are when everyone in a group must contribute to a common resource pool in order to keep some kind of service or benefit going. Individuals must struggle between what is good for them immediately (keeping what they have instead of contributing) with what may be good for them in the long run, which is cooperating and contributing.
Taxes are a perfect example. Towards the end of the election, right after the Joe the Plumber craze McCain sparked, the republicans began to attack Obama for a comment he made during a debate as the "Wealth Re-distributor". Once again, blue collar voters were outraged at the idea. They wanted to keep what was theirs (even though Obama said nothing about taking anything away from them). McCain argued that Obama was focused on redistributing wealth and not in creating more wealth, or growing the economy. The ironic thing is that any new wealth that is created would most likely go to the wealthy. We've seen in this country that the richer get richer and the poorer poorer.
Anyway, the people value individual property and individual gain in this country. It stems from the fact that we idealize capitalism as 'the way to go'. Why? Because anyone can become anything, even rich, in one's lifetime, no matter how poor you are born. Nowadays we can even fix looks. The point is, that the number of people who break those kinds of boundaries number about as many as win a lottery, while the rest of the people must find ways to live with the current situation of health care, mortgages, insurance, etc. What is clearly in everyone's best interest is if we re-distribute wealth, we who aren't rich aren't going to see too much more wealth period. Especially if we kept going down the path of de-regulation, lobbying, etc.
But the thing which makes a capitalist economy run is competition. Cooperation is not valued, in fact is too foreign to conceive as a plausible option. I remember hearing somewhere someone tell me that an Asian speaker once asked where in our values (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) did cooperation and harmony come in.
I guess many blue collar voters have decided it doesn't, even though the current system is what has brought them all their troubles.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Public goods dilemmas (Olson, 1965) are when everyone in a group must contribute to a common resource pool in order to keep some kind of service or benefit going. Individuals must struggle between what is good for them immediately (keeping what they have instead of contributing) with what may be good for them in the long run, which is cooperating and contributing.
Taxes are a perfect example. Towards the end of the election, right after the Joe the Plumber craze McCain sparked, the republicans began to attack Obama for a comment he made during a debate as the "Wealth Re-distributor". Once again, blue collar voters were outraged at the idea. They wanted to keep what was theirs (even though Obama said nothing about taking anything away from them). McCain argued that Obama was focused on redistributing wealth and not in creating more wealth, or growing the economy. The ironic thing is that any new wealth that is created would most likely go to the wealthy. We've seen in this country that the richer get richer and the poorer poorer.
Anyway, the people value individual property and individual gain in this country. It stems from the fact that we idealize capitalism as 'the way to go'. Why? Because anyone can become anything, even rich, in one's lifetime, no matter how poor you are born. Nowadays we can even fix looks. The point is, that the number of people who break those kinds of boundaries number about as many as win a lottery, while the rest of the people must find ways to live with the current situation of health care, mortgages, insurance, etc. What is clearly in everyone's best interest is if we re-distribute wealth, we who aren't rich aren't going to see too much more wealth period. Especially if we kept going down the path of de-regulation, lobbying, etc.
But the thing which makes a capitalist economy run is competition. Cooperation is not valued, in fact is too foreign to conceive as a plausible option. I remember hearing somewhere someone tell me that an Asian speaker once asked where in our values (life, liberty, pursuit of happiness) did cooperation and harmony come in.
I guess many blue collar voters have decided it doesn't, even though the current system is what has brought them all their troubles.
Olson, M. (1965). The logic of collective action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
That's Not All!
The 'That's not All' technique (Burger, 1986) takes advantage of our need to reciprocate by increasing our willingness to comply with a request, such as buying a product, by sweetening the deal. This technique is the predominant one found in infomercials, where one price for a product is offered, and then free stuff is thrown in (though it was intended to be thrown in all along). The value is increased but the price stays the same, what a deal!
Several weeks ago a friend and I were selling "Undefeated Since 1950" shirts for $12 each. We weren't having any luck, many had already bought some and most didn't have money on them, so Chris started fooling around. He made a sales pitch that no one could refuse.
"Hurry! Act now! Buy one of these awesome Undefeated Since 1950 shirts for only $70! But wait, that's not all, if you buy now I'll throw in two extra shirts at no extra charge, and I'LL CUT THE PRICE IN HALF!!!! That's only $37.50, and saves you over $150!"
It was all in jest, of course. But he demonstrated this technique perfectly. No one in their right minds would have bought a shirt at the original price, but afterwards, it was only $1.50 more than buying the three shirts at the price we were really offering them. So the concept is sound, raise the price initially, then give in right away to the price you thought was already compelling. The perception of you conceding would be powerful enough to increase sales than merely selling them at the end price.
So, though our sales didn't increase, if we had a name brand behind us, like Ralph Lauren, I think people would've fallen for thinking a cheaply made shirt with slightly overpriced end tag was a bargain if the original price was outrageously high like the sort that I demonstrated above.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.
Several weeks ago a friend and I were selling "Undefeated Since 1950" shirts for $12 each. We weren't having any luck, many had already bought some and most didn't have money on them, so Chris started fooling around. He made a sales pitch that no one could refuse.
"Hurry! Act now! Buy one of these awesome Undefeated Since 1950 shirts for only $70! But wait, that's not all, if you buy now I'll throw in two extra shirts at no extra charge, and I'LL CUT THE PRICE IN HALF!!!! That's only $37.50, and saves you over $150!"
It was all in jest, of course. But he demonstrated this technique perfectly. No one in their right minds would have bought a shirt at the original price, but afterwards, it was only $1.50 more than buying the three shirts at the price we were really offering them. So the concept is sound, raise the price initially, then give in right away to the price you thought was already compelling. The perception of you conceding would be powerful enough to increase sales than merely selling them at the end price.
So, though our sales didn't increase, if we had a name brand behind us, like Ralph Lauren, I think people would've fallen for thinking a cheaply made shirt with slightly overpriced end tag was a bargain if the original price was outrageously high like the sort that I demonstrated above.
Burger, J. M. (1986). Increasing compliance by improving the deal: The that's-not-all technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 277-283.
Barack! Barack!
We live in an age of advertising. Every day we are bombarded with the frantic, desperate attempts of companies to change our attitudes about their products so that we will buy them. However, there are a lot of difficulties in accomplishing this, for people's attitudes are surprisingly resilient for a number of reasons, especially when they perceive that someone is purposely trying to persuade them.
We had an election on Tuesday and elected our next president. What will be studies for years to come is the myriad of ways that the campaigns, first in the primaries and then in the general election, tried to change people's attitudes about their respective candidates. What worked? What didn't? Why?
There are two ways advertisers or campaigns may try to get an audience to change its attitude towards a target. One form of persuasion involves a central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where the audience is persuaded through the strength and quality of the arguments presented. In a campaign, this would be a focus on issues and specific policies to address those issues. The other route is called the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where people focus on more superficial cues than the argument.
One of the important factors in determining which route an audience will take is the perceived importance of the decision and thus the motivation of the individual. If highly motivated, people will take the central route, if not, the peripheral. Many if not most people thought of this election as particularly important, so one would assume that many people took a central route to making their decision.
A very demonstrative use of peripheral and central routes by the candidates can be seen in the 'Joe the Plumber' argument used by McCain. McCain and Palin addressed tens of thousands of blue collar workers and preached the woes of Joe the Plumber. This argument relied on the ommission of Obama's economic policy plans. Where Obama intended to give tax cuts to families and businesses making less than $250,000 of income or profit (95% of families and 98% of small businesses), McCain persuaded his blue collar workers that Obama intended to raise their taxes by relying on the peripheral cues of his argument. McCain's very effective accusations never addressed the specific policies that Obama intended to enact, and were never supported by anything substantial. They simply held their own because of the perception of Democrats as tax raisers.
What is also important to realize is that the central and peripheral routes can represent a continuum, and not a dichotomy. Some routes people take can lean toward one or the other. To demonstrate this, I video taped a friend on election day to get a feel of how he perceived the candidates, and how he constructed these attitudes and their justifications in his mind. I tried my best to make him really 'flesh out' his ideas, and we had a ten minute interview. However, time and time again my friend would somehow start talking about the Bush and Reagan administrations and leave the candidates behind. I had to edit the video to make it shorter, but I assure you, it stays true to the conversation we had.
Not once could my friend list a specific policy proposed by either candidate. He said that he had money in the economy and he was hit hard by our economic situation. There was no evidence, despite his eloquence and ostensible understanding of Reaganomics and the conservative agenda, that he had sat down one day and asked himself, "What precisely do these candidates intend to do," and it showed. He would digress and move away from the questions I asked him, which were insightful as to how he has structured his arguments to himself, but one can tell that if he were saying this to persuade someone, the argument would be weak. Many conclusions and views are taken at face value and not supported, and even though I gave him time to produce those specifics on his own, I finally had to ask him outright if there was anything specific he could support his views with, and he could not produce anything.
Whether or not his information was correct or founded or unfounded is another argument. He seemed intelligent and like he knew a lot of things about economics and politics, this is not the point. The point is, the things he knew did not extend to specifics about the platforms of the candidates. This is clearly leaning toward a peripheral route to his decision. After all, how can you really know what a candidate really thinks of the economy or any other issue if you know not his or her propositions for those issues?
To demonstrate something that takes a bit more of a central route, I had someone (who shall remain anonymous- Stacy) video me and ask me the same questions I tried to ask my friend. I quickly found out though, that I was putting myself on the spot! It had been so long since I had done my research on the candidates, and I had never really delved into McCain's plans as thoroughly as Obama's, that I was hardly better off than my friend. However, I did have specific propositions by both candidates, though the numbers I quote could be remembered incorrectly. Therefore, I still think that this following video shows a bit more of a central route. I will say right now, though, that no central route would have coaxed me out of my cynicism and mistrust of the government. Obama's words and eloquence wooed me out of my disappointment with the government and its people about a year and a half ago. My original support for Obama was entirely based on peripheral cues. The fact that he said things which people didn't necessarily want to hear, like the place of the personal responsibility of parents in education, and the moving speeches of the arc of the universe bending towards justice derived from Dr. King did more any mere discussion of policy ever could.
So I admit that here, just to show that I only made this video for the contrast with the one above.
Oh, and please disregard that ridiculous looking face on the still frame. I had to edit this too and somehow THAT is what ended up on the still frame. I almost feel like not putting it up here for the world to see. But I put too much work editing these videos to turn back now.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
We had an election on Tuesday and elected our next president. What will be studies for years to come is the myriad of ways that the campaigns, first in the primaries and then in the general election, tried to change people's attitudes about their respective candidates. What worked? What didn't? Why?
There are two ways advertisers or campaigns may try to get an audience to change its attitude towards a target. One form of persuasion involves a central route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where the audience is persuaded through the strength and quality of the arguments presented. In a campaign, this would be a focus on issues and specific policies to address those issues. The other route is called the peripheral route (Petty & Cacioppo, 1986), where people focus on more superficial cues than the argument.
One of the important factors in determining which route an audience will take is the perceived importance of the decision and thus the motivation of the individual. If highly motivated, people will take the central route, if not, the peripheral. Many if not most people thought of this election as particularly important, so one would assume that many people took a central route to making their decision.
A very demonstrative use of peripheral and central routes by the candidates can be seen in the 'Joe the Plumber' argument used by McCain. McCain and Palin addressed tens of thousands of blue collar workers and preached the woes of Joe the Plumber. This argument relied on the ommission of Obama's economic policy plans. Where Obama intended to give tax cuts to families and businesses making less than $250,000 of income or profit (95% of families and 98% of small businesses), McCain persuaded his blue collar workers that Obama intended to raise their taxes by relying on the peripheral cues of his argument. McCain's very effective accusations never addressed the specific policies that Obama intended to enact, and were never supported by anything substantial. They simply held their own because of the perception of Democrats as tax raisers.
What is also important to realize is that the central and peripheral routes can represent a continuum, and not a dichotomy. Some routes people take can lean toward one or the other. To demonstrate this, I video taped a friend on election day to get a feel of how he perceived the candidates, and how he constructed these attitudes and their justifications in his mind. I tried my best to make him really 'flesh out' his ideas, and we had a ten minute interview. However, time and time again my friend would somehow start talking about the Bush and Reagan administrations and leave the candidates behind. I had to edit the video to make it shorter, but I assure you, it stays true to the conversation we had.
Not once could my friend list a specific policy proposed by either candidate. He said that he had money in the economy and he was hit hard by our economic situation. There was no evidence, despite his eloquence and ostensible understanding of Reaganomics and the conservative agenda, that he had sat down one day and asked himself, "What precisely do these candidates intend to do," and it showed. He would digress and move away from the questions I asked him, which were insightful as to how he has structured his arguments to himself, but one can tell that if he were saying this to persuade someone, the argument would be weak. Many conclusions and views are taken at face value and not supported, and even though I gave him time to produce those specifics on his own, I finally had to ask him outright if there was anything specific he could support his views with, and he could not produce anything.
Whether or not his information was correct or founded or unfounded is another argument. He seemed intelligent and like he knew a lot of things about economics and politics, this is not the point. The point is, the things he knew did not extend to specifics about the platforms of the candidates. This is clearly leaning toward a peripheral route to his decision. After all, how can you really know what a candidate really thinks of the economy or any other issue if you know not his or her propositions for those issues?
To demonstrate something that takes a bit more of a central route, I had someone (who shall remain anonymous- Stacy) video me and ask me the same questions I tried to ask my friend. I quickly found out though, that I was putting myself on the spot! It had been so long since I had done my research on the candidates, and I had never really delved into McCain's plans as thoroughly as Obama's, that I was hardly better off than my friend. However, I did have specific propositions by both candidates, though the numbers I quote could be remembered incorrectly. Therefore, I still think that this following video shows a bit more of a central route. I will say right now, though, that no central route would have coaxed me out of my cynicism and mistrust of the government. Obama's words and eloquence wooed me out of my disappointment with the government and its people about a year and a half ago. My original support for Obama was entirely based on peripheral cues. The fact that he said things which people didn't necessarily want to hear, like the place of the personal responsibility of parents in education, and the moving speeches of the arc of the universe bending towards justice derived from Dr. King did more any mere discussion of policy ever could.
So I admit that here, just to show that I only made this video for the contrast with the one above.
Oh, and please disregard that ridiculous looking face on the still frame. I had to edit this too and somehow THAT is what ended up on the still frame. I almost feel like not putting it up here for the world to see. But I put too much work editing these videos to turn back now.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
What Was That? Come Again?
Effort justification (Aronson & Mills, 1959) is when you begin to really like something that you suffer for. This can come about from an initiation into a group, having to pay something yourself instead of being given it, or suffering emotionally or psychologically for some one, thing, or ideal. It is brought about by the discrepancy between the cost and the benefits. We want to believe that the benefits match if not outweigh the costs. So, the more we pay for something, the more we rationalize to ourselves that it is worth, so that we do not experience cognitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957) from the discrepancy between the costs and the benefits.
Okay, so- let's flashback to a fourteen year-old me for a second.
I remember the first girl I asked out. It was sophomore year in high school. Yeah, a little late, but I thought dating in middle school was pointless and girls tended to be a bit bold and make the moves on me. Anyway, moving on, her name was Sarah, and we had been friends since freshman year.
When I decided to ask Sarah out my feelings toward her were complicated. I knew that I liked her, but I wasn't crazy for her. I was, however, determined to finally grow some balls and ask someone out.
I planned it all out, I would do it when we went to Fiesta Texas with ROTC (I had joined it for her). So as the day came I got more and more apprehensive, and by the time Fiesta Texas came, I was in a nervous wreck. I tried not to think about it all day but that was unsuccessful, I thought about it every second. I dreaded the moment, though I knew not when I would finally do it. I was hyper aware of people and of Sarah, trying to catch her alone and waiting for the 'right moment'.
At one point everyone wanted to go on the bumper carts and Sarah didn't want to go, so I stayed behind with her. We were the only two who hadn't gone. The line was long. So I sat down and experienced the most acute psychological stress I had ever felt in my life, and then finally went something to the extent of, "Hey, why don't we go out?"
"What?"
"Well we're really good friends, and we hang out a lot, so I figured- why don't we go out?"
"Wait, one more time?"
"Will you go out with me?"
Well, every time I had to repeat it I suffered exponentially more acute stress! I couldn't even think.
So my question is- guess how much I liked Sarah at the moment I voiced the third proposition? I was madly into her. She was the object of my every desire. Her saying yes would be like God lifting me up straight into Heaven. I realized that without her I would be lost.
A strikingly different picture from how I felt about her before I decided to ask her out. Where I once liked her, I was now infatuated with her. According to effort justification, this makes perfect sense. Asking her out was AGONY, of course my feelings for her knew no bounds! I HAD to be that into her, otherwise, why would I be subjecting myself to the most brutal experience of my life? (do I exaggerate? 14 year old me would think not)
So I guess I can't leave it at that, huh? Do you want to know what she said? Hmm? What was that? Come again? Hehe, just kidding.
"No."
I'm not sure how many awws I'm going to get, depends on how well I made the story, which might not be very well. But to those who like happy endings, I will say that she said no because her friend liked me and it was against the code. But two days later she called me up and said, "Hey, you know what you said the other day? You still want to go out?"
Aaaaand considering this was after two miserable and depressed days full of yet more agony- guess what I said?
Aronson, e., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, C.A: Stanford University Press.
Okay, so- let's flashback to a fourteen year-old me for a second.
I remember the first girl I asked out. It was sophomore year in high school. Yeah, a little late, but I thought dating in middle school was pointless and girls tended to be a bit bold and make the moves on me. Anyway, moving on, her name was Sarah, and we had been friends since freshman year.
When I decided to ask Sarah out my feelings toward her were complicated. I knew that I liked her, but I wasn't crazy for her. I was, however, determined to finally grow some balls and ask someone out.
I planned it all out, I would do it when we went to Fiesta Texas with ROTC (I had joined it for her). So as the day came I got more and more apprehensive, and by the time Fiesta Texas came, I was in a nervous wreck. I tried not to think about it all day but that was unsuccessful, I thought about it every second. I dreaded the moment, though I knew not when I would finally do it. I was hyper aware of people and of Sarah, trying to catch her alone and waiting for the 'right moment'.
At one point everyone wanted to go on the bumper carts and Sarah didn't want to go, so I stayed behind with her. We were the only two who hadn't gone. The line was long. So I sat down and experienced the most acute psychological stress I had ever felt in my life, and then finally went something to the extent of, "Hey, why don't we go out?"
"What?"
"Well we're really good friends, and we hang out a lot, so I figured- why don't we go out?"
"Wait, one more time?"
"Will you go out with me?"
Well, every time I had to repeat it I suffered exponentially more acute stress! I couldn't even think.
So my question is- guess how much I liked Sarah at the moment I voiced the third proposition? I was madly into her. She was the object of my every desire. Her saying yes would be like God lifting me up straight into Heaven. I realized that without her I would be lost.
A strikingly different picture from how I felt about her before I decided to ask her out. Where I once liked her, I was now infatuated with her. According to effort justification, this makes perfect sense. Asking her out was AGONY, of course my feelings for her knew no bounds! I HAD to be that into her, otherwise, why would I be subjecting myself to the most brutal experience of my life? (do I exaggerate? 14 year old me would think not)
So I guess I can't leave it at that, huh? Do you want to know what she said? Hmm? What was that? Come again? Hehe, just kidding.
"No."
I'm not sure how many awws I'm going to get, depends on how well I made the story, which might not be very well. But to those who like happy endings, I will say that she said no because her friend liked me and it was against the code. But two days later she called me up and said, "Hey, you know what you said the other day? You still want to go out?"
Aaaaand considering this was after two miserable and depressed days full of yet more agony- guess what I said?
Aronson, e., & Mills, J. (1959). The effect of severity of initiation on liking for a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 59, 177-181.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, C.A: Stanford University Press.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Persuasion and Teenagers
I can remember a time that I exhibited psychological reactance (Brehm & Brehm, 1981), where one reacts to the fact someone is trying to change their mind by moving in the opposite direction argued (with respect to one's personal attitude).
When I was a sophomore in high school I started dating this girl named Sarah. I didn't know too much about her when we started dating, but I soon knew more than I wanted to. Anyway, my mother found a letter I had from her and freaked out because it contained some stuff about Sarah's past, and she tried to make me stop seeing her. Well, I didn't have a car and we lived half an hour from my high school so I was only seeing her at school as it was, and when I interpreted my mother's yelling as trying to persuade me of something, I moved in the opposite direction.
"No way I'm breaking up with her!" I told myself. Even though I knew it was probably a smart move, my mother trying to persuade me made me react and try to cling to my independence and freedom by stubbornly, against my own reason, insisting that I keep dating her.
I remember this happening a lot in those years. Adolescents are told they aren't children and they aren't adults. The only freedoms adults give adolescents are responsibilities. Your old enough to be responsible, but not to know what is good for you, or just plain what is good. I'm sure everyone displayed psychological reactance in their adolescent youth, many times.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
When I was a sophomore in high school I started dating this girl named Sarah. I didn't know too much about her when we started dating, but I soon knew more than I wanted to. Anyway, my mother found a letter I had from her and freaked out because it contained some stuff about Sarah's past, and she tried to make me stop seeing her. Well, I didn't have a car and we lived half an hour from my high school so I was only seeing her at school as it was, and when I interpreted my mother's yelling as trying to persuade me of something, I moved in the opposite direction.
"No way I'm breaking up with her!" I told myself. Even though I knew it was probably a smart move, my mother trying to persuade me made me react and try to cling to my independence and freedom by stubbornly, against my own reason, insisting that I keep dating her.
I remember this happening a lot in those years. Adolescents are told they aren't children and they aren't adults. The only freedoms adults give adolescents are responsibilities. Your old enough to be responsible, but not to know what is good for you, or just plain what is good. I'm sure everyone displayed psychological reactance in their adolescent youth, many times.
Brehm, S.S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control. New York: Academic Press.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Attitudes
I don't act according to my attitudes all the time, mostly because of subjective norms (Ajzen, 1991) which tell me I shouldn't voice my thoughts or act in a way that I want to.
The most obvious that I run into the most at Southwestern is the need to suppress my ideas, thoughts, and attitudes which come from being an atheist. For the most part one would think that any atheist acting according to his or her attitude would criticize or mock religious beliefs all the time. This, of course, is hardly helpful. Besides, isn't it a norm in our society that we accept that people have differing opinions from our own?
This is why I rarely bring the subject up and usually stay quiet when people begin to talk about religion. And I actually usually don't really care about people and their beliefs. Occasionally, though, I come across a particularly difficult situation, like people who insist they have special communication with god, or can speak in tongues, etc. I think the hardest situation sometimes is when I go home and my little 6 yr old brother asks a question and my mother proceeds to take advantage of the opportunity to teach my little brother more about god and catholic culture. Sometimes I just feel like voicing some kind of skepticism, just to give the kid a chance to make a choice. But I realize this is inane, and that every child needs some kind of structure, and deconstruction of that structure at too early a point may lead to bad things. I'll catch him when he's halfway through high school.
The norms about what is okay and not okay to say about religion are set by religious people in the U.S. After all, they are the majority. So, where someone who doesn't believe in hell and only in heaven may interject a fellow religious person and proceed to argue this point, it is far more of a social stigma to interject and say that one doesn't believe in a god at all and proceed to argue the point.
For these reasons, I rarely voice my beliefs or act accordingly or even mention that I am an atheist, even though I have strong attitudes in this area and perceive myself as having a lot of control over my behavior.
In conclusion, 'coming out' as an atheist' has its unique subjective norm, more specifically it is a stigma- we will see a black AND woman president FAR before we see an atheist one.
Marcos
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
The most obvious that I run into the most at Southwestern is the need to suppress my ideas, thoughts, and attitudes which come from being an atheist. For the most part one would think that any atheist acting according to his or her attitude would criticize or mock religious beliefs all the time. This, of course, is hardly helpful. Besides, isn't it a norm in our society that we accept that people have differing opinions from our own?
This is why I rarely bring the subject up and usually stay quiet when people begin to talk about religion. And I actually usually don't really care about people and their beliefs. Occasionally, though, I come across a particularly difficult situation, like people who insist they have special communication with god, or can speak in tongues, etc. I think the hardest situation sometimes is when I go home and my little 6 yr old brother asks a question and my mother proceeds to take advantage of the opportunity to teach my little brother more about god and catholic culture. Sometimes I just feel like voicing some kind of skepticism, just to give the kid a chance to make a choice. But I realize this is inane, and that every child needs some kind of structure, and deconstruction of that structure at too early a point may lead to bad things. I'll catch him when he's halfway through high school.
The norms about what is okay and not okay to say about religion are set by religious people in the U.S. After all, they are the majority. So, where someone who doesn't believe in hell and only in heaven may interject a fellow religious person and proceed to argue this point, it is far more of a social stigma to interject and say that one doesn't believe in a god at all and proceed to argue the point.
For these reasons, I rarely voice my beliefs or act accordingly or even mention that I am an atheist, even though I have strong attitudes in this area and perceive myself as having a lot of control over my behavior.
In conclusion, 'coming out' as an atheist' has its unique subjective norm, more specifically it is a stigma- we will see a black AND woman president FAR before we see an atheist one.
Marcos
Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behaavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
The Saga of the Violator
When I first went to Dr. Guiliano's office to get her approval for my violation of a social norm, I was very proud of myself for coming up with such a cool idea. But when I walked into Dr. D's office I could've cursed myself and my ideas.
I walked into her office and she turned from her desk and saw me and greeted me warmly with a, “Hi, Marcos!”
I, almost simultaneously, said, “Hi, Paula!”
I wish I could've remembered her facial expressions or something. But I think that I was too busy engaging in strategic self-presentation, where I was trying to influence how Dr. D. thought of me, specifically by acting really excited about my Social Psychology grade and by talking really fast (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008) . I was trying to make it seem as if it was the most natural thing in the world to call a professor by her first name when she had never said or implied that it was okay.
Just to make sure that I did it right, soon I dropped the bomb again:
“And I looked at the paper and saw the grade, and I thought to myself, 'I've got to go tell Paula!'”
Dr. D. was smiling and as excited as I was, or so she seemed. I took it as far as saying goodbye to her and walking out of her office for a few seconds, before coming back-
“Okay, before I let you go, I have to ask you a few questions,” I said as I came back into her office.
She admitted to being taken aback, but a couple factors helped her take it all in tow (I hadn't noticed any difference in her behavior or anything). First, I had had Dr. D. for three classes, and we periodically talked about things that were not class-related, like politics and so forth, so the fact that she knew me well was important. She said that if it had been an advisee she had only met once or twice it would've been a different story. Secondly, she made a situational attribution for my behavior, where she explained my behavior in terms of the situation instead of a personal trait, in this case- the fact that I was so excited about my test grade (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008). In my excitement I had forgotten the social propriety of the professor-student relationship.
This social norm where a student shows respect to the professor by calling them either 'professor' or more preferably, 'Dr. Something', is an implicit rule in our society. Specifically, it is understood that unless a professor says otherwise, one of these more formal names need be utilized. Calling a professor by his or her first name without being invited to do so can be seen as inappropriate, audacious, or arrogant.
I don't think I could have done this with too many professors. I chose Dr. D. because I didn't have a class with her this semester and because I knew her well, two factors which would make the first time I violated the norm easier.
The second time I violated this norm, it was going to be in the middle of a class discussion, in my philosophy class, with Dr. Alejandro DeAcosta. I was particularly anxious about this because I didn't know DeAcosta as well as Dr. D., but I knew enough that he wouldn't care, so that made it doable. In fact, my anxiety over how DeAcosta would take it was nothing compared to my worries about how my classmates would take it. I was afraid of a combination of the trait negativity bias and some belief perseverance, where even if I explained to the class afterward that it was just for a class assignment, that they would continue to think me a prick, and since most don't know me at all in that class, that this negative experience would weigh unfairly heavy in their minds (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008), (Skowronski & Carlston, 1989).
To account for my self-awareness and strategic self-presentation during the violation of the social norm, I asked someone I knew, let's call her Jen, to notice people's facial expressions and body language during class, or their nonverbal behavior (Duval & Wicklund, 1972), (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008). I knew that I would be too busy abstracting from my mental state of self-awareness by dropping the 'first name bomb while I was asking DeAcosta questions and pretending to scrutinize a certain passage in our book. Jen thought my assignment was to look at facial expressions and body language, and said she wouldn't do the work I was too lazy to do, but I explained that this was not my assignment. She asked what was. “You'll know when I do it.” This gave her a rough idea of what was to happen, I was going to do something unexpected, there would be some kind of reaction. We were now sharing a secret, and it reminded me of that article we read where people feel more attracted to each other or closer after sharing a secret, but I was too lazy to go and look that up so I won't mention it further or I'll need a citation, if I don't already.
What I didn't expect was for DeAcosta to get into class so early. He usually comes after over half the class is in their seats. He came when it was still only Jen and I, so said to myself, 'Hey, why now?'
“Hey Alex, we didn't need to read to any particular designated page for today, right?” He hadn't outlined how to split up the reading over the two class periods we would be covering this particular book in class.
He took it in tow and answered my question, no noticeable reaction. I breathed a sigh of relief. But after students started piling in it was decided that today we would all sit in a circle on the floor in the center of the classroom. So now we were in a more intimate discussion setting- perhaps enough to excuse another 'Alex' bomb?
“Hey Alex, I was wondering if we could go to page 35 for a bit, I was having some trouble with this counterpower concept....”
I didn't look up until after I had read from the passage and DeAcosta had begun talking about it. He actually got up and went to the blackboard and started writing some things to help us better understand the concepts. Interestingly, when he sat back down, he was further away from his books and notes, and from being inside the circle, than he had been before. It could've just been coincidence, of course, he said it wasn't anything conscious.
Anyway, before I could look up Jen nudged me and I looked toward her. She moved her notebook to me and pointed at the top of the page- 'Three people looked stunned and confused, the rest didn't notice.”
I looked around and saw people smiling at me, and I couldn't help but smile back because it was one of those, “Oh, you so sneaky, huh?” smiles and I felt a little embarrassed.
I'm proud that I didn't fall prey to the spotlight effect though (Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky, 1999), where I thought that people were thinking of me the rest of the class period instead of moving on with the discussion and such.
After the class period, before everyone left, I debriefed everyone, including DeAcosta. One guy came up to me to tell me what his reaction was and he said it was “What? Really? You're going to call him that?”. Other people just admitted they thought it was amusing and slightly shocking, and Jen elaborated on her observations, saying that several people were putting heads together and whispering about my Alex bomb immediately after I said it.
Overall, there were very few, if any, consequences from breaking this social norm, and yet it was not an easy thing to do. Granted, it was easy in the fact that it was doable, but still, there was that hesitation and anxiety.
I was trying to think of the reason for this social norm to exist, and I realize that professors need some kind of power to control students in the classroom, they need to quiet everyone down once in a while, etc. But professors already have power, they make our grades. Does this norm exist to remind us of that, instead of when it is more salient like when papers are returned? Or perhaps it's some kind of reminiscent byproduct of the whole 'respect your elders' thing which I don't buy into anymore now that I'm not a child but which was bigger in our society back in the day.
It seems to me that at the university level, where professors know so much and are experts in their fields, have PhDs and everything, that this norm could be done away with. People will respect the knowledge, the expertise, right? But then I remember, there are professors who are unpopular, whose teaching techniques or expertise are questionable, and perhaps this norm exists for them? They can always appeal to their 'Dr. Something' status when students begin to gripe.
Who knows. All I know is, this social norm is very real and breaking it causes anxiety.
Duval, S., & Wicklund, R. A. (1972). A theory of objective self-awareness. New York: Academic Press.
Gilovich, T., Medvec, V.H., & Savitsky, K (1999). The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one's own actions and appearance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H.R. (2008). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Skowronski, J. J., & Carlston, D. E., (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychology bulletin, 105, 131-142.
Cliques
Ingroups are groups which are important to the identity of an individual because from them a person feels at home, accepted, important (Kassin, Fein, & Markus, 2008).
Nine days out of ten I'll eat lunch in the cove with some friends of mine. This group started out small, with three of us. Now it sometimes reaches six or seven people. Of course, not everyone shows up all the time, but some of us are consistent. The person who originally brought the first three of us together, let's call her Jessica, likes to make certain observations and comments about the group.
For example, let's take the other day. I had done something which didn't sit well with some members of the group, and though no one was really truly upset, Jessica started kidding around, as we do.
"I swear, I could kick you out of the group right now. No, wait... I couldn't, you're a core member."
Now, of course, the implication is that there are peripheral members. Well, one guy, let's call him Jack, then asked, "Hey wait, am I a core member?"
"No, you are not."
"You could kick me out!"
"Yes, yes I could."
All of it was said with a light air, even though it was understood that Jessica was being honest. It was almost as if she was making an ingroup and an outgroup (a group which a person doesn't feel a close membership to) within our lunch group, yet with both groups in a larger ingroup (Kassin et al., 2008).
This made me reflect a little bit. I knew that Jessica and others in the group were close friends of mine. And I feel a strong loyalty to our group. After all, it isn't just lunch, we hang out all the time outside of lunch and school, and we always talk about our lives and our pasts, our relationships. Our relationships within the group can also be said to be intricate and harmonious, for the most part.
So I find myself asking this question. Would I feel as strongly invested and at home in this group if it weren't for Jessica's occasional comments of this sort? I really don't know. But the question is intriguing.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H.R. (2008). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Nine days out of ten I'll eat lunch in the cove with some friends of mine. This group started out small, with three of us. Now it sometimes reaches six or seven people. Of course, not everyone shows up all the time, but some of us are consistent. The person who originally brought the first three of us together, let's call her Jessica, likes to make certain observations and comments about the group.
For example, let's take the other day. I had done something which didn't sit well with some members of the group, and though no one was really truly upset, Jessica started kidding around, as we do.
"I swear, I could kick you out of the group right now. No, wait... I couldn't, you're a core member."
Now, of course, the implication is that there are peripheral members. Well, one guy, let's call him Jack, then asked, "Hey wait, am I a core member?"
"No, you are not."
"You could kick me out!"
"Yes, yes I could."
All of it was said with a light air, even though it was understood that Jessica was being honest. It was almost as if she was making an ingroup and an outgroup (a group which a person doesn't feel a close membership to) within our lunch group, yet with both groups in a larger ingroup (Kassin et al., 2008).
This made me reflect a little bit. I knew that Jessica and others in the group were close friends of mine. And I feel a strong loyalty to our group. After all, it isn't just lunch, we hang out all the time outside of lunch and school, and we always talk about our lives and our pasts, our relationships. Our relationships within the group can also be said to be intricate and harmonious, for the most part.
So I find myself asking this question. Would I feel as strongly invested and at home in this group if it weren't for Jessica's occasional comments of this sort? I really don't know. But the question is intriguing.
Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H.R. (2008). Social psychology. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Thank God I Didn't Bet On It
It has been shown that we as humans aren't very good at predicting how intense or how long a future feeling will last. Specifically, we overestimate; we tend to think we will be happier for a longer time due to good events, and sadder for a longer time due to depressing events. In reality we bounce back from both positive and negative emotions more quickly than we imagine. This is what we call a failure in affective forecasting, the ability to predict how we will react or feel in future emotional events (Wilson & Gilbert, 2003).
When I drove by myself to New Hampshire over this past winter break to campaign for Obama, I was very emotionally invested in the campaign. When we lost New Hampshire, and in particular the town I had been working in, I wasn't so much depressed and in despair that all my work was for nothing as I was angry. This was unexpected, and probably due to some kind of defense mechanism where I would rather be angry than sad. And by the time I got back to my home in Texas, I was so happy to be home that all distress due to losing New Hampshire was nearly gone.
I kept up with the campaign and obsessively read news articles online to see how the primaries were going. I soon saw, however, that the campaign was beginning to change in response to attacks from Hilary, and I didn't like where it was going.
So when Hilary dropped out I was surprised to find myself relieved more than anything. I didn't feel elated or justified or celebratory at all. I just felt that we had dodged one more bullet. I never would have guessed I would lack enthusiasm for that victory.
So in conclusion, back at New Hampshire I thought I would be off the walls if Obama won the primary- and all I could say about that now is I'm glad I didn't bet on it.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345-411.
When I drove by myself to New Hampshire over this past winter break to campaign for Obama, I was very emotionally invested in the campaign. When we lost New Hampshire, and in particular the town I had been working in, I wasn't so much depressed and in despair that all my work was for nothing as I was angry. This was unexpected, and probably due to some kind of defense mechanism where I would rather be angry than sad. And by the time I got back to my home in Texas, I was so happy to be home that all distress due to losing New Hampshire was nearly gone.
I kept up with the campaign and obsessively read news articles online to see how the primaries were going. I soon saw, however, that the campaign was beginning to change in response to attacks from Hilary, and I didn't like where it was going.
So when Hilary dropped out I was surprised to find myself relieved more than anything. I didn't feel elated or justified or celebratory at all. I just felt that we had dodged one more bullet. I never would have guessed I would lack enthusiasm for that victory.
So in conclusion, back at New Hampshire I thought I would be off the walls if Obama won the primary- and all I could say about that now is I'm glad I didn't bet on it.
Wilson, T. D., & Gilbert, D. T. (2003). Affective forecasting. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 345-411.
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Family Discussion
I can recall a time where I experienced the defensive bias due to the belief in a just world. This is where people explain away others' suffering as due to those people's personal actions and disregard the situation, in order to feel safe that it couldn't simply 'happen to anyone'.
I was talking to my mother about my job at College Forward and how the kids sometimes lose focus. She reminded me that she got through college as a single mother raising two kids and thought that anyone who couldn't get a higher education was lazy, or at the least that it was no one's fault but theirs.
I told asked her if it was okay to blame an addicted homeless drunk for the situation he was in. She thought it was okay, there's plenty of help to get out of that, most people just don't want to. Then I asked her if it was okay for someone who won the Nobel Prize or an Oscar to go up on stage and say, "I don't want to thank anyone other than me, because I'm here because of me, and don't owe anybody anything. All me, yep, thanks."
She obviously thought that wasn't okay, and I simply pointed out that the reason why she believed such a thing was because she wasn't giving enough thought to social factors in the homeless persons life and past life, and was giving that consideration to those who got somewhere great. Maybe there is another effect where people look at those who are more successful than themselves and automatically attribute that success to situational factors, so as not to feel bad that they themsleves haven't achieved as much.
I was talking to my mother about my job at College Forward and how the kids sometimes lose focus. She reminded me that she got through college as a single mother raising two kids and thought that anyone who couldn't get a higher education was lazy, or at the least that it was no one's fault but theirs.
I told asked her if it was okay to blame an addicted homeless drunk for the situation he was in. She thought it was okay, there's plenty of help to get out of that, most people just don't want to. Then I asked her if it was okay for someone who won the Nobel Prize or an Oscar to go up on stage and say, "I don't want to thank anyone other than me, because I'm here because of me, and don't owe anybody anything. All me, yep, thanks."
She obviously thought that wasn't okay, and I simply pointed out that the reason why she believed such a thing was because she wasn't giving enough thought to social factors in the homeless persons life and past life, and was giving that consideration to those who got somewhere great. Maybe there is another effect where people look at those who are more successful than themselves and automatically attribute that success to situational factors, so as not to feel bad that they themsleves haven't achieved as much.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
TV Shows
Looking back at the readings we've had this week I see that I have an example of a concept to share that I have encountered in my life. It is the false-consensus effect, where it is easy for you to overestimate how many people think the things you think, do the things you do, believe the things you believe (Kreuger, 1998). Oddly enough, I think of Firefly the television show. Why? Well, have you ever been in the position of having a favorite television show, and learning to your dismay that not enough people are watching it so it's taken off the air? You might be left wondering why everyone isn't watching this amazing show. Surely there are plenty more people watching it out there, right? I find it a classic example of the false-consensus effect.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Welcome Post
So does anyone else not exactly know what they want to do with their psych major? I kind of already know I'm not cut out for a long-term research career, and I don't think I want to be a 'shrink' either.
I guess I still have time. Meanwhile, all I hope out of the future is that I enjoy my job/career as much as I did my summer camp job at Camp Texlake this summer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)