Quiz About Your topic

1
What is Social Psychology?
Social psychologists are interested in how
peoples thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are
influenced by the real or imagined presence of
other people.
2
Introductory Social Psychology Textbooks
3
Belief Sampler

• of Americans
• 48
• 35
• 56
• 42
• 72
• 25
• 45

Phenomenon ESP Telepathy the Devil Possession by
Devil Angels Astrology UFOs have visited Earth
Source Gallup poll survey, 1996
4
Belief Sampler

• of Biology/Life Sciences
• High School Teachers Believing
• 43
• 20
• 19
• 20
• 16
• 30
• 26
• 22

Phenomenon Story of Flood and Noahs Ark is
true Communication with dead possible Dinosaurs
and humans lived at same time Black magic
real Atlantis existed Creation Science should be
taught Some races more intelligent than
others Ghosts are real
Source Rothman, 1988
5
Are the claims reasonable?

• Possible criteria that you could use to evaluate
  the claims
• Is it logically possible?
• But, just because something is logically possible
  doesnt mean that its real.
• Is it physically possible?
• But, just because something is physically
  possible doesnt mean that its real.

6
Are the claims reasonable?

• Possible criteria that you could use to evaluate
  the claims (cont.)
• Has it been conclusively refuted?
• But, just because a claim hasnt been
  conclusively refuted doesnt mean its true.
• Conversely, just because a claim hasnt been
  conclusively proven doesnt mean that its false.
• Arguments of this sort commit the fallacy of
• Appeal to ignorance.
• A claims truth is established by the amount of
  evidence in its favor, not by the lack of
  evidence against it (or for it).

7
On evidence

• Common and persuasive lines of evidence typically
  offered
• I saw it with my own eyes.
• Someone else saw it with her/his own eyes.
• Dr. X says it is real.
• Dr. Xs observations show its real.
• An ancient practice or folklore supports the
  claim.
• A scientific study substantiates the claim.

8
On evidence I saw it with my own eyes.

• Is it Seeing is believing, or Believing is
  seeing?
• Our beliefs do not always have a direct
  one-to-one correspondence with external reality.
• E.g., Perceptual Construction (Color constancies)
  Expectancies and Beliefs (pareidolia), Selective
  Attention (lunar effect, Forer effect),
  Misjudgments of Probabilities, Memory
  Reconstruction, Self-fulfilling prophecies,
  Variable Nature of phenomena (eg., illness),
  Placebo effects, Overlooked causes
• It is reasonable to accept personal experience as
  reliable evidence if theres no reason to doubt
  its reliability.

9
Looking for clarity in vagueness
10
On evidenceAn expert claims its true.

• An expert is one whose judgments are reliable.
  Experts generally can reliably judge the body of
  evidence that bears on a question.
• Body of Evidence is key
• Case reports (a.k.a. case series, case histories,
  descriptive studies) do not provide detailed
  explanations for cause of some phenomenon, nor do
  they offer the kind of evidence we need to
  evaluate efficacy of some new treatment.
• Case reports are vulnerable to several biases and
  other problems, such as
• Investigator Bias (also known as confirmatory
  bias)
• Social Desirability Bias
• Placebo Effects
• Lack of Control

11
On evidenceAn expert claims its true.

• Experts can be wrong. (Remember continental drift
  theory? How about phrenology?) Consensus, in the
  absence of compelling evidence, is never
  sufficient justification for believing in
  anything.
• An expert is qualified in a particular field. Be
  aware of Dr.s with degrees outside of the area
  they claim to have expertise. (E.g., Backster and
  the Secret Life of Plants)

12
On evidenceFolklore or tradition accept it.

• Groups of people can be wrong for the same
  reasons that individuals are wrong (e.g., Man in
  the moon, bloodletting, witch trials).
• Folklore and tradition can provide leads as to
  why a particular phenomenon may occur, but to
  specify precisely why it occurs (or whether a
  practice is even reliable) you need controlled
  tests.

13
On evidenceA scientific study substantiates

• Scientific Method
• Propose theoretical explanation for phenomenon
• Deduce (or induce) specific hypotheses that must
  be true if the theory is true
• Test the hypotheses with empirical data.
• Peer Review and Replication
• Assumption Objective reality exists.
• Relativism (reality depends on our thoughts about
  it) versus realism (reality has nothing to do
  with our thoughts about it)

14
Reality and its representations
15
Reality and its representations
16
Theoretical DevelopmentNature of Causation

• Simple Causation
• Unidirectional Relationship X?Y
• Independent Var ?Dependent Var
• Examples Rainfall?Accidents, Study Time?Grades
  
• Bidirectional Relationship (vicious cycle,
  healthy spiral) X?Y
• Examples Television Viewing Time?Aggression
• Cold Parents ?Behavior Problems
  Depression?Alcoholism Hostility?Social
  Rejection ??Social Acceptance
• Thought ?Emotions

17
Theoretical DevelopmentNature of Causation

• Multiple Causation Either/or versus
  Both/And
• C1
• C2 ? Effect
• C3

Virtually every significant behavior has many
determinants. Any single explanation might be an
oversimplification.
E.g., What causes depression? Childhood trauma?
Faulty belief system? Perception of failure?
Internalized anger? Learned helplessness?
Biochemical predisposition?
And can be psychologically healthy too.
I love my mother but she drives me crazy.
I love myself and I want to change.
--- and
18
Theoretical DevelopmentNature of Causation

• Multiple Causation
• Linear Combination C1 C2 C3 Effect
• A linear combination is additive. Each cause is
  sufficient in and of itself to explain the
  effect. (e.g., Depression)
• Caveat Not all causes are created equal (e.g.,
  man kills boss)
• Non-linear Combination C1 X C2 X C3 Effect
• A nonlinear combination is multiplicative or
  interactive. The effect cannot be explained
  without taking into effect at least two causes.
  (e.g., Phenylketonuria X phenylalanine Brain
  Damage
• Ability X Motivation Performance)

19
Theoretical DevelopmentNature of Causation

• Multiple Pathways of Causation
• C1 ? Effect1
• C2 ? Effect1
• C3 ? Effect1
• Examples
• Humor, or Nervousness, or Embarrassment ?
  Laughter (Effect)
• Fantasy, or Antidepressant Side Effect, or
  correlate of REM, or Hanging by the Neck ?
  Genital Erection (Effect)
• Notion of multiple causal pathways applies to
  etiology of phenomena and their partial
  resolution as well.

20
Scientific Method Nature of Observations

• Correlational Observations
• Show associations and hint at possible causal
  connections.
• Variety of Types of Correlational Studies
  Nonintervention, Archival, Epidemiological, Case
  Control, Cohort, Cross-Sectional, Prospective

21
Scientific Method Nature of Observations

• Correlational Observations

22
Scientific Method Nature of Observations

• Experimental Observations
• Get a handle on cause and effect
• The case of Pelagra and J. Goldberger
• Control and Random Assignment are defining
  features of an experiment

23
Theoretical Development

• What makes a good theory?
• Testability, Fruitfulness, Scope, Simplicity,
  Conservatism
• How do we test a theory?
• Denying evidence is not allowed.

24
Spotlight Effect Revisited

• This paper will serve as an example of how to
  critically analyze a theoretical claim.
• Phenomenon Individuals appear to overestimate
  how variable their performance appears in the
  eyes of others.
• Theory Actors focus on departures from their
  norm, while observers treat departures as
  background noise, and focus on the norm.

25
Spotlight Effect Model I

• Assumes equal information is at the disposal of
  actors and observers. I.e., the behavior sample
  is the same for actors and observers. Actors
  focus on departures from normality, observers
  focus on overall trend.
• Reasonable? Or should we tweak the model to
  account for unequal sample sizes?

26
Spotlight Effect Model II

• Assumption Sample of behavior is larger for
  actor compared to observer in judging actors
  performance.
• Variability, then, should have less impact on
  actors assessments of own performance.
  (Observations will tend to pile up around the
  norm.) Observers are exposed to greater
  variability in actors behavior. (Observations
  more likely to depart from the norm.)
• If this is the case, whose judgment is in error?
  Actor or observer?
• Observer is in error, not actor. They should be
  noticing more variability. Why arent they
  noticing? Selective attention? Confirmation bias?
  Expectation?

27
Spotlight Effect Model III

• Assumption Not much variability for observers
  to notice, as the behavioral context is highly
  circumscribed (e.g., classroom at 8 am on
  Mondays Scrimmage match on Wednesdays at 5 pm).
  Actors know more about their own behavior outside
  of the context in which observers know them.
• Therefore, actors judgment of self should be
  variable, while observers should be less
  variable.
• Actor then is in error, because s/he isnt
  adopting perspective of the observer in deciding
  how variable others take his or her performance
  to be.

28
Spotlight Effect All models considered

• Becomes clear that we need to manipulate (control
  experimentally) performance variability.
  Otherwise, how will we know who is in error?
• Also, we need to establish whether the spotlight
  effect is a perceptual phenomenon, or one that is
  memory based.
• These particulars matter because the predictions
  we make from the theory hinge on 1) who (actor
  or/and observer) is in error, and 2) from where
  the source of the error originates.

29
Spotlight Effect All models considered

• Two additional major assumptions made in this
  paper (besides the ones weve considered so far
  actors and observers work with equal information
  actors know their norm actors and observers
  notice but differentially remember departures
  from the norm)
• Social desirability does not affect observers
  usage of the rating scale.
• Actors can judge themselves AND at the same time
  judge INDEPENDENTLY (of how they judge
  themselves) how other people see them.
• Are these assumptions reasonable? Bottom line
  Need to independently control performance
  variability, and control the possible dependent
  nature of the rating scheme.

30
For Further Reading (not required, just if you
are interested)

• How to think about weird things Critical
  thinking for a new age (Schick, 2001).
• Why people believe weird things (Shermer, 2002).
• How to think straight about Psychology
  (Stanovich, 2000).
• Critical thinking about research Psychology and
  related fields (Meltzoff, 1997).
• Tools of critical thinking Metathoughts for
  Psychology (Levy, 1997).