The Science of Social

Psychology
Lecture 1a
In this section…

• What is Social Psychology?

• The Power of the Situation to determine our behavior

• Perspectives in Social Psychology

• It’s not just common sense!

What is Social Psychology?

 ABC’s of psychology
• The scientific study of how people’s affect, behaviors, and cognitions
are influenced by the presence, real or imagined, of at least one other
person
• This includes: conformity, aggression, persuasion,
discrimination/prejudice, attraction, and pro social behavior
3 Main Aspects

1. Social thinking
• forming impressions & making decisions

2. Social influence
• the effect of internal & external forces
• Ex: how our background or culture influence behavior

3. Social relations
• the effect of relationships and group ties
• Ex: attraction, prejudice, pro social behavior
 The Power of Interpretation

Construal
• Construal is how we interpret social environment of other ppl whether
its their actions or intentions
• How ppl are influenced by their own construal of a situation
• Perception vs. Reality

Naïve Realism
• We think we know the objective truth, and we assume others do too
The Power of the Situation
• Fundamental attribution error
• Also known as correspondence bias
• This is when we observe a situation
and automatically assume its due to
internal factors and neglect external
factors
• Ex: you get cut off. You'll say “learn
how to drive idiot”. This is internal
attribution… we think its something
about their disposition. Perhaps they
have a reason like needing to take a
piss (external attribution)
• Overestimate what is due to
disposition
• Under estimate the influence of the
social context
The Power of the Situation

• IVs:
• Personality: cooperators/defectors
• They did a study and asked if ppl think their residence are cooperators or
defectors
• Game framing: “Wall Street” vs. “Community” game. This was the
2nd independent variable of the game… this allowed for a
dispositional or contextual component
• DV: in-game cooperation/defection
The Power of the Situation

Personality had no
influence. The name of
the game did tho
 Source of Construal
Basic Motivations
1. Be liked, aka Self-esteem approach
• Liked by others, yourself (self-esteem)
• Would rather distort reality than lose esteem. Ex: you give yo # and they don’t
call you, so you say oh they must of lost it

2. Be right, aka Social Cognition approach

• Try to optimize decision making
• Often only have partial or inaccurate info
• We rely on “fast & frugal” mental rules this is known as heuristics
• we use heuristics because we think they are right
• Can serve the above
• Conformation bias: we only pay attention to info that agrees with our initial
position and ignore the rest

Do not always coincide, can conflict

• E.g. Asch’s Line judgment experiment (more on this later)
 Perspectives of Social Psychology
• Sociocultural perspective - cultural lens: how behavior may be more likely
attributed to personality factors in western cultures vs. eastern cultures

• Social cognitive - thoughts & perceptions and internal world: here we consider
first impressions of a stranger can make a lasting and resilient impact

• Social learning - power of learning via reinforcements and punishments: we may

try to adhere to unspoken rules called social norms in order to be accepted and
avoid being rejected (punishment)

• Evolutionary : predispositions that aid survival/ reproduction: it has evolved

through evolution. Ex: those who didn’t like poop avoided it and were more likely
to survive. They are also known as ultimate level explanations because they
address the why of the behaviors and where they come from. They work with the
proximal level explanations which address the factors in the here and now
 Perspectives of Social Psychology
• Sociocultural: culture is materialistic
Example: why would someone steal

• Social cognitive: robber doesn’t think

there is anything wrong with it

• Social learning: learned through

example (people/media) that stealing
is acceptable

• Evolutionary perspective: gaining

material resources can aid
survival/reproduction via
attractiveness to opposite sex
Social Psychology vs.

• Sociology
• Differs in level of analysis: individual (in context) vs. societal
• Its focuses more on the broad factors
• Mental processes vs. broad societal factors
• E.g. academic performance according to teacher’s expectations vs. according
to socioeconomic status

• Personality Psych
• Focus on individual differences vs. social influence (social psyc)
• Stable trait (personality psyc) vs. plastic/changeable state (social psyc)
• E.g. Who is more aggressive vs. when are we more aggressive
• we can also combine Personality and Social Psychology known as the
interactionist perspective. This approach looks at how an individual's
personality and situation influence behavior.
Just Common Sense?
1. Hindsight bias
2. Availability heuristic
3. False Consensus
 1. Hindsight bias

• AKA creeping determinism

• I knew it all along!
• Always easier to describe what
has happened than what will
happen
• Can lead to overconfidence in
decision making
2. Availability heuristic

Which is more dangerous? • The more easily we can bring it

to mind, the more likely it is to
be judged as highly probable.
• Mental shortcut relies on
immediate examples that come
to mind for that context
• Reasons can be from recent
personal experience, historical
events, recent media coverage,
representation in fiction
 3. False Consensus
• We tend to overestimate how much our thoughts, values, and habits
are shared by others
• Ex: we think common sense is common because we think others
think like us

Ross (1977)
• Did a study and asked if they would wear a sign (on the right) around
campus. Half agreed and half refused. They were then asked if they
though other students said the same thing.
• Yes (~50%) = 65%
• No (~50%) = 69%
• Both groups thought most people would do the same
 Summary
• Social psychology focuses on the power of the situation in
determining behaviour
• The 3 main influences are social thinking, influence & relations
• Social psychology studies how we construe information & focuses on
the power of the situation to influence behaviour
The Scientific Method: Theory-
Data Cycle
Observation If confirms,
+ adds to theory
Theory and observations

Hypothesis
+ Test
Predictions

If fails to confirm,
modify hypothesis

Theory: set of principles to explain observed events

Hypothesis: testable proposition to describe a relationship
Methods
Lecture 1b
Research Designs

1. Correlational
• Look for natural associations/relationships between variables
2. Experimental
• Seek cause-effect relationships via manipulation of variables
3. Observational
• Describe nature of phenomenon
• Often in the field (i.e. real world)
• Do not manipulate shit
Correlational Studies
• Research question
• How are two (or more) existing variables related?
• E.g. number of siblings and age at marriage
• No manipulation of variables

• Methodologies used
• Surveys
• e.g., correlate personality and/or attitudes with behaviour
• Pre-existing data
• e.g., GPA and social media use
 Correlations
Either 1 or -1…. That’s the strongest relatioship
Positive Negative
Variable Y

Grade Y
Variable
Final Grade

Final

Hours of study
Variable X Variable
In-class socialX media use
The Zero Correlation
Back to the Drawing Board
 Correlations ≠ Causation

Bi-directionality: Social Media A B Lower grades

Lower grades B A Social Media

A Social Media

3rd variable: ??? C

B Lower grades
The “Third Variable” Problem
 Spurious Correlations

is a mathematical relationship in which two or more events or variables are associated but not
causally related, due to either coincidence or the presence of a certain third, unseen factor
This can happen when the hypothesis is not strong
We can address this using experimental research
Experiments
• Done in a lab under controlled conditions, can be in field
• Address causality via manipulation of variables

Variables
• Independent (IV) is manipulated
• Dependent (DV) is measured
Does exposure to violent media make children aggressive?

May use
• Cover stories: misleading what the study is about
• Purpose: To reduce experimental demand… participants change behavior cause to fit
interpretation of the study. This can affect the validity of the study
• Confederates: acts as a participant but really is a team member
• Covert team members
• We use em if we are interested in interested in dyadic behavior so we can control and
manipulate the behavior of one person (the Confederate) and observe the influence
on the real subjects behavior.
 Experiments
Operationalization of variables
• IV and DV are carefully defined
• Avoid fuzzy concepts
• Aid replication
e.g. Does exposure to violent media make children aggressive?

• What age range does “children” include?

• How many hours qualifies as “exposure”?
• Directly or indirectly?
• Choose the media or not?
• What is violent media? TV, movies, cartoons? “Fantasy violence?”
• What is violence? Direct vs. indirect aggression, explicit, implied?
 Example of a Field Experiment
Middlemist et al., 1976
• Research question: Do “personal space invasions” produce
arousal in a men’s bathroom?

• Operationalization: What do they mean by “arousal in a

men’s bathroom”? increased latency, and reduce duration of
urination is how they operationalized arousal

• IV: Where the confederate stands

• Close, far, control

• DVs: Latency to and duration of micturition

• Results and implications

• Control 4.9s < far 6.2s < close 8.4s
Experiments
Considerations
1. External validity
• How real are the results?
• Do they generalize to other people/situations?
• Use random selection
• Promote psychological realism via cover stories (making lab more realistic)

2. Internal Validity
• How true are the claims? Did we measure what we intended to measure
• Reduce impact of any factor other than IV
• Control confounds, random selection & assignment
Confounds
• Any uncontrolled factor(s) that could alter your research results
• Occur when uncontrolled factor(s) co-vary with the IV:
• Failure to randomly assign subjects to a condition
• Experimenters behave differently across conditions
• Differences in environmental factors across conditions
• Prevent causal claims
• Impossible for the researcher to determine what produced the
change in the DV

Confound

IV DV
 Design-Related Confounds
Participant Factors Experimenter Factors

• Self Selection Bias • Confirmation Bias

• Who chose to participate? • info that agrees with our initial
• Advertising without cover position
• Why did you find what you
• Random selection
expected to find?
• Blind experimenters (don’t know
• Self-Presentation Bias (aka the true purpose or do it online)
Social Desirability)
• Are your participants telling the
truth? Behaving naturally? • Experimental Demand (aka
• Anonymity, confidentiality, bogus “Demand” or “Demand
pipelines (hook em to a fake lie Characteristics”)
detector) • When participants form an
interpretation of the study and act
differently
• Blind subjects  Cover stories
 How To Create Your Own Findings!
Thorne & Himmelstein (1984)
• Confirmation bias (experimenter) and demand
characteristics (subjects) often work together
45
• Subjects listen to backwards-recorded songs by 40
The Beatles, Led Zepplin, and Black Sabbath 35

Satanic words
30
• IV: Instructions 25
• Grp 1 (Not Primed): “write down any words or phrases
you hear” 20
Aspect of • Grp 2 (Primed): “write down any Satanic words or 15
confirmation phrases you hear”
bias of the
10
participants 5
• DV: % Subjects who report hearing Satanic phrases
0
Not Primed Primed
• Shows you need to be careful when making a
study to avoid confounds
Observational Studies
Observe behavior in its natural setting (field)
• Unobtrusive observation
• No manipulations
• No situational control

Limitation
• No control = No causal statements
Advantage
• No interference with subjects’ usual behaviours =
High generalizability
 Example of a Observational Study

• When Prophecy Fails (Festinger, Riecken, & Schachter,

1957)
• “A social and psychological study of a modern
group that predicted the destruction of the world”
• Study focuses on a group of UFO seekers who
believe there was going to be an apocalypse and
an alien will save em. The day comes and nothing
happens. they made up that they saved the world.
This led to the cognitive dissonance theory

Are field studies actually useful?

• Cognitive dissonance theory is born
• Theory explains how there is a tendency for individuals to seek consistency
among their cognition (beliefs/opinions/behavior). When there's an
inconsistency (dissonance) you have to change something to limit the
dissonance. In the example above they thought they saved the world
• Brought to the lab and tested under controlled conditions
Testing Hypotheses: Data Collection
Decisions
Trade-off between:
1. Control (aka “internal validity”)  Are the findings “real”, or a fluke due to
uncontrolled factors? Can we say that x caused y?
2. Generalizability (aka “external validity”)  Can the findings be applied to
others, or are they relevant only to the group being studied?

GENERALIZABILITY
Lab Experiments
Field Experiments
CONTROL

Correlational Studies
Observational Studies

Note: The arrows point towards increases in control or

generalizability.
Ethics
Canadian Psychological Association (CPA) Principles
1. Respect for dignity
2. Informed consent
3. Minimize harm
• Physical, psychological, emotional, social, reputational
4. Freedom to withdraw
5. Privacy and confidentiality
6. Deception when no other means
• If we do use: Debriefing