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!
• Course website:
• http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/ ~alambert/socialinks.htm
• Grading
– 3 exams
• Syllabus
• My availability
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%)
anticipated conflict
(0-10, with higher #s = more conflict)
$1 $10
$50 $100
$1,000 $10,000
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 amount of money
10 thousand dollars
High levels of force
Alternative Model II
guilt
Subjective expected utility
1 dollar amount of money
10 thousand dollars
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) Interpersonal Attraction (Chpt. 10)
• Social Cognition (Chpt. 3) • Self (Chpt. 5) • Self-justification (Chpt. 6) • Attitudes (Chpt. 7) • Conformity (Chpt 8)
• •
Pro-social behavior (Chpt. 11) Prejudice (Chpt. 13)
• 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
concrete measure
questionnaire
?
?
happiness
stereotypes
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 “media violence” Concrete manipulation 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