Social Psychology is the scientific study of how people’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by other people. The reason that it is a scientific psychology is because social psychologists provide human kind with evidence, statistics, and theories to the behavior a person has in a social setting. Social psychologists come from two different angles as the foundation of the beginning of their study at hand: one category is called description and the other is explanation. Based off observations made of the behavior and situation of the people in the study, it is paramount that experimenters provide the most accurate and reliable information without having “biases,” or flaws in their study that may at times come from an inadequate description of the situation.

                These then become the theories in which are derived from “scientific explanations that connect and organize” already existing explanations. There are four major perspectives (or families of theories) that are considered to be dominating the field of social psychology: sociocultural, evolutionary, social learning, and social cognitive.

                Adopting one of these social theoretical perspectives will allow, a social psychologist that is conducting and experiment will act in a sense of a “detective.” They begin with a hypothesis, which is an educated guess about how the evidence is likely to turn out. These psychologists then gather data and divide their information into two categories: descriptive and experimental.  The descriptive method is used to record or measure behaviors, thoughts, feelings in their “natural state.” In contrast, the experimental method is used to uncover the causes of behavior by “systematically varying” some aspects of the situation. The entire point is to establish a distinction between indisputable evidence from plausible sounding possibilities. There happen to be five different descriptive correlational methods and two experimental methods. The deciding factor as to which method should be used depends on what the psychologist/researcher is attempting to discover about human social behavior.

When a psychologist/researcher is observing a social group setting they are collecting their data from observation. From my studies, I have concluded that the features of one’s research can constitute an experiment is from the manipulation of one variable against the variable remaining constant. Whether this is in a laboratory setting, or in a field experiment, there must always be a non-biased experimenter who is providing a setting in which the participants react as they would organically to provide data that holds validity.  

1.        When must we use the correlational method in social psychological research? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the correlational method?

The correlational method is used with data that is derived from descriptive methods, it can potentially reveal a correlation between two or more variables that occur together. The variable is referring to subject in the experiment that is a factor of fluctuating characteristics. Such as the temperature outside, peoples height, hair color, the size of the crowd, the amount of alcohol consumed etc. are all things that can be a variable to consider in an experiment. Using it specifically for social psychological research is beneficial when observing people in situations to see how their responses, reactions and behavior varies in contrast to other individuals.

The correlation between the variables is found mathematically from a “correlation coefficient,” a correlation coefficient can range from +1.0 (perfect positive relationship between two variables), through 0, (which then indicates no relationship at all). In a positive relationship if one variable goes up and down the other variable goes up and down as well with it. The negative correlation indicates a complete opposite effect, when one variable goes up and down one way the other variable goes completely in the other direction. Obviously this shows us that we are able to conclude a contrast or not based of the data that is presented after the data is computed; but a researcher is not able to find validity in any accusation of having had found a cause and effect of the data that they have produced from their study/experiment. The famous statement to always remember, “CORRELATION DOES NOT EQUAL CAUSATION.”

An advantage of the correlation method is that it provides researchers with the potential conclusions to what may be the actual causes and effects of why or how such things occur as they do based off their data. Although the disadvantages outweigh the advantages in quantity. First off, the presumed causality may be from that A causes B when it may be the case B really caused A. Another problem is that the correlations can be found to have no causal relationship at all, as when potentially a third variable such as C is unnoticed and may be the cause of A and of B. Thus it is very difficult to conclude a clear causal conclusion from correlations because of the large amount of different possible connections between correlated variables.

There are four major perspectives (or families of theories) have dominated the field: sociocultural, evolutionary, social learning, and social cognitive.Despite their differences, the sociocultural, evolutionary, and social learning perspectives all emphasize the objective environment. Each assumes that our social behaviors are influenced by real events in the world.

The sociocultural perspective is the view that a person’s prejudices, preferences, and political persuasions are affected by factors that work at the level of the group—such as nationality, social class, and current historical trends. The focus on the social norms that are a derivative from the culture that each human being developed in from their critical periods of early development.

The social learning perspective, which is viewed social behavior as driven by each individuals past learning experiences with reward and punishment. The social learning perspective is similar to the sociocultural perspective in that it searches for the causes of social behavior in a person’s environment.

The social cognitive perspective, which focuses on the process involved in peoples choices of which social events to pay attention to, which interpretations to make of these events, and how to store the experiences in memory.

The evolutionary perspective adopts the view of human social behaviors in the notion that the behaviors are rooted from the predisposition of one’s physical and psychological ancestry that is derived from the survival methods and reproduction of our species history.

Internal validity is the extent to which an experiment allows confident conclusions about cause and effect. Which begins to bring forth questions one may have if the independent variable is the sole cause of any particular systematic variations in the participants’ behavior.

When another variable systematically changes along with the independent variable, it is called a confound.. Such confounding variables are like the invisible third variables in correlations—they make it difficult to know what caused the subject’s behavior.

Since social psychological research is all based on the social behavior of human beings, it is important to consider all the ethical factors in question to justify the research being done. Such as, invasion of privacy, which becomes more of a problem in naturalistic observations and field experiments. At times, people are unaware that they are disclosing information about themselves. Also, we need to take into consideration the physical or psychological injury, from exercise, injections of drugs, embarrassment, anxiety and or guilt. Ways to prevent this is getting your experiment/research approved by the APA through debriefing with discusses your full intentions of the research in question. As well as the potential funding you can get through the intuition you attend, which requires approval as well.

     What are three things you might suggest to lower the chances of false memories based on stereotyping?

If we have stereotype-consistent information in our perception and interpretation of things we develop a distortion of what may be true negating the stereotype-inconsistent information; in return this floods our memory with cultural stereotypes.  One way to lower the chances of false memories based on stereotyping is to take the perspective of a member of a stereotyped group. Another way is to be motivated to exercise fairness and egalitarianism toward other groups, as well as take a liking to another member of a stereotyped group. If we do any of these things we can learn to de-automatize stereotype activation in the same way we do with bad habits through practice and training. 

Why are we so quick to judge others by the way they first appear to us? Give three research examples of this tendency.

Stereotype activation is automatic under some conditions and not others. Once activated, stereotypes can influence our perceptions and reactions in important ways. Research suggests that there are three factors that enable us to overcome stereotypes and judge others on a more individual basis.

The first factor is the amount a personal information we have for someone, once we know more information about a person the stereotype and other preconceptions begin to lose relevance and impact. A study was done that had white Canadian people introduced to a group of black or Asians individually, at first their stereotype activation had an onset immediately. After 15 minutes had passed with more information exchanged about each person they no longer exhibited stereotype activation.

In addition the second factor is our cognitive ability to focus on an individual of a stereotyped group. A person may be engaged in an activity that makes them busy, in a rush, or unable to think carefully about the person in front of them that their stereotype activation is enabled automatically. A study was done on “morning people” and “night owl people,” people who function better in the morning were more likely to use stereotypes in the evening, as night owls were more likely to use stereotypes in the morning. This gives rise to the notion that when human beings lack the mental energy to individualize our judgments “we fall back on simple minded rules of thumb.”

Lastly the third factor is motivation. If someone truly wants to get to know another person whether it be for personal and interpersonal relationships, the motivation can outweigh the pre-existing beliefs of that person. If someone is competing with some in a work atmosphere or they are in a relationship with someone they may want to form an accurate impression through making non-biased individualized judgments of them. This can go in opposite direction, if one is extremely motivated while making choices without thinking everything through can completely disengage their ability to individualize information about group members. For example, people who have a high need for closure have a difficult time separating their pre-existing notions from the need to slow down and individualize group members. 

According to the “social identity theory,” each of strives to enhance our self-esteem, which has two components: a personal identity and various collective or social identities that are based on the groups to which we belong. People can boost their self-esteem through their own personal achievements or through affiliation with successful groups. An in-group is a group of people in any given situation, such as a team, a fraternity, and on a more universal level ones culture, race and ethnicity.  People identify themselves with their in-group because threats to ones self-esteem heighten the need for in-group favoritism and expressions of in-group favoritism enhance ones self-esteem. A blow to one’s self-image evokes prejudice and the expression of prejudice helps to restore that image. The conflict that arises out of in-groups is competition, as in the “realistic conflict theory,” which is a view that direct competition for valuable but limited resources breeds hostility between groups

1.     What is the “Looking Glass Self”? Explain how it develops using two research examples.

Sociologist Charles Horton Cooley (1902) introduced the term “looking Glass Self,” which involves social factors into one’s self-concept; as it suggests that other people serve as a mirror in which we see ourselves. George Mead expanded on this idea by adding that human beings often come to know themselves by imagining what significant others think of them, then incorporating this perception into their our self-concepts. Gordon Gallup (1977) places different species of animals in a room with a large mirror, first the animals greeted their own image by vocalizing, gesturing, and making other social responses. After several days, only the great apes (not the other animals) began to use the mirror to pick food out of their teeth, groom themselves, blow bubbles and make faces at themselves for their own entertainment. Regardless of the appearance in the mirror, they recognized themselves. In Gallops further studies with apes he had placed a painted odorless red dot on the apes brows, the apes were able to point to the red dot showing their perception of self in the mirror. Later developmental psychologists mirrored this same study with human infants, in which they also recognized themselves between 18-24 months of age. In Gallup’s studies it was interesting to find that the apes that were raised in isolation and did not have peer interaction were unable to recognize themselves; once they were exposed to other apes then they were able to show signs of self-recognition in the mirror. This shows us that in relation to the looking glass self that our concept of self stems from our perception of other people in our environment. Although, just because we think someone may think something about us, may not actually be valid, it still implants characteristics of what we think one may think of us, as our own perception of our self-concept.

What are the differences between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation? When would rewards undermine and/or destroy intrinsic motivation?

Intrinsic motivation originates in factors within a person. People are said to be intrinsically motivated when they engage in an activity for the sake of their own interest, the challenge, or sheer enjoyment. Some intrinsic activities are eating a fine meal, listening to music, spending time with your friends and having a hobby.

In contrast, extrinsic motivation originates in factors outside of a person. People are said to be extrinsically motivated when they engage in an activity as a means to an end, for tangible benefits. Examples of this would be if someone where motivated for money, good grades, recognition, to fulfil an obligation or avoid a punishment.

As behaviorist have observed that people do strive towards a reward, but in the case of someone getting a reward for intrinsic motivations can be problematic. If someone is rewarded for listening to music, playing a game, or eating a tasty food, his or her behavior becomes over justified, or overrewarded, and this can be attributed to extrinsic motivation as well. This can be dangerous because if he or she observes their own efforts have been paid off, they begin wondering if the activity was ever worth pursuing in their own right.

 What does your text mean by “implicit egoism”? What are two pieces of research that support the existence of implicit egoism?

In times of tragedy, why do people affiliate? What happens to their comparison processes when they affiliate during a period of tragedy?

The “need to affiliate,” is defined as a desire to establish social contact with others. Yacov Rofe (1984) proposed a simple answer for reasons people affiliate in stressful situations, he argued that stress increases the desire to affiliate only when being with others is seen as useful in reducing a negative impact in a stressful situation. Research also suggests that facing an imminent threat seek each other out to gain cognitive clarity about the danger they are in. In an emotional/tragic situation an individual would have the chance to compare their emotional reactions with others to determine whether they really needed to be fearful. Also human beings look for people who are also going through misery as well, this way they can help each other cope with what is happening in their lives together.

Individuals differ in the strength of their need for affiliation, but it seems that people are motivated to establish and maintain an optimum balance of social contact, sometimes craving the company of others. Affiliating can satisfy us for other reasons such as, energy, attention, information, and emotional support.
  

1.     Why do we tend to overrate competitors who defeat us? Are positive illusions of self adaptive? Cite three pieces of research to support your answer.

Social comparisons are sometimes made in self-defense, when a person’s self-esteem is at stake, he or she often benefits from making downward social comparisons; comparisons with others who are less successful, less happy, or less fortunate. When people who are low in self-esteem suffer a setback, downward comparisons have an uplifting effect on their mood and on their outlook for the future. They often tend to compare themselves to others who are worse off, which is a form of social comparison. One may feel over-shadowed by the success of this other person and experience social comparison jealously, which is a mix of emotions of resentment, envy and drop in self-esteem. Based on a person self-relevance determines whether they feel pain of jealousy or pleasure of reflection in observation of another person’s success.

When one is outperformed by someone else, whether it’s in class, at work, or on the athletic field, it is not realistic to deny the implication that the other person is superior. Although, research has suggested that people can escapes this situation with their self-esteem intact. For example, Mark Alicke did a series of studies where they had pairs of people take a “perceptual intelligence test,” then rigged the test so the both participants in the pair would think that the other person scored higher. Then when they were asked to rate the perceptual intelligence of their confederates they always “overrated” their ability, because if they felt that if the other person in competition with them was a genius then they would not be so bad in comparison.

Having a positive illusion of self may not always be adaptive, as Taylor and Brown exemplify the positive aspect of one being low in self-esteem to some degree allows one to be more realistic with their reality, in which case allows an individual to adapt to the positive illusions that bring happiness. Contrary, Roy Baumeister and Steven Scher find the opposite effect of looking at life through “rose colored lenses,” allows positive illusions to create counter-productive consequences. Taylor and Brown reviewed relevant research finding that people who are depressed or low in self-esteem actually have a realistic view of themselves then do most other who are better adjusted. They made a conclusion that positive illusions promote happiness, the desire to care for others, the ability to engage in positive work. Roy Baumeister and Steven Scher (1988) warned that positive illusions can give rise to self-defeating behavior, such as when people escape from self-awareness in drugs and alcohol, self-handicap themselves into failure and underachievement, deny health-related problems until it’s too late for treatment, and illusion of control to protect them. 

1.     What is “strategic self-presentation"? What are two common ways people enhance their public image? When might an attempt to promote a positive public image backfire? Quote research to support your answers to each of these questions.

Strategic self-presentation consists of our efforts to shape others impressions in specific ways in order to gain influence, power, sympathy or approval. There are two self-presentation goals that are very common. The first is “ingratiation,” a term used to describe the acts that are motivated by the desire to “get along” with others and be liked. The other is “self-promotion,” a term used to describe acts that are motivated by a desire to “get ahead” and gain respect for one’s competence. When people want to be liked, they put their best foot forward, smile a lot, and if necessary, use favors, compliments, and “apple-polishing” flattery. When people want to be admired for their competence, they can talk about themselves and immodestly showing off their status, knowledge, and exploits. There are tradeoffs, which known as “brown-nosing” which if they are not subtle in this process one can experience a “backfire.” People don’t like those who relentlessly trumpet and brag about their own achievements, or if someone who a pattern of being friendly to their superiors and not their subordinates.

As in an article titles, “Self-Presentation Can Be Hazardous to Your Health,” suggested that people have a strong desire to present a favorable self-image to the public they may leave themselves in dangerous situations caused from unsafe patterns of behavior. Such as people may have an increase of catching AIDS if one is weary of wearing condoms because they embarrassed to purchase them from the store. Also when women have eating disorders, they want to maintain their self-image by using diet drugs to force vomiting to stay thing. Another example is when teenagers use drugs to impress their peers in a drug use situation to seek approval or popularity. 

1.     How do psychologists measure self-monitoring? Give two research examples showing how self-monitoring influences behavior.

Self-monitoring is the tendency to regulate ones behavior to meet the demands of social situations. These people are poised, ready, and able to modify their behavior as they move from one situation to the next. Psychologists are able to use a “Self-Monitoring Scale,” in which they observe patients and they can notice when one is self-monitoring when they agree with statements like, “I would probably make a good actor,” and if they were to say that, “in different situations and with different people, I often act as very different persons.” Low self-monitors appear to be more honest and true, they are consistently exhibiting the same behavior in social situations shifting from one situation to the next.  As high self-monitors will gage the situation in which they are in and then manipulate their behavior to apply to the situation at hand.

Research shows that high-self monitors are more concerned with what other people think and become more anxious/depressed when they fall short of meeting expectations set by others in their lives, while low self-monitors are upset more when they fail to meet personal standards they set for themselves. Another research shows that self-monitoring scores tend to drop with age because people become more settled and secure about their personal identities as they get older.

High self-monitors recognize themselves to be “pragmatic,” more flexible and adaptive and able to cope with the diversity of life’s situations. In contrast, low self-monitors see themselves as “principled,” in which they express themselves with what is on their mind to allow others to know where they truly stand.