CLASS 22

Social Psychology

We are a social species

….in three ways 1. We think about other people 2. We develop relationships with them 3. We are influenced by them These are the three sections of chapter 13

Thinking about the social world SOCIAL COGNITION  SECTION 1

Connecting with other people RELATIONSHIPS RELATIONSHIPS  SECTION 2

KEY POINTS Power of social situations They affect everyone Factors: power, persuasion, emotion Sometimes unconsciously e.g., INTERPERSONAL ATTRACTION

Classic Example Capilano Bridge Study (Dutton & Aaron,1974)

Purpose to test the impact of emotional state on the development of relationships recall Schachter’s 2-factor theory: Emotion = Affect & Cognition

Applied to Interpersonal Attraction Effects of ambiguous arousal on interpersonal attraction Feels like love Illusion, delusion, or reality?

Basic Procedure Young men walking across a bridge are interviewed by a young female experimenter Under one of 2 conditions

Condition A: high bridge

Condition B -- same thing except that the bridge is low

Procedure Experimenter interviewed every guy walking alone across either bridge She asked them to do a brief survey: All agreed She requested interpretations of a T.A.T. picture: What is happening in this picture? She gave the participant a debriefing sheet (including her phone number) to take home

Independent Variable Conceptual variable  Level of arousal (high vs. low) Operationalization  high bridge vs. low bridge

Dependent Variables  Conceptual variable Physical attraction  Operationalizations A. Sexual & romantic content in T.A.T. stories B. probability of calling experimenter for a date

Results Both Dependent Variables worked as expected i.e., attraction to the experimenter was higher among men who were interviewed on the high bridge

Problem with the study Not a real experiment Participants were not randomly assigned to conditions A serious problem that ruins the validity of the study

Self-selection The guys chose the bridge alternative explanation ? The kind of guy who would choose to walk over a high bridge is the same kind of guy who would be willing to call up a woman he hardly knew for a date. i.e., extraverted, confident, sensation-seekers The opposite personality would choose the low bridge

Alternative Experimental Designs How would we redesign the study to eliminate the self-selection problem?

NEW DESIGN 1 randomly assign guys to bridges as they enter the park e.g., flip coin and then change signs or guide them to the right bridge

NEW DESIGN 2 Conduct the interview as guys approach the bridge Shows whether different personalities choose different bridges Suggest that original results caused by self- selection, not causal effect of arousal BUT -- if conditions do not differ, then we can safely use the original design

Replication with other sources of arousal

Meston & Frohlich (2003) Conceptual Replication Roller coaster vs. non-threatening ride Same results But has same problems with self-selection

Other ways to create irrelevant arousal? ?

Implications for Dating Where's the best place to meet romantic partners?

? PROS & CONS ?

Lab Studies vs. Real World Studies IT’S A TRADE-OFF Lab studies are the most rigorous:  Many extraneous effects can be controlled But do they generalize outside of lab? Real world studies more relevant to real life But often suffer from self-selection Why ? Because we can’t randomly assign people to important life conditions