5 sexiest social psychologists and their 5 sexiest theories:

 (in no particular order)

1.) Leon Festinger is sexy because he is big on consistency.  The social comparison theory (1954) sand cognitive dissonance (1957) both hinge on consistency, whether with similar others or between our attitudes and behaviors. Cognitive dissonance is sexy because it demonstrates a counterintuitive idea that rather than changing one’s behavior to fit one’s attitudes, sometimes it’s the other way around.  People actually change their attitudes, which I argue is more salient to one’s identity, to fit and justify their behavior.  Consistency is sexy.

2.) Solomon Asch is sexy because he got participants to behave in a way that was inconsistent with their attitudes.  Again, consistency (and inconsistency) is cool.  In his famous line judgment study (1951), 37% of responses conformed to the group standard and thus were incorrect answers.  The normative influence of conformity is sexy because these participants that gave incorrect answers knew that their answers weren’t actually correct!  They just didn’t want to appear deviant.  Who knew that following norms could outweigh being correct? Social influence in sexy.

3.) Robert Zajonc is sexy because he got cockroaches to navigate a maze (1969).  Who knew that cockroaches are also subject to social facilitation?! Zajonc (1965, 1980) is also cool because he recognized that presence of other for easy tasks improves performance whereas hard tasks hinder performance. Social facilitation is sexy because it demonstrates that we do not live in a vacuum.  Our performance, behavior, attitudes, etc are products of our environment and social interactions.  And social interactions are sexy.

4.) Gordon Allport is sexy because he not only gave us a great definition of social psychology that includes the implied or imagined presence of others (1985), he also created the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues.  He is also the father of the contact hypothesis (1954) which is so intuitive.  How do you fix prejudice, stereotypes, etc?  Just be around diverse people! Duh!  Okay, it’s not that simple, but the contact hypothesis is sexy because it encourages and promotes diversity, equality, and cooperation.  Equality is sexy.

5.) Robert Cialdini is sexy because he teaches us how to get what we want.  His compliance techniques (2007) demonstrate that people can be easily swayed to comply with requests, even from total strangers.  The sexiest compliance strategy is door-in-the-face (2007) because even though you’re tricking someone, there are rarely hard feelings about it.  The fact that a huge, unreasonable request can later lead to compliance with a smaller, intended request blows my mind.  I use this technique all the time.  The key is to not be too unreasonable with the first request, like when I asked Lauren if we could have a baby in order to get her to agree to a puppy.  Compliance is sexy.

Allport, G. W. (1985)  The historical background of social psychology.  In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (3rd ed., Vol. I, pp 1-46).  New York: Random House.

Allport, G. W. (1954).  The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Asch, S. E. (1951).  Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.  In H. Guetzkow (ed.), Groups, leadership, and men.  Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007).  Influence: The psychology of persuasion.  New York: HarperCollins.

Festinger, L. (1954).  A theory of social comparison processes.  Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

Festinger, L. (1957).  A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Zajonc, R. B. (1965).  Social facilitation.  Science, 149, 269-274.

Zajonc, R. B. (1980).  Compresence. In P.B. Paulus (Ed.), Psychology of group influence (pp. 35-60).  Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Zanjonc, R.B. (Heingartner, A., & Herman, E. M. (1969).  Social enhancement and impairment of performance in the cockroach.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 82-92.

I'm just trying to maximize my profits...

According to social exchange theory, human behavior often follows the economic model of profits and losses.  Like with money, peoples' social behavior is motivated by minimizing losses and maximizing profits (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).

So before Lauren and I were together, I was dating a girl who we'll call Sam.

So be completely honest, I was pretty much miserable.  Sam did not have a car, did not have a job, was not going to school, and was pretty clingy.  The worst part?  We didn't have any interesting conversations and she never got any of my jokes.

Suffice to say, I was not satisfied with Sam. According to Rusbult, Martz, and Agnew (1998), satisfaction can be explained with the following equation:

Satisfaction = Rewards - Costs - Comparison Level

Comparison Level (CL) refers to my expectations of my relationship with Sam given my knowledge of past relationships (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).  In this context, my CL was moderate.  However, my costs were greater than my benefits, and thus my satisfaction was low. But because I thought I was being a good person and because I had already invested so much time, money, and energy, I stayed with her.  According to social exchange theory, investments are factors, such as time and money, that one cannot get back if the relationship ends (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).  Because I had already invested so much, I thought I should stay with Sam even though my satisfaction was low.

That is, until I met Lauren.  When Lauren entered my life, I was forced to consider the comparison level of alternatives (CLalt), or what I thought were the costs and benefits of dating Lauren rather than Sam and whether or not I thought a switch would be more beneficial (Thibaut & Kelley, 1959).

Lauren was independent, financially and emotionally, and even had a car!  Plus, she appreciated my wit.  According to Rusbult et al. (1998), commitment can be explained by the following equation:

Commitment = Satisfaction - CLalt + investments

So, even though my investments were great, my satisfaction was very low, my CLalt was enormous (thanks to Lauren).  So, following social exchange theory, I decided to minimize my losses and drop Sam like it's hot.  

In the context of my relationship with Sam, I was losing a lot: money, normal emotional and intellectual processing, and precious time.  With Lauren, I would only have to pay for myself, we could have stimulating conversations, and she was a better prospective mate. 

In the end, I'm glad I unknowingly utilized social exchange theory.  I definitely maximized my profits/satisfaction and minimized my losses.

Rusbult, C.E., Martz, J.M., Agnew, C.R. (1998).  The investment model scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size.  Personal Relationships, 5, 357-391.

Thibaut, J. W. & Kelley, H. H. (1959).  The social psychology of groups.  New York: Wiley.

Give an oaf, don't loaf!

So recently in one of my classes, we had to do a group project.  When we found out who our group members were, I felt very lucky because my group members 1) were in my Methods class last year 2) have good writing styles 3) care greatly about their academic success.  I knew I could count on them!

Turns out they were a bunch of social loafers... According to Latane and others (1979), social loafing occurs when people in groups do not produce the same amount or quality of work as they would if they were alone.

When my group members were unsure whether we needed outside sources to talk about the etiology and treatment of certain psychological disorders, I thought they were kidding.  I said, "Of course you do! That's not something you innately know..."

And when their sections did not meet the same quality as I had hoped and expected, I was surprised.  It sounded like they just strung ideas together, regardless of being able to cite evidence or sources.  Even though I was the one that was behind schedule, by the due date I'd say my section was the best written.  And I'm not the only one who thought so.  When we got our evaluations back, my sections did not have any critiques, but their sections were criticized for lack of evidence.

I'm not trying to make myself sound great and like the ultimate writer, I'm just saying that when people work in groups, they should behave as if they are completing the assignment alone.  That way, when you get a group grade, your other partners are not screwed over :)

 

 Latane, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979).  Many hands make light the work: The causes and consequences of social loafing.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 822-832.

Sorry about this blog, especially the title.  I realize that I sound like an arrogant jerk, but don't judge me.  I'm super assignment-ed out.

Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking

In one sentence, Blink: The Power of Thinking Without Thinking by Malcolm Gladwell explains the ways in which we, as human beings, make quick, and usually accurate, decisions and judgments with limited information and time through unconscious processing, or rapid cogition.  Gladwell begins with our judgments of people and objects.  These judgments are made quickly and are surprisingly accurate.  Often we attribute these accuracies to hunches or gut instincts, when really we observe and process information that we are not aware of.  Gladwell suggests that our judgments are often influenced by implicit associations.  As the concept name suggests, we are unaware of these associations, and therefore we are unable to articulate exactly why we do or do not like someone or something.  Finally, Gladwell concludes Blink with warnings of the limitations and faults of rapid cognition or “mind-reading”.  Such limitations can be seen in the case of implicit associations regarding race or when too much information distracts us from relevant information, and thus clouds our judgment. 

Malcolm Gladwell was a business and science reporter for The Washingston Post before his current position as a writer for The New Yorker.  Thus, Gladwell is not a psychologist or expert in cognitive processes, but he clearly has much experience interacting with, observing, and writing about other social beings.  Blink is definitely credible and possibly scholarly, depending on one’s definition.  The literature used in Blink appears to be explained accurately and is appropriate for the arguments that Gladwell makes.  However, I would be hesitant to give this book the label of scholarly.  Though the explanation of research is adequate, it is counterbalanced with anecdotes and findings that are not empirically-based.  Thus, Blink is credible but does not meet the scholarly standards Southwestern’s psychology department.

To be completely honest, this book was not my first choice.  It was not my second choice either.  But when my top two books had already been selected and it was my turn to sign up, this book was the only one that I had remotely heard of.  I knew that Blink is a best-selling popular psychology book, so I had high expectations. 

My opinion of Blink, after having read it, is that although it is not necessarily my “type” of book, I believe that it is both insightful and successful in conveying interesting psychological concepts to the average person.  I found the book a little repetitive.  I appreciate all of the example that Gladwell provides and I believe that these examples greatly serve individuals without prior knowledge of psychological principles.  However, because we learned about the same concepts and findings in class, I did not need multiple examples in order to understand the information that Gladwell presents.  Furthermore, I was slightly thrown off and confused by the subheadings included in each chapter.  Whereas I usually appreciate outline formats, these subheadings were a bit distracting.  I acknowledge that they break up the chapters into more meaningful chunks, but I would have preferred a different method.

That being said, I would definitely recommend this book to my friends because it covers a lot of information that I believe many people find very interesting and novel.  For instance, I’m sure that a lot of people do not know about the power of priming.  Gladwell explains that through priming, simply reading words that are associated with aging and senior citizens actually would make participants walk slower, a behavior that is often associated with aging.  I also feel like a lot of the information is very applicable to everyday life.  I think that many people would be fascinated to know for example, that participants in a card game experiment at the University of Iowa (Bechara, Damasio, Tranel, & Damasio, 1997) showed physical signs of recognizing a pattern before they were able to articulate a hunch about the pattern.  These participants displayed an unconscious recognition recognition behind the locked door) of the pattern before they consciously knew the pattern.  Given these findings, readers might be more inclined to trust their gut.

I might be more hesitant to recommend this Blink to a psychology major, however.  I think it would be a great tool for first-year psychology majors because Gladwell covers a range of research and a range of areas to which the research can be applied.   Furthermore, Blink describes classic studies that exemplify the importance of strict experimental control and internal validity, such as the Pepsi Challenge “studies”.  Actually, I believe that the inclusion of a vast amount of diverse (as far as topic and level of knowledge of psychology) research is the biggest strength of Blink.  I love reading about new and fascinating studies about random hypotheses that I can later retell to friends (and sound super legit).

This book does greatly overlap with some areas of our Social Psychology class.  However, if someone in the class was really interested in the concepts we covered in the beginning of the semester, especially person perception, making judgments, and the Implicit Association Test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) I would strongly recommend Blink.  I really appreciated that a lot of the research in Blink overlaps with Cognitive Psychology, a class that I took last semester.  I found the research that we reviewed in that class very interesting, so reading Blink was like a pop psych extension of that class.  All-in-all I would recommend this book mostly to people who are not taking currently taking Social Psychology, simply because of the overlap.  However, like I said, I believe it would be very helpful for first-years interested in psychology and would provide fascinating pleasure reading for established psychology majors, even if it might be a bit introductory.

While reading Blink, I noticed that I was definitely more attentive to my physiology, my behavior, and my environment.  Given the extensive research about the accuracy of immediate gut reactions, I paid a lot more attention to my body’s physical cues.  For example, The University of Iowa card game study (Bechara et al., 1997) prompted me to practice using my physiological cues to understand my thoughts and feelings.  When Lauren and I were contemplating adopting our newest guinea pig, Charlie, I definitely used my internal cues in order to understand how I really felt about adopting another guinea pig.  In the end, I attributed my nerves to excitement about having another baby in the house.  I believe that learning how to pay attention to and use my internal cues was the most useful outcome of reading Blink.

After reading about the participants in the experiment conducted by Bargh, Chen, and Burrows (1996), I was much more vigilant about monitoring my behavior for signs of priming.  In the experiment, the researchers gave participants scrambled sentence tests which either included “polite” words or “rude” words.  After they finished and were ready to return their materials to Bargh, they realized that he was in the middle of a conversation.  Those primed with the rude words generally interrupted the conversation after about five minutes.  In contrast, those participants primed with polite words did not interrupt the conversation at all, some waiting 10 minutes before Bargh acknowledged their presence.  Now, I am always wondering if my mood or my behavior is due to priming.  Will listening to angsty music on the way to school make me hate hipster?  Will having a great conversation with a friend at lunch make me more willing to donate money to the Fire Relief effort?  Fortunately, I feel like the power of priming presents a conundrum only in the case of aversive priming.  And that is why I have stopped listing to angsty music.

I also started to pay a lot more attention to my environment.  I was constantly wondering if, when problem solving, I actually suddenly thought of a solution, or if I observed something at the unconscious level that gave me a solution.  This concept was displayed in a study conducted by Norman R.F. Maier (1931) when participants were stumped on a problem solving test.  The researcher casually displayed an “accidental” behavior that suddenly gave participants the solution!  The interesting part was that participants truly believe that the solution spontaneously dawned on them.  This is because the behavior of the researcher was observed at an unconscious level.  I believe that this actually happened to me a couple weeks before I read about this study.  Lauren and I were helping some of our friends move.  We were trying to carry out a couch, but it was too wide to fit through the door.  Frustrated, Lauren sat down and slipped off her flip-flops.  Suddenly and apparently spontaneously I had the idea to take the feet off of the couch in order to fit in sideways through the door.  Only after reading about Maier’s experiment did I realize that my solution may not have been spontaneous after all, but rather the effects of unconscious processing of Lauren’s “hint”.

Blink is a great book for those who are interested in psychological processes and who enjoy the writing techniques found in popular psychology books.  Blink highlights many different cognitive processes and enlightens individuals as to the power of rapid cognition and quick judgments.  Gladwell uses literature to explain numerous well-known events such as the assassination attempt on Ronald Reagan.  Gladwell goes on to provide several limitations to unconscious processing, such as implicit prejudice.  Overall, Blink is a very enlightening, enjoyable book that discusses complex social and cognitive processes in a way that in understandable and relateable to a diversity of readers.

Bechara, Antoine, Damasio, Hanna, Tranel, Daniel, Damasio, Antonio R. (1997).  Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy.  Science, 275(5304), 1293-1295. doi: 10.1126/science.275.5304.1293

Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., Burrows, L. (1996).  Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.

Gladwell, Malcolm (2005).  Blink: The power of thinking without thinking.  New York: Little, Brown and Co.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.

Maier, Norman R. F. (1931).  Reasoning in Humans II: The solution of s problem and its appearance in consciousness.  Journal of Comparative Psychology, 12, 181-194.

...and now we have 4 guinea pigs

So relatively recently, Lauren and I went to PetSmart to pick up more dry food for our 3 guinea pigs.  Of course we had to walk by the guinea pig display, filled with tiny, adorable piggie babies in order to get to the dry food.  As we walked by, Lauren noted that one of the guinea pigs was sitting outside the hutch while the others were inside the hutch sleeping.  This reminded us of our "first born", Adam who we decided to take home because the other guinea pigs were picking on him and wouldn't let him in the hutch.

Anyway, we continued to the dry food.  We picked out our brand and headed back up front.  The air was thick with compliance.

Lauren stopped at the display and the little guy was still sitting outside of the hutch.
She said "He's so tiny! Remember when Adam was that little?"
"Yep. Let's go."
"Maybe we should just watch for a while to see if the others will let him in the hutch."
Silence.
"He's so beautiful! Maybe we should hold him."
"Okay but we're not taking him home."

Long story short, we held him, named him, and took him home with us.

I don't know if that was Lauren's plan all along or if we're just guinea pig hoarders, but the foot-in-the-door technique was definitely used.  According to Cialdini (2007), the foot-in-the-door technique occurs when an individual makes a small, reasonable, seemingly innocent request (like looking at and holding a guinea pig).  Then the target is more likely to comply with the larger, intended request (like adopting a guinea pig).  Because I had already committed to interacting with Charlie, it was easier for me to agree to adopt him.

And now we have 4 guinea pigs.

Cialdini, R. B. (2007).  Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion.  New York: HarperCollins.

Everyone else is doing it...

So the other day I was talking to Lauren about cognitive dissonance.  I explained to her that according to Leon Festinger (1957), cognitive dissonance occurs when one feels anxiety because their behaviors do not match their attitudes.  I told her that there are numerous way that this anxiety can be relieved, including rationalizing that everyone else is also a hypocrite (McKimmie et al., 2003).

Immediately, she said, "Oh, I do that all the time."

Lauren occasionally bends the truth when talking to her parents.  Usually only about living with her lesbian lover (me).  She said that even though she believes that this is her best option, she still feels remorse for lying.

That is, until she talks to our friends about it.  Because some of our friends are in the same situation (i.e. not "out" to their parents), they also make the difficult decision to lie to their parents about certain aspects of their lives.  This evidence that other people also lie to their parents about their sexuality makes Lauren feel less remorse and anxiety about her lies.  And thus, her cognitive dissonance is relieved.

So, like the participants in the study conducted by McKimmie et al. (2003), when Lauren was able to justify her dissonant behavior by concluding that other people are also hypocrites, her anxious and remorseful feelings  were alleviated.



Festinger, L. (1957).  A theory of cognitive dissonance.  Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

McKimmie, B.M., Terry, D.J., Hogg, M.A., Manstead, A.S.R., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2003).  I'm a hypocrite, but so is everyone else: Group support and the reduction of cognitive dissonance.  Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 7, 214-224.

Also, positive stereotype of lesbians

Homos and Jesus (is this title offensive?)

The Implicit Association Test (IAT) measures one's unconscious thoughts and feelings about different groups.  Because the instrument encourages quick responses, reaction times are indicative of unconscious or implicit beliefs.  For example, if one's reaction time is faster when pairing "good" terms and lighter faces than when pairing "good" terms with darker faces, this suggests an unconscious belief that people with lighter skin are "good" and people with darker skin are "bad".

   The first test that I took was the Gay People - Straight People IAT.  My results indicate "little to no automatic preference between Straight People and Gay People."  A problem that I had with this test was that some of the pictures they showed expressed cultural norms and beliefs that are different from my own beliefs.  For example, the test showed a picture of people getting married; when one person was in a dress and one person was in a tuxedo, that image fit my personal beliefs about gay marriage.  When I get married, I sure as hell will be wearing a tuxedo.  I think that societal norms indicate that when two people of the same gender get married, they wear the same type of clothing.  Because this is inconsistent with my personal beliefs and knowledge, I had difficultly categorizing some of the images.
   This result of this IAT was actually surprising.  Being a queermo, I thought that I would display a preference for Gay People. However, the more than I think about it, I realize that I do not often consider or acknowledge Straight People.  I think that maybe I just see Straight People as people, but I am more likely to recognize Gay People.  For this reason, I believe that this specific IAT shows my true attitudes about sexuality.


   I also took the Religion IAT.  I think that I had a lot of errors on this test because I had difficultly separating the different religious identifiers (synagogue, torah, Koran, krishna, karma, etc).  Even though I did not have a lot of early exposure to Christianity, and I am not very religious now, I still was better able to recognize the Christian identifiers.  I believe that this is due to socialization and cultural learning.  Because Christianity is the dominant religion in America, we are better able to recognize the symbols that correspond to Christianity.  Thus, I believe the validity of this test should be questioned.  I believe that this test measures knowledge of and familiarity with certain religions and their symbols rather than implicit attitudes.  When I saw "krishna," I first had to remember that it is an identifier of Hinduism and then categorize it, whereas there was an automatic association between Bible and Christianity, which reduced my reaction time.
   For example, I was surprised to find that my results indicate "more positive attitudes toward Christianity", while Judaism, Hinduism, Islam all fell in the middle of positive and negative attitudes.  I often find that I am actually slightly prejudiced against Christianity and those who practice it.  Because when I came out as gay, the Bible and the "word of God" were used as excused for discrimination, I still hold negative feelings toward Christians.  I am not outwardly prejudiced, but I definitely am more cautious around Christians that I do not know, and I definitely stereotype Christians as being discriminating, close-minded bigots.  For these reasons, I believe that this particular IAT test measures familiarity with certain religions more than implicit attitudes toward them.
  Clearly, taking this test forced me to acknowledge my prejudice and stereotyping of Christians but this has been something that I have been working on and negotiating with for some time now.  I think I will definitely weight the results of the test as a possible indicator of progress in my attempts to reduce prejudice against Christianity.

PO: Compassion just isn't practical for me right now...

When choosing a topic for this blog, I initially dismissed the Day of Compassion theme because I thought it would be uninteresting.  However, when attempting to plan out my participant observer experience, I found that the Day of Compassion would provide me with an experience that would be different from my everyday life.

 

Pre Day of Compassion: Planning Stage

The first thing I have to do is come up with a definition of compassion.  My two-part definition is as follows: 1) avoiding behaviors that will cause harm to others- emotional, physical, financial, etc, and 2) actively seeking to improve/understand the mood of others.

When discussing this definition with Lauren, she had a few critiques.  The first critique was that this definition seemed awfully passive when the goal of the experience is to change my behavior and potentially the behavior of others.  My knowledgeable response was that though my definition of compassion appears passive, the most active component is cognitive.  When proceeding with my day, I will need to constantly evaluate a situation, decide what action to take, and evaluate whether this action involved compassion.  I will also be actively seeking out ways in which to compassionately interact with others.  I recognize that this experience can and would be different if I had a different definition of compassion.  However, I believe that my definition encompasses the most important components of what I believe to be compassionate behavior.

That being said, here are a few “compassionate (in)action” points that I brainstormed (this list is in no way comprehensive or thorough):

• Carpool to school and drive friendly
• No smoking
• No lying
• Smile at everyone
• Ask about people’s day and show genuine interest
• Avoid making the fundamental attribution error

So a lot of the actions are those that would harm the environment.  The last few points, however, are ways that I can either avoid harming others or improve the moods of others.  A problem that I faced when compiling this list was judging actions that are compassionate from actions that are outgoing.  Though I believe this is overlap, I want to make sure that my actions do include elements of compassion and that I am not simply being outgoing.  To guard against this, I will constantly think “Is this compassionate?” before I act.

Day of Compassion: The Action Stage

9:30     I am driving to school and let someone in a huge suburban cut in front of me at the last minute.  They were probably in a hurry or weren’t familiar with the area.  I did not honk.

10:00   I arrive at school and work on homework until Lauren gets out of class.  I actually do all of the Intro to Feminist Studies reading.  Whereas I usually just read the bare minimum to appear that I am prepared for class, I realize that I should respect the professor by reading all of the assigned material.  I will also be able to appreciate the input of my peers and contribute to the conversation more knowledgeably.

11:00   I run into an old suitemate that I have not spoken to in two years.  Though I am in a hurry to get to the library, I initiate conversation and we discuss her plans for the future.  I wish her well in all of her plans.

12:00   Instead of flashing my fake lunch at the commons and getting a free meal, Lauren and I go to Taco Bell.  I donate a dollar to cancer research.  Though I do not have a lot of money, there are people who are worse off than I am.  The woman at the counter is always so nice, I tell her that I appreciate her wonderful customer service.

12:05   A group of high school students walk into Taco Bell.  They are loud and are talking about parties.  I do not engage in judgment as Lauren and I normally would.  They are just being high school kids.  I was one once.  I smile at one of them and compliment another on his shoes.

12:30   Lauren and I are leaving Taco Bell.  I think I hold the door open for her long enough, but because she is texting and is walking slower than I thought.  The door hits her.  Rather than reprimanding her for texting and walking slow, I say: “I’m sorry that happened to you.” 

12:45   I need to print articles for Social Psych and Abnormal Psych, but I feel bad about using so much paper and harming trees.  I find it difficult to read on the computer screen and write notes about the articles.  It’s a tough decision.

1:30     In Fem Studies, Tiffany (an unusual girl with less than insightful comments) repeats what someone else just said but in different words.  Normally, Lauren and I would make eye contact and I would think sarcastically, “wow, how original.”  I think about commenting on the insightfulness of her comment, but that would not be sincere.  I look down and do not react.

2:15     Lauren and I are walking to our next class.  Finally it’s the right season for my most favoritest thing to do, step on acorns.  But wait, if I step on the acorns, can the squirrels still eat them?  I decide not to participate.  Instead, I listen to the delightful crunch of Lauren stepping on acorns.

2:30     I can’t do it anymore.  Sarcasm is leaking out of my mouth.

4:00     I pick a fight with Lauren.

5:00     I’m down for the count.  No more compassion.

5:30     I need chocolate cake.

Post Day of Compassion: The Recovery Stage

            At the beginning of the day, I thought that being compassionate for a whole day would be a great experience.  As is clearly portrayed by my day-log, I experienced compassion-burn-out after only eight hours.  Here is what happened and why:

(*Disclaimer: For the following sections, I use “helpful,” “compassionate,” and “prosocial” interchangeably because helping behavior and compassionate behavior are both considered prosocial behaviors.)

            According to the negative state relief model, people participate in helping behavior in order to experience a positive effect on mood (Cialdini, et al., 1987).  So, I believed that because I was being compassionate, helping people, and generally behaving in a prosocial manner, I would experience elevated mood.  This did occur.  I found that the more compassionate my cognition and behavior were, the more I was in a positive mood.  Unfortunately, however, self regulation depletion set-in.  I realized that throughout the day, I was having to censor my responses during conversations.  I also stopped myself from judging and making fun of other people, and I stopped myself from stepping on acorns.  As Muraven and Baumeister (1998) explain, self regulation draws on a singular, finite resource.  So, after hours of self regulating, my resource was depleted, and I could not avoid being sarcastic or picking a fight with Lauren. 

However, I do believe that this good mood transferred to others.  Just as helping/prosocial behaviors often lead to good mood, good mood often leads to prosocial behaviors (Aderman, 1972). This is known as the “good mood effect.”  It simply states that when people are in a good mood, they are more likely to be helpful.  So, in theory, if I am helpful to another person, they will experience elevated mood (because they received help), then because they are in a good mood, they will be more likely to help another person.  And the cycle continues.  Thus, in order to encourage others to be more compassionate, all I have to do is be compassionate to them. 

Whether the people with whom I interacted today were aware of this cycle or not, I am pretty sure that they made a personal attribution of my behavior.  I think that the friends and acquaintances with whom I interacted today made personal attributions because they had already made a most likely positive judgment about my character (halo effect, Thorndike, 1920), and so my actions today were seen as confirmation of their judgments, and thus their positive characterization of me persevered (Bruner & Potter, 1964).  When interacting with strangers, they also most likely made a personal attribution.  According to Jones and Harris (1967), people often quickly attribute behavior to personal factors.  So, upon first meeting me, strangers most likely attributed my compassionate behavior to my personality.

I do not think that my friends noticed a change in my behavior today.  This is partially because by the time I was interacting with them, my self-regulation was mostly depleted.  Additionally, research regarding the spotlight effect has found that people often overestimate the extent to which their exceptional behavior is noticed by others (Gilovich, Medvec, & Savitsky, 2000).  So even though I might have thought that my unusual behavior was obvious, the truth is that my different behavior probably went unnoticed among acquaintances and friends.

Because acting compassionately on a regular basis is associated with higher levels of well-being (Dillard, Schiavone, & Brown, 2008), I would be inclined to continue this experience.  However, this constant compassionate behavior does not seem practical for my lifestyle.  I generally practice the idiom “Think before you speak,” but I don’t want to constantly censor myself or refrain from saying how I actually feel.  Moreover, I do not have time to always read for Fem Studies before class.  I do not always have the money or resources to actually purchase lunch (that sounds bad, it’s really not that bad).  I do not always have the energy or patience to find value in Tiffany’s stupid comments or stop myself from judging stupid high school kids.  I do not have the inhibition to not step on acorns.  It’s just not practical.  I think in the future, I will make efforts to behave compassionately or try to improve someone’s day, but on a regular basis, that’s just not my style.

Aderman, D. (1972).  Elation, depression, and helping behavior.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 91-101.  doi: 10.1037/h0033366

Bruner, J.S., & Potter, M.C. (1964).  Interference in visual recognition.  Science, 144, 424-425.  doi: 10.1126/science.144.3617.424

Cialdini, R.B., Schaller, M., Houlihan, D., Harps, K., Fultz, J., & Beaman, A.L. (1987).  Empathy-based helpings: Is it selflessly or selfishly motivated? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 749-758.  doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.52.4.749

Dillard, A. J., Schiavone, A., & Brown, S. L. (2008). Helping behavior and positive emotions: Implications for health and well-being. In S. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology: Exploring the best in people: Vol. 2. Capitalizing on emotional experiences (pp. 101-114) Westport, CT: Praeger.

Gilovich, T., Medvec, V.H., & Savitsky, K. (2000).  The spotlight effect in social judgment: An egocentric bias in estimates of the salience of one’s own actions and appearance.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78(2), 211-222.  doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.78.2.211

Jones, E.E., & Harris, V. A. (1967).  The attribution of attitudes.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 3, 1-24.  doi: 10.1016/0022-1031(67)90034-0

Muraven, M., & Baumeister, R.F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resources: Regulatory depletion patterns.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774-789.

Thorndike, E.L. (1920).  The constant error on psychological rating.  Journal of Applied Psychology, 4, 469-477.  doi: 10.1037/h0071663

He's definitely compensating for something...

This morning while I was trying to find a place to park on campus, there was somewhat of a crisis going on, so I was in hurry to find a spot and get to where I needed to be.  I ended up parking in the FAB parking lot, deciding that I would move my car once the crisis had been resolved.


I noticed a vacant spot right behind a man who had just parked his over-sized truck.  As I was trying to park, I noticed he was hesitant to get the hell out of the way.  Furthermore, after I parked and got out of my car, he kept lingering and eyeing our cars.

Because he obviously wasn't going to be a normal human being, I said, "Everything alright?" He replied, "Yeah, I just want to make sure I'll have enough room to get out." In my head I was thinking, "Maybe if you weren't trying to compensate for something, you could have a normal size car and wouldn't have to worry about it..."  But instead of saying that, I just looked at him, said, "I think it'll be okay." and then walked away, hoping that he didn't hear me whisper, "What an effing douche."

Anyway, none of that really matters.  I just wanted to complain.  What does matter is that I immediately attributed his irrational behavior to his personality.  To me, he was just another A-hole using an impractically sized vehicle to compensate for his inferior...intelligence.  And if he had said anything to me about my parking job or my shortness with him, I would have responded, "I'm in a hurry.  This is an emergency."

Clearly, I fell victim to the actor-observer effect which Jones and Nisbett (1971) explain as the tendency to attribute our own behavior to contextual circumstances, but attribute the behavior of others to personal traits.  I now realize that he also could have been in a hurry (as he probably was, because his car was gone when I returned 10 minutes later).  And his concern with being able to get out of his parking space is actually pretty rational when it comes to parallel parking.  But none of these possibilities were salient to me at the time.  All I knew was that I needed to park and get into the FAB in order to deal with a crisis and this turd-ferguson wouldn't get the hell out of the way or leave me the hell alone.

Worst part?  He had a professor parking tag.

Jones, E. E. & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. Kanouse, H. H. Kelly, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79-94), Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

"I don't know, I just get the feeling that she's a bitch..."

So, before Lauren (my partner) and I were together, we were best friends.  I was also in love with her, but that's for another blog... So, of course, whenever she was dating someone, I was extra critical of that person.

She dated this one person, we'll call her Michelle...  I remember that when I first met Michelle, I immediately disapproved of her.  I thought she was weird, and somehow I knew that it wouldn't work out between Lauren and Michelle.  Some might attribute this distaste for Michelle to my feelings for Lauren, but I have another theory.  Michelle reminded me, in both appearance and mannerism, of one of my ex-girlfriends whose name is Katie.  Now, Katie was not only a crazy, annoying, neurotic vegan, but she also dumped me for a girl who lived in Kentucky that she met on Myspace.  That being said, I don't remember my time with Katie very fondly.

Because Michelle reminded me so much of Katie, the bitchy vegan, I designated Michelle's probability of being a keeper as very low.  In other words, I used the representativeness heuristic, which states that we as social beings tend to overuse similarities between past events and new events in order to make probability judgments (D. Kahneman & A. Tversky, 1972).  Because Katie and Michelle shared numerous characteristics, and because Katie was a douche, I assumed that Michelle was a bitchy freak, too.

Let's just say in the end I was right about Michelle...

D. Kahneman & A. Tversky (1972).  Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness.  Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430-454.

Sarah Bond: The Schema Violator

According to Solomon Asch (1946), the presence of some traits--central traits--lead us to make assumptions about what other traits someone might have.  For example, when you meet someone for the first time and you notice that they have a "warm" personality, you might also assume that they are caring, nurturing, etc.

In my Conformity, Deviance, and Identity class this semester, we've also been discussing our perceptions of other people.  We've been talking about how society groups people into categories.  One of the main category subsets, or central traits, we've been talking about is gender.  For example, when we see a person with long hair and a petite figure who is wearing a skirt, we might assume that this person 1) is biologically female, 2) identifies as a woman, 3) is heterosexual (among other many traits).  Our conversation about central traits and assumptions made me wonder what people assume about me. 

I am a non-cisgender person who dresses in "men's" clothing.  I violate people's schemas about what men and women look like, dress like, and act like.   Do people see that I am ambiguously-gendered and make assumptions about my other traits?  (well of course they do)  Do people think that because of my gender expression I am also annoyingly-opinionated, radical, feminist, or über-liberal?  

I am now realizing why my dad hounds me about wearing nice, professional clothes to interviews, or really any interaction that necessitates a good first impression.  I realize now that in a 5-minute conversation, or even seconds-worth of observation, we group people into categories, make assumptions about their personalities, and make positive or negative evaluations about their overall character.  

Thus, I am in conflict: I know that people will make assumptions about me because of my relatively radical gender expression, but does that mean I should change the way I look?  Do I care about what other people assume?  According to the paradigm of belief perseverance, one's initial belief about  an issue often remains unchanged even in the face of contrary evidence (Gallup Poll Editors, 2002).  Thus, I should change how I look and how I behave so as not to violate schemas and create a "negative" first impression that will persevere regardless of introduction to my warm personality.  However, the rebel in me (and psych major that is aware of our occasionally erroneous first impressions of others) says that assumption-makers can screw themselves.  My gender expression is perfect.

Asch, S.E. (1946).  Effects of group pressure upon the modification and distortion of judgments.  In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Groups, leadership, and men.  Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press.

Gallup Poll Editors (2002).  Gallup poll of the Islamic world: Subscriber report.  Princeton, NJ: Gallup Press.

Welcome to my blog!

This blog will serve to archive my thoughts, feelings, perceptions (however biased), inquiries, brilliant research ideas, etc. regarding my Social Psychology course this semester.  In order to provide a positive first impression (can you tell I just read Chapter 4?), I will share a little information about myself:

I am a Junior, Psychology major/Sociology minor at Southwestern University.  As far as psych classes, I am currently taking Social Psych and Abnormal Psych, and they are pretty neck-and-neck for "heaviest courseload" and "most interesting".

I have a wonderful partner who supports me in all of my endeavors and whose only flaw is majoring in Sociology...just kidding!

We have 3 guinea pigs: Adam, Huxley, and Gumball,

And of course, Jack

This summer I interned at Hope Alliance, a center for survivors of domestic and sexual violence.  It was a fantastic experience, and it opened my eyes to so many different career paths and options.  I am mostly interested in social psychology and forensic psychology, and hope to one day find a career that utilizes both fields.


I took Research Methods last year.  The first semester mostly consisted of British accents, CROL (Close Reading Of Leary), and cheez-its. 
The second semester consisted of chaos, panic, and experiments on rats (of course yielding nonsignificant results...)

Despite the harrowing adventure that was Research Methods, I remain loyal to psychology and am looking forward to a great semester!    Hope you enjoy my blog!