Psych 225 Lecture 14 Outline of Last Lecture 1) Lab Checks Day 22) Ray Chapter 14 ReviewOutline of Current Lecture 1) Paper Result2) Zajonc Theory3) Cottrell Theory4) Chapter 3Current LecturePaper results-F test: Main effect with factor 1?-F test: Main effect with factor 2?-F test: Interaction between factor 1 and 2 *try not to use the word significant*Mine is 2 x 3 (option A) see written notesOrigins of ideas3) Existing researchC: attempts to test competing explanations of effectsDoor-in-the face (DIF) enhance compliance Cialdini et al (1975)-explanations of increased compliance via DIFThese notes represent a detailed interpretation of the professor’s lecture. GradeBuddy is best used as a supplement to your own notes, not as a substitute.reciprocity, mutual concession: normative explanation how society functions well; if people follow certain social norms, society works better-ex. can you work every Saturday? No…Oh then can you just work one Saturday?; P’s are much more inclined to agree to one Saturday per year having declined the large request perceptual contrast: about how things look when compared to other things; relative magnitude makes targeted request change in its accessibility -ex. book feels heavy in one hand, until someone puts a cinder block in the other hand; then thebook doesn’t feel so heavy RequestsExplanation Moderate only Sequential, large then moderateSimultaneous: large and moderate Reciprocity (Low) Enhanced (High)compliance(Low)Contrast (Low) Enhanced (High)complianceEnhanced (High)complianceReciprocity would say that large request is necessary but insufficient to elicit enhanced compliance -simultaneous conditions is the critical condition because the two theories vary between it 3. Using Existing Research: attempt to:Robert ZajoncZajonc’s observations of conflicting findings-similar to Triplett’s work -presence of others (v. alone) triggered better performance/performance facilitation on jogging, biking, fishing -presence of others (v. alone) performance impairment on math and word puzzles Zajonc’s explanation: *Innate drive theory* (mere presence, compresence)-looked at cockroaches, mice, and people -compresence: term coined by Zajonc to refer to mere presence-presence of members of same species triggers and automatic response (innate, reflexive, alertness response of high arousal) then there is a generalized drive which leads to increased tendency to enact the dominant response (works differently if there are members of different species (may make us run as our dominant response) -heightened tendency to enact the dominant response (R): if task is simple, well-learned, dominant R is often correct leads to social facilitation (i.e. muscle memory-riding a bike) if task is complex, novel, dominant R often is incorrect leads to social impairment -Zajonc’s was across species Cottrell’s Explanation: Learned Drive Theory -Zajonc: cross-species-Cottrell: specific to humans -people learn that their actions have social consequences -arousal= f(anticipated social consequence) *not due to mere presence but potential of social consequences -presence of othersQ: can they evaluate us? If they can’t evaluate us: no change in arousal same performance as when aloneIf they can evaluate usQ How will we perform? If simple well learned taskanticipation of positive social consequences moderate increase in arousal social facilitation *move to an optimal state of arousalIf difficult, novel task anticipation of negative social consequence large increase in arousal social impairment *moves beyond optimal state arousal to debilitating state of arousal Step 2 of scientific problem solving: Designing the study, expt. -which conditions are necessary to test Zajonc and Cottrell’sH’s re: performance on a difficult task?-according to Zajonc, what is necessary and sufficient to elicit social impairment?Zajonc v. CottrellDV= performance on difficult taskTheorist None (alone) Can’t EvalZajonc Good PoorCottrell Good GoodAccording to Cottrell, the presence of others is necessary to get social impairment, but not sufficient (also need to be able to be evaluated by the people present) Strong Inference (Ray Chapter 3)-strong= powerful, inference=causal -problem solving technique aimed at:fostering rapid scientific progressincrease internal validity increase/heightened confidence in a causal explanation of an event because other causal explanations for the event has/have been discounted (one perspective is gaining support while the other is being falsified/discounting another within the same study-a theoretical contest) 1) Generate alternative hypotheses2) Devise a crucial expt. Expt. Should be capable of producing alternative outcomes, each of which would exclude 1+ hypothesis 3) Conduct an experiment that would produce clear resultsdon’t introduce confounding variabledon’t have bad construct validity 4) Refine the hypothesis that received some support and repeat