**WEEK 1**..............................................................................................................................

1
week1.........................................................................................................................1
Lecture 2.3......................................................................12
Week 2Lecture 2.5.......................................................15
Lecture 2.6......................................................................................20
Lecture 2.7 .........................................................22
Lecture 2.8..................................................................................................24
Three of the most famous techniques ()
Lecture 2.8 3

...
**WEEK 3**
week 3Lecture 3.3......................................................................28
...35
...........................................................................................................................37
**WEEK 1**
week1
uvousbnt 2013-07-29 19:19

Q:pyhsically attractive(less intelligent)

(the Halo Effect)

wiki

/
//

hindsight bias(wiki)

@
@0.618 ~

(change blindness)

WikipediaChange blindness is a psychological

phenomenon that occurs when a change in a visual stimulus goes unnoticed
by the observer. For example, an individual fails to notice a difference
between two images that are identical except for one change.

@0.618 change blindness

@Straw lecture change blindness

Richard Wiseman color changing card trick

confirmation bias

A,D,4,7
A 7
A 4 A
7
ABA B B A B
A7
@ 0.618

Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Behavioural confirmation
Behavioural confirmation is a type of self-fulfilling prophecy whereby people's
social expectations (based more on social beliefs than personal expectation)
lead them to act in ways that cause others to confirm the expectation.

Thin-slicing

WiseGEEK


The term thin-slicing means making very quick decisions with small amounts
of information. The term is most often used in the discussion of Malcolm
Gladwells 2005 non-fiction book Blink, which analyzes the concept of
thinking without thinking.
Malcolm Gladwell
2005
3 6
Nalini Ambady Robert Rosenthal 1992
5

quiz 2
2/350%

2008 thin-slicing 0.05

XD

 quiz

meta-analysis )

Week 1 Bonus Reading1.1On Being Sane in Insane Places

uvousbnt 2013-08-01 21:53

David L. Rosenhan1973
http://psychrights.org/articles/Rosenham.htm
lectures and readings

8 12

8 20

12 5

7 52 19

118 35

10

193 41
23 19

19


2100

3.9 25.1
6.8

12 11 1

**WEEK 2**
2.1 Attribute theory:the whys and whereforeof behavior
Attribution theory is about how people make "causal attributions", or "casual
explanations" for behavior.
People usually explain behavior in terms of :
1. person- something about the person may have cause the behavior.
2. entity- some enduring feature of the situation or the stimulus.
3. time- something about particle occasion may have cause the behavior.

Casual attributions are based on:

1. consensus- do other people respond similarity in the same situation.
2. distinctiveness- do other situation elicit the same behavior.
3. consistency- does the same thing happen time after time.
Salient and causal attribution:
1. in general, the more salient a stimulus is, the more likely it is to be viewed
as causal.
2. perceptions of causality are partly a function of where one's attention is
directed.
3. attention is in turns, of a function of salience.
2.2 Attribution biases

People don't always pay attention to consensus information when

they make causal attributions.
Nisbett and Borgida's findings
1. Giving people consensus information did not significantly affect the casual
attribution that people made.
2. Even when people knew that the majority of participants in the original
experiments had received a shock or failed to help, they made dispositional
attributions.
3. Consensus information also failed to affect judgements of how people
thought they themselves would have acted if they had been in the original
studies.
False uniqueness effect:
a false belief that when it comes to our good deeds and other desirable
behaviors, we're more unique than we really are.
Correspondence bias(The Fundamental attribution Error)is the
tendency for people "to underestimate the impact of situational factors and
overestimate the role of dispositional factors in controlling behavior".
Actor-Observer Different in Attribution:
Classic finding actors are more likely to explain their behavior as a function of
situational factors than are observers.
1. Actor downplay dispositional explanation, but mainly when the behavior or
outcome is negative, if the behavior or event is positive, this difference often
reverse.
2. A-O difference are often "self-serving biases".

3. To actors, the situation is often most salient

To observers, the actor tend to be salient.
Though a little psychological judo, the relationship between salience
and causal attribution can be used to reverse actor-observer
differences.

Lecture 2.3
uvousbnt 2013-08-18 12:38
@@chenwei

LaPiere Richard LaPiere 1934

1930 LaPiere
184 67

LaPiere 251
LaPiere 72 ""
LaPiere

LaPiere

81 47 ,
118 92%59 7%

LaPiere
128
118 9


LaPiere
LaPiere
7
LaPiere
SourceLaPiere.R.T(1934)Attitudes vs.Actions.Social Forces.13,230-237
John Darley Dan Batson John Darley Dan Batson 1973
47

*
*

""
"
"

Allan Wicker 46

file drawer problem

2003

Week 2Lecture 2.5

uvousbnt 2013-08-18 16:06
@ @
20 50 2000 cognitivedissonance
predecisional dissonance
postdecisional dissonance

1980 Jim Sherman Larry Gorkin

"
"

1980

Sherma Gorkin
77 "
"
5
5

5 80
5

Sherman Gorkin

Sherman Gorkin

Ronald Comer James Laird Choosing to Suffer as a

Consequence of Expecting to Suffer: Why DoPeople Do It? 50

/(Worm Expectancy/Worm Choice)

/(Worm Expectancy/Shock Choice)
/ ( Neutral Expectancy Control Group)

3
47

10
10 "
"

10

/(Worm Expectancy/Worm Choice)

/(Worm Expectancy/Shock Choice) *
/ ( Neutral Expectancy Control Group)

/(Worm Expectancy/Worm Choice)
/(Worm Expectancy/Shock Choice) *
/ ( Neutral Expectancy Control Group)

/(Worm Expectancy/Worm Choice)15 12

/(Worm Expectancy/Shock Choice) 20 10
/ ( Neutral Expectancy Control Group)15

Comer Laird

Robert Knox James Inkster 20 60 really about as vanilla as

you can get. 141
69 30 2
72 30 2
Knox Inkster 2

Knox Inkster 7 1
7
3.4
4.8
Knox Inkster 60 2

2012

63
21
36

10th ed. David G. Myers Mooc

Introductionto PsychologySocial Psychology

 SP peer assignment
essay professor
scott
*

A
1

empathycompassionhappiness
happiness

D compassionempathy *
* x

scott

US US
outrospection

E SC

participator scott

Lecture 2.6
uvousbnt 2013-08-18 18:02
the psychology of persuasion
lecture

Bill McGuire()McGuire

independent variables

audience

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

1-2%

central route to persuasion

peripheralroute to persuasion
fear appeals

/
a two-sided appeal XYZ XYZ

building resistance
attitude inoculation

central route to persuasion

peripheralroute to persuasion

100%
100%

torque

Glamour
2012

fear appeals

1800 John Adams

Thomas Jefferson

Lecture 2.7

Lecture 2.7 Robert Cialdini Steve

Martin

Dr.Cialdini
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini) 6

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Reciprocity
Scarcity
Authority
Consistency
Liking
Consensus

..

20 20%
15%

~
---Lecture 2.8
uvousbnt 2013-08-18 20:35
@Phanto@chenwei

"
"
Cialdini


Ciadini

Cialdini 80%

Causal attributions

50%",
, "

Cialdini ""
""

.""
.""

"" 29% 50%

"foot-in-the-door""
(door-in-the-face)""(low-ball)"
"" Jonathan Freedman Scott Fraser
20 60
""Freedman Fraser
112

"
"
""""

Freedman Fraser

17%

56% 47%

VS VS

Freedman Fraser
""
Daryl Bem
Freedman Fraser
""
"
"
"
?

Cialdini ""
Cialdini


Cialdini
87

"
"

""

Cialdini
63
"
"
7
29 9 31%
24%
"" 7
56% 53% 7

?
""

""""

Three of the most famous techniques ()

Lecture 2.8 3

...

**WEEK 3**
week 3Lecture 3.3
2013-08-26 12:40

@@chenwei

group pressureconformity
obedience Stanley Milgram Solomon Ash

Solomon Ash Dateline NBC

8
Candid Camera 35

90

Candid Camera

Dateline AnthonyPratkanis
SantaCruz 1950 Solomon Asch

A 3

B 6 5
1 6
participant

C 18

12 critical trials

A 60 16 9
B
C
D6

1 1 15

A 1

B 2 14

C 3 32

diminishing effect

2
4 32
68

B 3 1 8

7
Confirmation Bias
ConfirmationBias

ConfirmationBias


D 3."

D K 3 7
K, D D , 3. Peter
Wason 3 3
3 3 D , 3 D
7 D
D 7

Peter Wason 128 5

 ///
hindsight bias/hypothetical design/memory design/know-it-allalong effect

Fischhoff (hindsight bias) [1]
19 (Gurkhas)(foresight)
4
4
Fischhoff
1
(hypothetical design) Fischhoff

(memory design)

HertwigGigerenzer Hoffrage[2]
(know-it-all along effect)

[3][4][5][6][7][8]
Christensen-Szalanski Fobian Willham[9] r=0.17
r=0.25
Fischhoff Beyth[10] 1972

Fischhoff Beyth[10]

Davies[11]Davies

Davies

Fischhoff[12]
Hell [8]

(1)
(2)

Hell

2
Hawkins Hastie[13] 4 (1)(2)
(3)(cognitive reconstruction)(4)(motivated
self-presentation)

Fishhoff[12] Wood[14]
2/3
[13,15]
3 (sampling
evidence)(evidence evaluation)(evidence integration)

Slovic Fishhoff[5]

(self-enhancing)(self-serving)
[12]
Campbell Tesser[16]
3
Stahlberg Maass[17]Stahlberg

Hoffrage Hertwig Gigerenzer[18]

Reconstruction After Feedback With Take The Best RAFT
3 (1) (2)
(3)

Mark Mellor[19] 3
3

Mark Mellor[19]


Louie[20] (1)
(2)
CurrenFolkes Steckel[21]


LouieCurren Harich[22]

4
20 80
HIV [23]
1984 1985

---

Harvard

,
Alberta 18
4

 Harvard Alberta

David G. Meyers

1986 Karl Teigen

Teigen

Teigen

Teigen

Baruch Fischhoff

Baruch Fischhoff

N. Crawford

(:Halo Effect

[]
1

1.1
2
2.1
2.2
3
4
[]

20 20

[]

70 Richard Nisbett
Nisbett Wilson Nisbett Wilson, 1977

[1]
[]

[]

[]

[1][2]

[3]
[]
1970 hindsight bias
[3] 1973 Baruch
Fischhoff Paul E. Meehl
[4]

1970 [4]
[5]
[6]
[6]
knew it all along
1975 "creeping determinism
hypothesis"[3]
[3]

[7][8][9]
[1]

20
[2]
[1] 1904
[2]
1955 20 70
meta-analysis 1976
Nambury S. Raju, Larry V. Hedges, Ingram Olkin, John E. Hunter
Frank L. Schmidt
[]
effect size

[]

PubMed


The term thin-slicing means making very quick decisions with small
amounts of information. The term is most often used in the
discussion of Malcolm Gladwells 2005 non-fiction book Blink, which
analyzes the concept of thinking without thinking.
Gladwell posits that thin-slicing can have its uses or can be a
mistake. If one takes a small amount of information to generalize or
make decisions in whole then decisions may be made that really are
incorrect. However, sometimes a small amount of relevant
information is all that is required to make decisions and act.

One example of thin-slicing is the Dr. Phil television program. When

the program began, people praised Dr. Phils ability to cut through
the bull and get people straight to their major issues. However,
many therapists believe that some of Dr. Phil's thin-slicing is
detrimental to therapy in general. They argue that therapy takes
more than a one hour appearance on a television show to really help
people change destructive behavior.
To his credit, Dr. Phil tends to research his guests fairly thoroughly,
and what the audience sees is a thin-slicing of the total information
the therapist has at his disposal. Additionally, more and more Dr. Phil
may confront to get to truths, but then works with families or
individuals to get them regular therapy after a show.