Sexy Theories and Theorists?

By far the sexiest theory I can think of is Cognitive Dissonance Theory. This theory basically states that individuals strive to have their behavior and their attitudes link up. However, when a person's behavior is not consistent with their attitude, they will begin to feel psychological arousal in a not so good way :/. Instead of having dissonance the individual will change their attitude so that they feel as if they are remaining consistent (Festinger 1957).  I think this theory is sexy because it can encompasses so many things that we, as individuals, do on a daily basis. People do things that go against their attitudes to conform, to be polite at social events, to seem easily pleased on a first date, and in doing so they begin to alter their attitudes. AMAZING.

Another sexy theory is Terror Management Theory. What this basically states is that people cope with the fear of death by creating worldviews the help boost and preserve their self esteem (Greenberg et al. 1997).. Basically, it's sexy because it explains the need for faith. People have never really been keen to death, but in order to make death less "doom-y," religion was incorporated. Heaven, the place where dead people go to live eternal awesomeness. All that is explained through this theory... love it.  

Affective Forcasting! Just became one of my top 5 sexiest because I got to use it as a joke while studying for my make-up test to boost my communal friend Stef's moral in a not-so-bueno time. This theory basically says that although people believe they will be able to predict how they will feel following a negative event or a positive event in their life, they usually overestimate the time that it will take them to get back to normal (Gilbert et al. 1998). Stef's temporary cripple-ass may still be walking like a baby dinosaur with her retro racing walker in two months, but the good news is her psychological coping mechanism will kick in and help cushion the blow from the accident! YAY! 

Distraction-conflict theory is also mighty sexy in my opinion because it just makes sense. Recently as crunch time has fallen upon us, I have been a victim of this said distraction, so to have a theory to justify my actions that night makes it all better. Distraction-conflict theory basically says that when other people are around who are distracting or creating attentional conflict social facilitation will kick in (Baron 1986). Social facilitation is basically the idea that the presence of others makes easy tasks easier and hard tasks harder (Zajonc 1965). Last Wednesday I was up working on my book project in the majestic halls of Olin with a friend who I'll call Bagel. Bagel and I were knocking the projects outta-the-park when dear old drunken  Cupcake walked in attempted to help us complete our projects while completely intoxicated. Bad Idea, needless to say my project completion was delayed at least an hour, when I finally made the executive decision to kick her out. She was distracting.... and because I have not completed a book project at SU I was performing poorly already... kicking her out was necessary.

I think that the triangular theory of love is pretty sexy just because "love" is so typically defined as being undefinable and this theory provides subtypes and all kinds of sexy magic. This theory says that there are three basic components of love: intimacy, passion, and commitment. When you mix and match those three things pairing them up in every which way possible you can get 8 possible love outcomes: Romantic love, Liking, Companionate Love, Empty Love, Fatuous Love, Infatuation, Consummate Love, and Non-Love (Sternberg 1986). 

Top 5 Sexy Social Psychologists:

1. Norman Triplett. I think it's pretty sexy that he was the founder of my favorite class this semester. Kudos to you, Norm. His first study was also pretty awesome seeing as how he absolutely nothing to research or start from. 

2. Leon Festinger. As I made clear up top, I'm hot for cognitive dissonance theory. He rocked my world a few time this semester. First with social comparison theory, then cognitive dissonance.... damn. 

3. Phil Zimbardo. If this was a Sexiness contest based solely on looks, he would of been at the top stop. The way he just oozes cheese and tool bag really get my gears-a-turnin', but that prison study got him on this list today. It was awesome, even though horribly unethical. lol

4. Robert Merton. That self-fulfilling prophecy really rocked my socks off if you know what I mean. 

5. Gordon Allport. Well, my blog is named after him. He was thinking ahead way back in the thirty's about apply psychology to social constructs. I think that makes him a BAMF.  

Exchange Vs. Communal Relationships

So exchange and communal relationships. Margaret Clark found that there were two different kinds of relationships, exchange and communal. Exchange relationships are characterized by an immediate reciprocation of benefits. That is we "exchange" our benefits evenly, for example, if someone was to do something for you, you would be expected to do something equivalent to that action in return. These relationships are more likely to be between strangers and work friends. Communal relationships are characterized by a partner who responds to another's needs or well-being over a prolonged amount of time without the necessity of repayment. This is more easily said to be a altruistic relationship, in which either partner does not do something with the idea of repayment in mind. These relationships occur between friends, family, and romantic partners (Clark & Mills, 1993).

Soooo today during class, Dr. G talked about the problem with people struggling for one relationship while someone is constantly keeping them in the other.  Dr. G mentioned this friend she had in grad school who tried to pay back 14 cents for some food that Dr. G bought for her and I looked directly at Stef! Ever since the bonding experience that was "Social Psychology Exam 2," there has been an established friendship (probably before that, but it's needed here for effect). Now the question lies in which of the two relationships reflected above we fit into.

See over the days of studying and that last few hours before the exam, energy drinks, candy, soda, food, and other necessities were shared. I was under the impression that this was communal... we would simply part ways after the exam and these items that led to our success would be lost in the proverbial woodwork. However, Stef constantly feels that she needs to repay some of these kind actions and well, I'm sick of it :). How can our friendship grow and prepare for this looming "Social Psychology FINAL," if she insists upon repaying me for every damn energy drink? The answer is... WE CAN'T. 

So Stef if you're reading this... QUIT. haha... Those items were shared resources for passing this class and I was happy to provide some of them. Lets take this shit to the next level... the communal one. :P

Clark, M.S. (1984). Record keeping in two types of relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 549-557.

Clark, M.S., & Mills, J. (1979). Interpersonal attraction in exchange and communal relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 12-24.

Deindividuation

This week I wanted to talk a little about deindividuation. Deindividuation is best described as getting lost in the crowd. You basically become a part of the crowd and lose your own sense of identity. It can also lead to one's normal constraints against deviant or morally wrong behavior to be reduced. In simpler terms, you are more likely to do bad things that you normally wouldn't because you do not believe that you can be identified (Diener et al., 1976; Festinger et al., 1952). It is also important to consider the two different types of cues that are involved in deindividuation: attentional cues and accountability cues. 

Accountability cues refer to a person's ability to be identified and therefore, accountable for their actions. If accountability is low, a person feels that they can behave however they want because they "can't" get caught (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers 1982,1983).

Attentional cues focus a persons attention outwards from the self. This leads to a decrease in self-awareness, which then allows the person to focus more on the situation at hand and to think less of the long-term consequences of their behavior (Prentice-Dunn & Rogers 1982,1983).

Deindividuation happens a lot at many of the spring break locals all over the world. People literally lose control of their identity and go nuts, which is the point... what happens in Padre, stays in Padre. The spring break my junior year of high school was a particularly crazy event. My best friend from McAllen had never drank in her life, was a virgin, and thought pot was gross. We got the the beach and the first day was mayhem, their were drunk people in swarms around you and my best friend was overwhelmed and felt left out. Finally, with a little peer pressure, she had her first drink... after that it was balls out for her. She went nuts, she slept with her boyfriend (sober), got wasted every night for a week, and by the end of the week, she had tried pot. On monday the pictures began to surface on Facebook, and her face said it all... She was mortified. Her identity had returned and proof of her deindividuation was all over the internet. Needless to say, that was one of the best spring breaks ever! 

Diener, E., Fraser, S.C., Beaman, A.L., & Kelem, R.T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178-183.

Festinger, L., Pepitone, A., & Newcomb, T. (1952). Some consequences of de-individuation in a group. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 47, 382-389.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1982). Effects of public and private self-awareness on deindividuation and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 503-513.

Prentice-Dunn, S., & Rogers, R.W. (1983). Deindividuation in aggression. In R.G. Geen & E.I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews: Vol. 2. Issues in research (pp. 155-171). New York: Academic Press. 

Conformity!

   So I wanted to demonstrate Conformity by choosing something that most of us do on a daily basis. Conformity is the tendency to alter our actions, thoughts, opinions, and behaviors in ways that are most like the group norms (Milgram & Sabini 1978). People tend to believe that they are not the conforming type, but for the most part we conform all the time. When you got into your tux/gown for prom or formal you were conforming! You're even conforming by wearing your underwear underneath your pants. 

I watched as people walked around the seal and I noticed myself following them around. When I first got here I didn't even know why I was walking around it, but I did it anyway, because everyone else was doing it. Later I heard about the rumor that if you cross or walk on the seal you are doomed to failure at SU. I know that whether or not I fail here at SU does not depend on me stepping on the giant seal, yet I still walk around it. Whenever I see people walk through the seal I'm filled with dread for the future... It's ridiculous how I have started to adapt this view of someone crossing the seal as being abnormal and scary. 

When I first came to SU and had no idea why I was walking around the seal, I was conforming under a normative influence. I was steering clear of the seal because I was afraid of what it would mean if I did walk on it. Would I be uncool for walking on it? Was it against the rules to walk on it? I wasn't about to commit social suicide just by stepping on a seal. People who deviate from the norm are rejected, disliked, and ridiculed (Deutsch & Gerard 1955). 

Later, after I learned the superstitious story behind the seal I could have begun to believe the superstition itself and started to walk around it for safety's safe. Had I started to believe the story as correct I would have been acting under an informational influence (Crutchfield 1955). The idea that following the collective wisdom of your peers is comforting and may provide you some kind of peace every time you mosey around that seal, "If I never step on it, I'll never FAIL!" Most of these people who begin to believe the information they are told are privately conforming. Private conformity, which can also be called true acceptance or conversion, occurs when we start to change our behavior as well as our mental perspectives on things (Allen 1965). 

For those of us who continue to maneuver around the seal without any fear of failure are publicly conforming. Public conformity, also known as compliance, is only an outward change of behavior. No inner thoughts or beliefs are altered in the process, you are just publicly pretending to do what is "normal." This type of conformity is associated with normative influence because people seek to fit in while still keeping their true perceptions and beliefs to themselves (Kelman 1961).

Personally I think the administration started the rumor about the seal to keep people off of it. If the number of students who stay off the seal each year began to walk on it, it would eventually be worn down and then the beloved seal would be ruined! haha

Allen, V.L. (1965). Situational factors in conformity. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 2, 133-175.

Crutchfield, R.S. (1955). Conformity and character. American Psychologist, 10, 195-198.

Deutsch, M., & Gerard, H.B. (1955). A study of normative and informational social influences upon individual judgement. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 629-636.

Kelman, H.C. (1961). Processes of opinion change. Public Opinion Quarterly, 25, 57-78.

Milgram, S., & Sabini, J. (1978). On maintaining urban norms: A field experiment in the subway. In A. Baum, J.E. Singer, & S. Valins (Eds.), Advances in environmental psychology, (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Compliance

So lately I have begun the arduous process of "growing a pair." I am starting to get over this whole having to say yes to everything no matter what thing. I think Monday's readings and class period really solidified my new standpoint on life, goodbye pushover! However, pre-new age Jordan, I had been duped using pretty much all of the "techniques." I will be talking mostly about the foot-in-the-door technique and the norm of reciprocity.

The foot-in-the-door technique basically means that a person will first approach you with a small request, one that seems very simple and is not invasive. This small request is used to "break the ice," and is then followed by a much larger request, which is very difficult to refuse because of the first one (Fraser & Freedman 1966). I can't even count how many times I've been duped by this strategy, but perhaps the worst one happened in the 6th grade. We were all given one of those terrible books full of shit that people would hate, you know the kind with the popcorn and weird ornaments. Well my mom hated those fundraisers and just liked to get them out of the way so she would take them to her office with me and the people that work with her would buy stuff because my mom is the boss, lol. The next day I would go with my dad to his office and it was the same story. So after three days I was done. That's when the foot-in-the door- technique comes in to play. My friend asked me to do her a little favor because she had to go out of town for the weekend. Simple, try and sell a few items for her. Cool, of course I would. She came back a few days later and got her book, thanked me and didn't say anything about it till about 3 days before the fundraiser was about to end. Then the whopper of a favor came. "Can you sell the rest of my items?" I SAID YES.... prior to looking at the number of things she had sold.... turns out I had done all of her selling with my first favor and basically did that whole fundraiser twice. I look back on that now and get pretty pissed. haha

The norm of reciprocity is still one that I struggle with on a day to day basis. Basically, this is the golden rule being used to manipulated the shit out of us. "Treat others as you would like to be treated." The norm of reciprocity occurs when someone does a favor for you. That favor, no matter how small makes you feel like you are indebted to that person and therefore you are more likely to do something else for them (Gouldner 1960). However, this can also be used against us in the form of manipulation to do bad things, for example, the statement, "An eye for an eye." Someone does something bad to you and you return the favor. Anyway, I have this thing where I like to do favors for people, and somehow people abuse that (sarcasm). Well, one time a friend of my spotted me 20 bucks to buy some food cause I had left my wallet at home that morning. He was always a super nice guy and I never had a problem with him, so I had no problem with it and was planning on paying him back the next day. I attempted multiple times to pay him back and he said, "Hey, just forget about it, you'll get the next after school meal." So after school a few friends and I hop in our cars and I called to find out where we were going... turns out my pay back meal was at one of the more expensive places to eat in my hometown and I couldn't go back on my deal, I mean I was just doing him the same favor right? Wrong, I was totally TRICKED.... grrrrr I'm angry about it now! I called him up after class and called him out on it though, it was very vindicating. 

   I mean these are just two examples that I remember very clearly, I know for a fact that I've been low balled at a car dealership and would have fallen for it had my father not jumped in to save the day. I'm a spineless mess, but I'm working on it! haha

Freedman, J.L., & Fraser, S.C. (1966). Compliance without pressure: The foot-in-the-door technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 4, 195 - 202.

Gouldner, A.W. (1960). The norm of reciprocity: A preliminary statement. American Sociological Review, 25, 161-178.

Post-Decision Dissonance

"Cognitive dissonance theory is pretty sexy" (Giuliano 2010).  So basically this theory states that we feel some discomfort when our actions do not represent our attitudes (Festinger 1957). So I think everyone has had a little trouble when deciding between two equally desirable choices. Well according to Festinger's cognitive dissonance theory, the choice you make is the right one. This particular part of Festinger's theory is called post-decision dissonance. It basically states that after we make a decision between two equal options, we get uncomfortable and start to wonder if we made the right decision. This discomfort causes us to pinpoint all the positives of our chosen option and all the negatives of the unchosen one. As college students we all probably went through this when we were applying to school. We had two schools that had amazing qualities, with more things that we would love than hate, that pertained to our interests and likes; however, we chose SU, and probably denoted the other school, called out its flaws. 

When I was about 9 years old my parents and I took a trip to Disney Land in Florida. We spent about a week there. On the last day before we flew out my dad gave me the choice between riding Space Mountain and a few other roller coasters that I liked a lot or going back to the water park which was like a natural spring and had rope swings and all kinds of super fun 9 year old stuff. This was a toughy for me. I had loved both equally, but for different reasons. Inevitably I chose the roller coasters, even though I wanted to do both. At the time, I can remember thinking, "Why would I go back to the water park, when I can swim at home?" This is a perfect example of post-decision dissonance in action. I devalued the water park because I had chosen the roller coasters. The "logical" decision I had made was only logical in that I rid myself of the discomfort and enjoyed the rest of my day at Disney. 

                                                                 SPACE MOUNTAIN

Festinger, Leon. (1959). Cognitive consequences of forced compliance. Journal of Abnormal & Social Psychology, 58, 203-210.

Giuliano, Traci. (2010). In class on monday. My Social Psych Notebook, 1, 115-117.

IAT, discovering your subconscious...

So basically the IAT examines our opinions, beliefs, and ideas about a variety of subjects. When you open up the website you are asked if you would like to register and be a part of the actual research or just to take part in a demonstration of what the tests are like. I decided to register and have my data be used to help them with their experiment called Project Implicit. The test itself consists of a bunch of choices or decision making tasks, and the second part consists of categorization, where you have to sort things into different categories as quickly as possible. The aim of this study is to help the experimenters learn and better understand how people think about certain issues, sometimes subconsciously, and provide the examinee with an engaging experience.
When you first begin the test you are given instructions about the first section of the test which will take about 5 minutes. You are told that you will be separating things into groups or categories by pressing either the "i" or "e" key on your keyboard. The "i" key moves things to the category on the right side and the "e" moves things to the category on the left. It states that there is a correct answer and that you must try and sort these things into their categories as quickly as possible or the data will not be used. When you make an error you must correct it by pushing the opposite key and then you can move on.
I was given a test on conservative vs. liberal. First I was asked to separate things into the two categories of "other" and "self." Some of the words used here were "mine," "I," "theirs," and "they." The second part asked me to separate things into two different categories, but the rules did not change. I was given the two categories of liberal or conservative. Some of the words that I was asked to sort were "right wing," "left wing," "George Bush," or "Barack Obama."
The next part got a little more complicated and asked me to separate things in two categories on both sides, the first time I went through this Democrat/other was one category and self/Republican was another, the words talked about in the previous parts of the test were used here. Then the categories were switched around, other/republican and self/democrat.
The next part of the test was a questionare format. I was told to answer the questions honestly and then move on. Once I was done with the questions I was asked to participate in a follow up within the next 2-3 days and I agreed to that.
Interestingly enough, I should no strong association with either group even though I feel that I am strongly associated with the democratic party. Although while here at Southwestern I have lost some of my interest in politics, simply due to lack of time to read about it and watch the debates, I still feel a strong tug towards my party. In this test I rendered a non-preference for either. I think that was interesting because, this year especially, I literally have no idea what has been going on and therefore, do not know how I agree with at this time. I have a feeling that my heart still lies with the liberals, but at this time, I don't literally know because I haven't been following politics.
I really don't think that this is some underlying belief that I have or that I am confused about where my allegiance lies, because there are so many things that I could NEVER agree with that are associated with the Republican party, but I think that I understand why my data didn't suggest a preference either way. The only reason is because I have not been following what has been going on, and therefore can not determine what I believe.
I took another test that measured ageism, that is a preference for young people over older people or visa versa. This test asked me to separate things into two categories bad/good or old/young using pictures of people of different ages. I came out with exactly what I expected, a slight preference for young people over old people. I knew that I would obtain something like this simply because I have had some really bad experiences at nursing homes in my life and have only know a few elderly people who have been nice to me... :( I have actually been trying to change these views and was happy that it was only a slight preference rather then it saying you are an evil ageist. I still need to work on it though because I associate the elderly with being racist and unkind to people of color, especially the Hispanic population where I grew up.
The one thing that I had a problem with while taken the IAT was that I felt that I became acclimated to a certain category, (i.e. good associated with youth or visa versa) and that this made the switch a lot harder then the first part. At least in my opinion, they should at least attempt to re-acclimate twice rather then just the one time, in order to make sure the every individual has a good grasp on the categories at the top of the screen. I know that his may have seriously effect me with my first test because I was not used to the format and was not ready for the switch.
When I retook the test on ageism I got the same results and that made perfect sense to me!
Other than that, I thought that the test was awesome and I will probably take some more of them later on, but for now that's all.


https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/research/

Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the Implicit Association Test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of Personality and Social psychology, 79, 1022-1038.

Stereotypes and such...

I think that one of the most interesting things that I found in chapter 5 was the section on sexism and gender stereotypes. First of all let's define these two things. Sexism is basically a prejudice based on gender, for example simply the dichonomous male vs. female. Stereotypes are beliefs that certain groups, not just race related, are defined and thought of through certain traits. 

I am currently taking a class called Feminist Positions, and have been exposed to many different "positions," meaning different nationalities and races, on these issues of sexism and stereotyping of gender. Perhaps the most interesting thing that I have come across in this class is the idea the gender is socially constructed. For example, boys are boys because we dress them in blue and give them trucks to play with and vice versa. I don't know if I necessarily believe in this theory but when I was reading the text this was the first thing that came to mind. In the text it states the various qualities deemed masculine or feminine and the first thing that came to mind was this idea that these qualities, as well as some of the other stereotypes that are associated with men or women, can possibly be taught during childhood. 

I think that these gender stereotyping ideas are best personified by some of my experiences growing up in a predominately hispanic society in McAllen, Texas which rides the border to Mexico near the southern most point in Texas. One of the biggest examples of gender stereotyping that I have witnessed happen during my freshman year of high school. My best friend is part of one of the most extreme Mexican families I have ever seen. With that in mind, the patriarchal layout of the family is what makes this story so important. Her dad didn't allow either of his two daughters to date until they were juniors, but my best friend started dating in her freshman year. When he found out he blew up and demanded that she break up with him. Although that in itself that was bad, the interesting thing was that her older brother had absolutely no curfew and more importantly no dating restrictions. I guess reading some of this material and material from some of my other classes really shed new light on some of those things that happened while I lived in McAllen. 

Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). In Social Psychology (7th ed., pp.154-160). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company

Self-Handicapping

So I want to focus on Self-handicapping with a touch of name-dropping this week.

When I was reading "Belief in the Effectiveness of Questionable Interpersonal Strategies," I was pretty stunned on how the two concepts of self-handicapping rang true in my personal life. First I think it's important to define them. "Real" self-handicapping being something that people literally do to stunt their performance, for example drinking before a big final exam. "Feigned" self-handicapping is when someone lies about what they did to prepare for something, for example a student who studied really hard for the test, but then says that they barely studied. Both of these forms of self-handicapping set the person up for expected failure due to either an excuse, or a hangover in the case of the first example. This provides the person with a cop out of sorts, so when they fail it's expected but if they succeed it's amazing and unexpected, even within themselves.
Being an athlete, I see this strategy employed all to often. In pick up games, when everyone has been training, one might hear, "I haven't been working out lately, so I might not be good today," or "Man, I must be a little rusty since I haven't been playing, otherwise I would never have missed that shot." Maybe I shouldn't be placing this strategy just on others, as I am just as much of a culprit as they are. What amazes me, is that people do it even though we see when others do it and call their bluff. The reason for that is that no one has the cajones to just say, "Hey, you're just playing bad cause you're talentless," or something along those lines.
People not hearing the truth enables these strategies to continue to thrive even though they definitely don't work. Name-dropping falls into this category, and boy to I have a whopper of a name-dropping story.
Here it goes, right after Michael Jackson died sometime last year I contacted one of my childhood friends who moved to Santa Barbara, California. Her and I had jammed out to MJ in her house when we were kids and I wanted to, I don't know, "mourn" with her. Let me just quote the wall comment conversation between the two of us :

Jordan: OK first of all, how's LA?
second, I thought I should contact you in loo of the death of a idol like Michael Jackson.
Then the United States started winning soccer games and I knew the world was gonna end so I'm trying to contact all friends past and present!

How have you been?

Lucinda (name-dropper): hahaha! i can't believe USA winning soccer games either. I was really bummed when they beat Spain! Cristiano Ronaldo is a really good friend of mine :(. And I am absolutely devastated about Michael Jackson. Crazy story but I was actually AT the hospital when it happened. I was having lunch with my friend who just BOUGH...T Neverland Ranch. When he got the call that Michael was rushed to the hospital he brought me along for the ride. We were IN his room when he passed away :( I was bawling crying...so sad. Anyway, on to happy things. I miss you so much! Come visit me for 4th of July...we are going to P Diddy's white party...gonna be insane! xoxoxo

I kid you not this is an actual conversation... let's count the names dropped, shall we. Michael Jackson, Neverland Ranch dude, Christiano Ronaldo, and umm... P Diddy. Huh? I think I smelled the bullshit on MJ's deathbed, but she went so far as to crumble in pity for her dear "friend" Christiano Ronaldo... and then "on to happy things," P Diddy's white party.... SURE..... but I said nothing in return but maybe a WTF. It's funny cause her mom is the exact same way.... friends with Steven Speilburg if you can believe it! haha. That was the first thing that came to mind when I read the article, and I laughed out loud because I love that family so much, but IT IS SOOOO OBVIOUS that it's all lies....

Gilovich. "Belief in the Effectiveness of Questionable Interpersonal Strategies." Pg. 146 - 155.

Spotlight Effect/Belief in a Just World!

 The two issues that I have used/thought about the most since class on Monday were the spotlight effect and the belief in a just world theory. The second of the two is perhaps something that I can use in most, if not all of my classes. 

The belief in a just world ideology basically is the false notion that good things happen to good people and that bad things happen to bad people. This ideology acts as a sort of false shield or protection from "bad things" since everyone believes that they are innately good inside. Today I have been forced to use this to look at both, global and personal aspects of the policies in the United States and my life. So here it goes...

Today in Paideia we started talking about "our [SU Students in general]" plans and reasons for studying abroad. Dr. Johnston, aka MelJohn as she is more commonly know, pushes us to stay away from the typical trip to Europe and go somewhere exotic. This conversation segued into a much different conversation about Haiti and other places where people typically focus on the negative aspects the media portrays. For example, one news article one MSNBC.com reads, "Haiti situation ‘potentially volatile,’ U.N. warns..." This article was written about some men committing an armed robbery, but they weren't stealing TV's or diamonds, they were stealing food. The aid being sent to Haiti has taken so long that people have begun to die of other things, however the media portrays Haitians has this "bad," country, just as much of the media did when covering Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans. I feel that this way of searching and finding the "bad" is a way to bolster our own protective shields towards natural, keyword, natural, disasters. Another interesting fact that I did not know about the "trouble" in Haiti,  is that on an even larger global scheme, Haiti has been in debt to the USA since the 1830's when they were forced to pay France the amount of money that they would have received for each new citizen of Haiti, each Haitian being a former slave in France. Just another little tidbit. 

The second thing I wanted to talk about was the spotlight effect. It basically says the a person tends to think that others will notice the things that they do or how they look more so than others will. The reason for this is a schema formed by those "others" about that person, their behavior, and the way that they look. Therefore, because it is not efficient to change that schema constantly, people tend to fail to notice "bad hair days," and black circles under your eyes. This probably got to me most because I've been playing sports all my life and could never understand why I felt I had all these amazing "moments," and everyone seemed to lump it all into the category of good game, and visa versa of course. My dad is maybe the only person who points out, save for save, or no saves, every game I've ever played in.  So, the spotlight effect runs deep... haha I guess it's a good and bad thing. If I look terrible one day, people probably won't notice, but if I play awesome, they probably won't notice that either... :) 

Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). In Social Psychology (7th ed., pp.113-114). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company.

Gilovich, T., & Savitsky, K. (1999). The Spotlight effect and the illusion of transparency: egocentric assessments of how we are seen by others. Current Directions, 8(6), 165-168.

Associated Press, (2010, February 2). Haiti situation ‘potentially volatile,’ u.n. warns. Retrieved from http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35202742/ns/world_news-haiti_earthquake/

Attribution & Heuristics

      One of the things that I found really interesting was the idea of counterfactual thinking, being the "tendency to imagine alternative outcomes that might have occurred but did not." Last semester I was hit by a drunk driver in October. I was sitting in a left-hand turn lane in Dallas/Fort Worth, when this man in a pick-up truck lost control and spun into me. My car was totaled, my boyfriend was in the hospital, and I was in a complete state of shock, and all I could think about was, "WHY DID I WANT PANCAKES SO F'N BAD AT 10:30 AT NIGHT!" I was then rushed to the hospital, my boyfriend and I were stuck in Fort Worth, on the weekend of a big game, staying in the grossest hotel of all time, with severe whiplash and minor head injuries, watching Bollywood soap operas at 6:30 in the morning.

       By the time we got back to SU, we were already trying to just move on from the whole thing, but found the whole process a lot more difficult then originally expected. I couldn't stop looking back and asking why I insisted on going to see my friend's play on THAT weekend, why not the next one, or the one before that? Why did I choose to drive when it was raining? All of these questions were obviously silly, but some how I blamed the entire accident on my stupid decisions.  

         The other thing I wanted talk about were the 6 fantastic heuristics! The first one is definitely something that I do on a day to day basis with celebrities. The representativeness heuristic, meaning that we make judgements based on our schema for the category, person, job, etc. I guess I do this most with people in general, but haven't you ever just seen someone and said, "She should be a doctor, or she looks like a 'Sharon'." I guess those decisions that we make about people and the "category" they "fit" in are, in part, the fault of this heuristic. I think that might be one of the problems in the acting world. For example, the idea of "getting typecast" means that a person plays a certain kind of character and then is always cast in parts that fit that particular cast. 

Look at the TV series "Friends", Joey Tribbiani, one of the male leads on the show for the entire 10 seasons, went on to.... make a spinoff in which he played the exact same character. "Joey" (I know what an amazingly stimulating title) flopped with i

n the year. Now the only times you see pictures of Matt LeBlanc (Joey) are in tabloid magazines in sections picturing the people gaining weight or worst beach looks. 

  

            The next and last heuristic I wanted to talk about was the availability heuristic, which I think makes the assumption that we tend judge the likelihood based on how easy it is to think of examples of these things. So, for example, if you just left you English class, where you were reading Chaucer's "The Canterbury Tales," you are much more likely to make comments about it, relate things to it, and even compare people and acquaintances to the many characters in the story, simply because it is on your mind and readily available. 

First Impressions!

First of all I would like to state that I am a crazy movie buff and own more movies that came out before the year 2000 then anything else. I'm not a fan of the new stuff, however when talking about first impressions I'll take a page out of the new age of television and movies and compare my opinions of Jennifer Aniston and Angelina Jolie. My opinions on these two women can be related to the primacy effect, confirmation bias, and trait negativity bias. I will explain how each of these social psychological concepts apply to my opinions of these two women.

The primacy effect is related to my early love for the television series, "Friends." I started watching "Friends" about two years after it started and have since, re-watched all ten seasons at least 5 times. Jennifer Aniston played one of the leading roles on the show (Rachel), who happened to be my favorite female character on the show. She was introduced to me at an early age and my decision to like her was based on the fact that she played an imaginary character whom I liked, on my favorite television show of all time. Today, if information regarding a dismissal of her good character was to be presented to me, I would choose to disregard it as hearsay.

In my eyes, today, Jennifer Aniston, who was thwarted by her ex-lover Brad Pitt, who now, in my opinion, is unattractive, selfish, and untrustworthy, is a saint. To me, she is the epitome of a classy woman who, even when the man she had spent the majority of her adult life with was leaving her for another woman, did allow her pain to show. I think that my interpretation of the various things that have occurred in her life have arisen through the confirmation bias. I had already believed that she was a good person, therefore, when given more information about her, I used that to support my already formed opinions.

Now to talk about the (evil) Angelina Jolie. I never really had any opinion about Angelina Jolie until "Mr. and Mrs. Smith," and the debacle that followed the movie's release. I knew that she was a little bit weird, due to all of her blood-vile wearing nonsense with Billy-Bob Thorton. However, that "weird" vibe turned into deep dislike of her as a person. When Brad Pitt left Jennifer Aniston, I was no longer swayed by some of Angelina's better movies (i.e. Girl Interupted... that's it), and Brad Pitt's good looks. She was defined as the "evil mistress/other woman," and he was defined as the "cheater." This is a perfect example of the negative trait bias.

Okay, so here's a little window into my mind and the things that I consider evil (lol). I didn't realize that I was making all of these social psychological concepts take life in such a simple aspect of my impressions of two different female celebrities.

Kassin, S., Fein, S., & Markus, H. R. (2008). Perceiving Persons. In Social Psychology (7th ed., pp. 93-127). Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company

Welcome!

Hi! My name is Jordan Romero. I'm a psych major at SU and am really excited to explore the whole social psych thing. I'm a sophomore here at SU and find that college here at SU never really gets easier. I play for the Women's soccer team here as well. I think that's pretty much everything about me. 

    Jordan Romero