Difficulty: Introductory | Prerequisites: None, though familiarity with basic research terminology (hypothesis, variable) helps.
Social psychology sits at the intersection of psychology and sociology: it studies how the people around us, and even the mere idea of other people, shape what we think, feel and do. This unit opens the course by covering how social psychologists gather evidence (methods and research design), then turns inward to explore the self, including how we build a self-concept, compare ourselves to others, and protect or enhance our self-esteem. If you are joining late, start here: these concepts form the vocabulary the rest of the midterm material builds on. Understanding research methods is especially important because the exam asks you to evaluate the strengths and limitations of specific studies.
Social psychology studies how people influence each other's thoughts, feelings and behaviour. To do this reliably, researchers use experiments (with independent and dependent variables), cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal designs. Meanwhile, your "self" is not fixed: it is constructed through social comparison, shaped by culture, and defended (or verified) through strategies like basking in reflected glory and downward social comparison.
Social psychology
The scientific study of how individuals' thoughts, feelings and behaviours are influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others. In simple terms, it is the study of how other people affect you, even when they are not in the room.
Culture
The shared beliefs, values, norms and practices of a group that shape behaviour and interpretation of the world. Think of it as the invisible operating system a society runs on.
Hypothesis
A testable prediction about the relationship between two or more variables. In simple terms, it is an educated guess you can check with data.
Cross-sectional method
A research design that collects data from different participants at a single point in time. Think of it as a snapshot: useful for seeing patterns, but it cannot show cause and effect or change over time.
Longitudinal method
A research design that follows the same participants over an extended period. This lets researchers track change, but it is expensive and participants may drop out.
Independent variable (IV)
The variable the researcher manipulates or changes in an experiment. In simple terms, it is the thing you adjust to see what happens.
Dependent variable (DV)
The variable the researcher measures as an outcome. It is the result you watch for after changing the IV.
Availability heuristic
A mental shortcut where people judge the likelihood of events based on how easily examples come to mind (Schwarz et al., 1991). If you can quickly think of plane crashes, you overestimate the risk of flying.
Portion size effect
The tendency for people to eat more when given larger portions, often without conscious awareness. A clean example of how environmental cues override deliberate thinking.
Unconscious thinking (Dijksterhuis & van Olden, 2006)
The idea that complex decisions can benefit from a period of distraction rather than prolonged deliberation. In simple terms, "sleeping on it" sometimes works because unconscious processing continues in the background.
Automatic vs controlled thinking (Kahneman)
Kahneman's dual-process framework: System 1 is fast, effortless and intuitive; System 2 is slow, deliberate and effortful. Most social behaviour relies on System 1 unless something flags a need to engage System 2.
Social psychologists follow the cycle of inquiry, evidence and explanation.
A hypothesis states a predicted relationship between variables. Good hypotheses are specific and falsifiable.
Research methods differ in what they can tell you:
Cross-sectional: many people, one time point. Fast, but cannot establish causation or track change.
Longitudinal: same people, multiple time points. Can track development, but costly and vulnerable to attrition.
Experimentation: the researcher manipulates an IV and measures a DV while holding other factors constant. This is the only method that supports causal conclusions.
The availability heuristic (Schwarz et al., 1991) demonstrates that judgement often depends on what comes to mind easily, not on actual statistics. Schwarz showed that asking people to recall 12 examples of assertiveness made them feel less assertive than recalling just 6, because 12 was harder to generate.
The portion size effect is a straightforward demonstration that behaviour can be driven by situational cues (plate size, serving amount) rather than conscious hunger signals.
Dijksterhuis & van Olden (2006) found that participants who were distracted before choosing a poster were happier with their choice weeks later than those who deliberated carefully. This supports the unconscious-thought advantage for complex decisions.
Kahneman's framework divides cognition into two systems:
System 1 (automatic): fast, parallel, effortless, associative. Drives most everyday social judgements.
System 2 (controlled): slow, serial, effortful, rule-based. Engaged when we notice something unexpected or when the stakes are high.
Most social-psychological phenomena (first impressions, stereotyping, heuristic use) are System 1 products. The course repeatedly returns to the question of when and whether System 2 corrects them.
Self-concept
The collection of beliefs you hold about who you are, including your traits, abilities, preferences and roles. Think of it as the mental file labelled "me."
Self-reference effect (Rogers et al., 1977)
The finding that information processed in relation to the self is remembered better than information processed in other ways. If you link a new term to something personal, it sticks.
Independent self-concept
A view of the self as separate, autonomous and defined by internal attributes. Common in Western, individualist cultures.
Interdependent self-concept
A view of the self as connected to others, defined by relationships and social roles. Common in East Asian and collectivist cultures.
Bi-cultural self (Ross et al., 2002)
The phenomenon where people from two cultures shift self-concept depending on which cultural frame is active. Ross et al. found that Chinese-Canadian participants described themselves differently in English versus Chinese.
Self-complexity
The number and distinctness of the different roles or identities a person holds. Higher self-complexity can buffer against stress, because a setback in one area does not collapse the whole self.
Self-clarity
The extent to which your beliefs about yourself are clearly defined, internally consistent and stable over time.
Self-awareness
A state in which attention is directed inward, toward the self. Can be triggered by mirrors, cameras or audiences, and tends to increase self-evaluation.
Social comparison
The process of evaluating yourself by measuring your abilities or opinions against those of others. Can be upward (comparing to someone better) or downward (comparing to someone worse).
Absolute vs relative feedback (Klein, 1997)
Absolute feedback tells you your raw score; relative feedback tells you how you did compared to others. Klein showed that relative feedback has a stronger effect on self-evaluation.
Self-esteem
Your overall evaluation of your own worth. It is influenced by social comparison, group membership and the performance of people close to you.
Self-evaluation maintenance theory (Tesser)
Your self-esteem is affected by the performance of close others, depending on two factors: how close you are to the person and how relevant their domain of success is to your own identity. A close friend excelling in your field can threaten self-esteem; the same friend excelling in an irrelevant field can boost it (via reflected glory).
Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner)
Self-esteem is partly derived from the groups you belong to. You are motivated to see your in-groups positively, which can lead to in-group favouritism.
Downward social comparison (Gibbons et al., 2002)
Comparing yourself to someone worse off in order to feel better about your own situation. Gibbons et al. showed this is a common strategy when self-esteem is threatened.
Basking in reflected glory / BIRGing (Cialdini et al., 1976)
The tendency to associate yourself with successful others to boost self-esteem. Cialdini found that students were more likely to wear university gear after their team won.
Self-enhancement
The motivation to maintain a positive self-view. People seek out flattering feedback and avoid information that contradicts a favourable self-image.
Self-verification (Swann et al., 1989)
The motivation to confirm your existing self-concept, even if that view is negative. Swann found that people with low self-esteem sometimes preferred partners who saw them negatively, because it felt consistent and predictable.
Your self-concept is not a single thing. It is a network of beliefs about your traits, roles and abilities.
Self-reference effect (Rogers et al., 1977): participants remembered adjectives better when they judged whether the word described them, compared to judging its font or meaning. Encoding something in relation to the self creates a richer memory trace.
Independent vs interdependent self-concept: this is one of the course's key cultural distinctions.
Independent (Western, individualist): "I am creative, ambitious, funny."
Interdependent (East Asian, collectivist): "I am a good daughter, a loyal friend, a team member."
Bi-cultural self (Ross et al., 2002): Chinese-Canadian participants' self-descriptions shifted depending on the language of the interview. English primed more independent descriptions; Chinese primed more interdependent ones. This suggests the self-concept is context-sensitive, not fixed.
Self-complexity: having many distinct self-aspects (student, athlete, musician, friend) provides a buffer. If one domain suffers, the others remain intact.
Self-clarity: knowing who you are, clearly and consistently. Low self-clarity is associated with lower well-being and more susceptibility to social influence.
Self-awareness: being conscious of yourself as an object of evaluation. Mirrors, cameras and being watched all increase self-awareness, which can improve behaviour (you check yourself against standards) or increase discomfort (you notice the gap between your real and ideal self).
People routinely evaluate themselves by comparing to others, often automatically.
Upward comparison (comparing to someone better): can inspire but often threatens self-esteem.
Downward comparison (comparing to someone worse): typically boosts self-esteem, especially when you feel threatened.
Klein (1997) showed that relative feedback ("you scored in the 80th percentile") affects self-evaluation more strongly than absolute feedback ("you got 42 out of 50"). We care about where we stand in the group.
Self-evaluation maintenance theory (Tesser) explains why your friend's success can either lift or threaten you:
If the domain is not relevant to your identity, closeness + their success = reflected glory (you feel good).
If the domain is relevant, closeness + their success = threat (you feel worse).
People manage this by changing closeness, changing the relevance of the domain, or trying to outperform.
Social identity theory adds the group layer: your self-esteem is partially tied to the status of your in-groups. This motivates in-group favouritism.
Downward social comparison (Gibbons et al., 2002): when self-esteem is threatened, people actively seek out worse-off others for comparison.
BIRGing (Cialdini et al., 1976): students wore more university merchandise on Mondays after a football win. "We won" after a victory, "they lost" after a defeat. Associating with winners raises self-esteem without any personal achievement.
Self-enhancement vs self-verification (Swann et al., 1989): most people want to feel good about themselves (self-enhancement), but they also want others to see them as they see themselves (self-verification). For people with negative self-views, these two motives collide. Swann found that people with low self-esteem preferred interaction partners who confirmed their negative self-view, even though positive feedback felt better momentarily.
Students often think correlation = causation. A cross-sectional study showing that social media use correlates with loneliness does not prove social media causes loneliness. Only experiments with manipulated IVs can support causal claims.
Students sometimes confuse independent and interdependent self-concepts as better or worse. Neither is superior; they reflect different cultural orientations.
Self-verification is frequently mistaken for masochism. It is not that people with low self-esteem enjoy negative feedback. They prefer it because it feels predictable and consistent with their existing self-view.
The availability heuristic is not about memory quantity. It is about the subjective ease of recall. Schwarz's key finding was that difficulty of retrieval, not number of examples, drove the judgement.
⚠️ Be able to identify the IV and DV in any study described on the exam.
⚠️ Know the difference between cross-sectional, longitudinal and experimental designs, and what conclusions each permits.
⚠️ The Schwarz availability heuristic study is a favourite exam question. Know that it was ease of recall, not number of examples, that mattered.
⚠️ Be ready to compare self-evaluation maintenance theory and social identity theory. Both explain how other people's success affects your self-esteem, but through different mechanisms (personal closeness and domain relevance vs group membership).
⚠️ Self-enhancement vs self-verification is a classic exam contrast. Know Swann's finding and why it is counterintuitive.
⚠️ The exam asks you to critically evaluate studies. For each key study, know at least one strength and one limitation.
True or False: A cross-sectional study can establish causation. (False.)
The variable the researcher manipulates is called the ________. (Independent variable / IV.)
True or False: The availability heuristic depends on how many examples you recall, not how easy they are to recall. (False. It depends on ease of recall.)
According to self-evaluation maintenance theory, a close friend's success in a domain relevant to your identity will ________ your self-esteem. (Threaten / lower.)
True or False: People with low self-esteem always prefer positive feedback over negative feedback. (False. Self-verification theory predicts they may prefer consistent, negative feedback.)
Q: A researcher finds that students who use flashcards score higher on exams. Can she conclude that flashcards cause higher scores? Why or why not?
A: No. This is likely a correlational or cross-sectional finding. Students who use flashcards may differ from those who do not (e.g., more motivated). Without random assignment and manipulation of an IV, causation cannot be established.
Q: Explain the availability heuristic using the Schwarz et al. (1991) study. What was the key finding?
A: Schwarz asked participants to recall either 6 or 12 examples of their own assertive behaviour. Those asked for 12 rated themselves as less assertive, because generating 12 examples felt difficult. The key finding is that the subjective ease of recall, not the number of examples retrieved, drives the judgement.
Q: How does self-evaluation maintenance theory explain why you might feel threatened by a close friend's academic success but proud of a close friend's athletic success?
A: If academics are central to your identity, a close friend's academic success is threatening because it invites an unfavourable comparison in a relevant domain. If athletics are not central to your identity, the same friend's athletic success allows you to bask in reflected glory without a self-relevant comparison.
Q: Distinguish self-enhancement from self-verification. Which theory better predicts the behaviour of someone with low self-esteem?
A: Self-enhancement predicts that everyone seeks positive feedback. Self-verification predicts that people seek feedback consistent with their existing self-view. For someone with low self-esteem, self-verification better predicts their behaviour: Swann et al. (1989) found that such individuals preferred partners who viewed them negatively, because it confirmed their self-concept.
Q: A student from Hong Kong studying in London finds that she describes herself differently when speaking Cantonese at home versus English at university. Which concept explains this?
A: The bi-cultural self (Ross et al., 2002). Cultural priming shifts self-concept, so the language and cultural context activate different aspects of the self (more interdependent in Cantonese, more independent in English).
Automatic vs controlled thinking connects directly to the Social Perception unit (next doc): first impressions and the fundamental attribution error are both products of automatic processing. The self-concept material links to Stereotypes, because social identity theory explains why group membership matters for self-esteem, and stereotype threat (covered later) shows what happens when a negative group identity is made salient. Self-enhancement and self-verification also reappear in the Attitudes unit, where cognitive dissonance theory asks a similar question: do people seek consistency or positivity?
Social psychology, NYU London, FA24 midterm, research methods, hypothesis, cross-sectional, longitudinal, experiment, independent variable, dependent variable, IV, DV, availability heuristic, Schwarz, ease of recall, portion size effect, unconscious thought, Dijksterhuis, automatic thinking, controlled thinking, System 1, System 2, Kahneman, dual process, self-concept, self-reference effect, Rogers, independent self, interdependent self, individualism, collectivism, bi-cultural self, Ross, self-complexity, self-clarity, self-awareness, social comparison, upward comparison, downward comparison, Klein, absolute feedback, relative feedback, self-esteem, self-evaluation maintenance, Tesser, social identity theory, Tajfel, Turner, BIRGing, basking in reflected glory, Cialdini, self-enhancement, self-verification, Swann, Gibbons