The clean smell seems to have activated a metaphor that influenced judgments about a completely unrelated topic or person.
This is also true for checking into a hotel or rental! The smell makes me believe that my money was well spent and I can relax in the space.
t turns out that it is not just schemas or goals that can be primed and influence people’s judgments and decisions. The mind is connected to the body, and when we think about something or someone, we do so with reference to how our bodies are reacting. Sometimes this is pretty straightforward; if we are tired, for example, we might interpret the world more negatively than if we are feeling peppy and full of energy. What is less obvious is that metaphors about the body and social judgments also influence our judgments and decisions (Barsalou, 2008; Lakoff & Johnson, 1999; Zhong & Liljenquist, 2006).
I love how this is put into words! I truly believed a prime myself to have negative days when I am tired or a negative event or situation has happened. Talking yourself into having a good day or rationalizing what has happened usually can help but the mind and body is insanely connected and I really think it is interesting. Has anyone else had this experience?
That is, teachers who think a child from a low-income family doesn’t have what it takes to succeed in school inadvertently acted in ways that made that child do more poorly in school
I actually know people that have said this about themselves and how they thought they were never smart or good at school and felt that the teacher was the one who instilled this in them further than those in the home. It is a sad phenomenon.
For example, if you watch the television shows The Bachelor or The Bachelorette, you have probably developed schemas for different types of contestants, such as “the snide backstabbing villain” and the “naïve one whose heart will be broken.”
This a great example! Actually really made sense of schemas for me. I think we go to there structures out of habit and familiarity. I would like to practice detecting these thought patterns in myself.
Automatic thinking is thought that is nonconscious, unintentional, involuntary, and effortless. Although different kinds of automatic thinking meet these criteria to varying degrees (Bargh et al., 2012; Hassin, 2013; Hicks & McNulty, 2019; Payne & Gawronski, 2010), for our purposes we can define automaticity as thinking that satisfies all or most of them.
I actually have probably needed to put a word to this way of thinking for awhile. It is definitely an experience that everyone has had and has almost daily. It comes to down to being able to identify that automatic thinking for what it is before making moves or speaking on those thoughts to progress and be a decent human being.
They are increasingly being used by doctors to diagnose diseases and by companies to choose job applicants
I think it is important to recognize where AI is being used positively but also take time to be aware of the limitations in society that AI will grow to promote and take away from the human experience. To not have to take the time to meet job applicants seems positive but poses risks to those that don't have the best application on paper but deserve a chance just as much as those who do.
Cross-Cultural Research Research conducted with members of different cultures to see whether the psychological processes of interest are present in both cultures or whether they are specific to the culture in which people were raised
Side bar: I am interested to learn more about how this works. Culture can go as far as playing the biggest role in many psychological processes and I have first hand witnessed it among friends and peers. After all, our cultures are our roots and they shape our minds and can be very specific too.
Fortunately, there is a technique that allows experimenters to minimize differences among participants as the cause of the results: random assignment to condition. This is the process whereby all participants have an equal chance of taking part in any condition of an experiment; through random assignment, researchers can be relatively certain that differences in the participants’ personalities or backgrounds are distributed evenly across conditions. Because Latané and Darley’s participants were randomly assigned to the conditions of their experiment, it is very unlikely that the ones who knew the most about epilepsy all ended up in one condition. Knowledge about epilepsy should be randomly (i.e., roughly evenly) dispersed across the three experimental conditions. This powerful technique is the most important part of the experimental method.
This adds to my point made about the experimental method. Random assignment to condition is certainly the most imprtsnst technique. Going the extra step to be certain about the differences among the participants backgrounds makes me really believe the findings are that much more accurate. What's everyone else's opinion on this?
Latané and Darley were careful to maintain high internal validity by making sure that everyone witnessed the same emergency. They prerecorded the supposed other participants and the victim and played their voices over the intercom system so that everyone heard exactly the same thing. You may have noticed, however, that there was a key difference between the conditions of the Latané and Darley experiment other than the number of bystanders: Different people participated in the different conditions. Maybe the observed differences in helping were due to characteristics of the participants instead of the independent variable.
Internal validity increases the effectiveness and efficiency of the experiment and it is interesting how it can be conditions and environment but people interact or react differently. People will always have their differences and it is extremely interesting see how one's background could sway their urge to help or fall to the bystander effect.
Nonetheless, Latané and Darley succeeded in identifying one important determinant of whether people help: the number of bystanders that people think are present.
These findings tell us a number of things. One for certain is that the bystander effect is not only real but is not limited by the size of the group. The experimental method in my opinion is easiest to make sense of.
There are famous cases of surveys that yielded misleading results by failing to sample randomly.
I can definitely see how results can be challenged as random selection has to be carefully prepared to avoid biases and can still be inconsistent despite biases.
How do we know how accurate the observer is? In such studies, it is important to establish agreement between two or more people who independently observe and code a set of data. By showing that two or more judges independently come up with the same observations, researchers ensure that the observations are not the subjective, distorted impressions of one individual.
I think this is an important in establishing the quality of research. There is always going to be a challenge between subjectivity and accuracy and being able to remove bias when making observations.
The tendency for people to exaggerate, after knowing that something occurred, how much they could have predicted it before it occurred
Really though, who doesn't do that. I am not totally sure that sometimes it's an exaggeration or something that we think we know subconsciously or if we just want to feel like we know it all. Who can relate to this?
Some concluded that living in a metropolis dehumanizes us and leads inevitably to apathy, indifference to human suffering, and lack of caring.
This a strong point for metro areas, and I can vouch that it has a lot of validity. I have first hand experienced events while living in Downtown Nashville where apathy and indifference to human suffering is apart of the daily norm. Living next to homeless encampments and witnessing literal domestic abuse and not seeing a single person intervene. I think it comes from a place of not wanting to interject yourself in conflict and ending up in a bad situation yourself and also from a place of it being so normalized.