In the 2021 Netflix three-episode documentary, Murder Among the Mormons, we learn about the exploits of forger and murderer Mark Hofmann. Hofmann had a lot people snookered; people believed that the documents about the origin of the Church of Latter Day Saints he had in his possession were real. And once so decided, it was hard for them to change their minds and see Hofmann and his documents for what they were. After three bombings that took place on Oct 15 and 16, 1985 that killed two people and injured two—including Hofmann—police immediately began an investigation of Hofmann. News outlets interviewed a number of people regarding the case. One such interview was with historian Brent Metcalfe, a colleague of Hofmann’s. Metcalfe said at the time, “I have a great deal of doubt that Mark [Hofmann] is involved in any way at this point…I just have no reason to believe, despite the assertions that have been made, that Mark was involved in any kind of forgery of this kind.” In episode 3 of Murder Among the Mormons at the 14:05 mark, in addition to clips from that 1985 interview, a much older Brent Metcalfe talks with the producers of this documentary about what he said in that interview, and, more generally, what he thought at the time and why. After covering cognitive dissonance, share with your students a little background about Mark Hofmann and his forgeries. (Watch Murder Among the Mormons or read the Wikipedia entry for more information). Ask your students to put themselves into Brent Metcalfe’s shoes. “You are a colleague of Mark Hofmann’s. You believe him—you believe that the documents he had in his possession and collected over the previous five years were genuine. And now there were these bombings that killed and injured people connected to Hofmann. The third bomb injured Hofmann himself. The police are investigating Hofmann. As Hofmann’s colleague, would you continue to believe him as you have for the last five years? How easily would you be able to say, ‘Boy, was I ever wrong about him!’” Divide students into groups, and ask them to identify which two of Metcalfe’s thoughts were in conflict. How might Metcalfe reduce this dissonance? Would Metcalfe immediately say, “Well, I sure was wrong about him!” or would Metcalfe be more likely to hold onto his belief? Explain. Bring students back together, and ask groups to report their predictions. Brent Metcalfe, in an interview 36 years after the 1985 bombings, said, Part of the reason I maintained my belief in Mark Hofmann’s innocence is because, again, I felt like, what does that mean for me as a person?... I could not accept that I had no suspicion whatsoever. That was almost unacceptable to me, because it went right to the heart of who I am. And that frightened me, that I could be that deceived by someone.   Sum up your discussion of cognitive dissonance with an explanation of how Metcalfe’s comments exemplify this concept. A small, but important, concluding note: Showing this clip to your students in a real or virtual classroom setting is a violation of Netflix’s terms of use. You can describe, you can quote, you can encourage your students to watch it on their own time using their own Netflix account, but you cannot show them the clip yourself. ... View more

APRIL 22nd | 3:00 PM ET Research in social psychology reveals a myriad of ways that implicit biases contribute to group disparities, but teaching students about these biases can be challenging. Professor Schmader will discuss a variety of class exercises that can be used, not just to teach students about the science of implicit bias, but also to help them apply this knowledge in a way that will help them foster greater inclusion in their social world. WATCH THE RECORDING ... View more

While close friendships may never change, this article argues that our casual friendships have been seriously challenged - if not completely erased - by the pandemic. Have your friendships changed as a result of covid? https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/01/pandemic-goodbye-casual-friends/617839/ ... View more

FEBRUARY 18th | 2:00 PM ET Everyone deserves a great relationship. Have you found yours? It can be hard to know, but it’s important to ask. Relationships are important. Time is short. Mistakes are costly. In this talk I’ll discuss some of the mistakes we make in our relationship without ever realizing we’re doing it. Often, these blind spots encourage us to undervalue our relationship. No one wants to settle in order to settle down, but we can also be too harsh and overly critical. Relationship science can help. Better data leads to better decisions. WATCH RECORDING ... View more

Macmillan Learning is delighted to congratulate Jeff Greenberg, co-author of just-published Social Psychology, Third Edition, for receiving this prestigious honor from his peers. The SPSP's Career Contribution Award goes to scholars who make breakthrough contributions (theoretical or empirical) to our understanding of social psychology, personality psychology, or the areas where these fields intersect. The society uses this award to acknowledge exceptional careers that have previously been under-recognized. Learn more about the Career Contribution Award Learn more about Social Psychology, Third Edition ... View more

My college has been working remotely for the last 10 months, and we’re planning on working remotely for the next 10 months, although that may change as conditions warrant. I participate in regular committee and department meetings via Zoom. My EdTech colleagues—one-third of my time is spent there—and I communicate with each other primarily through Slack. We have only two Slack channels: #actualwork and #rantandrave. That pretty much covers what we need to discuss. In late March 2020 as the handful of us in EdTech prepared to help our 500 or so faculty move to remote or asynchronous online teaching, Slack was a lifeline. For colleagues I’m closer to, we meet via Zoom one-on-one every so often. As we plodded through January 2021 and the start of our winter quarter, I realized what I had been missing. I missed casual conversations. I missed people popping their heads into my office to ask if I had a minute to chat about… anything. Students. Teaching. Dogs. Cupcakes. Gossip. I missed chatting with people in the hallway. On campus sidewalks. In the parking lot. I missed my casual acquaintances. To remedy this at my college, I started a “watercooler” movement. Anyone at any time can email all faculty and staff with “watercooler” and a (short!) time limit in the subject line. For example, if it’s 10:55am, I could send out a faculty/staff email with “Watercooler until 11:15am.” In the body of the message is a Zoom link. There is no agenda, and the time is short and finite. We’re just there for a few minutes to chat about whatever topics move us. I’ve hosted a few watercoolers, and to date, three of my colleagues have hosted watercoolers. We’ve had anywhere from five to ten people attend—including the college president. I’ve met some new people, including people who started working at the college after we went remote. And I’ve seen many people that I only used to see in hallways, on sidewalks, in parking lots. After each watercooler session, my mood is much lighter. If I were a much deeper person, I’d say this time with acquaintances feeds my soul. But I’m not that deep. In a recent watercooler session, one my colleagues said she not-long-ago read an article about the importance of weak social ties. She said the crux of the article was that that’s what so many of us are missing with our remote work: our weak ties. And that is how I came to learn about sociologist Mark Granovetter’s paper on the importance of weak ties (Granovetter, 1973). One of my takeaways from the article is that historically, sociology focused on strong ties as the key to functioning networks. Granovetter proposed that weak ties are also important and worthy of research. Others evidently agreed. Google Scholar says that 58,631 articles to date have cited this 1973 paper. Several news outlets at various times during this pandemic year have picked up on this story—that we’re missing connecting with our weak ties. Here’s a sampling. Each article provides its own suggestions for how to tend to our weak ties during the pandemic. BBC (July 2, 2020): “Why your ‘weak-tie’ friendships may mean more than you think” The Harvard Gazette (August 27, 2020): “The value of talking to strangers — and nodding acquaintances” The New York Times (October 11, 2020): “How to connect with the co-workers you’re missing” In your coverage of social psych or stress and coping, ask your students to read one or more of the articles above. In a discussion, ask students if they feel like they’re maintaining their weak ties. If so, how? If not, how might they? Your students aside, how can you foster your weak tie connections?   Reference Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380. ... View more

As the pandemic wears on, I’ve been in need of more feel-good stories. Here’s one to add to your coverage of helping behavior in the social psych chapter. Four-year-old Nico was out walking along Ottawa’s Rideau Canal with his mom, his two-year-old brother Santiago and his six-year-old brother Sebastian. Unfortunately, Santiago tossed Nico’s stuffed animal over the railing and onto the frozen canal. Unable to retrieve it, all they could do was revisit it every day, watching as each snowfall buried it deeper. Sebastian, being the community-minded six-year-old that he is, implored his mom to use social media to see if anyone could help. Mom was skeptical, but she took Sebastian’s advice and posted to Twitter. The article author writes, “As hard as it was to believe, a mission to rescue Rudolph was quickly mounted.” I’m not sure why this was hard to believe. At this point in the article, I was ready to board a plane to Ottawa and retrieve the stuffed animal myself. Here’s this little boy who cares enough about this stuffed animal to take it with him on walks, his brother tosses it out of reach, and now all he can do is see it from the railing. Every day. And wait for spring when the ice melts and his stuffed animal floats away. As you might guess, I wasn’t the only one feeling for Nico. Members of the National Capital Commission Skateway team—the group that makes sure the Rideau Canal has skate-able ice in the winter—found the stuffed animal, thawed it out, tidied it up, and returned it to Nico. Group discussion Read “Little boy’s stuffed Bambi was rescued from frozen canal—they didn’t think people would care.” In your groups, review the list of factors that are associated with helping behavior from the social psychology chapter and from lecture. For each factor, identify whether it was present, absent, or unknown.  For each factor that was present, provide evidence from the article. After discussion, bring students back together. Ask each group to report, in turn, one helping factor they identified from the article—a factor that has not been already been identified by an earlier group. As a follow-up assignment/asynchronous discussion, ask students to find another story where a stranger provided help, and, from the article, identify whether the helping factors covered in your textbook and/or lecture were present, absent, or unknown. Again, for each factor that was present, provide evidence from the article. ... View more

Humans are supposedly the most altruistic animals, but why? The answer is likely in our genes. https://bigthink.com/personal-growth/altruism-human-nature?rebelltitem=1#rebelltitem1 ... View more

In the aftermath of the US presidential inauguration, I’ve been reading about QAnon with much interest. From the New York Times: Followers of QAnon, the pro-Trump conspiracy theory, have spent weeks anticipating that Wednesday [1/20/21, inauguration day] would be the “Great Awakening” [also called “The Storm”]— a day, long foretold in QAnon prophecy, when top Democrats would be arrested for running a global sex trafficking ring and President Trump would seize a second term in office. Imagine the QAnon believers as they watched the coverage of the inauguration. From NPR: Former President Donald Trump did not declare martial law in his final minutes in office; nor did he reveal a secret plan to remain in power forever. President Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi were not sent to Guantánamo Bay. The military did not rise up and arrest Democratic leaders en masse. If you’re looking for a new example of cognitive dissonance, here you go. From CNN: The anti-climax sent QAnon adherents into a frenzy of confusion and disbelief, almost instantly shattering a collective delusion that had been nurtured and amplified by many on the far right. Now, in addition to being scattered to various smaller websites after Facebook ( FB ) and Twitter ( TWTR ) cracked down on QAnon-related content, believers risked having their own topsy-turvy world turned upside down, or perhaps right-side up. We see a similar pattern in doomsday cults. For them, on an identified day, the world will end. When that day passes, the doomsday cult members face some significant cognitive dissonance. “I believed that the world was going to end, but it didn’t.” Now, how to resolve that dissonance. One option is to acknowledge that you were wrong. Another option is provided by the doomsday cult leader. Something like, “The Great Being was so impressed with our preparations for the end that the Great Being has moved the date to [some date in the future].” For some followers, they grab hold of that explanation like a lifeline and become even more committed to the group. “Wow! I helped save the world!” The QAnon followers are facing a similar cognitive dissonance challenge. While the world wasn’t supposed to end on 1/20/21, democracy in the U.S. was. But it didn’t. So now what? Some followers are deciding that they were wrong; they were duped. From the Washington Post: A huge chunk of Twitter’s QAnon community has vaporized, seemingly overnight. A pro-Trump message board has rebranded itself, jettisoning the former president’s name from its URL in its move toward a broader message. And other right-wing forums are grappling with internal rebellion and legal war. As reported in the above news stories, a significant number of QAnon followers (can we ever know how many?) are looking for something else to grasp. Some have decided that—like doomsday cults—the “Great Awakening” will still happen. Others seem to believe that Trump is still in charge and is controlling President Joe Biden. I’m especially interested to see where that goes. Will that QAnon faction break off and become staunch supporters of Biden? Other QAnon followers are being courted by neo-Nazi groups. History—and cognitive dissonance research—tell us that the beliefs fostered by QAnon will persist. What form will they take? And how many people will adhere to them? ... View more

Psychological science applied to real-world problems! Covid-19 vaccine stickers could encourage people to get vaccinated http://ow.ly/8wuC50D72Jh ... View more

With COVID-19 vaccines being rolled out, discussion is now happening about how to convince the general public to get the vaccine once it’s available. As of mid-November, 2020, a Gallup poll found that “58% of Americans say they would get a COVID-19 vaccine,” a notable increase from 34% in July (Reinhart, 2020). What can we do to help convince the hold-outs to get the vaccine? Just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (Volpp et al., 2020), three medical professionals—in 2-page opinion piece—suggest five “behaviorally informed strategies” that may increase willingness to be vaccinated. This assignment asks students to connect those strategies to Robert Cialdini’s six principles of persuasion. Assignment Read “Behaviorally informed strategies for a national COVID-19 vaccine promotion program.” Identify the five suggested strategies and briefly summarize each. Next, read “Principles of persuasion.” For each principle of persuasion, identify—if any—the suggested strategy that best matches it. For example, for the persuasion principle of “authority,” which of the five suggested vaccine promotion strategies seems to be appealing to this strategy? Explain. If there is not a suggested strategy for a particular principle of persuasion, propose a strategy. You may want to extend this assignment into a discussion. Discussion initial post As you learned through the persuasion/vaccine assignment, not all of the principles of persuasion are addressed in the suggested vaccine promotion strategies. Choose one of the persuasion principles not addressed, and propose a vaccine promotion strategy based on that principle. Discussion replies Reply to two initial posts. In each reply, include at least two of the following types of comments. A compliment, e.g., "I like how... because...," I like that... because..." A comment, e.g., "I agree that... because...," "I disagree that... because..." A connection, e.g., "I have also read that...," "I have also thought that...," "That reminds me of..." A question, e.g., "I wonder why...," "I wonder how..."    References Reinhart, R. J. (2020, November 17). More Americans now willing to get COVID-19 vaccine. https://news.gallup.com/poll/325208/americans-willing-covid-vaccine.aspx Volpp, K. G., Loewenstein, G., & Buttenheim, A. M. (2020). Behaviorally informed strategies for a national COVID-19 vaccine promotion program. Journal of the American Medical Association. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.24036   ... View more

Shortly before the start of World War I, as the story goes, two young Serbians—Nada and Relja—fell in love. Soon before Relja departed for war, they stood on a bridge in their hometown of Vrnjačka Banja and declared their love for each other. Unfortunately, while away, Relja fell in love with another woman and never returned. Nada, as the story goes, never recovered from this loss and died young. “A tradition was born of this tragedy: local couples began to etch their names onto padlocks, attach them to the bridge, and throw the key in the water, a symbolic and public act sealing their commitment to each other” (Mars & Kohlstedt, 2020, p. 42). Take a look at some photos of the Vrnjačka Banja bridge. The practice of attaching locks to bridges and other public structures has become a practice in other cities around the world. Most often the locks are keyed padlocks, but sometimes they’re combination locks. (“My love, I will show my unwavering devotion to you by forgetting the combination!”) If just one couple, or a few couples, or even a few dozen couples attach locks to, say, a bridge, there is likely no harm in it. But what happens when thousands and thousands of couples do? It becomes a tragedy of the commons example. In 2015, with “[c]lose to one million locks—weighing 45 tonnes” attached to the Pont des Arts bridge in Paris, the bridge was starting to show damage. Venice, Rome, and Melbourne all encountered similar problems to their bridges where couples in love were attaching padlocks. If you’d like, pose this discussion question to your students: If you were a city official presented with this tragedy of the commons problem—everyone doing a small thing (attaching a padlock to a bridge) causing a big problem (bridge is being damaged by the added weight)—how would you solve it? Many cities replaced the bridge railings with acrylic or glass panels, e.g., Pont des Arts bridge. In Russia, they erected metal tree sculptures specifically for couples to attach their padlocks to (Mars & Kohlstedt, 2020).   Another tragedy of the commons example. Susan B. Anthony, a 19th century champion for women’s right to vote is buried in Rochester, New York at the Friends of Mount Hope Cemetery. It’s been a tradition on election day for visitors to her gravesite to put their “I voted” stickers on her gravestone. Unfortunately, the shear amount of accumulated glue from the stickers has started damaging the stone. “With this year marking 100 years since the ratification of the 19th Amendment, the grave has been getting a lot of attention.” When just a few people attached stickers to the gravestone, there was virtually no damage. But many more people did the same thing, damage started to accumulate. The solution? Cemetery officials covered the stone with transparent plastic so that visitors can still place their “I voted” stickers without damaging the stone (Asmelash, 2020).   References Asmelash, L. (2020). People who place their “I Voted” stickers on Susan B. Anthony’s headstone will notice something different there this year. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/27/us/susan-b-anthony-i-voted-gravestone-trnd/index.html Mars, R., & Kohlstedt, K. (2020). The 99% invisible city: A field guide to the hidden world of everday design. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Publishing.   ... View more

Mask-wearing (or not) continues to be a social psychological goldmine. In this case, let’s take a look at conformity. The social pressure to wear or not wear a mask is pervasive. If you are not wearing a mask but are surrounded by people who are, you can feel the pressure to conform to the group’s behavior and put your mask on. If you are wearing a mask but are surrounded by people who are not, you can feel the pressure to conform to the group’s behavior and take your mask off. Even medical doctors who know the value of wearing masks as a coronavirus transmission preventative can feel the social pressure at a party where no one else is wearing a mask, as described in the New York Times article below. And imagine being at the White House reception for Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett, a reception where no one was wearing a mask. After covering conformity, provide the following discussion prompt. ******** Part A. Read this New York Times article: “If You See Someone Not Wearing a Mask, Do You Say Something?” (It’s better to link to this September 13, 2020 article in your library database as students may have exceeded their number of free New York Times articles for the month.) From our textbook reading, identify the factors that increase the likelihood of conforming. For each, note whether the factor was present in Dr. Robert Klitzman’s party experience. Provide evidence from the article. Part B. Review these photos taken on September 26, 2020. For each factor that increases the likelihood of conforming, note whether the factor was present. Provide evidence from the photos and article. Part C. Have you had a similar experience where you felt social pressure to wear a mask or not? Describe the experience. Which factors that increase the likelihood of conforming were present for you? Which were absent? Finally, what did you do: conform or not conform? Part D. Lastly, when put in the same position again, would thinking about the factors that increase the likelihood of conforming affect your ability to resist the social pressure? Why or why not? ... View more

It’s not very often we get to watch the birth of a social norm. Or at least not on this scale, nor at this speed. Mask-wearing was practically non-existent in the U.S. in March 2020. In late July, while certainly not universal, mask-wearing has become more common. As I’ve watched the norm shift in my community over these last few months, I’ve wondered about how other norms came into being. For example, seat belt use. In 1968, the U.S. law went into effect requiring all vehicles to have seat belts—except buses, such as the ones that carry children to and from school. It wasn’t until the mid-1980s that many states enacted seatbelt laws—wear a seatbelt or get fined. Now 90% of people in the U.S. wear seatbelts, with just about every state showing increased percentages since 2004, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (data for 2004 to 2011; data for 2012-2019). In looking at the data, my first thought was, how did they get these data? Self-report surveys? Nope. The data come from observational studies conducted by each state using a uniform set of observational criteria, called “Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use.” I kid you not. After covering observational research, present this scenario to your students (in a synchronous or asynchronous discussion): Congratulations! You received a federal grant to conduct research on seat belt use in our state/territory. Your task is to estimate seat belt use. How would you select where you are going to do your observations? Are there particular places you would exclude? Explain your rationale. What time of day would you do your observations? Are there particular times you would exclude? Explain your rationale. Who would you observe? Just the driver or also passengers? Explain your rationale. If you’re observing at an intersection, would you observe all cars at the intersection? Or just those traveling, say, north/south or east/west? How would you decide? Explain your rationale. If you’re observing a two-lane road, would you observe cars traveling in both directions, or just one direction? How would you decide? Explain your rationale. Because of the scope of this study, you will need to hire and train people to do the observations. How would you ensure that the observations they make are accurate? Explain your rationale. After students have made their responses to these questions: Visit the Uniform Criteria for State Observational Surveys of Seat Belt Use. These are the criteria the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) gives to states to conduct their annual seat belt studies. The reports are then compiled and sent to the NHTSA. You can see the compiled data for 2012-2019. For A through F, compare your criteria with those of the NHTSA, particularly sections 1340.5 through 1340.8. Would you be in compliance? If not, what would you need to change? In reflecting on everyone’s initial observations plans, who came closest to the NHTSA criteria? Explain your choice. If you’d like to expand this discussion, consider asking students to take what they learned from the NHTSA criteria and use it to answer these questions about the prevalence of mask-wearing in your state/territory. How would you select where you are going to do your observations? Are there particular places you would exclude? Explain your rationale. What time of day would you do your observations? Are there particular times you would exclude? Explain your rationale. Who would you observe? Adults only or children, too? Explain your rationale. Where would you do your observations? How would you decide? Explain your rationale. Because of the scope of this study, you will need to hire and train people to do the observations. How would you ensure that the observations they make are accurate? Explain your rationale. How would define “mask-wearing”? Would any facial covering count? Does it need to be covering the nose? Explain your rationale. ... View more

A lot of my Intro Psych students struggle with the concept of cognitive dissonance. If circumstances, say, a pandemic, provide an example of cognitive dissonance, and a couple social psychologists, say, Elliot Aronson and Carol Tavris, present the explanation, how could I not use it? In their article in The Atlantic, Aronson and Tavris (2020) write: Dissonance is most painful when evidence strikes at the heart of how we see ourselves—when it threatens our belief that we are kind, ethical, competent, or smart. The minute we make any decision—I’ll buy this car; I will vote for this candidate; I think COVID-19 is serious; no, I’m sure it is a hoax—we will begin to justify the wisdom of our choice and find reasons to dismiss the alternative.    As a discussion (synchronous or asynchronous), present this scenario to your students. ******************* Cognitive dissonance and COVID-19 discussion: Part I Let’s start with the premise that I believe that I’m the kind of person who makes smart decisions. I want to see my extended family and my friends; I should go out. But, dang, that virus is out there. It could make me very sick. Heck, it could kill me; I should stay home. I have cognitive dissonance between two thoughts. Let’s say that I go out to visit family and friends. Now I have cognitive dissonance between a behavior and a thought: I’m visiting with people but that’s clashing with knowing that this behavior could be dangerous. Identify at least two things I could think or do that may reduce my dissonance.   ******************* Once students have offered their suggestions, such as saying “I’m young and healthy, it probably won’t affect me if I catch it,” prompt with this follow-up. ******************* Cognitive dissonance and COVID-19 discussion: Part II While it’s an easy way out of this particular cognitive dissonance, finding ways of justifying dangerous behavior is probably not the best solution. Aronson and Tavris (2020) write, Although it’s difficult, changing our minds is not impossible. The challenge is to find a way to live with uncertainty, make the most informed decisions we can, and modify them when the scientific evidence dictates—as our leading researchers are already doing. Admitting we were wrong requires some self-reflection—which involves living with the dissonance for a while rather than jumping immediately to a self-justification. Maybe what we say to ourselves instead is, “Yes, I usually make smart decisions, and I visited with people knowing that it may be dangerous to do so. While I can come up with a lengthy list of justifications, let me just sit with this for a while.”  To not fall prey to cognitive dissonance we have to be able to identify the two dissonant thoughts/behaviors, and we have to be willing to stop and ask ourselves why we are doing/thinking what we’re doing/thinking. Aronson and Tavris (2020) encourage us to ask ourselves, “Why am I believing this? Why am I behaving this way? Have I thought it through or am I simply taking a short cut, following the party line…?” Choose one of the solutions offered in this discussion for how to reduce dissonance. For example, "I'm young and healthy, so I'm less likely to get sick." Now, ask, "Why do I believe this?" "Because that's what friends keep saying"? Next, evaluate the evidence. "It's true that those who are young and healthy are less likely to die, but young, healthy people can get very sick, and yes, they can die. Even if they have mild or no symptoms, they can still pass it on to others who could get very sick or die." Cite your reputable source, e.g., the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.   Reference Aronson, E., & Tavris, C. (2020, July). The role of cognitive dissonance in the pandemic. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/07/role-cognitive-dissonance-pandemic/614074/ ... View more