Thurgood Marshall in his argument before the U.S. Supreme Court in Brown vs. Board of Education cited the research of Drs. Mamie and Kenneth Clark. Those were the now-famous doll studies demonstrating that segregation affects how Black children feel about themselves. That 1954 ruling started a cascade of changes. While racism is still prevalent almost 70 years later, some of the state-sponsored systemic barriers have come done. Some of them. Step into the shoes of a Black man charged with a crime. Your case goes to a jury trial. The jury is comprised of all white people. And the jury room, maintained by a chapter of the United Daughters of the Confederacy, prominently features a Confederate flag. Would you feel that your jury was impartial? Tim Gilbert and his attorneys did not. For a summary of this case, read the freely available APA Div 9: Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues column in the June 2022 issue of the Monitor on Psychology, “Legacies of racism in our halls of justice” (Anderson & Najdowski, 2022). Gilbert’s trial was held in 2020 at the Giles County courthouse in Pulaski, TN. “[T]he jury retired to the jury room during every recess, for every meal, and for its deliberations” (p. 29 of appeals court ruling.) While there were other Confederacy memorabilia in the jury room—including a portrait of Confederate president Jefferson Davis, the defense team took primary issue with the Confederate flag. (See a photo.) “In its amicus brief, the Tennessee Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers (‘TACDL’), noting that ‘[m]ultiple courts have recognized the racially hostile and disruptive nature of the Confederate flag,’ argues that ‘a jury’s exposure to Confederate Icons denies the defendant a fair trial free of extraneous prejudicial information and improper outside influence’” (p. 19 of appeals court ruling). In the TACDL amicus brief, they cited a 2011 Political Psychology article (Ehrlinger et al., 2011). The article features two experiments conducted in 2008. In the first, volunteers who were subliminally shown images of a Confederate flag were less likely to express interest in voting for Obama. In the second experiment—the one that I found more compelling—volunteers who were exposed to a folder with a Confederate flag sticker ostensibly left by someone else who had been in the room were more likely to evaluate a description of a Black man more negatively. (Read this section of the amicus brief.) Quoted in the amicus brief was the researchers’ conclusion: “Our studies show that, whether or not the Confederate flag includes other nonracist meanings, exposure to this flag evokes responses that are prejudicial. Thus, displays of the Confederate flag may do more than inspire heated debate, they may actually provoke discrimination.” Excluded from that quote was the end of the researchers’ sentence: “even among those who are low in prejudice.” In August 2021, the appeals court ruled that Gilbert was deserving of a new trial. In Intro Psych, we can discuss this case in the first few days of class, when we discuss the importance of psychological research. It would also work to discuss the Ehringer et al. second study as an example of experimental design—and then add how that experiment was used to support a new trial for Gilbert.   References Anderson, M., & Najdowski, C. J. (2022, June). Legacies of racism in our halls of justice. Monitor on Psychology, 53(4), 39. Ehrlinger, J., Plant, E. A., Eibach, R. P., Columb, C. J., Goplen, J. L., Kunstman, J. W., & Butz, D. A. (2011). How exposure to the Confederate flag affects willingness to vote for Barack Obama. Political Psychology, 32(1), 131–146. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2010.00797.x             ... View more

I’ve been thinking a lot about identity and how our identity—whether it’s an accurate reflection reality—influences our behavior. Most recently I’ve been thinking about this after reading Jeff Holmes’ article in the Teaching of Psychology journal on students who have identified themselves as bad test-takers (Holmes, 2021). Holmes opens the article with this statement: “One of the best ways to be bad at something is to tell yourself you are bad at it” (p. 291). In Holmes’s study of 311 college students, a whopping 91% believed that students who otherwise know the course material can be bad test-takers with 56% of the students identifying themselves as bad test-takers. A third of the students said that someone else told them that they were bad test-takers. Importantly, those who identified as a bad test-taker were more likely to disagree with “I know how to study effectively.” Additionally, “Students who see themselves as bad test-takers…tend to—relative to students who do not possess such an identity—have lower confidence in their broader academic abilities, expend less effort on cognitive activities, and feel entitled to positive academic outcomes regardless of performance” (p. 296). And, yes, those who identify as bad test-takers were also more likely to report test anxiety, even when other variables—such as overall academic performance and study skills confidence—were controlled for. I could retire early if I had a dollar for every time I had this conversation with a student: Student: “I studied hard for this test, and I still failed! I’m just a bad test-taker.” Me: “Tell me how you studied.” Student: “What do you mean?” Me: “When you sat down to study, tell me what you did.” Student: “I read the chapter, then I read it again, and again. Oh! And I highlighted stuff.” Me: “Tell me what you know about <concept covered on exam>.” Student: <awkward silence> “I don’t remember.” <More awkward silence> Since I’m a bad test-taker, can I do something for extra credit?” In Intro Psych, wherever you discuss attributions (e.g., social psych, abnormal, psychotherapy), consider using the bad test-taker attribution as an example. If a student does poorly on an exam and they say, “I’m a bad test-taker,” they are making an internal, stable, and global attribution. Internal: It’s a trait I have. Stable: It’s a trait that’s not going to change. Global: My bad test-taking applies regardless of the test. It is unlikely that a student who makes this attribution will do anything differently on the next test.   Now ask students to imagine a different attribution. After doing poorly on a test, the student says, “I didn’t know that material well enough.” This is an internal, unstable, specific attribution. Internal: The grade was because of something I did. Unstable: If I do things differently, I can get a different result. Specific: This is what happened on this specific test; that doesn’t say anything about the next test. This student has agency. “I’m going to try out some of the known-to-be-effective study strategies my instructor told me about.” Reiterate to students that in both examples, the result of the first test was the same; both students failed. But who is most likely to fail the second test, too? To make that second attribution—“I didn’t know the material well enough”—students have to have enough insight into their own knowledge or have to accept that their test score is a reasonably accurate reflection of their knowledge. When students read and reread chapters over and over and over again, the material begins to feel familiar. That familiarity can feel like knowledge. It’s not. It’s the illusion of knowledge. One of the many benefits of self-testing is that it keeps students from deluding themselves while they study. Unless they attribute their poor self-testing to being a bad test-taker. [Side note: If the student sees test-taking as a skill that can be learned (unstable attribution), then they may choose to work on upping their test-taking skills. A quick Google search of “test taking skills” produced a number of websites with a bullet-point list of strategies. The sites I saw all included some version of “be prepared.” What’s the best way to be prepared? Use solid study strategies to learn the material.]     References Holmes, J. D. (2021). The bad test-taker identity. Teaching of Psychology, 48(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628320979884 ... View more

In December 2021, snow closed the major highways in northern California, including I-80. With those routes closed, Google Maps and Waze (also owned by Google) suggested routes that sent people on rural roads through the Sierra Nevada Mountains. People ended up stranded in the middle of nowhere. One person was quoted as saying, “Blaming vulnerable people for going down the wrong road is the same as blaming some of those poor vulnerable people who drowned in their basement apartments in New York City” during September 2021 flooding (Vigdor, 2021). This is not the only instance of drivers blindly following an app’s directions and ending up in trouble, e.g., 8 Drivers Who Blindly Followed Their GPS into Disaster, and Truck Drivers Following GPS Get into Serious Trouble. I admit that I am struggling with this one. My primary reaction upon reading such stories is thinking that, as drivers, we cannot turn off our brains. If a snowstorm has dumped enough snow that the department of transportation cannot keep the biggest highways open, how could the secondary roads possibly be open? Now, being a psychological scientist, my next thought is, “Wait. Am I blaming the victim?” Are the drivers who chose to follow their phone’s GPS victims of technology? But the drivers were not forced to follow those directions, so are they really victims of their own making? I grew up with snow in a mountain-y, rural area, so I have a lot of knowledge about snow and mountains and rural roads. For drivers who do not have that experience, is it reasonable to think that they and I share the same “common sense”? In grad school at the University of Kansas, a friend who had grown up in Kansas and I took a road trip back to my home state of Pennsylvania. As I-80 (the same highway that was closed in that northern California snowstorm) started into the Allegheny Mountains, the speed limit dropped from 70mph to 55mph. My friend who had no experience driving on major highways through mountains could not comprehend why the speed limit had dropped. I, foolishly, told her that if she thought she could drive 70mph to give it a try. She quickly discovered that they had built the road according to the terrain, so sharp turns that are more judiciously taken at 55mph are part of the driving experience. All of that is to say that our experience of driving conditions is not universally shared. Instead of following their GPS, let’s imagine that the drivers had pulled over and asked a local resident for directions, and the local suggested a snow-packed rural route that the drivers then followed. To me, the drivers now feel more like victims of bad advice, and blaming the drivers does feel like blaming the victim. But is there really any difference between a driver who trusts the advice of a local and a driver who trusts the advice of their phone’s GPS? This could be an interesting discussion with your students after you have introduced the blaming the victim concept. A few years ago, The Atlantic had a pretty good article on blaming the victim if you would like your students to have a bit more information about the concept (Roberts, 2016). Describe the snowstorm incident, and then ask students if the drivers were victims of technology or victims of their own making. Ask them to explain why. If the predominant answer is blaming the victim (victim of their own making), ask students if the directions had been given to the drivers by a local resident, would it change their thinking. Why or why not?     Reference Roberts, K. (2016, October 5). The psychology of victim blaming. The Atlantic. https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/10/the-psychology-of-victim-blaming/502661/ Vigdor, N. (2021, December 31). Snow closed the highways. GPS mapped a harrowing detour in the Sierra Nevada. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/12/31/us/google-maps-waze-sierra-nevada-snow.html   ... View more

The September 2021 issue of the APA Monitor featured an article suggesting strategies bystanders can use when they observe the use of microaggressions against others (“How bystanders can shut down microaggressions”). In Intro Psych, we often talk about bystander intervention in the context of witnessing, say, a potential medical emergency, so it is refreshing to think about bystander intervention in terms of something we may more commonly witness. After covering bystander intervention in your course, consider providing your students with these discussion instructions and questions. **** Read How Bystanders Can Shut Down Microaggressions. Give an example of a microaggression you witnessed, you experienced, or you heard of happening to a friend or family member. (See this document for some examples of microaggressions.) Briefly explain what made it a microaggression. As bystanders, we are more likely to intervene if we recognize what we’re seeing as a problem, assume responsibility for doing something to help, have some ideas about what to do to help, and then actually do something. Let’s assume that you recognize a microaggression happening to a friend, and, as an ally, you want to do something. You will need to have some ideas of what to do. What six suggestions does the article suggest for “how to effectively intervene as a bystander.” For each suggestion, describe what a bystander could have done to intervene in the example you gave. Respond to two classmate's initial posts with 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..."  **** During this discussion, students may discover that they have engaged in microaggressions and may be struggling with that knowledge. The following may be a helpful additional discussion. **** Most of us do not want to offend anyone else. In reading the examples of microaggressions in the earlier discussion, you may have been surprised to learn that you have said one or more of those things yourself. That does not make you a bad person. It means that you’ve done an excellent job learning from others. But now that you know, it is time to work on reducing those microaggressions. We are human, though. While we may try very hard, old lessons die hard. We will make mistakes. Imagine that you have uttered a statement that caused a good friend to say, “I’m uncomfortable with what you just said.” Read You’ve Committed a Microaggression—Now What? Use what you learned in this article to respond to your friend. Respond to two classmate's initial posts with 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..."  ... View more

While the prisoner’s dilemma and the tragedy of the commons are our Intro Psych go-to social dilemmas, Covid-19 has us all mixing in a soup of social dilemmas. Stewing, even. At root, social dilemmas are about weighing our own self-interest against the good of the group. Zhijun Wu (Wu, 2021) suggests we look at social distancing as a social dilemma played between individuals and the population at large. To keep things simple, Wu suggests that there are two kinds of activities: (1) staying home (and going out only for essential errands, like getting groceries) and (2) having a free-for-all social life (including going to a workplace or school, restaurants, and bars). Now, which should we do? That depends on the risk. If most everyone is out and about, then if we go out and about, our chances of contracting Covid are higher. In that case, staying home would be the safer bet. Restaurants are packed; let’s order a pizza. However, if most everyone else is staying home, then being out and about would be less risky. Restaurants are empty; let’s go to Chachi’s for dinner. Of course, everyone else is making these same calculations. Restaurants are empty, let’s go! And now restaurants are packed. Restaurants are packed, let’s stay home! And now restaurants are empty. Repeat. In Wu’s mathematical model, everyone’s best option is to split our time. Sometimes we eat in, and sometimes we eat out. If everyone made that same decision, we would balance out our risk. For example, at any give time then, restaurants would be half full. Wu’s model takes many more events into consideration and assigns a value to each depending on the amount of social contact. For example, the amount of contact you have with others at a grocery store may be minimal, but the amount of contact in a dance club would be much higher. To make things more complicated, we can think about subpopulations. People who live in one neighborhood would frequent a particular grocery store. If the grocery store borders two neighborhoods, then two subpopulations would mix at that grocery store. However, there is a bar at the distant end of the first neighborhood that those in the second neighborhood rarely go to. To illustrate how complicated things can get, Wu identified in Ames, Iowa, six subpopulations and 85 activities, where each activity has its own social contact value. I’ll add that when making decisions about whether we are going to go someplace, we also take into consideration our own vaccination status, our own underlying health conditions, the vaccinations status and health conditions of others we live with or are in close contact with, the number of people testing positive in our area, and our own risk tolerance. What used to be a set of simple decisions (e.g., “Let’s go out to dinner,” “Let’s get coffee,”) now requires complex calculations best handled by a computer model to spit out the best decision. No wonder so many of us feel exhausted much more than we did before 2020. And we haven’t talked about the social dilemmas presented by mask-wearing and vaccines.   Reference Wu, Z. (2021). Social distancing is a social dilemma game played by every individual against his/her population. PLOS ONE, 16(8), e0255543. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0255543 ... View more

Poor people are perceived as being less sensitive to pain. Why? Great discussion for stereotyping and prejudice: https://www.psypost.org/2021/09/new-psychology-research-finds-that-poor-people-are-perceived-as-being-less-susceptible-to-pain-61883?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter ... View more

"US scientists found that quantity, rather than quality, of speaking determined who was perceived as a leader in small groups...regardless of the intelligence or personality traits of members within the group" https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/08/leaders-talk-more-babble-hypothesis/ ... View more

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

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

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