#Social psychology

[badwolfrose34]

Here’s the full version of Dr. Goodfriend’s explanation of why Rose Tyler is the most important companion to the Doctor and why he’s in love with her. You’ll have to open the images to read the full text.

This is part of a book called Doctor Who Psychology and this particular chapter is by Dr. Wind Goodfriend who is a social psychologist and university lecturer who has written multiple textbooks of her own, including one on intimate relationships. Needless to say, if anyone knows who the most impactful companion the Doctor ever had was, it would be her. There’s also other aspects of the Doctor’s attraction to Rose explained in this chapter, but I felt this was the most important.

[badwolfrose34]

Some lovely evidence of the significance of Rose Tyler and why the Doctor came to love her so deeply. Why he loved her with a depth greater than any other companion. I’m going to make a separate post explaining self expansion theory and the importance of Rose to the Doctor in more detail, so check that out if you want the full version. But I also wanted a simple post with the most important paragraph for people who don’t want to read all the psychological garble. This is part of a book called Doctor Who Psychology and this particular chapter is by Dr. Wind Goodfriend who is a social psychologist and university lecturer who has written multiple textbooks of her own, including one on intimate relationships. Needless to say, if anyone knows who the most impactful companion the Doctor ever had was, it would be her.

[zwischenstadt]

"Loyalty is often touted as a moral principle, or virtue, worth exemplifying in social and business relations. But is it always beneficial to be loyal? We investigate possible negative consequences of being a loyal employee in the workplace. Instead of protecting or rewarding them, loyal employees are selectively and ironically targeted by managers for exploitative practices (Studies 1–2). The targeting of these loyal workers is mediated by the assumption that loyal individuals are readily willing to make personal sacrifices for the objects of their loyalty (Study 1). We then find evidence for the reverse causal pathway: workers who agree (versus refuse) to be exploited in the workplace acquire stronger reputations for loyalty (Studies 3 and 4). These bidirectional causal links between loyalty and exploitation have the potential to create a vicious circle of suffering. We discuss the implications of these results for obtaining a reputation for loyalty."

[discountscholar]

hi everyone! i'm starting a new post series where i talk about a few relatable concepts from psychology and research, so if you're interested in these niches, you might want to follow this!

without further ado, let's talk about-

self-serving bias

the self-serving bias is a phenomenon in social psychology that is pretty self-explanatory through its name.

we exhibit this bias when we attribute positive qualities like our successes and wins to ourselves, but we attribute negative outcomes or qualities to factors outside of ourselves.

it is called a 'bias' because this attribution is erroneous.

i'll give you an example!

if you had a good exam, you'll say that it went well, or you scored well because you worked hard.

but if you have a bad exam or score a bad result, then you'll attribute it externally and claim that the question paper was difficult, or that the examiner did not like you.

you can also describe this as making excuses for your situation when it is unfavorable and taking credit for favorable situations!

let me know if you have observed this in yourself and the people around you! until next time <3

link to masterpost

[thejakeformerlyknownasprince]

i loved your post on MBPT and why it is pseudoscientific bullshit, can you do a similar take down of body language analysis used in "criminal psychology"

I don't have the level of expertise on body language that I do on psychometrics, but I can recommend this article by an expert.

To sum up: body language is entirely dependent on context, so much so that it's impossible to know with certainty from a single conversation what any one person's gestures mean. If I ask my sister "How was dinner last night?" and she smiles big while throwing out both arms and exclaiming "it was great!", then I know dinner sucked. I know that because she isn't the type of person to use those behaviors, except occasionally in sarcasm. If I ask my dad "How was dinner last night?" and he smiles big while throwing out both arms and exclaiming "it was great!", then I know dinner was great. I know those because he is the type of person to use those behaviors in everyday life. If I ask a stranger about dinner and get that response, then it's probably safe to assume sincerity rather than sarcasm, but I don't have enough info to know. Celebrities, tiktokers, suspects, and other strangers just aren't informative enough to draw conclusions.

Body language "analysis" also forgets that we humans actively choose how to present ourselves. Many people report making eye contact and holding still during lies, because of the stereotype that liars fidget and look away. I try to smile and nod more often during unpolished presentations, because seeing students smile and nod makes me feel better when I'm presenting badly. But I also nod and smile automatically during insightful and well-made presentations. So if you see me smiling and nodding during your presentation, it's a sign that I think your presentation is good or that it's bad. And I'm the only person who knows for sure which one it is; my body doesn't offer enough info for you to know.

[martian-astro]

So this semester we have social psychology and I would've never thought that I would like it so much but here we are, I was supposed to read only a few pages for the exam but ended up reading half the book because IT WAS SO INTERESTING. I was just thinking about how our social situations affect our life and then I was relating it to astrology. And..... I should write an article on this. I know that nobody's really gonna read this as it's not an astrology observation or something like that, so it's just gonna be a personal draft for me

Okay so, people always ask that will my marriage be bad because I have this placement? Or questions similar to the above, but what many people don't realize is that a lot of how your life is gonna play out depends on where you live, how your family is and the type of people you interact with. In psychology, a person is capable of being both a good and a bad person depending on their surroundings and astrology is so similar to that. Our chart has both good and bad aspects, and how they affect our life depends on our situation. Your birth chart can have EXCELLENT aspects but if you saw your mother being mistreated by your father when you were young, you WILL seek out relationships with boys who are similar to your father and it's a subconscious decision, you're not even aware of it, but for you, those kind of relationships represent "home" and "familiarity". There are several research studies that prove this. Similarly, how can you have a love marriage when your family is the type that would NEVER accept it, how??

If I give an example of my own birth chart, it would be, venus square Neptune, I have this, and one of my friends has it too. She grew up in a traditional Indian household, her mother is a housewife, the mother in law constantly shames her mother for... Existing, her father does not love her mother, he's indifferent towards her. The girl feels neglected, so she gets into relationships with boys who have a tendency of love bombing. On the other hand, I was raised by a single mother, I have seen a lot of men being disrespectful towards her just because she had the courage to get a divorce, I have seen men being jealous of her because she's more successful than them despite being a woman in a country like India. And how does that affect me?? Well, it makes me hate men, even if a man is good to me, I assume the worst, I don't trust them, I don't like talking to guys in my college, I had no guy friends in school, I feel uncomfortable around them. Even if I get into a relationship I always assume that they WILL end up cheating on me, I NEVER trust any man. This is why it's difficult for me to be in a healthy relationship.

The same thing can happen with other aspects as well, how they play out, depends on you and your upbringing.

[alexandraisyes]

I was researching some stuff and found a really good article about how public online venting can be harmful, both others and yourself. It’s a really good, and fairly short read, that’s made me think. I strongly suggest checking it out, it take 5 minutes.

[basicallyanotherwitchesthing]

Oscar A. Oeser (editor) - Teacher, Pupil and Task - Social Science - 1965 (cover design by Korin Keefe)

[itsalwaysjune]

17.05.24

The weather is nice again! I'm glad the rain definitely dampened my mood.

I spent almost the entire day in the library- found 'You will beat this essay' written on the cublicle wall, it gave me the motivation I needed to get a big chunk of my Lab reoprt done.

Today I;

Did the introduction of my lab report

Did the methodology of my lab report

Created the Figures for my lab report

Started to contact the study abroad students I will be travelling with

Studied social categorisation, stereotyping and prejudice

Studied intergroup relations and conflict

I went to the library and forgot my tablet, so I had to walk all the way there and alllll the way back.

[typhlonectes]

Cognitive Biases

Fundamental attribution error  (FAE, aka correspondence bias)

Tendency to overemphasize personality-based explanations for behaviors observed in others. At the same time, individuals under-emphasize the role and power of situational influences on the same behavior. Edward E. Jones and Victor A. Harris' (1967) classic study illustrates the FAE. Despite being made aware that the target's speech direction (pro-Castro/anti-Castro) was assigned to the writer, participants ignored the situational pressures and attributed pro-Castro attitudes to the writer when the speech represented such attitudes.

Implicit bias  (aka implicit stereotype, unconscious bias)

Tendency to attribute positive or negative qualities to a group of individuals. It can be fully non-factual or be an abusive generalization of a frequent trait in a group to all individuals of that group.

Priming bias

Tendency to be influenced by the first presentation of an issue to create our preconceived idea of it, which we then can adjust with later information.

Confirmation bias

Tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions, and discredit information that does not support the initial opinion. Related to the concept of cognitive dissonance, in that individuals may reduce inconsistency by searching for information which reconfirms their views (Jermias, 2001, p. 146).

Affinity bias

Tendency to be favorably biased toward people most like ourselves.

Self-serving bias

Tendency to claim more responsibility for successes than for failures. It may also manifest itself as a tendency for people to evaluate ambiguous information in a way beneficial to their interests.

Belief bias

Tendency to evaluate the logical strength of an argument based on current belief and perceived plausibility of the statement's conclusion.

Framing

Tendency to narrow the description of a situation in order to guide to a selected conclusion. The same primer can be framed differently and therefore lead to different conclusions.

Hindsight bias

Tendency to view past events as being predictable. Also called the "I-knew-it-all-along" effect.

Embodied cognition

Tendency to have selectivity in perception, attention, decision making, and motivation based on the biological state of the body.

Anchoring bias

The inability of people to make appropriate adjustments from a starting point in response to a final answer. It can lead people to make sub-optimal decisions. Anchoring affects decision making in negotiations, medical diagnoses, and judicial sentencing.

Status quo bias

Tendency to hold to the current situation rather than an alternative situation, to avoid risk and loss (loss aversion). In status quo bias, a decision-maker has the increased propensity to choose an option because it is the default option or status quo. Has been shown to affect various important economic decisions, for example, a choice of car insurance or electrical service.

Overconfidence effect

Tendency to overly trust one's own capability to make correct decisions. People tended to overrate their abilities and skills as decision makers.See also the Dunning–Kruger effect.

Physical attractiveness stereotype

The tendency to assume people who are physically attractive also possess other desirable personality traits.

(via: Cognitive bias - Wikipedia)

[er-cryptid]

Ethnocentrism

-- assumption that one's own culture is correct or superior

-- other ways of living are seen as wrong or ignorant

-- combated by cultural relativism

.

Patreon

[a-study-in-sepia]

Proxemics and Deduction 01

Proxemics is defined as the branch of knowledge that deals with the amount of space people feel is necessary to set between themselves and others. 

It’s a fascinating field that we, as deductionists, pull from on a daily basis whether we’ve been aware of it or not. If you see two people walking together, how do you gauge their relationship? Lovers, family, friends, colleagues, mortal enemies; all options, along with many more. There are quite a few scenario-specific examples, such as coworkers carrying the same identification tag, or a couple each tending to a stroller, but without fail, as a supplementary measure, or more often, as an introductory observation, we fall to proxemics. We look for levels of comfort, and one of the best ways to gauge that is physical closeness. Proxemics is one of several modes of nonverbal communication, ranging from something as simple as touch (haptics), to something as obscure as use of time (chronemics). 

To explain proxemics in its most concrete state, we can reference Edward T. Hall’s interpersonal distances of man. 

Imagine four concentric circles, in the center, a person. The first three circles are at 4, 8, and 12 feet respectively. Now add one more circle at 1.5 feet. From nearest to farthest, you have the intimate distance, personal distance, social distance, and public distance. Each of these measurements is used to represent the acceptable levels of closeness in various situations. It is important to note that Hall’s model, and thus Hall’s denoted application, is limited to Western ideals of social conduct. While these same measurements may not fully apply cross-culturally, all human-hosting spaces will model some form of proxemics. There will always be bounds between intimate, personal, and public space, but occasionally, they will be marked at different points. The difference between a friend and a colleague may be a matter of a few inches, and yet breaching that unspoken rule, can cause immense discomfort. Gauging this space, or lack thereof, is a major aspect of social deduction. It’s one of the first behavioral observations we utilize as deductionists, both new and old. 

Before marital status, even before handedness, we have social connection. We all see it, I would venture to say we intuitively understand it, so much so that the lines between observation and deduction begin to blur. 

The basics are in the textbook application, but there’s much more to proxemics than reciprocal relations. What about the colleague who’s getting a little too close for comfort? The wife who’s preparing for an imminent divorce? The regular with the irrational phobia? 

Deduction, in many ways, is best dissected through deviance.

Proxemics sets a baseline for us to observe and through this baseline, enables us to detect changes. These changes speak volumes. To take the first example. You notice two coworkers behind the counter in a cafe. Their relationship status is unknown - simply colleagues, barely acquaintances, best friends - it's unestablished to you. You watch them interact; there’s limited camaraderie, few words exchanged from one, a few too many from the other. Is worker B simply over communicative, or is there more to it? You see B encroach on what would be appropriate for a colleague (social/personal depending on the available space - which is something I’ll touch on in a moment), but A steps away, leaving B in the next available concentric circle. This is something we would likely notice without the knowledge of proxemics, but would be unable to categorize beyond a vague ramble about “intuitive social knowledge”. By referencing an established baseline we streamline the observation and solidify it in the process, creating a new building block to jump off of. “Individual A looks uncomfortable” turns into, dare I say, a mathematical reference point for any and all future behavior. 

It is important to acknowledge that this particular example is not representative of Person A’s baseline. It is also important to acknowledge that not every person follows the same baseline, and that certain situations will inherently alter expected baselines. Let’s take the example of a very small area behind the counter in this imaginative cafe. Informal colleagues will likely be forced into what would be considered personal or even intimate space. Proxemic expectations change not only cross-culturally, but by environment. The best way to understand proxemic norms in non-standard situations, is to spend some time observing many people who are exposed to that specific situation. If you simply go off how you would feel in that situation, you are setting a baseline with a possible bias. People tend towards environments they're comfortable with. There is, after all, a reason they’re behind that counter and you’re not.

Now, one might argue that if the proxemic standards are constantly changing, the applications of the specific measurements are all but useless. While it is true that the baselines are constantly changing by environment, there is an overarching standard. When the space is provided to do so, people will revert to defined patterns. And in situations where the space is not available, using this model, you can deduce a whole host of things with the proportional proximal input and subsequent behavior. Personality, relationships, levels of comfort and discomfort are all vital bits of information. 

One interesting morsel I feel like throwing in here is the fascinating subject of lines. Lines, queues, whatever you want to call them are one of the best places to observe shifting proxemics in action. As more people enter the queue (when the space is confined) the spaces between individuals will decrease until they reach a social breaking point, at this point the line will turn, often veering out of the designated queue area. Onto another cafe example (can you tell I got coffee this morning). One person walks up to the register. At this point, the only proximal opportunity is between the cashier and the patron - which is generally defined by the width of the counter between them. Now, another person walks up and starts a line - depending on this individual’s personal proxemic preference, the standard in the line is set. The next person who joins the line will tend to follow the set amount of spacing, and the next person, and so on, as space allows. The patrons up ahead, uncaring of what’s going on behind them, will typically not adjust their positions, leaving a continuous theme of compression as the line progresses, until someone breaks and opts to turn the line. If there is no way to turn, that same slinky effect will move its way back up the line as people become aware of the discomfort behind them. I observed this in action this morning while waiting at my local cafe. Because there is continuous movement, the comfort of the line is rarely at the forefront of anyone’s mind; their priority is to reach the front, not be optimally comfortable while waiting. If, for example, people were queuing onto a bus (which for some reason didn’t have seats) and had to stand there for a couple hours, everyone would evenly disperse. In scenarios with movement, one person’s typically insignificant social preference has a domino effect on those behind them. There’s an observable push and pull of conscientiousness and the introversion-extroversion spectrum. We adjust subconsciously to the line’s collective consciousness, bow down to the social conduct overlord, and occasionally get squished in the process. Take some time to observe this phenomenon next time you’re waiting. Be a menace and try standing too close or too far and watch how uncomfortable you, and possibly others, get. Next time you're first in line, set a weird tone, but remember, with great power comes great responsibility. 

The last topic I’m going to be touching on is something I can find absolutely no research on (great intro, I know), so bear with me. I’d like to discuss proxemics in terms of the inanimate object - something that I’m very poorly defining, but I believe works in the context of this article. I’ve been taking notes on this subject for some time, but only in my own geographical area. It’s proved wildly effective at predicting where people will go, so I took some time this morning to watch live CCTV footage of city walkways in other cities, both in the US and nationally (London, Oxford, and Tokyo). This is simply anecdotal, but through this limited observation it became clear to me that people will walk in the middle of their perceived space, cross-culturally. This sense of available space changes depending on the presence of a roadway, varied storefront structure, as well as other people. If there is no one coming towards them, people will tend towards the middle of the walkway, often veering slightly towards the right or left side (driving/passing side of the given country). Individual patterns can answer questions about openness, day to day activities, and conscientiousness. For instance, a person on a walkway with no one coming towards them who is walking distinctly on the right side (in a right-driving country) may be very high on the conscientiousness scale, and/or their typical routine involves walking among many people. These sorts of deductions can be further parsed using other observations. 

If we accept the premise that people tend towards the middle of their perceived space (which, if other people are approaching, may be one side of a walkway - effectively leaving their “middle” veered to one side), then deviance will usually stem from moving towards, or away from, something. There are a lot of fun applications to this, for instance, deducing how much of a hurry someone is in based on how likely they are to go for the most acceptable path or the quickest path, at baseline. For example, I tend to opt for the most acceptable/safest path, I have high conscientiousness and high neuroticism according to the OCEAN model. But today, I jay-walked through a busy street to get somewhere before my order was ready. This is an example of considering the safest path. Considering the most acceptable path has some predictive applications. As I was taking a break between shifts the other day, I noticed that people who wanted to walk into a store changed their path relatively far in advance. In this case, they were heading towards something. I was able to easily predict which store someone might go into well up to a block away, when utilized in tandem with other observations. 

Early on in my research journey I found that in videos of people walking on the street oncoming individuals were encouraged to veer away from the person filming. I prioritized finding CCTV to avoid this, but found it to be an interesting example of people changing course to avoid something. There were also a few people who veered into the camera's view. Something as simple as this may give clues to an individual's level of openness and extraversion. 

In public situations where a person must veer into an oncoming flow of people to cross to their desired destination, they will often wait until they’re near adjacent to it; in a more desolate walkway, they’ll veer much earlier. Possibly charting their whole course along the less-acceptable pathway. 

I label this idea as the proxemics of objects because when walking, we seem to assign objects their own personal bubbles. We don’t walk near the table line of a restaurant unless there’s a specific reason to. We tend not to encroach on their space, in the same way we consider people. Perhaps it’s more for our comfort than the objects’, or perhaps we’ve all been traumatized by the videos of people dressing up as bushes. Either way, I found it interesting enough to throw in here, and if you’re seeing this, you found it interesting enough to read (yay). I’ll be further exploring the topic of object spatial awareness in a future article I have planned. 

Thank you for reading - below are some relevant articles - 

https://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-binaries/11826_Chapter8.pdf

https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/understanding-personal-space-proxemics/

Hall, Edward T., et al. “Proxemics [and Comments and Replies].” Current Anthropology, vol. 9, no. 2/3, 1968, pp. 83–108. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2740724. Accessed 6 Dec. 2023.

[fandom-blackhole]

My friends, idk how, but im gonna figure out a way to share my final presentation with you guys for a class after I finish it. Because I'll be damned if I'm gonna be this passionate about this thing, do all the research, make a ppt AND cardboard tri-fold, and present this at a "Research Symposium" for 2 hours to whoever stops at my booth during finals week to not share with the people I like most 😤

Basically for the project we have to take a person or event and give background on them before analyzing them through a Social Psychology lense (bc the class is social psychology lol). AND GODS DO I LOVE SHIT LIKE THISSSSS. I will not be sharing what event I chose for two reason: 1) I want ya'll to read and learn about it through my post when I post it 😌 and 2) It's a REALLY obscure event from what I've gathered (like I barely have 5 sources for references and one's ONLY in german) and I doubt many would know what I was talking about.