AU Blogspot

              Thanks to Jon Nicholls for permission to use this Photo.

After receiving approval from the Catholic Church, a new centre is scheduled to be opened in the Polish town of Poczernin near the German border to provide exorcisms for those believing themselves to be possessed. Andrzej Trojanowski, an academic chaplain who has been working in the nearby town of Szczeczin for the past five years, will be directing the centre. Father Trojanowski is reported to have dealt with twenty cases a week in his former position. While there are currently fifty exorcists operating in Poland, the centre will be the first of its kind in that country. The new centre is also expected to draw potential clients from Germany due to the lack of exorcists in that country. Reports indicate that the centre will be built as a retreat house with a chapel, guest rooms and clinical facilities for the psychiatrist who has been working with Father Trojanowski.

After a long decline throughout most of the twentieth century, demand for exorcisms began to make a comeback in the 1960s (partially spurred by movies such as The Exorcist). (more…)

 
               Thanks to Chris Gladis for permission to use this Photo.

Psychology studies that rely on deceiving participants have shown we often have little clue what’s going on in our own minds. But what about in everyday situations where trickery isn’t involved?

Here are four everyday situations - shopping, reading, watching TV and judging other people - and four experiments that show how little we know in each situation about what’s really going on in our minds (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977).

Shopping

For this study researchers set themselves up in a mall pretending to carry out a consumer survey on nightgowns and nylon stockings. Passersby were asked to evaluate what they were told were four different nightgowns and four different pairs of stockings. In fact, all four items were identical.

Quite by accident they discovered a positional effect for the identical goods: people seemed to prefer the item that was on the far right. In fact this effect was really obvious for the stockings. The right-most pair, although identical to the left-most was preferred by a factor of four to one.

When asked why they had chosen a particular item, no one mentioned its position. Even when experimenters suggested to people that the position might have an effect, most participants looked at best very confused and at worst utterly dismissive.

Result: these people didn’t have a clue why they preferred one identical pair of stockings over another.

Reading

In this study participants read a passage from the novel ‘Rabbit, Run’ by John Updike. The extract from the book involves an emotionally charged scene in which an alcoholic mother, while washing her baby in the bath, accidentally drowns and kills her.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

           Thanks to James Tworow for permission to use this Photo.

When you change your attitude about something, do you know why? Psychologists have argued that the inner workings of our minds are largely hidden away from us. One aspect of this is the surprising finding that people are often unaware when they have changed their attitudes.

We may well, for example, be able to identify our current opinions on global warming. We might find it easy to say, “Yes, I think global warming is occurring and humans are to blame,” or, “No, it’s just a long-term trend that has nothing to do with humans”. But when our opinions change, by say watching Al Gore’s documentary, ‘An Inconvenient Truth’, psychologists have found we are unlikely to be aware what changed our minds.

It gets weirder. In certain circumstances we may even be convinced that our attitude has never changed. So that we are convinced our ‘new’ attitude is the one we always had.

Whether or not this sounds far-fetched to you, the effect is dramatically demonstrated in an experiment carried out by Goethals and Reckman (1973).

Attitude change

High school students were asked their opinions on a variety of social issues, including on how children should be bussed to school and whether it would help with racial integration. The actual topic itself doesn’t matter for our purposes, what the experimenters were doing here is getting a measures of participants’ attitudes to a specific issue before the experimental manipulation.

A couple of weeks later the students were invited back for a further discussion on the bussing issue. This time, though, they were split into two groups, one that was pro- and one anti- the bussing issue. These, then, are our two experimental groups, along with a third control group, more of which, later.

Click here to read the rest of this entry… 

            Thanks to Marcin Kuligowski for permission to use this Photo.  

I’ve read plenty of motivational, self help, get rich books. So many, in fact, that not long ago I wanted to write my own book about these books.

Only recently it dawned on me why I’ve been so captivated by them. I was reading them before I knew that I was mentally ill and I was very unhappy with life. They provided an escape. I dreamed of a better life; they gave me hope that things would change. They promised me that everything I wanted would be mine if I purposefully set out to realize my goals. A powerful promise for someone who is depressed. Something that is impossible to put into action for someone who is depressed.

I spent many years keeping lists of things to do and goals to achieve. I revised them, laminated them onto cards, tried different applications to sort and present them in different ways. If I could get it all done and reach all my goals then surely my life would better. But it never materialized. There was a lot of hoping and dreaming, but hardly any action. (more…)

 
             Thanks to Liam Kelly for permission to use this Photo.

An award-winning social psychology experiment reveals why we often fail to bargain effectively with each other. This deceptively simple experiment examines the effect of two vital aspects of bargaining: threat and communication.

Bargaining is one of those activities we often engage in without quite realizing it. It doesn’t just happen in the boardroom, or when we ask our boss for a raise or down at the market, it happens every time we want to reach an agreement with someone. (more…)

 
              Thanks to Max Baars for permission to use this Photo.

A reader asked me to read his book before saying that copycat suicides is not a real phenomenon. To be fair, his book is really good.  It is worth the price even as a reference guide/catalog of suicides and homicides that share similar characteristics, which are striking.   While the majority of the information is a google search away, the fact is that he actually did the searches.   It’s also a  good read– it neither bores you nor crams the conclusions into your head. (more…)

 
          Thanks to Herman Snerd for permission to use this Photo.

We all know that humans are natural born conformers - we copy each other’s dress sense, ways of talking and attitudes, often without a second thought. But exactly how far does this conformity go? Do you think it is possible you would deny unambiguous information from your own senses just to conform with other people? (more…)

              Thanks to Andrea Alfaro for permission to use this Photo. 

In last Monday’s episode, Dr. Phil brought us back to an episode that first aired 3 or 4 weeks ago. Using the unique medium of the Dr. Phlashback we can refamiliarize ourselves with the episode:

“Ken’s got enough money for fancy cars, cruises, and air hockey machines and I’m on welfare” “Keri makes the kids afraid to come visit and lies to the police” “He hits them” “She’s on drugs” “Well, I’m just gonna sit back and let ya’ll work this out.” (more…)

A classic 1959 social psychology experiment demonstrates how and why we lie to ourselves. Understanding this experiment sheds a brilliant light on the dark world of our inner motivations.

The ground-breaking social psychological experiment of Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) provides a central insight into the stories we tell ourselves about why we think and behave the way we do. The experiment is filled with ingenious deception so the best way to understand it is to imagine you are taking part. So sit back, relax and travel back. The time is 1959 and you are an undergraduate student at Stanford University…

As part of your course you agree to take part in an experiment on ‘measures of performance’. You are told the experiment will take two hours. As you are required to act as an experimental subject for a certain number of hours in a year - this will be two more of them out of the way.

Little do you know, the experiment will actually become a classic in social psychology. And what will seem to you like accidents by the experimenters are all part of a carefully controlled deception. For now though, you are innocent.

The set-up

Once in the lab you are told the experiment is about how your expectations affect the actual experience of a task. Apparently there are two groups and in the other group they have been given a particular expectation about the study. To instil the expectation subtly, the participants in the other groups are informally briefed by a student who has apparently just completed the task. In your group, though, you’ll do the task with no expectations.

Perhaps you wonder why you’re being told all this, but nevertheless it makes it seem a bit more exciting now that you know some of the mechanics behind the experiment.

So you settle down to the first task you are given, and quickly realise it is extremely boring. You are asked to move some spools around in a box for half an hour, then for the next half an hour you move pegs around a board. Frankly, watching paint dry would have been preferable.

At the end of the tasks the experimenter thanks you for taking part, then tells you that many other people find the task pretty interesting. This is a little confusing - the task was very boring. Whatever. You let it pass.

Experimental slip-up

Then the experimenter looks a little embarrassed and starts to explain haltingly that there’s been a cock-up. He says they need your help. The participant coming in after you is in the other condition they mentioned before you did the task - the condition in which they have an expectation before carrying out the task. This expectation is that the task is actually really interesting. Unfortunately the person who usually sets up their expectation hasn’t turned up.

So, they ask if you wouldn’t mind doing it. Not only that but they offer to pay you $1. Because it’s 1959 and you’re a student this is not completely insignificant for only a few minutes work. And, they tell you that they can use you again in the future. It sounds like easy money so you agree to take part. This is great - what started out as a simple fulfilment of a course component has unearthed a little ready cash for you.

You are quickly introduced to the next participant who is about to do the same task you just completed. As instructed you tell her that the task she’s about to do is really interesting. She smiles, thanks you and disappears off into the test room. You feel a pang of regret for getting her hopes up. Then the experimenter returns, thanks you again, and once again tells you that many people enjoy the task and hopes you found it interesting.

Then you are ushered through to another room where you are interviewed about the experiment you’ve just done. One of the questions asks you about how interesting the task was that you were given to do. This makes you pause for a minute and think.

Now it seems to you that the task wasn’t as boring as you first thought. You start to see how even the repetitive movements of the spools and pegs had a certain symmetrical beauty. And it was all in the name of science after all. This was a worthwhile endeavour and you hope the experimenters get some interesting results out of it.

The task still couldn’t be classified as great fun, but perhaps it wasn’t that bad. You figure that, on reflection, it wasn’t as bad as you first thought. You rate it moderately interesting.

After the experiment you go and talk to your friend who was also doing the experiment. Comparing notes you found that your experiences were almost identical except for one vital difference. She was offered way more than you to brief the next student: $20! This is when it first occurs to you that there’s been some trickery at work here.

       Thanks to Matthew Fitzgerald for permission to use this Photo.

You ask her about the task with the spools and pegs:

“Oh,” she replies. “That was sooooo boring, I gave it the lowest rating possible.”

“No,” you insist. “It wasn’t that bad. Actually when you think about it, it was pretty interesting.”

She looks at you incredulously.

What the hell is going on?

Cognitive dissonance

What you’ve just experienced is the power of cognitive dissonance. Social psychologists studying cognitive dissonance are interested in the way we deal with two thoughts that contradict each other - and how we deal with this contradiction.

In this case: you thought the task was boring to start off with then you were paid to tell someone else the task was interesting. But, you’re not the kind of person to casually go around lying to people. So how can you resolve your view of yourself as an honest person with lying to the next participant? The amount of money you were paid hardly salves your conscience - it was nice but not that nice.

Your mind resolves this conundrum by deciding that actually the study was pretty interesting after all. You are helped to this conclusion by the experimenter who tells you other people also thought the study was pretty interesting.

Your friend, meanwhile, has no need of these mental machinations. She merely thinks to herself: I’ve been paid $20 to lie, that’s a small fortune for a student like me, and more than justifies my fibbing. The task was boring and still is boring whatever the experimenter tells me.

A beautiful theory

Since this experiment numerous studies of cognitive dissonance have been carried out and the effect is well-established. Its beauty is that it explains so many of our everyday behaviours. Here are some examples provided by Morton Hunt in his classic work ‘The Story of Psychology

• When trying to join a group, the harder they make the barriers to entry, the more you value your membership. To resolve the dissonance between the hoops you were forced to jump through, and the reality of what turns out to be a pretty average club, we convince ourselves the club is, in fact, fantastic.
• People will interpret the same information in radically different ways to support their own views of the world. When deciding our view on a contentious point, we conveniently forget what jars with our own theory and remember everything that fits.
• People quickly adjust their values to fit their behaviour, even when it is clearly immoral. Those stealing from their employer will claim that “Everyone does it” so they would be losing out if they didn’t, or alternatively that “I’m underpaid so I deserve a little extra on the side.”

Once you start to think about it, the list of situations in which people resolve cognitive dissonance through rationalizations becomes ever longer and longer. If you’re honest with yourself, I’m sure you can think of many times when you’ve done it yourself. I know I can.

Being aware of this can help us avoid falling foul of the most dangerous consequences of cognitive dissonance: believing our own lies. 

You can read Festinger and Carlsmith’s entire report at Classics in the History of Psychology.

Jeremy Dean
Creator of PsyBlog
Ashworth University Contributing Blogger

*Having already attained his law degree, Mr. Jeremy Dean is now studying for an MSc in Research Methods in Psychology at University College London.  Through his widely read and acclaimed blog, PsyBlog, Jeremy is committed to providing an insider’s view of psychology without the journalistic sensationalism.  We’re privileged to share this unique view with our students and sincerely appreciate Jeremy for providing us with this opportunity.  Visit PsyBlog to learn more about Jeremy’s life and work.    

When it comes to procrastination, social disapproval looms large as a cause. Not always but in many instances, fear of disapproval is a reason for not doing something. This might apply to not going for a higher degree in a family in which education has never been valued; or not confronting someone who holds opinions with which you disagree for fear of losing the relationship; or hiding out and writing in a diary instead of publishing your views to a wider audience because of fears of negative evaluation, etc.

Forestalling possible criticism by laying low or hiding out has its appeal: it resolves anxieties and keeps you out of trouble. But it doesn’t get you ahead, it doesn’t’ serve your more adult interests, and it makes for a rather boring life.

A vicious cycle gets set up: to protect themselves from confirmation of self doubts, shy persons avoid social evaluation; this contributes to the uncertainty that fed their doubts about self worth to begin with.  Self doubt prevents initiative taking which in turn prevents corrective feedback, hence more uncertainty is created.

A catalyst is needed to break out of this cycle. A catalyst could be a new understanding, a justification or a strong feeling, like anger.

        Thanks to vieilles_annonces for permission to use this Photo.

One perspective that could act as a catalyst is the notion of being duped by your emotional child. The term ‘dupe’ means to deceive, trick or mislead. I suppose it strains credulity to think that a part of one’s own self seeks to resort to such measures to protect the personality. But unconscious protective measures do operate and of course we are thankful when they work  to protect against real threats.

But I have found it useful to consider this possibility when dialoguing with oneself: should I or shouldn’t I? If a threat is imaginary then you have been duped into believing otherwise. Usually, of course, this isn’t discovered…because you have not taken the trouble to test the waters.

I have found that often I have been duped by that part of myself that worries about the social dangers of embarrassment, humiliation or failure. And now I tend to discount that inner voice that councels caution. It has taken a life time of trial and error, but hindsight now tells me: courageous steps would have been the better course of action. 

Dr. Mark Sanford
Creator of Reluctance.org
AU Contributing Blogger

*Dr. Mark Sanford is a well respected sociologist and certified business coach residing in the California Bay Area.  Through his acclaimed blog, Reluctance.org, Dr. Sanford communicates effective strategies for overcoming problems related to self defeating inhibitions.  We’d like to thank Dr. Sanford for the opportunity to share his inspiring perspectives with the AU student community and are excited to welcome him to our contributing bloggers’ network.  Visit Reluctance.org to learn more about the life and work of Dr. Mark Sanford.  Thanks Mark!