Three Minute ReviewCOGNITIVE DEVELOPMENTPiaget’s Stages

1. Sensorimotor Stage (0-2)• physics, senses, movement, object permanence

2. Preoperational Stage (2-7)• symbolic, egocentric, no conservation

3. Concrete Operational (7-12)• conservation of number, length, volume, mass• can take others’ perspective• become more logical

4. Formal Operational (12+)• scientific thought, abstract reasoning

• critiques of Piaget’s theories• information processing perspective

THEORY OF MIND• Why is the human brain so big (relative to body size)?

– social group size• bigger groups require bigger brains to keep track of relationships• optimal group size for humans: 150

– social (Machiavellian) intelligence• example: reciprocal altruism

• Testing theory of mind– Heider’s moving shapes

• people can’t help but attribute “minds” to animate objects

– False belief tests: Sally-Ann test, Smarties test– False picture tests– lying

THEORY OF MIND• normal children

– develop theory of mind around age 4– do better with false belief than false picture test

• autistic children– absent/impaired theory of mind– do okay with false picture than false belief– not due solely to intellectual impairments

• Down’s syndrome children pass theory of mind tests

– Asperger’s syndrome: high-functioning autism

Test YourselfIn the container test, children are shown a familiar kind of container such as an M&M bag and asked what the bag contains. Most 3- and 4-year-old children respond appropriately and are then asked to open the bag. Once opened, the bag is found to contain an unpredicted item, such as a pencil. The bag is then closed, and the children are asked to guess what another person who has not looked inside will think is in it. What typically happens?

A. Most 3- and 4-year-olds will answer “M&Ms.” B. Most 3- and 4-year-olds will answer “pencil.” C. Most 3-year-olds will answer with “pencil,” but most 4-year-olds will answer “M&Ms.” D. Most 3-year-olds will answer with “M&Ms,” but most 4-year-olds will answer “pencil.” E. Most 3-year-olds will give a specific prediction, but most 4-year-olds will refuse to answer.

Recommended Homework• Prior to Tuesday’s class, I would like you try at least

one experiment from the web site below. You can pick between experiments on your perception of age, race, gender, and American presidential candidates.

https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/measureyourattitudes.html

• On Tuesday, we will discuss the rationale behind these experiments and it will be easier for you to understand if you’ve tried it yourself.

Autism• There is from the start an extreme autistic aloneness that, whenever

possible, disregards, ignores, shuts out anything that comes to the child from the outside.”

-- Leo Kanner, 1943

• deficits in social interaction– don’t look at others

• impaired communication– problems with both verbal and

nonverbal communication

• restricted interests– focus on details– may seek sensory stimulation

(e.g., body rocking)

Social Perception• How do we perceive ourselves?

• How do we perceive others?

Self Awareness: The Mirror Test

• while individual is asleep or anesthetized, put a red spot on their face/body• see how they behave when they see themselves in the mirror

• do they realize it’s them?

Who passes the test?• human children > 15 mos.• chimps > 6-8 years old• dolphins• one gorilla (Koko)• some monkeys?

Is there one “self”?: Roles

Self Complexity

Reference Groups• We see ourselves in

contrast to those around us

• bronze medalists are typically happier than silver medalists

• how good are we at judging the reference group?

Better-than-average Effect– 90% of adults consider

themselves “above average” drivers

– 94% of college professors rated themselves better than average

– in one study, no college-bound seniors rated themselves below average and 25% rated themselves in the top 1%

Incompetence• Many people are incompetent at judging their own

incompetence across many domains (humor, grammar, logic)

Sense of Humor

Self Appraisal

• most people see themselves in a move positive light than others see them• most people see their current selves as more positive than they see their past selves • people with high self-esteem make downward comparisons; people with high self-esteem make upward comparisons

Self-fulfilling prophecyThe Pygmalion effect• In the myth, Pygmalion created a statue

that he treated with such affection, it came to life

• 1968 experiment in a lower class San Francisco elementary school– gave students an IQ test– told teachers that the test had identified

students who were “late bloomers” and would show a spurt in IQ growth

– the experimenters randomly selected 20% of the pupils who were identified to the teachers as late bloomers (in reality, these students were no different in their IQs than the remaining 80%)

– after one year those students showed significantly higher IQ scores (an increase of 12 points compared to 4 points in the other students)

• works on rats too!

Robert Rosenthal

AttributionAttribution• the process by which people infer the causes of other

people’s behavior• Example: Why did your boss yell at your co-worker?

– co-worker was slacking off and deserved it?– boss is always a hothead?– boss is usually easygoing but is undergoing a divorce that has her

stressed out?– boss really needed this particular job to be done right because her

job is on the line

External factors• people, events, situation, environment

Internal Factors• traits, needs, intentions

Consider an Example

Kelley’s 3 questions in making an attribution

• does this person regularly behave this way in this situation?

• do others regularly behave this way in this situation?

• does this person behave this way in many other situations?

Person Biasfundamental attribution error• most common error• people give too much weight to personality and too

little weight to the situation• more common in Westernized societies

Actor-Observer Discrepancy• I did it because of the situation; You did it because

of your personality

• can be influenced by point of view– see self on videotape personality attribution– see videotape from other’s POV situation attribution

Prior Information Effects• Mental representations of people (schemas)

can effect our interpretation of them– Kelley’s study

• students had a guest speaker • before the speaker came, half got a written bio saying speaker

was “very warm”, half got bio saying speaker was “rather cold” • “very warm” group rated guest more positively than “rather cold”

group

Attractiveness Bias

Attitudes• “beliefs tinged with emotion”• e.g., good vs. bad, moral vs. immoral

Cognitive Dissonance• attitudes must be consistent with behavior• if they are not, people experience discomfort• must either change behavior or change attitude• usually it’s easier to change the attitude

Insufficient Justification Effect• If people cannot justify their behavior, they’re likely

to change their beliefs about it• Experiment (Festinger & Carlsmith, 1959)

– gave subjects a boring task– asked subjects to lie to the next subject and say the

experiment was exciting– paid ½ the subjects $1, other ½ $20– then asked subjects to rate boringness of task– $1 group rated the task as far more fun than the $20

group

– each group needed a justification for lying • $20 group had an external justification of money• since $1 isn’t very much money, $1 group said task was fun

Initiation Rites

Belief in a Just World• belief that people get what they deserve• blaming the victim

– “gays deserve AIDS”– the rape victim was “asking for it”