PSY220 - 6. Mechanisms of motivated cognition & Intrinsic motivation Flashcards Preview

PSY220 > PSY220 - 6. Mechanisms of motivated cognition & Intrinsic motivation > Flashcards

Flashcards in PSY220 - 6. Mechanisms of motivated cognition & Intrinsic motivation Deck (108)
Loading flashcards...
1

Mechanisms of motivated cognition: Intrinsic motivation

systematic influence of our desires, goals, and feelings on our cognition + behavior
tend to think about motivational speakers

2

THE MOTIVATION VS. COGNITION DEBATE

cognitive revolution: interested in memory, retrieval, eliminate motivation, goals
intuitive motivational explanation for many phenomena, there is often a competing cognitive explanation that does not involve any motivation
Often based on expectancies

3

THE MOTIVATION VS. COGNITION DEBATE

cognitive revolution: interested in memory, retrieval, eliminate motivation, goals
Although there may be an intuitive motivational explanation for many phenomena, there is often a competing cognitive explanation that does not involve any motivation
Often based on expectancies

4

Motivated memory search

search in memory not as objective or systematic (confirmation bias, hindsight bias)
bias can be exaggerated further by motivational concerns
Gloss over + put less weight on examples of bad cooking
Motivated example search

5

Motivated memory search

motivated defense: protect self esteem – self enhancement biases
undergrads – vast majority rate themselves above average – sef enhancement – statistical impossibility
not representative sample – undergrads from prestigous schools – reporting honestly – they are above average – more instances of success than failure

6

HOW DOES MOTIVATION INFLUENCE OUR BEHAVIOR?

BY SYSTEMATICALLY INFLUENCING OUR COGNITION
Affects of our desires on our cognition
influence of behaviourism: not interested in goals, preferences
Motivation → Cognition → Behavior

7

Creating a (plausible) theory to support your conclusion

theory we concoct to support our conclusion could also support opposite conclusion

8

Sanitioso, Kunda, &; Fong (1990)

1. informed subjects given trait (extraversion/introversion) is associated with academic + professional success.
2. asked to list memories of past behaviors that reflected their standing on the introversion-extraversion dimension.

9

Sanitioso, Kunda, &; Fong (1990)

Concoct theory plausible for both
Extraverts – connections
Introverts – focused, can work alone
Wrote down more introverted than extraverted/extraverted than introverted

10

Motivated memory search

We often don’t realize that our search in memory is not as objective or systematic as it could be (e.g., confirmation bias, hindsight bias).
Learned that ppl are susceptible to bias, but can be exaggerated further by motivational concerns
Gloss over + put less weight on examples of bad cooking
Motivated example search

11

Kunda (1987)

both theories plausible: nonworking – home, focus on children/working – role model for industriousness, balance. Had a working mother = thought that was better. Had a nonworking mother = thought this was better. Latch onto self-enhancing info

12

The eternal balance: self-enhancement vs. “reality constraints”

Most ppl not delusional
Self enhance within constraints of reality
Bring in participants that are actually extraverts + introverts
Already extraverts – slightly less extravert, not become introverts even with motivation: they know who they are

13

How do we accomplish the task of boosting ourselves without being delusional?

we take advantage of ambiguity in the world.
Dunning found ppl rated themselves as extraordinary on ambiguous traits (sensitive), but more honestly on unambiguous traits like “punctual”
No wiggle room – rate themselves honestly
Greater self-enhancement when there’s wiggle room

14

Playing fast and loose with inferential rules

1. ½ subjects given desirable info/ ½ undesirable info
2.½ told info based on small sample, ½ told based on large sample

15

Playing fast and loose with inferential rules

Desirable info Undesirable info
Large sample accepted accepted
Forced to accept accepted rejected
Small sample
Turn on critical faculties with undesirable info
Relaxing critical faculties with desirable info

16

Playing fast and loose with inferential rules

Shouldn’t be rejecting info either way
Uncritical – desirable/critical – undesirable
Good news: stop/bad news: retesting
Bad news: turn on critical faculties/good news: relax critical faculties

17

NEED FOR CLOSURE

reaching cognitive closure can often be goal in its own right
Less concerned with accuracy – optimal solution – all we need is good enough solution

18

NEED FOR CLOSURE

Bring decision making process to a close
Avoid closure – try to prolong decision making process - enjoyable

19

Situational variables that increase need for closure

1.time pressure
2.task tedium
3.no costs for making an error
NFC can vary as chronic, personality variable
Situationally manipulable

20

Situational variables that increase need for closure

in state of needing closure, cognition is often characterized by “freezing” early on, soon as we settle on some provisional answer
Stopped processing after a bit of info – make it likely to exhibit primacy effects

21

Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm

1. 1/3 told after task, they would watch comedy clips.
2. 1/3 told they would have to listen to lecture on statistics.
3. Final 3rd told they will do task as interesting as current task

22

Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm

Quick closure Neutral Avoid closure
No choice 2.31 3.76 7.08
Free choice 1.69 2.27 2.13
Quick closure: less effort, more exaggerated FAE

23

Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm

Avoid closure: more effort, less FAE – significant difference – situational discounting for no choice avoid closure
Neutral: replication of FAE
Certain motivations can increase/decrease likelihood of stereotype activation

24

Fein & Spencer (1997)

1. sub took intelligence test
2. positive/negative feedback
3. asked to evaluate woman candidate for a job, based on her application + videotaped excerpts
4. woman portrayed as Jewish vs. non-Jewish (same woman, diff ethnic markers)

25

Fein & Spencer (1997)

Compensate for below self esteem by deregating others. Exhibited prejudice when negative feedback. Prejudice when we have low self-esteem

26

Fein & Spencer (1997)

participants rated woman that was Jewish when receiving negative feedback. Compensate for below self esteem by deregating others. Exhibited prejudice when negative feedback. Prejudice when we have low self-esteem.

27

Sinclair and Kunda (1998)

1.Whites received feedback
2. positive vs. negative
3.Evaluator: Black vs. White
4.Other observed someone else receive one of these types of feedback. – watch through 1 way mirror
5. subjects did word-fragment completion task competed with Black stereotype.

28

Sinclair and Kunda (1998)

motivated to inhibit Black stereotype when receive praise from Black person
motivated to activate stereotype receive criticism from Black person

29

Sinclair and Kunda (1998)

To rule out nonmotivational explanation: Other ppl were dispassionate observers – shown same pattern as actual subjects. Weren’t insulted/praised by anybody. Must be some sort of priming.

30

Sinclair and Kunda (1998)

SELF
Evaluator
Black White
Positive no stereotype activation little activation
Feedback(less than for White evaluator)
Negative LOTS OF activation little activation
Feedback