for thoughts, feelings, and behavior (Malle, 2011; Weiner, 1995). Typically we conceive these explanations based on observation of only limited aspects of a person’s life—perhaps we only see her at work or in class—or on what someone else reports about what he has seen (probably also based on scant evidence). These explanations for behavior are called lay theories, because they are created by ordinary people without advanced training in psychology and without using scientific methods (Beruchashvili, Moisio, & Heisley, 2014; Kruglanski, 1989; L. Ross, 1977). Lay theories seem like common sense, such as when we say “opposites attract.” But don’t “birds of a feather flock together?” Are “two heads better than one,” or do “too many cooks spoil the broth?” Lay theories like these are often contradictory and overly simplistic. Perhaps more importantly, the validity of lay theories is frequently undermined by the scientific evidence. As we discussed at the beginning of this chapter, social psychology is a science that carefully applies scientific methods in order to develop a thorough understanding of social phenomena. Social psychology provides evidence-based explanations that may contradict commonsense psychology.
Hindsight Bias
One common mistake that you need to be aware of—and avoid—is that, if a social psychological explanation seems obvious, you may be tempted to think “I knew it all along.” This “knew it all along” tendency is called the hindsight bias, and it is demonstrated when people believe, after they have already learned the outcome of a particular event, that they would have correctly predicted it had they been given the chance (Arkes, 2013; Fischhoff, 1975; Roese & Vohs, 2012; Slovic & Fischhoff, 1977). Let’s say that social psychologists found that people who have very low self-esteem are more aggressive than people who have very high self-esteem. Does this seem obvious? Well, if you said yes, then you would be incorrect. Very high, not very low, self-esteem is associated with more aggression (Bushman & Baumeister, 1998; Bushman et al., 2009). As you will see, social psychology usually isn’t obvious, but when it seems to be don’t assume that you already knew it.
It is worth noting that this hindsight bias is not one of these “obvious” findings. Let me explain. Fischhoff (1975) provided randomly assigned experimental participants with one of several possible outcomes of an historical event, such as who won a military battle. He asked them to estimate the likelihood that the outcome that they read had occurred. Participants were informed that the event and the outcome they read about had in fact happened. Other participants who were not told the outcome read the same passage but were presented with four possible outcomes and predicted how likely each outcome was. Participants who knew the actual outcome rated the likelihood of that outcome as much greater than did participants who did not know the outcome (see Figure 1.5). In other words, participants believed that they were more likely to have predicted the correct outcome than they actually were. They thought they knew it all along (Adapted from Fischhoff, B., 1975).
Figure 1.5 Hindsight Bias: Did You Really “Know It All Along”?
Source: Adapted from Fischhoff, B. (1975). Hindsight is not equal to foresight: The effect of outcome knowledge on judgment under uncertainty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1(3), 288–299.
The general idea is that people often believe that they could have accurately predicted the occurrence of an actual event if they had been asked to predict it before it occurred: The outcome is seen as obvious or inevitable (Hoffrage, Hertwig, & Gigerenzer, 2011). Similarly, students often (erroneously) believe that they already knew the results of a given social psychological study and could have correctly predicted it. However, they fail to realize that their knowledge of the actual outcome has biased their belief that they would have known the outcome before being told. In short, once we know the answer, it suddenly seems obvious! The hindsight bias may lead you to study less than you should because you “knew it all” ahead of time: Don’t wait until your first disappointing test to find out that you didn’t. Many a student has come to me after receiving a low grade on an exam with a distraught look muttering something like “I thought I understood everything—it all seemed so straightforward.” So watch out and study well!
Lay Theory: Explanation for social behavior that is possessed by an ordinary (lay) person without advanced training in psychology and without using scientific methods
Hindsight Bias: Incorrect belief that, after a person has already learned the outcome of a particular event, he or she would have accurately predicted the outcome before it occurred
Think Again!
1 Can you think of a time when you may have fallen victim to the hindsight bias?
2 How might you or others avoid this bias?
Science Is Not What You Think
In my high school science classes I was taught that science was comprised of universal truths uncovered by people with advanced degrees. For instance, I had the impression that my chemistry book was filled with unassailable scientific facts about the composition and properties of matter and that if I successfully committed them to memory, then I would understand the science of chemistry. However, the idea that science is just a collection of unchanging facts constitutes a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of science.
One of the most important lessons that I want you to take away from this text is that science is not a collection of facts; rather, it is a process of discovery. It is true that the body of social psychological knowledge that we call “facts” constitutes the overwhelming bulk of the information in this book and, no doubt, much of what your professor will test you on. However, it is critical that you also understand the nature of science and especially of good psychological science. Science is a process of asking questions, developing hypotheses, and designing research in order to answer these questions (Hull, 1988). Briefly, four key characteristics of science as a process are
Creative: Researchers need to be inventive and flexible when developing ways to explore social phenomena and test ideas;
Dynamic: It is progressive and forward looking, continually asking new questions while building upon what has been learned;
Honest: Scientists share what we know and how we know it, allowing others to understand the methods and techniques used to make our discoveries; and
Self-correcting: Scientists sometimes make mistakes and, through rigorous investigation, research replication, and with a fervent desire to find the truth, we and/or other scientists will uncover and correct those mistakes.
In the pages of this text, you will encounter many rich and varied examples of scientists at work. Not only will you learn about the results of their research, but you’ll also get to witness how they discovered them as well as some of the mistakes made along the way. So rid yourself of the notion that science is always correct or that “facts” never change. Having said that, virtually all of the findings that will be presented in this text are based on rigorous, peer-reviewed research in which we can have confidence. Results that are controversial or tenuous or theories that are highly speculative will be identified as such.
Social psychological science—like any science—has three goals: description, explanation, and prediction. First we describe social behavior. Social psychologists are natural born people watchers, sometimes obsessively so. We record what we see, whether it be in a coffee shop, a parking lot, a classroom, or a laboratory. But observing what they did is simply a starting point for tackling
