• Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

Card Range To Study

through

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/60

Click to flip

Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;

Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;

H to show hint;

A reads text to speech;

60 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
self-concept
beliefs about who we are
self schemas
mental representations about ourselves (describe ourselves, predict our behavior, etc)
unified self schema
see their traits (attributes) as very stable across situations
differentiated self-schema
see attributes changing depending on the circumstances
three components of self-schemas
actual self - as realistic a picture as possible
ideal self - self with no limits
ought self - morally what you should be doing
Self-esteem
evaluations we make about ourselves; has an affective component
looking glass self
other people can help us get a sense of ourselves; others serve/fx as a mirror to see ourselves; we come to know ourselves by what others think of us
- Cooley, Mead
self perception
when internal cues are hard to interpret, we turn to our behavior for insight
- Bem
social comparison
we compare ourselves to others in a number of situations; helps us gage how we are performing

- Festinger
attributional biases (tendency)
we make attributions and other judgements or decisions using short cuts whenever possible
availability heuristic
judgements/decisions based on how readily an example comes to mind
e.i., likelihood of an event, trustworthiness of a person
false-consensus effect
when we overestimate the extent to which others share our opinions
base-rate fallacy
being insensitive to statistical information and more influenced by dramatic examples
i.e., prevalence rates of a dx ignored
fundamental attribution error
tendency to make internal attributions about others particularly about failure
- Ross
self serving bias
tendency to attribute our success to internal attribution but to attribute our failures to external attributions
prototype model of stereotypes
abstract individual who we view as the most typical member, can include some personal experience, tends to be a compilation of people
exemplar model of stereotypes
based more on our interaction with an actual person, a real individual is represented in our mind
associative network model of stereotypes
information is stored in individual units or nodes; nodes are interconnected;
activation of one activates others
information integration theory
impressions are based on dispositions of the perceiver and a weighted average of the target’s traits
implicit personality theory
network of assumptions people make about others (about the relationship among traits and behaviors)
knowing that the person has one trait leads us to assume that they have other traits and participate in particular behaviors
conformity
the tendency to change our thoughts and behaviors to be consistent with the group norms
- classic studies by Sherif and Asch
informational influence
conform because you think the information being presented is correct - you believe others in their judgements of the information
normative influence
when you fear social consequences of appearing deviant
private conformity
change of beliefs that occur when you accept the position held by others
public conformity
superficial or overt change in behavior without the accompanied change of opinion
compliance
involves a direct request to engage in a particular act
foot in the door
get someone to comply with a small request, then ask them to comply with a larger request
low-balling
influencer secures agreement with a small request but then reveals hidden costs
door in the face
influencer presents a large request that is almost unreasonable (expected to be rejected) but then comes back with a seemingly small, reasonable request (real request)
that’s not all
the influencer begins with a large (inflated) request and then reveals so bonuses and discounts
Obedience
following the commands of another individual, sometimes going against your own better judgement
Milgram (1963)
65% of the subjects delivered the maximum voltage list (450 volts)
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995)
administrative obedience
confederate was taking a test, with each wrong answer, the subject was to give verbally disparaging remarks to induce stress; 95% of the group showed complete obedience despite describing that it was ‘unfair’ and that they ‘did not like doing it’
bystander effect
the reluctance, hesitancy to come to the aid of someone who appears to be in distress
implicit bystander effect (Garcia et al., 2002)
just imagining being in that group may be enough to spark the bystander effect
three components of a group
1. roles
2. norms
3. cohesiveness
group polarization
when the group’s point of view or dominant point of view becomes more radical over time
group think
endency for members of a group to become so that they start of ignore and suppress dissenting views
Janis (1982)
antecedents (high cohesiveness, stressful situations, etc.) lead to group think; this leads to various symptoms (e.g., close mindedness, pressure for conformity/uniformity, etc.); this leads to various consequences (defective/poor decision making, mistreatment of group members, etc.)
process loss
reduction or decrease in performance or effectiveness of the group as a result of group processes
escalation effect
commitments to failing course of action are intensified to justify the investments already made
central route of persuasion
focus on the message itself, on the content, its meaning to you, etc
peripheral route
more influenced or swayed by factors such as the presenter his/herself (i.e., are they a celebrity?), and other factors that do not have to do with the message itself
cognitive dissonance
the tension produced by holding discrepant beliefs, attitudes, cognition; motivated to reduce that tension
attitude discrepant behaviors bring about this tension
- Festinger
Evans et al (2000) distinction between tolerance for crowding (psychological distress) and personal space preferences
Key findings: increases in density were correlated with increases in perceived crowding of White and African Americans compared to Mexican Americans and Vietnamese Americans BUT All 4 groups seemed to be affected terms of psychological stress as density increased
there seem to be personal preferences for personal space, but density seems to affect all psychologically
Downey & VanWilligen (2005) Pollution
key finding - residential proximity to industrial activity is an important factor:
associations with depression, neighborhood disorder, and powerlessness
individuals living in areas with high levels of waste (tracks) - higher depressive symptoms, higher levels of disorder, and lower levels of control
Evans et al (1998) study on noise
Key findings - the airport group showed a rise in the blood pressure and up to 18 months after the opening the airport, they gave lower quality of life ratings
Wallenius (2004) - noise stress & personal project stress and its effects on health
Key findings: noise stress, personal project stress, & activity disturbance variables -> somatic symptoms; higher levels of personal project stress, there is a stronger relationship between noise stress variables and somatic symptoms/general health
race
biological characteristics and features, key physical differences
ethnicity
background
emic
perspective of that particular group; unique to that group
etic
universal perspective - broad human perspective
collectivism
many minority groups are often characterized as being this way
individualism
Americans are often described this way
Mansfield, Addis, & Courtney, (2005) barriers to men seeking help scale
need for control, self reliance
minimizing problems and resignation, etc.
privacy
distrust of caregivers
Magoveceiv & Addis (2008) masculine depression scale
men may not show depression in the same way as women;
externalizing symptoms
the more traditionally masculine a man is, the more likely he is to show externalizing symptoms
hostile sexism
conflictual or adversarial relationship (e.g., sexual harassment)
benevolent sexism
women need to be taken care of, protected; the perpetrator doesn’t view his/her behavior as malicious or having ill intent; still has a negative effect
Cross - Nigrescence
Cross model: Starts less healthy and moves toward healthy
pre-encounter stage - African American’s have a White frame of reference
individuals see White as the ideal; may have anti-African American ideals
encounter stage - a negative encounter may change perceptions and thoughts
immersion-emersion - begin delving into readings and people of your own group - may have negative or anti-White attitude (immerse yourself in culture of your group); emerge with a new appreciation of your own culture
internalization - ideas are solidified; can enjoy both ingroup and outgroup; may be a focus on social justice and trying to make justice for all
Atkinson, Morten & Sue
Racial/Cultural Identity development
Conformity - White frame of reference
Dissonance & Appreciating - creates appreciation of the ingroup
Resistance & Immersion - negative experiences lead to interest
Introspection - may have some negative attitudes towards White
Integrative Awareness - understand all groups, may begin to work to social change for all