Exam 4 Psychology John Jay College For Criminal Justice

Front 1

Personality Psychologists

Back 1

could study the traits that might make one person more likely than another to speak, and

Front 2

Social Psychologists

Back 2

might examine aspects of the classroom situation that would influence any student’s decision about speaking.

Front 3

Attribution

Back 3

a conclusion about the cause of an observed behavior/even

Front 4

Attribution Theory

Back 4

We explain others’ behavior with two types of attributions:

Front 5

Situational Attribution

Back 5

Situational Attribution (factors outside the person doing the action, such as peer pressure),

Front 6

Dispositional Attribution

Back 6

(the person’s stable, enduring traits, personality, ability, emotions)

Front 7

The Fundamental Attribution Error

Back 7

When we go too far in assuming that a person’s behavior is caused by their personality.

Front 8

collectivist cultures

Back 8

(those which emphasize group unity, allegiance, and purpose over the wishes of the individual), do not make the same kinds of attributions:

The behavior of others is attributed more to the situation; also, Credit for successes is given more to others,Blame for failures is taken on oneself.

Front 9

Attitude

Back 9

Attitude:Feelings, ideas, and beliefs that affect how we approach and react to other people, objects, and events.

Front 10

Central Route Persuasion

Back 10

Going directly through the rational mind, influencing attitudes with evidence and logic.

“My product has been proven more effective.”

Front 11

Peripheral Route Persuasion

Back 11

Changing attitudes by going around the rational mind and appealing to fears, desires, associations.

“People who buy my product are happy, attractive!”

Front 12

Three social-cognitive mechanisms:

Back 12

The Foot in the Door Phenomenon

The Effects of Playing a Role

Cognitive Dissonance

Front 13

The Foot-in-the-Door Phenomenon:

Back 13

the tendency to be more likely to agree to a large request after agreeing to a small one.

Front 14

Cognitive Dissonance

Back 14

When our actions are not in harmony with our attitudes.

Front 15

Cognitive Dissonance Theory

Back 15

The observation that we tend to resolve this dissonance by changing our attitudes to fit

Front 16

Conformity

Back 16

refers to adjusting our behavior or thinking to fit in with a group standard.

Front 17

Automatic Mimicry

Back 17

Contagious Yawning, as well as contagious arm folding, hand wringing, face rubbing…

Adopting regional accents, grammar, and vocabulary

Empathetic shifts in mood that fit the mood of the people around us

Adopting coping styles of parents or peers, including violence, yelling, withdrawal.

Front 18

a social norm

Back 18

(a “correct” or “normal” way to behave or think in this group)

Front 19

What are the two types of social influce

Back 19

Normative Social Influence: example: Going along with others in pursuit of social approval or belonging (and to avoid disapproval/rejection)The Asch conformity studies; clothing choices.

informational Social Influence: Example: Going along with others because their ideas and behavior make sense, the evidence in our social environment changes our minds.Deciding which side of the road to drive on.

Front 20

Social Facilitation

Back 20

Individual performance is intensified when you are observed by others. Experts excel, people doing simple activities show more speed and endurance in front of an audience… but novices, trying complex skills, do worse.

Front 21

Social Loafing

Back 21

Social Loafing: the tendency of people in a group to show less effort when not held individually accountable.

Front 22

Deindividuation

Back 22

Loss of self-awareness and self-restraint.

Front 23

Group Polarization

Back 23

When people of similar views form a group together, discussion within the group makes their views more extreme.

Front 24

Groupthink

Back 24

in pursuit of social harmony (and avoidance of open disagreement), groups will make decisions without an open exchange of ideas.

Front 25

Social Inequality

Back 25

Social Inequality, when some groups have fewer resources and opportunities than others:

Front 26

ingroup bias

Back 26

(favoring one’s own group), misjudging other groups, and quickly categorizing

Front 27

Scapegoat Theory

Back 27

Scapegoat Theory: The observation that, when bad things happen, prejudice offers an outlet for anger by finding someone to blame.

Front 28

Other-race effect:

Back 28

Other-race effect: We tend to see uniformity in the appearance of other groups, and may assume other similarities such as traits;

Front 29

The Just-World Fallacy

Back 29

The Just-World Fallacy: Believing that Justice generally happens, that people get the benefits and punishments they deserve.

Front 30

Social Scripts

Back 30

Social Scripts: Culturally constructed directions on how to act, downloaded from media as a “file” or “program” in the mind.

Front 31

he Mere Exposure Effect

Back 31

he Mere Exposure Effect: Merely seeing someone’s face and name makes them more likeable. Your are more likely to develop attraction to someone you’ve seen a lot.

Front 32

Passionate Love

Back 32

Passionate Love A state of strong attraction, interest, excitement, felt so strongly that people are absorbed in each other

Front 33

Compassionate Love

Back 33

Compassionate Love Deep, caring, affectionate attachment/commitment

Front 34

Bystander Effect

Back 34

Bystander Effect: Fewer people help when others are available.

Front 35

diffusion of responsibility:

Back 35

: The role of helper does not fall just on one person.

Front 36

Social Traps

Back 36

Social Traps: Situations in which pursuing self-interest makes things worse for everyone: e.g. an arms race, or overfishing [Flip side: these are situations in which cooperation pays off.]

Front 37

Mirror Image Perceptions

Back 37

Mirror Image Perceptions: Both sides assuming the worst in the other person, “they’ll just reject me” or “they don’t want peace.” [Solution: take the first step in trusting]