Final Exam 2

Front 1

social psych

Back 1

the scientific study of how individuals think, feel, and behave in a social context.

Front 2

hypothesis

Back 2

testable prediction about conditions under which an event will occur

Front 3

theory

Back 3

organized set of principles to explain some phenomenon

Front 4

refining ideas (construct validity)

Back 4

whether the operation definition actually assesses the concept of interest

Front 5

measuring variables (self reports)

Back 5

complete a survey to indicate how you score on the concept
o focus on your beliefs, perception
o can be misleading or inaccurate
o due to concern about self-presenatation, lying

Front 6

measuring variables (observe)

Back 6

observe participants
- can later code behavior and use interrater reliability

Front 7

clinical psych

Back 7

understand and treat people with psych disorders
Social psych: examine typical ways people think, feel and behave
-some overlap in topics (stress, coping)

Front 8

personality psych

Back 8

- Both interested in peoples emotions and behaviors
- P: focus of differences between people that remain stable across situations (traits)
- S: focus on how context influence people regardless of their different traits

Front 9

sociology

Back 9

different level of analysis and research method
-overlap in research topics
-group level of analysis (class, culture, gender)
Social Psych- individual level of analysis more likely to conduct experiments

Front 10

influence of war

Back 10

Hitlers power and WW2 tragedies led to questions about violence, prejudice, conformity

Front 11

current influence (social cognition)

Back 11

- Focus on automatic vs. controlled processes
- Stereotypes may be activated automatically, but can control under some conditions

Front 12

current influence (evolution)

Back 12

- Focus on bio/nerve responses to events
- Importance of natural selection in our behavior

Front 13

current influence (culture)

Back 13

- Systems of meaning, beliefs, values, practices
o Can also include gender differences

Front 14

current influence (technology)

Back 14

- New research methods (virtual reality, internet)

Front 15

random sampling

Back 15

everyone in the population has equal chance of being selected into the sample we want the sample to be a good representation of the larger pop

Front 16

random assignment to group

Back 16

each participant has equal chance of being in any condition or group in the study not based on personal characteristics or behavior if used, shouldn’t “equate” the groups

Front 17

positive correlation

Back 17

as 1 variable increases, other variable increases

Front 18

negative correlation

Back 18

as 1 variable increases, other variable decreases

Front 19

independent variable

Back 19

what is manipulated

Front 20

dependent variable

Back 20

observed to determine impact of IV

Front 21

informed consent

Back 21

o Give participants info about what will happen
o Let them make informed decision about whether to continue…

Front 22

debriefing after study

Back 22

o Tell participants the goals of the study, main purposes
o If any deception, need to fill them in

Front 23

self concept

Back 23

beliefs we have about ourselves

Front 24

self perception

Back 24

can influence our emotions

Front 25

research on facial feedback

Back 25

change in facial expression can trigger change in emotion
 Forced to smile while viewing cartoonslater rated cartoons as funnier than those forced to frown

Front 26

influence of other people

Back 26

 Social comparison theory- evaluate ourselves through comparisons
 Most likely to happen when there is no objects info about our abilities or opinionslook to others
 Compare ourselves to similar others (background, training)

Front 27

individualistic

Back 27

define themselves by their traits
o independent view of self
• Personal achievements are important
U.S., Australia, Great Britian, Canada

Front 28

collectivism

Back 28

define themselves in relation to others
o Interdependent view of self
o Group status is vauled

Front 29

self esteem

Back 29

- Positive and negative evaluations of ourselves
o Different experiences can impact this
o Changes slightly over time but mainly stable

Front 30

self discrepancy theory

Back 30

o Consider match between how we see ourselves and what we’d prefer
- actual self. vs ideal self

Front 31

halloween study

Back 31

 More likely to behave consistently with our values
 Halloween study-kids and free candy
 34% take more than 1 piece
 If mirror next to the bowlonly 12% took more than 1 piece

Front 32

baumeister research

Back 32

o Self-control requires strength and is a limited resource
o Less able to work on difficult task if used self-control earlier
o Requires cognitive resourceslowers glucose (energy loss)
o Short term use of self -control negative effects
o Long term use predictive of success in life

Front 33

self handicapping

Back 33

come up with excuse in anticipation of a failure.
 Procrastinate, self sabotaging behavior (drinking) don’t practice
 Purposegives explanation for failure other than our lack of ability

Front 34

BIRGing

Back 34

 Self-esteem influenced by groups we belong to
 Basking in the reflected glory (of a success by our group)
 Can life our self-esteem when our group/team does well
 BIRGing and sports teams= we won

Front 35

self perception and gaining info about people

Back 35

- Get info from people, situations and behavior
o How do we understand others?
o We make quick 1st impression of people
 Based on style, names, likes/dislikes
 Attempt to read traits from faces

Front 36

nonverbal cues

Back 36

o 6 primary universal emotions- happiness, sadness, anger, fear, surprise, disgust
o Expressed with similar facial expressions in all cultures

Front 37

kelly covaritation theory

Back 37

o Attribute behavior to internal (person) or external (situation) based on 3 questions-
 1. Consensus- do other people behave this way (yes)high consensus
 2. Distinctiveness- does this person behave this way in other contexts? (yes) low distinctiveness
 3. Consistency- does this person always behave this way? (yes) high consistency

Front 38

heruistic

Back 38

mental shortcuts we use to quickly make judgments

Front 39

availibility heuristic

Back 39

estimate the odds of some event by how quickly it comes to mind

Front 40

counterfactual thinking

Back 40

imagine outcomes that did not occur
• Can lead to dissatisfaction (if imagine better outcome) or relief (imagine worse)

Front 41

discrimination

Back 41

negative behaviors directed at someone because of their group
o Behavior component
o Ex: refusing to hire someone due to their group membership

Front 42

prejudice

Back 42

negative feelings about other because of their connection to a social group
o Affective component
o Ex: “I dislike Ron because he is Jewish”

Front 43

stereotype

Back 43

beliefs that link groups w/certain traits (negative or positive)
o Cognitive component
o Ex: “Asians aren’t good basketball players”
o “Older people are bad drivers

Front 44

IAT

Back 44

 How quickly do we pair positive and negative words with objects?
• Criticisms-
• Does it really just measure your familiarity with an object and its stereotype
• Easier to do as you gain experience with IAT

Front 45

explicit attitudes

Back 45

A person’s conscious views toward people, objects, or concepts. That is, the person is aware of the feelings he or she holds in a certain context

Front 46

implicit attitudes

Back 46

Unacknowledged attitudes external to a person’s awareness which nonetheless have measurable effects on people’s response times to stimuli.

Front 47

prescriptive

Back 47

(what women should do)

Front 48

descriptive

Back 48

what you think they do

Front 49

ambivalent sexism

Back 49

mixture of positive/negative feelings made up of:

Front 50

hostile sexism

Back 50

negative resentful feelings about women

Front 51

benevolent sexism

Back 51

affectionate, but demeaning, feelings about women based on belied they need protection

Front 52

claude steels research

Back 52

• Face negative stereotype and fear you will be evaluated based on that…
•  Causes you to confirm the stereotype
• How does it reduce performance?
1. Increases anxiety and distraction
2. Disidentify from the domain (academic)
o Do you need to believe in the stereotype?
o No… still get effects

Front 53

sherriffs experiment

Back 53

experiment- scout camp with 2 groups
o Week 2- introduced to competing groups
o Competition led to….
• Hostile behavior toward out-group
o Resolution?
• Talking to each group about the other’s virtues didn’t help
• Working on non-competitive tasks didn’t help
• Superordinate group helped reduce conflict
o Mutual goals-only achieve if groups work together

Front 54

jane elliott experiment

Back 54

o 3rd grade teacher in Iowa in 1968. All-white small town
o Day 1- Kids are told blue-eyed group is superior, nicer, etc.
o Day 2- Reversed the groups
-Lower performance, negative mood

Front 55

media looks at men as

Back 55

v shape

Front 56

media looks at women as

Back 56

hour glass

Front 57

archer studies

Back 57

across all types of magazine, photos of men > 2/3rd of pic space devoted to face
o For women, < ½ of pic of face
 More likely to show more of body
o True across 11 nation and 6 centuries
• Participants view the target more favorably when the face is more prominent (high face ratio)

Front 58

dimension of attitude (affect)

Back 58

belief about an object based on your emotions

Front 59

dimension of attitude (behavior)

Back 59

based on observations of how we act toward an object

Front 60

dimension of attitude (cognitive)

Back 60

belief about the properties of the object

Front 61

social reports problem

Back 61

o Only measure explicit attitudes
o Social desirability problem
- Also problems with how questions are asked:
o Fishbien & Ajzen’s research addresses this

Front 62

standford prison experiment

Back 62

o Create different roles, then watch how behavior shapes attitudes
o Details of the study
 Participants recruited via ads for $15/day for study of “prison life”
 Pre-tested to determine fitness then flipped coin to randomly assign to guar or prisoner
 Prisoners arrested at their homes, shackled, fingerprinted
 Guards had uniforms, mirrored glasses. Couldn’t use physical violence
 Prisoners given ID numbers, we never called by name
 Situation set up authority differences and anonymity for both

Front 63

SPE results

Back 63

 1. Power of the situation in determining behavior
 2. Possibility of behavior first, then attitude
 3. Applications to hostage situations

Front 64

central route

Back 64

focus on argument
 We think critically about the message. Highly rational.
 Influenced by strength and quality of arguments
• Ads that include info about the product

Front 65

perhiperal route

Back 65

focus one emotion or other cues besides argument
 Requires less effort and less attention paid to message
 Use rules of thumb (speaker seems honest, looks nice…)
• Ads with celebrity, sex appeal, emotional reaction

Front 66

do subliminal messages work

Back 66

o Words/pictures not consciously perceived but may influence attitudes or behaviors
 Need to distinguish subliminal perception and subliminal persuasion
 We perceieve things subliminally but may not be persuaded

Front 67

conformity

Back 67

change in perceptions and behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms

Front 68

compliance

Back 68

- Make direct requests of someone and hope they comply

Front 69

obedience

Back 69

comply with direct orders from someone with authority
o Ex. Strong leaders and disturbing behaviors

Front 70

sherifs conformity test

Back 70

o Autokinetic effect: judge a pinpoint of light in a dark room and how much it moves (it didn’t)
o Participants by themselves= settled in our judgments (1-10 inches)
o Then put into 3 person groupsannounce your estimate
 Initial differences in judgments
 Eventually members agreed on common answer
 Conformed to others by creating a group norm

Front 71

aschs conformity study

Back 71

o Groups of 6 (5 confederate and 1 participant)
o Procedure
 Judge the length of a line and match it to line A, B, or C.
 State your answer out load….participant is 5th of 6
 First few trials, confeds give correct answer but then incorrect

Front 72

foot in door

Back 72

start with small, then big

Front 73

door in face

Back 73

start with big request likely be rejected, then smaller request.

Front 74

milgrims research

Back 74

o Subject must teach confederate list of words
o Punishment: shock “learner” if incorrect answer
 Start with small shock 15 volts, progress up to 450 volts (lethal)
• At 350 “labeled danger severe shock” at 450 “X X X”
o “Learner” isn’t actually being shocked but participant thinks so

Front 75

study after milgrim

Back 75

 80% still continued giving shocks
 Location- original study at yale
• Drops to <50% if off campus
 Experiment characteristics
• Original- in lab coat
• Drops to <20% if another participant gives orders
 Obedience to victim-
• Original- in other room
• Drops to 40% if same room, 30% if touch victim

Front 76

jonestown

Back 76

- 1978 mas suicide at Jonestown
o People temple with jim jones as leader moved from SF to S. American jungle
o 910 people killed themselves on jones command

Front 77

group

Back 77

are 2 or more people who interact and perceive themselves as unit/us

Front 78

why join a group

Back 78

o 1. Need for social interaction—innate need to belong
o 2. Protection of threats
o 3. Sense of social identity- part of self-esteem

Front 79

roles within group

Back 79

o Members have expected behaviors
 Can be instrumental (task-related) or expressive (emotional support)
o The group functions better with defined roles

Front 80

social facilitation

Back 80

o Audience help performance on easy tasks but hurt performance on hard tasks
 1. Physio arousal from otherscreates energy
 2. We default to our quickest, easiest reaction
 3. Type of task makes a difference

Front 81

social loafing

Back 81

- Group members don’t pull their weight to help the group

Front 82

less likely to social loaf

Back 82

small, cohessive groups

Front 83

deindividuation

Back 83

- Indicates that our behavior may differ when we’re part of a group

Front 84

process loss

Back 84

reduced group performance on cognitive tasks as opposed to working alone
o Involves any time spent on non-task related issues
 Conflict,gossip, etc.

Front 85

group polarization

Back 85

- Group discussion strengthens members initial attitudes

Front 86

group think

Back 86

- Tendency of groups to repress dissenting opinions in favor of group harmony and cohesion.
- Potentially dangerous affect

Front 87

bargaining

Back 87

2 parties work on their own and reach agreement

Front 88

mediation

Back 88

neutral 3rd party advises on solution
 Differ based on use of 3rd party

Front 89

arbirtration

Back 89

use of neutral 3rd part with power to impose a solution
o Judges, other arbitrators

Front 90

affiliation

Back 90

desire to establish social contact
 Need for affiliation is an individual difference
 Affiliation can provide energy, info, social support

Front 91

loneliness

Back 91

feel deprived of connections
 Most often during transition periods in life (college, big move, new job)
 Peak loneliness at adolescence/young adult, then decreases with age (until very old age)

Front 92

proximity

Back 92

- most powerful predictor
o We like those we are physically close to
o Most similar, overlapping backgrounds and interests
o Choice of roommates? Earlier lived close by or worked together

Front 93

mere exposure effect

Back 93

more often we see something/someonemore we like it
o Even symbols flashed subliminally (experiment with Chinese characters)
o Psych lecture hall study- confederates attended class 5, 10 or 15 times
 Students more attracted to those they’d seen in class more often

Front 94

what is beautiful is good

Back 94

• Associate attractiveness with other positive qualities kindness
• Are there differences?
o For intelligence, personality, self-esteenNO
o For # of friends, social skills YES
 May be self-fulfilling prophecy develop more confidence

Front 95

secure attachment

Back 95

70% of infants
o Infants: distressed when parent leaveshappy when reunited
o Easy to get close to others, don’t worry about being abandoned
 More commitment and satisfaction as adults

Front 96

insecure attachment

Back 96

10% of infants
o Infants: clingy, cry when left but hostile when reunited
o Less trusting, more possessive and jealous
 But quickly and easily start relationships

Front 97

avoidant attachment

Back 97

20% of infants
- ignores parent when they leave and return

Front 98

companionate love

Back 98

feelings of intimacy and affection not accompanied by passion
 Secure, trusting relationship

Front 99

passionate love

Back 99

intense longing, emotional highs/lows
 Fueled by physio arousal + attribute arousal to that person

Front 100

female perspective

Back 100

should be highly selective due to cost and investment (pregnancy, raising kids)
 Search for mate who has econ resources and will commit

Front 101

male perspective

Back 101

can ensure best reproductive success by having many mates (low cost)
 Seek mates who are young, healthy

Front 102

opposites attract?

Back 102

 Complementarity hypothesis- different attitudes, looks
 Any evidence for it?
• No- no links to long-term relationships

Front 103

excitation transfer

Back 103

• Transfer arousal from situation onto a personerror

Front 104

kin selection

Back 104

help/fight for relatives

Front 105

empathy

Back 105

understanding another’s perspective and feeling sympathy
o Cognitive component- perspective taking (put yourself in their shoes)
o Emotional component- concern, compassion for other

Front 106

reciprocity

Back 106

help because it increases chances we’ll be helped when needed (both should survive)
o Animals helped with grooming- more likely to help groomer with food or in fights later

Front 107

social exchange

Back 107

focus on rewards (material or psychological)
• We help when rewards outweigh cost
• What are possible rewards

Front 108

altruism

Back 108

helping with no concern for self and no rewards

Front 109

egoistic

Back 109

help but motivated by selfish concerns

Front 110

bystander

Back 110

the more people there are, less likely victim will get help

Front 111

diffussion of responsibility

Back 111

assume others will intervene, avoid personal responsibility (contributes to by stander effect)

Front 112

rural/urban areas

Back 112

larger cities and greater density less likely to get help

Front 113

culture

Back 113

some with greater concern for other’s well being

Front 114

role modeling

Back 114

seeing others help predicts helping
o Could be adult role models, TV
o Teachers reciprocity and social responsibility norms

Front 115

attractiveness

Back 115

get more help if judge more attractive
o Or well dressed, or similar to you

Front 116

increasing help

Back 116

- Increasing helping among bystanders-
o Simple awareness of the bystander effect increases helping
o Be direct if you need help…
- Avoid overjustification
o Don’t use mandatory volunteerism
 Free choice to volunteerbetter well-being and likely to continue

Front 117

aggression

Back 117

- Physical or verbal behavior intended to harm
o Differs from assertiveness (no intent)

Front 118

emotional aggression

Back 118

goal to injure (hot aggression)
 Premeditated murders

Front 119

instrumental aggression

Back 119

used as means to an end (cool)
 Tackling in football

Front 120

testosterone

Back 120

male sex hormone) also has influence
o Men are more violent than women across many cultures
o Strong link among animals between test and aggression but weaker for humans

Front 121

frustration aggression theory

Back 121

having a goal blocked) leads to some form of aggression
o Aggression gets displaced to other sources if not acceptable to react against targetcatharsis
o If true, releasing aggression should reduce later aggression

Front 122

bobo doll experiment

Back 122

o Method: 1 group of kids saw a film with adult beating ‘Bobo’, control group saw nothing
 Allowed to later play with toys (and Bobo)
o Results: those who saw aggressive adult also attacked Bobo, those in control group didn’t

Front 123

mean world theory

Back 123

 Heavy viewing teaches mean world syndromethink violence is more common than it is
• Lower crime rates over last 20 years but most think its increased
• Positive correlation between amount of TV viewed and fear of being a victim

Front 124

gun theory

Back 124

cues for aggressive behavior, prime hostile thoughts (weapons effect)

Front 125

violent video games

Back 125

• More likely to compete aggressively and punish competitor more after Mortal Kombat than PGA golf

Front 126

porn and aggression

Back 126

 Nonviolent- linked more strongly with positive affect and low arousal
 Violent- potential mix of violence and high arousal
• High use correlated with greater acceptance of violence against women

Front 127

social learning theory

Back 127

more likely to hit doll if spanked

Front 128

jennifer thompson

Back 128

o Attacked, raped in 1984
o Identified attacker in photo and in person line ups
 And given positive feedback from police
 Note her confidence in her ID

Front 129

acquisition

Back 129

 Impact of stress on memory acquisition
• Rare to observe, stressful when we doless perceptive

Front 130

storage stage

Back 130

 Loaded questions:
• Loftus’ research: people view eventlater info gets included in memory whether or not it’s accurate
• Misinformation effect= misremember based on loaded questions

Front 131

retrieval

Back 131

• ID errors for lineups are very common
- better to present pics sequentially
-• Tell them the suspect may not be in the lineup

Front 132

jurors belief in eye witness testimony

Back 132

• Impacted by witness confidence
• Often unaware of memory issues

Front 133

confidence vs. accuracy

Back 133

studies indicate witness confidence is not strongly related to accuracy.
o Eyewitnesses are often more confident than they are accurate
o Speed of ID predicts accuracy (fastest best)

Front 134

hawthorne effect

Back 134

being aware you’re observed affects your performance

Front 135

faking in interviews

Back 135

to create positive impression
 Lying, exaggerating, ingratiation, avoid negative info
 Reduces validity

Front 136

potential biases

Back 136

biggest effect is favoring physically attractive applicants (both genders)
 But attractiveness is not related to job performance for most jobs

Front 137

general intelligence test

Back 137

best predictor of job performance
 Reduces faking problem found in interviews
 But not the only relevant factor and they may discriminate unfairly

Front 138

integrity test

Back 138

assess honesty
 May be important for high-stakes jobs
 Overt tests- directly ask about drug use, theft
 Covert tests- personality items that are correlated with dishonesty are used instead of direct questions
• Harder to fake

Front 139

self evaluations

Back 139

• More positive than supervisor evals
• But not as valid

Front 140

360 feedback

Back 140

• Use multiple evaluators
o Supervisors+coworkers+subordinates+customers
o Get difference perspectives

Front 141

transformational leaders

Back 141

assumes leadership can be learned
 Based on behaviors not traits
• Inspire followers, offer goals and vision

Front 142

adams equity theory

Back 142

o Consider our inputs to the job (education, effort) and outcomes (pay, prestige)