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;
189 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Psychodynamic theory (sometimes called psychoanalytic theory) |
explains personality in terms of unconscious psychological processes (for example, wishes and fears of which we’re not fully aware), and contends that childhood experiences are crucial in shaping adult personality. |
|
|
psychoanalysis |
a type of psychotherapy that attempts to explore the patient’s unconscious thoughts and emotions so that the person is better able to understand him- or herself. |
|
|
3 assumptions of psychodynamic theory |
Assumption 1:Primacy of the Unconscious Psychodynamic theorists contend that the majority of psychological processes take place outside conscious awareness
Assumption 2: Critical Importance of Early Experiences Psychodynamic theory is not alone in positing that early childhood events play a role in shaping personality, but the theory is unique in the degree to which it emphasizes these events as determinants of personality development and dynamics. According to the psychodynamic model, early experiences— including those occurring during the first weeks or months of life—set in motion personality processes that affect us years, even decades, later. Assumption 3: Psychic Causality The third core assumption of psychodynamic theory is that nothing in mental life happens by chance—that there is no such thing as a random thought, feeling, motive, or behavior. |
|
|
Psychic causality |
The assumption that nothing in mental life happens by chance—that there is no such thing as a “random” thought or feeling. |
|
|
The Topographic Model |
topographic model of the mind, which contended that the mind could be divided into three regions: conscious, preconscious, and unconscious. |
|
|
The conscious mind "part of topographic model" |
The conscious part of the mind holds information that you’re focusing on at this moment—what you’re thinking and feeling right now. |
|
|
The preconscious mind "part of topographic model" |
The preconscious contains material that is capable of becoming conscious but is not conscious at the moment because your attention is not being directed toward it. You can move material from the preconscious into consciousness simply by focusing your attention on it. Consider, for example, what you had for dinner last night. A moment ago that information was preconscious; now it’s conscious, because you “pulled it up” into consciousness. (Not to worry, in a few moments it will be preconscious again, and you can move on to more important things.) |
|
|
The unconscious—the most controversial part of the topographic model |
contains anxiety-producing material (for example, sexual impulses, aggressive urges) that are deliberately repressed (held outside of conscious awareness as a form of self-protection because they make you uncomfortable). |
|
|
The Psychosexual Stage Model |
, which argued that early in life we progress through a sequence of developmental stages, each with its own unique challenge and its own mode of sexual gratification. Freud’s psychosexual stages—oral, anal, Oedipal, latency, and genital—are well-known even to non-analytic psychologists. Frustration or overgratification during a particular stage was hypothesized to result in “fixation” at that stage, and to the development of an oral, anal, or Oedipal personality style (Bornstein, 2005, 2006). * Oral Stage: Mouth object of pleasure. * can’t be neglected or overindulged. * Anal Stage: Anus object of pleasure. Ego develops to cope with socially appropriate behavior. * Toilet training * Phallic or Oedipal Stage: Genitals region object of pleasure. * Boys experience Oedipus complex * Little Hans and castration fear * Girls experience * Seduction Theory (Abandoned by Freud) * “Penis envy” (female experience anxiety upon realization that they do not have a penis, begins the transition from an attachment to the mother to competition with the mother for the attention, recognition and affection of the father) |
|
|
oral fixation stage |
is hypothesized to result in a dependent personality, 0-18 months |
|
|
anal fixation stage |
results in a lifelong preoccupation with control.
18-36 months |
|
|
Oedipal fixation |
leads to an aggressive, competitive personality orientation 5-6 yrs |
|
|
The Structural Model |
—the structural model—which posits nobaproject.com - The Psychodynamic Perspective 10the existence of three interacting mental structures called the id, ego, and superego |
|
|
id |
The id is the seat of drives and instincts, |
|
|
ego |
whereas the ego represents the logical, reality-oriented part of the mind, |
|
|
superego |
and the superego is basically your conscience—the moral guidelines, rules, and prohibitions that guide your behavior. (You acquire these through your family and through the culture in which you were raised.) |
|
|
impulsive personality style |
When the id predominates and instincts rule, the result is an impulsive personality style. |
|
|
overcontrolled personality |
When the superego is strongest, moral prohibitions reign supreme, and a restrained, overcontrolled personality ensues. |
|
|
balanced set of personality traits |
When the ego is dominant, a more balanced set of personality traits develop |
|
|
f ego defenses |
Ego defenses are basically mental strategies that we use automatically and unconsciously when we feel threatened (Cramer, 2000, 2006). They help us navigate upsetting events, but there’s a cost as well: All ego defenses involve some distortion of reality. |
|
|
repression ego defence |
For example, repression (the most basic ego defense, according to Freud) involves removing from consciousness upsetting thoughts and feelings, and moving those thoughts and feelings to the unconscious. When you read about a person who “blocked out” upsetting memories of child abuse, that’s an example of repression. |
|
|
Denial ego defence |
Another ego defense is denial. In denial (unlike repression), we are aware that a particular event occurred, but we don’t allow ourselves to see the implications of that event. When you hear a person with a substance abuse problem say “I’m fine—even though people complain about my drinking I never nobaproject.com - The Psychodynamic Perspective 11miss a day of work,” that person is using denial. |
|
|
object relations theory |
Object relations theory contends that personality can be understood as reflecting the mental images of significant figures (especially the parents) that we form early in life in response to interactions taking place within the family (Kernberg, 2004; Wachtel, 1997). These mental images (sometimes called introjects) serve as templates for later interpersonal relationships—almost like relationship blueprints or “scripts.” So if you internalized positive introjects early in life (for example, a mental image of mom or dad as warm and accepting), nobaproject.com - The Psychodynamic Perspective 12 that’s what you expect to occur in later relationships as well. If you internalized a mental image of mom or dad as harsh and judgmental, you might instead become a self-critical person, and feel that you can never live up to other people’s standards . . . or your own |
|
|
attachment theory |
which argues that attachments—or bonds—to significant people are key to understanding human behavior; Fraley, 2002) |
|
|
neuropsychoanalysis |
An integrative, interdisciplinary domain of inquiry seeking to integrate psychoanalytic and neuropsychological ideas and findings to enhance both areas of inquiry |
|
|
reaction formation (ego defence) |
expressing outwardly the exact opposite of what one is feeling inwardly, (for example, when a young boy likes a girl but ends up teasing and making fun of her) |
|
|
Displacement (ego defence) |
expressing a negative emotion- often anger - in a setting that is less risky then the one first experienced the emotion (for example, being yelled at by your boss, and then coming home and yelling at your partner) |
|
|
Rationalization ego defence |
making excuses for engaging in unacceptable acts (example, justifying cheating on your taxes by convincing yourself that everyone does it. |
|
|
sublimation |
expressing unacceptable impulses in a way that actually brings rewards rather then punishment (i.e. using pent up angression to play a game of football |
|
|
Four Main Approaches |
* Psychodynamic
* Trait * Social-cognitive * Phenomenological |
|
|
Projection ego defences |
Attributing your own unacceptable thoughts or feelings to someone or something else |
|
|
Regression ego defences |
Reverting to an older, less mature way of handling stresses and feeling |
|
|
Compensation |
counterbalancing perceived weaknesses by emphasizing strength in other arenas |
|
|
Latency Period |
Sexual impulses stay in background.
6 years - puberty |
|
|
Genital Stage |
Sexual impulses reappear at conscious level; genitals again focus of sexual pleasure.
puberty onward |
|
|
rorschach inkblot |
see meaning in pictures. |
|
|
projective test |
personality test designed to let a person respond to ambiguous stimuli, presumably revealing hidden emotions and internal conflicts projected by the person into the test. |
|
|
Objective Tests |
Objective tests involve administering a standard set of items, each of which is answered using a limited set of response options (e.g., true or false; strongly disagree, slightly disagree, slightly agree, strongly agree). Responses to these items then are scored in a standardized, predetermined way. For example, self-ratings on items assessing talkativeness, assertiveness, sociability, adventurousness, and energy can be summed up to create an overall score on the personality trait of extraversion. higher in validity. |
|
|
Basic Types of Objective Tests Self-report measures |
Objective personality tests can be further subdivided into two basic types. The first type—which easily is the most widely used in modern personality research —asks people to describe themselves. This approach offers two key advantages. First, self-raters have access to an unparalleled wealth of information: After all, who knows more about you than you yourself? In particular, self-raters have direct access to their own thoughts, feelings, and motives, which may not be readily available to others (Oh, Wang, & Mount, 2011; Watson, Hubbard, & Weise, 2000). Second, asking people to describe themselves is the simplest, easiest, and most cost-effective approach to assessing personality. C |
|
|
the influential five-factor model (FFM) of personality: |
neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness |
|
|
Validity |
Evidence related to the interpretation and use of test scores. A particularly important type of evidence is criterion validity, which involves the ability of a test to predict theoretically relevant outcomes. For example, a presumed measure of conscientiousness should be related to academic achievement (such as overall grade point average) |
|
|
High-stakes testing |
Settings in which test scores are used to make important decisions about individuals. For example, test scores may be used to determine which individuals are admitted into a college or graduate school, or who should be hired for a job. Tests also are used in forensic settings to help determine whether a person is competent to stand trial or fits the legal definition of sanity |
|
|
a self-enhancement bias |
in other words, people are motivated to ignore (or at least downplay) some of their less desirable characteristics and to focus instead on their more positive attributes. |
|
|
reference group effect |
that is, we base our selfperceptions, in part, on how we compare to others in our sociocultural reference group. For instance, if you tend to work harder than most of your friends, you nobaproject.com - Personality Assessment 10will see yourself as someone who is relatively conscientious, even if you are not particularly conscientious in any absolute sense. |
|
|
Informant ratings |
Another approach is to ask someone who knows a person well to describe his or her personality characteristics. In the case of children or adolescents, the informant is most likely to be a parent or teacher. often more reliable
Nevertheless, informant ratings also are subject to certain problems and limitations. One general issue is the level of relevant information that is available to the rater (Funder, 2012). For instance, even under the best of circumstances, informants lack full access to the thoughts, feelings, and motives of the person they are rating. |
|
|
e reliable |
The consistency of test scores across repeated assessments. For example, testretest reliability examines the extent to which scores change over time. |
|
|
sibling contrast effect, |
The tendency of parents to use their perceptions of all of their children as a frame of reference for rating the characteristics of each of them. For example, suppose that a mother has three children; two of these children are very sociable and outgoing, whereas the third is relatively average in sociability. Because of operation of this effect, the mother will rate this third child as less sociable and outgoing than he/she actually is. More generally, this effect causes parents to exaggerate the true extent of differences between their children. This effect represents a specific manifestation of the more general reference group effect when applied to ratings made by parents. |
|
|
Letter of recommendation effect |
The general tendency for informants in personality studies to rate others in an unrealistically positive manner. This tendency is due a pervasive bias in personality assessment: In the large majority of published studies, informants are individuals who like the person they are rating (e.g., they often are friends or family members) and, therefore, are motivated to depict them in a socially desirable way. The term reflects a similar tendency for academic letters of recommendation to be overly positive and to present the referent in an unrealistically desirable manner. |
|
|
Honeymoon effect |
The tendency for newly married individuals to rate their spouses in an unrealistically positive manner. This represents a specific manifestation of the letter of recommendation effect when applied to ratings made by current romantic partners. Moreover, it illustrates the very important role played by relationship satisfaction in ratings made by romantic partners: As marital satisfaction declines (i.e., when the “honeymoon is over”), this effect disappears. |
|
|
the Big Five Inventory |
contains brief scales assessing the broad traits of neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
ive, broad general traits that are included in many prominent models of personality. The five traits are neuroticism (those high on this trait are prone to feeling sad, worried, anxious, and dissatisfied with themselves), extraversion (high scorers are friendly, assertive, outgoing, cheerful, and energetic), openness to experience (those high on this trait are tolerant, intellectually curious, imaginative, and artistic), agreeableness (high scorers are polite, considerate, cooperative, honest, and trusting), and conscientiousness (those high on this trait are responsible, cautious, organized, disciplined, and achievement-oriented). |
|
|
Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) ( |
r asks them to generate stories about a series of pictures. |
|
|
Implicit motives |
These are goals that are important to a person, but that he/she cannot consciously express. Because the individual cannot verbalize these goals directly, they cannot be easily assessed via self-report. However, they can be measured using projective devices such as the Thematic Apperception Test |
|
|
Heterotypic stability |
Consistency in the underlying psychological attribute across development regardless of any changes in how the attribute is expressed at different ages. |
|
|
Homotypic stability |
Consistency of the exact same thoughts, feelings, and behaviors across development |
|
|
Absolute stability |
Consistency in the level or amount of a personality attribute over time |
|
|
Active person–environment transactions |
The interplay between individuals and their contextual circumstances that occurs whenever individuals play a key role in seeking out, selecting, or otherwise manipulating aspects of their environment. |
|
|
Age effects |
Differences in personality between groups of different ages that are related to maturation and development instead of birth cohort differences. |
|
|
Attraction |
A connection between personality attributes and aspects of the environment that occurs because individuals with particular traits are drawn to certain environments. |
|
|
Attrition |
A connection between personality attributes and aspects of the environment that occurs because individuals with particular traits drop out from certain environments. |
|
|
Birth cohort |
Individuals born in a particular year or span of time. |
|
|
Cohort effects |
Differences in personality that are related to historical and social factors unique to individuals born in a particular year. |
|
|
Corresponsive principle |
The idea that personality traits often become matched with environmental conditions such that an individual’s social context acts to accentuate and reinforce their personality attributes. |
|
|
Cross-sectional study/design |
A research design that uses a group of individuals with different ages (and birth cohorts) assessed at a single point in time |
|
|
Cumulative continuity principle |
The generalization that personality attributes show increasing stability with age and experience. |
|
|
Differential stability |
Consistency in the rank-ordering of personality across two or more measurement occasions. |
|
|
Evocative person–environment transactions |
The interplay between individuals and their contextual circumstances that occurs whenever attributes of the individual draw out particular responses from others in their environment |
|
|
Group level |
A focus on summary statistics that apply to aggregates of individuals when studying personality development. An example is considering whether the average score of a group of 50 year olds is higher than the average score of a group of 21 year olds when considering a trait like conscientiousness. |
|
|
Hostile attribution bias |
The tendency of some individuals to interpret ambiguous social cues and interactions as examples of aggressiveness, disrespect, or antagonism. |
|
|
Individual level |
A focus on individual level statistics that reflect whether individuals show stability or change when studying personality development. An example is evaluating how many individuals increased in conscientiousness versus how many decreased in conscientiousness when considering the transition from adolescence to adulthood. |
|
|
Longitudinal study/design |
A research design that follows the same group of individuals at multiple time points. |
|
|
Manipulation |
A connection between personality attributes and aspects of the environment that occurs whenever individuals with particular traits actively shape their environments. |
|
|
Maturity principle |
The generalization that personality attributes associated with the successful fulfillment of adult roles increase with age and experience. |
|
|
Person–environment transactions |
The interplay between individuals and their contextual circumstances that ends up shaping both personality and the environment. |
|
|
Reactive person–environment transactions |
The interplay between individuals and their contextual circumstances that occurs whenever attributes of the individual shape how a person perceives and responds to their environment. |
|
|
Selection |
A connection between personality attributes and aspects of the environment that occurs whenever individuals with particular attributes choose particular kinds of environments. |
|
|
Stress reaction |
The tendency to become easily distressed by the normal challenges of life. |
|
|
Transformation |
The term for personality changes associated with experience and life events. |
|
|
Nomothetic approaches Lexical Approach |
examine characteristics common to all persons, but on which people vary, and focus on differences between persons * Goal – to determine the main ways individuals differ from one another * Step 1: Data – ask people to describe themselves or others with labels, such as “outgoing” or “worrier” * Step 2: Lump together labels that often go together describing someone, “outgoing”, “bold”, “assertive”, “sociable” [EXTRAVERT] |
|
|
Idiographic approaches |
person centered” |
|
|
Normative influence |
Conformity that results from a concern for what other people think of us. |
|
|
Obedience |
Responding to an order or command from a person in a position of authority |
|
|
Informational influence |
Conformity that results from a concern to act in a socially approved manner as determined by how others act. |
|
|
Descriptive norm |
The perception of what most people do in a given situation. |
|
|
Conformity |
Changing one’s attitude or behavior to match a perceived social norm. |
|
|
Central route to persuasion |
Persuasion that employs direct, relevant, logical messages. |
|
|
Fixed action patterns (FAPs) |
Sequences of behavior that occur in exactly the same fashion, in exactly the same order, every time they are elicited. |
|
|
Foot in the door |
Obtaining a small, initial commitment |
|
|
Gradually escalating commitments |
A pattern of small, progressively escalating demands is less likely to be rejected than a single large demand made all at once |
|
|
Heuristics |
Mental shortcuts that enable people to make decisions and solve problems quickly and efficiently |
|
|
Peripheral route to persuasion |
Persuasion that relies on superficial cues that have little to do with logic. |
|
|
Psychological reactance |
A reaction to people, rules, requirements, or offerings that are perceived to limit freedoms. |
|
|
Social proof |
The mental shortcut based on the assumption that, if everyone is doing it, it must be right. |
|
|
The norm of reciprocity |
The normative pressure to repay, in equitable value, what another person has given to us. |
|
|
The rule of scarcity |
People tend to perceive things as more attractive when their availability is limited, or when they stand to lose the opportunity to acquire them on favorable terms |
|
|
The triad of trust |
We are most vulnerable to persuasion when the source is perceived as an authority, as honest and likable. |
|
|
Trigger features |
Specific, sometimes minute, aspects of a situation that activate fixed action patterns. |
|
|
Attitudes |
* Person’s favorable or unfavorable feelings, beliefs, or actions toward an object, idea, or person
|
|
|
Agreeableness |
A core personality trait that includes such dispositional characteristics as being sympathetic, generous, forgiving, and helpful, and behavioral tendencies toward harmonious social relations and likeability. |
|
|
Altruism |
A motivation for helping that has the improvement of another’s welfare as its ultimate goal, with no expectation of any benefits for the helper. |
|
|
Arousal: cost–reward model |
An egoistic theory proposed by Piliavin et al. (1981) that claims that seeing a person in need leads to the arousal of unpleasant feelings, and observers are motivated to eliminate that aversive state, often by helping the victim. A cost– reward analysis may lead observers to react in ways other than offering direct assistance, including indirect help, reinterpretation of the situation, or fleeing the scene. |
|
|
Bystander intervention |
The phenomenon whereby people intervene to help others in need even if the other is a complete stranger and the intervention puts the helper at risk |
|
|
Cost–benefit analysis |
A decision-making process that compares the cost of an action or thing against the expected benefit to help determine the best course of action. |
|
|
Diffusion of responsibility |
When deciding whether to help a person in need, knowing that there are others who could also provide assistance relieves bystanders of some measure of personal responsibility, reducing the likelihood that bystanders will intervene. |
|
|
Egoism |
A motivation for helping that has the improvement of the helper’s own circumstances as its primary goal. |
|
|
Empathic concern |
According to Batson’s empathy–altruism hypothesis, observers who empathize with a person in need (that is, put themselves in the shoes of the victim and imagine how that person feels) will experience empathic concern and have an altruistic motivation for helping. |
|
|
Empathy–altruism model |
An altruistic theory proposed by Batson (2011) that claims that people who put themselves in the shoes of a victim and imagining how the victim feel will experience empathic concern that evokes an altruistic motivation for helping. |
|
|
Helpfulness |
A component of the prosocial personality orientation; describes individuals who have been helpful in the past and, because they believe they can be effective with the help they give, are more likely to be helpful in the future |
|
|
Helping |
Prosocial acts that typically involve situations in which one person is in need and another provides the necessary assistance to eliminate the other’s need. |
|
|
Kin selection |
According to evolutionary psychology, the favoritism shown for helping our blood relatives, with the goals of increasing the likelihood that some portion of our DNA will be passed on to future generations. |
|
|
Negative state relief model |
An egoistic theory proposed by Cialdini et al. (1982) that claims that people have learned through socialization that helping can serve as a secondary reinforcement that will relieve negative moods such as sadness. |
|
|
Other-oriented empathy |
A component of the prosocial personality orientation; describes individuals who have a strong sense of social responsibility, empathize with and feel emotionally tied to those in need, understand the problems the victim is experiencing, and have a heightened sense of moral obligations to be helpful. |
|
|
Personal distress |
According to Batson’s empathy–altruism hypothesis, observers who take a detached view of a person in need will experience feelings of being “worried” and “upset” and will have an egoistic motivation for helping to relieve that distress. |
|
|
Pluralistic ignorance |
Relying on the actions of others to define an ambiguous need situation and to then erroneously conclude that no help or intervention is necessary. |
|
|
Prosocial behavior |
Social behavior that benefits another person. |
|
|
Prosocial personality orientation |
A measure of individual differences that identifies two sets of personality characteristics (other-oriented empathy, helpfulness) that are highly correlated with prosocial behavior. |
|
|
Reciprocal altruism |
According to evolutionary psychology, a genetic predisposition for people to help those who have previously helped them. |
|
|
Collective self-esteem |
Feelings of self-worth that are based on evaluation of relationships with others and membership in social groups. |
|
|
Common knowledge effect |
The tendency for groups to spend more time discussing information that all members know (shared information) and less time examining information that only a few members know (unshared). |
|
|
Group cohesion |
The solidarity or unity of a group resulting from the development of strong and mutual interpersonal bonds among members and group-level forces that unify the group, such as shared commitment to group goals. |
|
|
Group polarization |
The tendency for members of a deliberating group to move to a more extreme position, with the direction of the shift determined by the majority or average of the members’ predeliberation preferences. |
|
|
Groupthink |
A set of negative group-level processes, including illusions of vulnerability, selfcensorship, and pressures to conform, that occur when highly cohesive groups seek concurrence when making a decision. |
|
|
Ostracism |
Excluding one or more individuals from a group by reducing or eliminating contact with the person, usually by ignoring, shunning, or explicitly banishing them. |
|
|
Shared mental model |
Knowledge, expectations, conceptualizations, and other cognitive representations that members of a group have in common pertaining to the group and its members, tasks, procedures, and resources. |
|
|
Social comparison |
The process of contrasting one’s personal qualities and outcomes, including beliefs, attitudes, values, abilities, accomplishments, and experiences, to those of other people. |
|
|
Social facilitation |
Improvement in task performance that occurs when people work in the presence of other people |
|
|
Social identity theory |
A theoretical analysis of group processes and intergroup relations that assumes groups influence their members’ self-concepts and self-esteem, particularly when individuals categorize themselves as group members and identify with the group. |
|
|
Social loafing |
The reduction of individual effort exerted when people work in groups compared with when they work alone |
|
|
Sociometer model |
A conceptual analysis of self-evaluation processes that theorizes self-esteem functions to psychologically monitor of one’s degree of inclusion and exclusion in social groups. |
|
|
Teamwork |
The process by which members of the team combine their knowledge, skills, abilities, and other resources through a coordinated series of actions to produce an outcome. |
|
|
Anomalous face overgeneralization hypothesis |
Proposes that the attractiveness halo effect is a by-product of reactions to low fitness. People overgeneralize the adaptive tendency to use low attractiveness as an indicator of negative traits, like low health or intelligence, and mistakenly use higher-than-average attractiveness as an indicator of high health or intelligence. |
|
|
Attractiveness halo effect |
The tendency to associate attractiveness with a variety of positive traits, such as being more sociable, intelligent, competent, and healthy |
|
|
Good genes hypothesis |
Proposes that certain physical qualities, like averageness, are attractive because they advertise mate quality—either greater fertility or better genetic traits that lead to better offspring and hence greater reproductive success. |
|
|
Mere-exposure effect |
The tendency to prefer stimuli that have been seen before over novel ones. There also is a generalized mere-exposure effect shown in a preference for stimuli that are similar to those that have been seen before. |
|
|
Morph |
A face or other image that has been transformed by a computer program so that it is a mixture of multiple images |
|
|
Prototype |
A typical, or average, member of a category. Averageness increases attractiveness. |
|
|
Anomalous face overgeneralization hypothesis |
Proposes that the attractiveness halo effect is a by-product of reactions to low fitness. People overgeneralize the adaptive tendency to use low attractiveness as an indicator of negative traits, like low health or intelligence, and mistakenly use higher-than-average attractiveness as an indicator of high health or intelligence. |
|
|
Attractiveness halo effect |
The tendency to associate attractiveness with a variety of positive traits, such as being more sociable, intelligent, competent, and healthy |
|
|
Good genes hypothesis |
Proposes that certain physical qualities, like averageness, are attractive because they advertise mate quality—either greater fertility or better genetic traits that lead to better offspring and hence greater reproductive success. |
|
|
Mere-exposure effect |
The tendency to prefer stimuli that have been seen before over novel ones. There also is a generalized mere-exposure effect shown in a preference for stimuli that are similar to those that have been seen befor |
|
|
Morph |
A face or other image that has been transformed by a computer program so that it is a mixture of multiple images |
|
|
Prototype |
A typical, or average, member of a category. Averageness increases attractiveness. |
|
|
Functional distance |
The frequency with which we cross paths with others. |
|
|
Mere-exposure effecT |
The notion that people like people/places/things merely because they are familiar with them |
|
|
Perceived social support |
A person’s perception that others are there to help them in times of need. |
|
|
Proximity |
Physical nearness |
|
|
Received social support |
The actual act of receiving support (e.g., informational, functional). |
|
|
Support support network |
The people who care about and support a person. |
|
|
Aggression |
Any behavior intended to harm another person who does not want to be harmed.
* Age (Toddlers most violent) |
|
|
Availability heuristic |
The tendency to judge the frequency or likelihood of an event by the ease with which relevant instances come to mind. |
|
|
Catharsis |
Greek term that means to cleanse or purge. Applied to aggression, catharsis is the belief that acting aggressively or even viewing aggression purges angry feelings and aggressive impulses into harmless channels. |
|
|
Hostile attribution bias |
The tendency to perceive ambiguous actions by others as aggressive. |
|
|
Hostile expectation bias |
The tendency to assume that people will react to potential conflicts with aggression. |
|
|
Hostile perception bias |
The tendency to perceive social interactions in general as being aggressive. |
|
|
Punishment |
Inflicting pain or removing pleasure for a misdeed. Punishment decreases the likelihood that a behavior will be repeated. |
|
|
Relational aggression |
Intentionally harming another person’s social relationships, feelings of acceptance, or inclusion within a group. |
|
|
Violence |
Aggression intended to cause extreme physical harm, such as injury or death. |
|
|
Weapons effect |
The increase in aggression that occurs as a result of the mere presence of a weapon. |
|
|
* Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis |
* Not being rewarded causes frustration (losing chance to reach a goal), which can lead to aggression. |
|
|
Gordon Allport wrote the influential book |
* “Personality” in 1937. He developed his ideas about “traits” viewing these as the basic structural elements of personality.
* Traits were defined as a predisposition to respond in a particular way to a broad range of situations. So an even-tempered person remains calm across a broad range of situations. |
|
|
Cortical Arousal Differences |
* Eysenck (1967)
* He suggests that the difference between introverts and extroverts depends on the ascending reticular activating system (ARAS) * Causes introverts to be “stimulus shy” * Causes extraverts to be “stimulus hungry” |
|
|
Reactive person |
* environment transactions
* individuals react differently to the same objective situation |
|
|
Evocative person |
* environment transactions
* Person tries no change their environment to match personality |
|
|
Active person |
* environment transactions
* Individual selects environment |
|
|
Stanford Prison |
* Zimbardo’s Study
* assigned roles as guards or prisoner * prisoners arrested at home, strip searched, and finger printed by real officers * guards enforce rules * rebellion quashed * discontinued after few days * Prisoner #8612 began suffering from acute emotional disturbance, disorganized thinking, uncontrollable crying, and rage |
|
|
Changing attitude to fit behavior |
Cognitive dissonance occurs when we feel discomfort caused by information that is different from a person’s conception of himself as a reasonable and sensible person |
|
|
* Nature
|
* Some attitudes, like in-group bias, made sense, because humans evolved in small social groups, and it made sense for people to trust those who are most like them
|
|
|
* Nurture
|
* Exposure increases our preference for different things and people
|
|
|
* In-group/out-group bias
|
* Tendency to show positive feelings toward people who belong to the same group as we do, and negative feelings toward those in other groups
|
|
|
auto-stereotype |
* (what the minority group thinks about themselves)
* 50% of blacks in USA have negative stereotypes about themselves |
|
|
meta-stereotype |
(what the majority group believes the “out-group” is thinking about the magority) |
|
|
* stereotype threat
|
psyching definition |
|
|
* Prejudice
|
* Biased attitude toward a group of people or an individual member of a group based on unfair generalizations about what members of that group are like
* Racism * Sexism * Behavioral component is discrimination * Often not based on direct experience |
|
|
Murder of Kitty Genovese (1964) |
* 38 witnesses
* none helped * 35 minute attack * slow to report * some watched * others closed windows * relevant today? |
|
|
The Bystander Effect: * diffusion of responsibility |
we look towards others to define the situation (most aren’t acting) somebody else will help |
|
|
Arousal: Cost-Reward Theory |
* Helping costs
* time – we are rushed, time required to help isn’t available * material – somebody has our pencil * safety – we could lose our life * Helping rewards * no anxiety/guilt (negative state relief) * reciprocity? (reciprocal altruism) * reward? * genetic relative? (kin selection) * social approval |
|
|
Who are the Prosocial Helpers? |
* Who are helping
* Associated with Big 5 Agreeableness * Prosocial people * Help more * Have more empathy * No gender differences, although “how” they might help might differ. |
|
|
Social Comparison Affects Self-Esteem |
* is part of a sociometer that monitors peoples’ relational value in other people’s eyes
* a dip in self-esteem indicates exclusion from our group is likely if our relative value drops too low |
|
|
Attributions about others |
* How we explain behavior depends on the group consensus
* Importance: * Understand someone else’s behavior * Predict someone’s future behavior * Control the situation |
|
|
Fundamental Attribution Error: |
Over attribute the behavior of others to internal factors |
|
|
Actor-Observer Bias |
* Different attribution pattern for self and others
* (less likely make the internal attribution error for ourselves) |
|
|
Optimistic Bias |
Personal credit for success, blame external causes for failure |
|
|
* Social facilitation
|
* Phenomenon in which the presence of others influences one’s performance
* Improvement on easy tasks * Impairment on difficult tasks |
|
|
* Social loafing
|
* Phenomenon in which the presence of others causes one to relax and slack off
* More likely if individual effort cannot be separated from group * Group cohesion and well defined tasks reduce loafing |
|
|
stages of group development |
|
|
|
* Schemas:
|
* shape first impressions of others
|
|
|
* similarity schema
|
* negative information draws attention
|
|
|
halo effect |
is a cognitive bias in which an observer's overall impression of a person, company, brand, or product influences the observer's feelings and thoughts about that entity's character or properties. It was named by psychologist Edward Thorndike in reference to a person being perceived as having a halo. |
|
|
cognitive miser |
he theory suggests that humans, valuing their mental processing resources, find different ways to save time and effort when negotiating the social world. |
|
|
self-fulfilling prophecy |
is a prediction that directly or indirectly causes itself to become true, by the very terms of the prophecy itself, due to positive feedback between belief and behavior. Alt |
