Psy 375 Exam 2

Front 1

20 Statements of the Self Study

Back 1

Americans and college students in nairobi described their personal characteristics, workers in nairobi described their roles and memberships

Front 2

independent self view and strangers

Back 2

more welcoming, as there’s already so much separation between individuals

Front 3

barrier between ingroup and outgroup in indep and interdep self-views

Back 3

permiable in independent, rigid barrier in interdependent

Front 4

mri studies of independent and interdependent self-views

Back 4

asked to visualize self and mother, western brains light up in two different places, but chinese brains light up in the same place, proving an intertwined construct

Front 5

describe self in different contexts...

Back 5

more interdependence leads to more fluxuation in self concept depending on context - professor’s office, with students, in larger group, or alone

Front 6

the free choice paradigm study

Back 6

choose two items to take home, later the chosen items are liked more, showing that familiarity causes liking

Front 7

choosing cds study

Back 7

canadians rationalized their choices, japanese did not

Front 8

ordering food for friends study

Back 8

japanese rationalized their decisions when choosing food for friends, but not when choosing food for selves

Front 9

self-consistency v. peer-consistency study

Back 9

participants told that they had previously complied with a request, and that their peers had previously complied with a request. US was slightly more likely than Poles to comply again in first case, Poles were vastly more likely than US to comply in second case

Front 10

self-consistency and life outcomes

Back 10

USians showed a high correlation between self-consistency across situations and well-being, social skills and likeability. Koreans showed little correlation

Front 11

subjective v. objective self-awareness

Back 11

subjective is observing and interacting with the world from the “I” perspective, looking outwardly; objecdtive is looking at self from outside looking inward

Front 12

self-awareness and being observed study

Back 12

told that strangers had seen an erroneous low score, Hong Kongians were then likely to rate themselves lower. USians were consistent regardless of whether strangers had seen their scores

Front 13

self-awareness and mirror study

Back 13

on rating of actual v. ideal self, americans had a large change when presented with a mirror, becoming more critical, while japanese had little change

Front 14

characteristics of people who engage in objective self-awareness

Back 14

more likely to report events in third-person, with more accordance with reality, and make better predictions about future behavior

Front 15

entity v. incremental theory

Back 15

entity believes the self is fixed, and tends to avoid challenges, as there’s little belief that a person can improve self; incrementals believe that effort is the path to mastery

Front 16

self-enhancement

Back 16

people want to feel good about themselves and have high self esteem, so they do a few things to try to make that happen

Front 17

implicit egotism

Back 17

self-enhancment technique -- people like people and places that reflect themselves

Front 18

mnemic neglect

Back 18

self-enhancment technique -- unconscious forgetting of negative information about self

Front 19

illusory superiority

Back 19

self-enhancment technique -- lake woebegone effect -- people overestimate their positive qualities in relation to others

Front 20

unrealistic optimism

Back 20

self-enhancment technique -- people beleive they are at less risk of adverse effects than others

Front 21

BIRGing and CORFing

Back 21

self-enhancement technique -- basking in reflected glory and cutting off from reflected failure

Front 22

self-serving bias

Back 22

self-enhancment technique -- tendency tot ake credits for success and blame others for failures

Front 23

downward comparison

Back 23

self-enhancement technique -- comparing self to others who are worse off, including comparisons between past and present selves

Front 24

comparison direction after failure

Back 24

americans seek downward comparison, while japanese seek upward comparison

Front 25

endowment effect

Back 25

we view the things we own as better -- the overpriced craigslist effect

Front 26

self-esteem and american acculturation

Back 26

SE goes up as a person is “more american”

Front 27

modesty and self esteem study

Back 27

asians do just as well on an implicit association test for SE as americans, so maybe it’s a matter of modesty

Front 28

self-criticism and depression

Back 28

japanese are more self-critical, but no more depressed

Front 29

face

Back 29

the dignity, respect, confidence that you receive from others

Front 30

prevention vs promotion orientation

Back 30

asians go for prevention - the motivation is to avoid failures and not lose face. westerners go for promotion, gaining beyond an acceptable minimum

Front 31

self depreciating humor, etc

Back 31

asians do not tend to use it, as this decreases face

Front 32

feedback and motivation

Back 32

japanese work harder after negative feedback, opposite for USians

Front 33

cultural differences in desire to self-enhance

Back 33

some studies show that asians will self-enhance more for group-focused aspects, though this has also been disproven

Front 34

define agency

Back 34

one’s ability to act, control, assert power, TO CAUSE

Front 35

agency: individual or social?

Back 35

debate -- agency is either a property of the individual, or it is a social construction, allowing people agency in some situations, but not others

Front 36

primary control

Back 36

striving to shape reality to fit one’s self -- malleability of the world, stability of the individual -- very western

Front 37

secondary control

Back 37

sense of control gained by aligning the self to fit with existing situation, by exerting control over the psychological impact -- malleability of the self, stability of the world -- adjusting to the environment -- asian

Front 38

culture and control - aerobics study

Back 38

americans: i chose this class because it fit my schedule, and just do my own thing when it gets hard -- japanese: i chose this class because it’s the appropriate level set forth by the instructor, and do my best to keep up when it gets hard

Front 39

internal v. external attributions across cultures

Back 39

westerners go for internal, moral failures -- easterners go for external, disruptive foreigners...

Front 40

causality - implicity theories of agency across cultures

Back 40

individualistic cultures beieve that social actors have agencey to cause social outcomes; collectivist cultures beleive groups have agency to bring about consequences

Front 41

responsibility judgement across cultures

Back 41

west: the individual is held responsible; east: associates and group held responsible

Front 42

making choices across cultures

Back 42

westerners: personal decision are important and frequent; asians: personal decisions are less emphasized and infrequent and governed by others’ expectations

Front 43

game avatars study

Back 43

design of avatars dictated interest in playing; personal choice, an outgroup (third graders), ingroup choice. It goes the way you might guess

Front 44

universals of interpersonal attraction

Back 44

clear skin, averageness, symmetry, baby-facedness

Front 45

propinquity effect

Back 45

the closer we are to people, the more likely we are to be friends

Front 46

mere exposure effect

Back 46

the more we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we like it

Front 47

similarity attraction effect and culture

Back 47

level of liking for study partner goes up with degree of similarity for westerners, but stays pretty low over all for japanese

Front 48

high v. low relational mobility

Back 48

high relational mobility refers to the ability to choose who are the ingroup members, rather than having that chosen for you. this leads to better overall relationships with your friends

Front 49

friends and enemies across culture

Back 49

people with high relational mobility tend to have more friends and fewer enemies, and vice versa

Front 50

Relational model theory types of relationships

Back 50

Communal sharing; authority ranking; equality matching; market pricing

Front 51

define social facilitation

Back 51

tendency to do better at stuff you’re good at, and worse with stuff you’re less good at, when your peers watch you - universal, even with roaches...

Front 52

define social loafing

Back 52

tendency to do worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks when in the presence of others and individual performance is not evaluated - tug of war example

Front 53

social striving in collaboration

Back 53

for westerners, better performance in individual efforts, low in collaborative efforts with either in or outgroup. for easterners, best performance is in collaboration with ingroup, individual and outgroup about the same

Front 54

negotiation strategy across cultures

Back 54

individualist cultures go for confrontation and adversity, demanding what they want. collectivist cultures go for compromise, suggesting solutions that the other party might go for

Front 55

the ultimatum game

Back 55

simple game theory, and not universal

Front 56

religion and well-being

Back 56

good resource for coping with stress, especially acculturation stress among immigrants - funerals reduce grief - collaborative view of god helps

Front 57

religion, values, motivations

Back 57

religion linked positively with traditional motivation, negatively with hedonistic motivation

Front 58

tarakeshwar’s dimensions

Back 58

religiosity: Ideological, Ritualistic, Experiential, Intellectual, Social (and define these)

Front 59

saraglou’s 4 Bs

Back 59

Believing, Bonding, Behaving, Belonging

Front 60

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development

Back 60

preconventional, conventional, postconventional

Front 61

moral reasoning in preconventional stage

Back 61

consequences

Front 62

moral reasoning in conventional stage

Back 62

maintaining social order -- following rules

Front 63

moral reasoning in postconventional stage

Back 63

abstract ethical prinicples

Front 64

kohlberg and universality

Back 64

precon and conventional stages are universal, postcog is not (but this doesn’t mean they’re less advanced, just that they have different values -- kohlberg is claiming that freedom and liberty are the highest moral callings, but that’s a eurocentric ideal)

Front 65

shweder’s codes of ethics

Back 65

autonomy, community, divinity

Front 66

shweder’s ethic of autonomy

Back 66

moral behavior respects individual rights

Front 67

shweder’s ethic of community

Back 67

moral behavior conforms to one’s role in a community or hierarchy (in eastern cultures, social obligations trump sense of justice)

Front 68

shweder’s ethic of divinity

Back 68

moral behavior is that which respects or preserves the natural order of things, as dictated by god (should the chickenfucker be punished?)

Front 69

ethic of divinity and SES

Back 69

low-SES people across cultures go by EoD, but there’s a split among high-SES folks, where some collectivist cultures are still pretty high in EoD, but america goes for EoA

Front 70

Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory

Back 70

Care, Fairness, Loyalty, Authority, Purity (and their opposiites) -- care and fairness are high for most everybody, but the others are only high for conservatives