Reading...
Play button
Play button
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;
63 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Brewer's dual-process model (3)
|
1. Identification
2. Determining Relevance (to goals) 3. Categorization (if not relevant) vs. personalization/individuation |
|
|
Anchor-input theory
|
Even if categorization is not used, serves as an anchor which is adjusted by new info
|
|
|
heuristic-systematic model
|
Dual processing occurs on a continuum, with effortless heuristic processing on one side and effortful systematic processing on the other
|
|
|
Sufficiency threshold
|
People will exert effort until they have a sufficient amount of confidence in their judgement
If not reached, 'confidence gap' exists > more effortful processing to close (thought to be how least effort principle works by some) |
|
|
XT100 study
|
* Evaluate an answering machine (XT100)
* Positive feedback on consumer reports vs. negative (IV) * Inconsistent information of negative reports should cause more systematic thinking * However, both groups desired to be confident in their decision |
|
|
Raising sufficiency threshold(3)
|
1. A vested interest in outcome of judgement
2. Goal of not appearing foolish in public 3. Being accurate as a goal |
|
|
Borgida Howard-Pitney relevant arguments
|
* subjects listen to debate on topic that was either personally relevant or not relevant (IV)
* Low relevance > more salient person regarded more favorably > heuristic processing * High relevance > ratings depended on argument > systematic processing *Vested interest increases sufficiency threshold |
|
|
Tetlock primacy effect (accountability)
|
* Making subjects accountable for learning information or not (IV)
* Accountable students less susceptible to primacy effect *Fear or looking foolish in public increases sufficiency threshold |
|
|
Neuberg/Fiske schizo study
|
*subjects had to interact with schizophrenic patient either for shits or for a task with cash reward (IV)
*How long do they evaluate (DV) * No goals > relied on category label, short eval. * Goal of cash > systematic processing, long eval. * goal of accuracy increases sufficiency threshold (not listed but this also has to do w/ vested interest) |
|
|
Lay epistemics (2)
|
1. Generate hypotheses for things in the social world
2. Test these to validate |
|
|
Seizing & Freezing
|
in regards to needing closure
seizing: desire for any closure freezing: desire for specific closure (ie current one) |
|
|
Debiasing (4 steps)
|
1. Awareness of being biased
2. Motivation to remove bias 3. Theories about what influence is and how it pushes judgement 4. Cognitive resources to unbias |
|
|
Nisbett & Wilson bias in film
|
* two groups watching film w/ background noise or not (IV) and rating it (DV)
* Did the noise affect your rating? Group w/ said it did * yet, no significant difference between ratings * Awareness is complex |
|
|
Wegner & Petty vacation + bias
|
* Subjects asked how big bias effect would be if thinking about Hawaii or Jamaica before rating midwestern city
* Bigger perceived effect > higher rating of midwestern city to eliminate |
|
|
Types of motivated reasoning (3)
|
1. Accuracy: covering goals, fear of invalidity, desire for self assessment, outcome dependency, acountability, responsibility etc. (basically logical reasons)
2. Impression : geared towards forming impression for interpersonal needs 3. Defense : aimed to protect certain view |
|
|
Ways in which people are protected from esteem damaging feedback(4)
|
1. Feedback is positive or sugar coated when negative
2. We choose acquaintances w/ similar views 3. Ambiguous feedback seen as positive 4. When we get negative feedback we can't ignore, we denigrate the source |
|
|
defensive pessimism
|
Create negative world view as defense mechanism in case of failure, situation not disposition if they fail
|
|
|
Self-handicapping
|
create obstacles to blame in case of failure
I failed because of x, not because I am incompetent > self protecting |
|
|
Coffee/Cancer study
|
* subjects read article about coffee consumption and breast cancer
* men did not give a fuck either way * women who did not drink coffee rated it as important, yet those that did drink rated as unimportant * Negative information > denigrate the source > resolve cog. diss. |
|
|
durability bias
|
Expect positive things to last (ex winning lottery) much longer than they do, faulty affective forecasting
|
|
|
focusing illusion
|
reason for faulty affective forecasting, focus on positive event (ex: lottery ticket) without negatives (deadbeat relatives coming out of the woodwork, debilitating cocaine abuse, daughters sucking dick etc.)
|
|
|
Illusion of control
|
Good things : dispositional
Bad things : situational |
|
|
Marble study
|
* two marbles in a bag, one wins a prize
* either pick a marble or are given one (IV) * how responsible are you for outcome? (DV) Those who picked (even though totally random) felt more responsible |
|
|
Self-verification theory
|
People want to confirm their self views not as an end of itself
Ultimate goal is bolstering the perception that the world is predictable/controllable According to SVT, negative feedback where one is known to be deficient is preferred |
|
|
Just world illusion
|
Bad people are punished, good people get nice things
Cognitive dissonance arises when this is violated, in an experiment people being shocked were denigrated afterwards to resolve cog.diss with this illusion |
|
|
Ultimate attribution error
|
Group version of self-delusions: positive outcomes are result of group, negative outcomes are result of situation
OPPOSITE for outgroups |
|
|
Sorority bolstering study
|
*Subjects in high status sorority or low status sorority (IV) and measured on bolstering (DV- put downs in general)
*High status did not bolster but low status did. Also low self esteem from either group did bolster |
|
|
negativity bias
|
people attenuate towards negative stimuli, more avoidant of loss than pursuant of gains
People do not simply average negative and positive info, negative is weighted more |
|
|
hierarchically restrictive schema
|
Attribute ratings in high ends have unrestricted implications for behavior vs. low end which is restrictive
Ex: If someone is really smart they can act retarded on occasion but if someone is retarded they won't occasionally derive the theory of relativity or anything |
|
|
preconscious perception
|
charged concepts (such as self) can be filtered for w/o our awareness
cocktail party effect |
|
|
iconic memory
|
AKA echoic memory, short term store of everything percieved
very small percentage goes through to active memory, dependent on filter |
|
|
perceptual readiness
|
power to facilitate the detection of information relevant to accessible concepts
|
|
|
Postman, Bruner, McGinnes subliminal perception study
|
*Showed subjects words in intervals below threshold of conscious perception, slowly increased
* words describing values listed as being important recognized quicker |
|
|
Bruner coin study
|
*Draw number of circular objects to scale, some of them coins
*Money drawn as larger, in proportion to value over size *larger effect for broke-ass participants *distortion of perceptions |
|
|
auto-motive
|
chronically accessible goals, motives, and needs that have the power to exert an influence on attention, judgment, and behavior across a wide array of interpersonal situations
Chronic goals lie in wait, and when appropriate contexts appear, these contexts trigger the goals and the pursuit of those goals |
|
|
Need for structure
|
intolerance of ambiguity to satisfy brain's need or categories to simplify and interpret the environment
Generally speaking, more susceptible to stereotyping, primacy effect, etc. |
|
|
Authoritarianism
|
Seeing world as dominators and dominated, correlated w/ harsh upbringing
Black and white morality Fascism scale |
|
|
Social Dominance Orientation
|
*Status quo, yeah!
*My group > other groups, let's keep this structure going (hierarchy legitimizing myths) |
|
|
How SDO asserts itself(2)
|
1. By influencing the social structures that determine the opportunities and penalties facing people from different social groups
2. By determining the attitudes of individual people toward things such as race relations and social policy, and by determining the types of jobs that individuals feel are appropriate for people form particular groups to pursue |
|
|
Interpretation vs. comparison goals
|
Epistemic vs. social esteem, both pursued chronically but may counteract each other
|
|
|
chronic goals and relationships
|
*people primed with name of a friend acted prosocially to a stranger vs. control
*goal of acting prosocially is chronically activated with friend, activating relationship activates goal |
|
|
Chameleon effect and perspective taking
|
higher perspective taking scale > more chameleon effect
|
|
|
Intimacy goals and condoms
|
Theory: higher identity goals = more sex = should use condom
Result: intimacy goals predicted condom use because they were able to communicate (pretty gay if you ask me) |
|
|
perceptual defense
|
*preconscious mechanism to protect from unpleasant stimuli
* in experiment, taboo words took longer to recognize |
|
|
stereotypes and inhibition
|
brain inhibits irrelevant information to make relevant information more accessible
Ex: priming soccer hooligans, one would be slower to recognize 'intelligent' |
|
|
parallel-constraint-satisfaction model
|
not everything is activated when stereotype is encountered. Rather, certain information has a lower threshold of activation and some has a higher (inhibition)
|
|
|
attribution styles: 3 dimensions
|
1. personalization - dispositional or situational?
2. permanence- stable or temporary? 3. pervasiveness - global or specific? |
|
|
Kanger and Rodin attribution styles in nursing home
|
*One floor focused on control and choice of patients, other floor had everything planned nicely
* control and choice floor had better happiness and less death |
|
|
aversive racism
|
-explicitly not racist, implicitly racist
-use socially acceptable reaons to protect themselves from biases, such as expressing distaste over an event rather than groups |
|
|
every stereotype study ever
|
stereotype x made stereotyped concept y more available EGADS
threshold yadda yadda yadda |
|
|
stereotype jury study
|
-list of all sorts of details, stereotype consistent or inconsistent crime
-better recall w/ inconsistent crime > heuristic used to process consistent information and then closed w/out systematic processing |
|
|
stereotype strength and recall
|
stronger stereotypes filter out inconsistent information more easily
|
|
|
stereotype recall study
|
60 identical behaviors read by subjects, labelled introverted or extroverted
-information recalled in proportion to expectation formed prior |
|
|
contact hypothesis
|
eliminating stereotypes through contact
needs to be equal status, pursuing common goals, equal groups, counter stereotypic behavior |
|
|
entiativity
|
extent to which a group is seen as consistent
|
|
|
self regulation model of prejudice
|
recognize acting prejudice, act differently to compensate/reduce in order to eliminate unease/guilt
|
|
|
self esteem and stereotyping
|
stereotyping can be a form of self affirmation - a rational and predictable world
-experimentally, false feedback paradigms have created increased stereotyping |
|
|
interaction sequence (3)
|
1) Perceiver has currently activated goals (ex: to be nice, to get along)
2) Perceiver activates expectancies and cultural stereotypes (ex: Jews are cheap) -Perceiver acts in accord with expectancies and goals (ex: offers to pay for lunch) 3) Perceiver interprets the meaning of the action just observed, and either bolsters (or alters) the expectancy based on that action (ex: Jews really are cheap) |
|
|
Pygmalion in the classroom experiment
|
-Controlled for IQ, students split into bloomers (expected to increase) or not, randomly
-bloomers had higher increase in abilities over time due to expectancies |
|
|
stereotype threat
|
worried about how a stereotype affecting you is making people perceive your behavior
|
|
|
math test stereotype threat study
|
-high performance + relevance in math selected, men and women
-told either that test showed gender differences or did not -women performed worse when gender differences were stated > effect of stereotype threat |
|
|
Schiffer and Einstein
|
-Primed w/ either Einstein or Claudia Schiffer (supermodel) and had to complete intelligence task
-better results w/ Claudia (felt relatively more intelligent) |
|
|
Strahan thirst study
|
-primed people with word 'thirsty'
-had no effect on those that weren't thirsty, but had effect on those who were already thirsty, who drank more -priming only guides behavior if goals relevant are also primed |
