Psych 102 Midterm

Front 1

Person situation controversy

Back 1

even though traits are stable across time, specific trait doesn’t predict specific behavior/ not going to have behavior for every situation

Front 2

Distinctiveness Hypothesis

Back 2

find what makes us unique, highlight it in self concept

Front 3

Social comparison

Back 3

compare self to evaluate own abilities/opinions

DOWNWARD/UPWARD SOCIAL COMPARISON

Front 4

Glass self

Back 4

shape self concept around how THINK others feel about us

not how they ACTUALLY think about us

Front 5

self beliefs (make up self knowledge)

Back 5

o personal beliefs
o social self
o relational
o collective

Front 6

self image bias

Back 6

judge other’s personalities based on how similar/not they from ours

Front 7

self perception theory

Back 7

infer attitudes/feelings from observed behavior/situation

Front 8

misattribution of arousal

Back 8

mistake in assuming what causes arousal

Front 9

Locus of control

Back 9

amount feel that events in life are frm chance/internal control

INTERNAL VS EXTERNAL

Front 10

Sociometer hypothesis

Back 10

esteem is internal, is index of how much socially liked

Front 11

Self eval maintenance model

Back 11

motivated to see self as good in 2 ways
o Reflection (friend successful in domain don’t care about)
• Use others’ glory to feel good by helping friends succeed more with things not important to us
o Social comparison (use for stranger)
• Notice when better at things

Front 12

self serving bias

Back 12

tendency to see self favorably, to preserve pos self image

** blame failure = situation

Front 13

False consensus effect

Back 13

overestimate commonality of opinion/bad behaviors/failures

Front 14

False uniqueness effect

Back 14

underestimate commonality of abilities/good behaviors/successes

Front 15

Self handicapping

Back 15

protect self image by setting up situation where hard to succeed but has excuse for failure

Front 16

Spotlight effect

Back 16

overestimate amount of attn aimed at us

Front 17

Self reference effect

Back 17

form memories around primary interests
(Remember info more if relates to us)

Front 18

Self fulfilling prophecy

Back 18

belief comes true by behaviors (that are influenced by belief)

Front 19

Rosenthal/Pygmalion effect

Back 19

greater expectation → better performance

Front 20

Ekman’s facial feedback hypothesis

Back 20

change in expression → change in emotion

o face reflects & INFLUENCES internal states

ex: chewing on pen, thinking cartoon funny

Front 21

Rosenberg Scale

Back 21

standard scale to measure overall esteem

Front 22

Attribution

Back 22

explanation for behavior

Front 23

explanatory style

Back 23

person’s habitual way of explaining events
o internal/external (cause of event)
o stable/unstable (how perm it is)
o global/specific (extent of event affecting things)

Front 24

Attributional classes: Situational, Dispositional

Back 24

• Dispositional = cause of behavior frm something internal to person
• Situational = cause frm situation

Front 25

Attribution Theory:
Free choice
expectedness
Effects of behavior

Back 25

• More free choice = stronger disposition attribution
• Not expect = weaker disposition attrbt
• More pos effects frm behavior = less certain of WHY person did it

Front 26

Fundamental Attribution Error/ Correspondence Bias

Back 26

tendency to think behavior matches personality
- DISCOUNT SITUATION
- PAY MORE ATTN TO PERSON WHEN MAKE JUDGMNT

ex: Alex Trabec Effect

Front 27

Big 5 Model

Back 27

personality factors:

Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Openness
Extraversion

Traits stable as adults, change during develop
50% Heritable
Culturally Universal

Front 28

perceptual salience

Back 28

when figure out others behavior, pay more attn to person instead of situation

Front 29

actor/observer difference

Back 29

•look at own behavior = we are actor (know ourselves so look @ situation)
•look @ others = we are observer (bc don’t know person)

Front 30

I <3 fidel castro exp:

Back 30

o 2 speeches (one pro, one anti), writer had free choice vs assigned
o Anti castro writers = readers attributed to anti castro attitudes
• Even though didn’t have free choice → still attributed behavior to personality

Front 31

Kelly Covariate Model :
Consistency
distinctiveness
consensus

Back 31

• consistent with previous behavior
• behavior distinct from situation? Does this with all situations?
• Other ppl do behavior? Only you?

high distin/consensus = external attrb
low distin/consensus = internal attrb

• Mary not usually sarcastic (low consistency + high distinctiveness) & others also sarcastic to M. = external

Front 32

Discounting principle

Back 32

other possible causes of behavior present → perceived cause is discounted
- more pos effects frm behavior = less certain WHY did behavior

ex: rewards for grades --> not sure if worked hard:
to do well
for $$

Front 33

Augmentation principle

Back 33

other causes present that would predict opp behavior → strengthen attrbtn

ex: threatened to be killed for beliefs & still believe

Front 34

Counterfactual thoughts

Back 34

'If only' thoughts

Front 35

Emotional amplification

Back 35

incr in emotional rxn to event = how easy to imagine event not happening

ex: think easy about not grad = more emotional

Front 36

Pluralistic ignorance bias

Back 36

act against private beliefs to conform to what they think is the group norm

ex: think other students more comfortable w/ drinking than they were

Front 37

Sharpening

Back 37

emphasize important things when tell other person a story

Front 38

Leveling

Back 38

de-emphasizing boring things

Front 39

Bad News Bias

Back 39

Media overexaggerates bad things

• Correlation with time spent watching TV & thinking you’re going to be victim

Front 40

Asch Primacy Study

Back 40

People read list of traits & rated person on how positive/neg

FIRST THING READ = MOST IMPORTANT (primacy effect)

Front 41

Pos & Neg framing

Back 41

- avoid neg framing, endorse pos framing

ex: 75% fat free vs 25% fat ground beef

Front 42

Cognitive miser

Back 42

use as little info as possible, lots of cog shortcuts when processing info

- use schemas, selective attn

Front 43

Confirmation bias

Back 43

look for info that confirms preconception (self verification)

Front 44

Belief perseverance

Back 44

persistence of initial conception
• Even though WHY you think so = false, still think your explanation = right

Front 45

Representative Heuristics

Back 45

assume someone part of group if they resemble typical group member

ex: Tom's description = means he's an engineer
- ignore base rate info (stats)

Front 46

Availability heuristic

Back 46

Think of something easier = think thing is more common

- interesting stories > stat info
ex: more likely to die in plane crash bc think of crashes easier EVEN THOUGH STAT LESS LIKELY

Front 47

Anchor & adjustment heuristic

Back 47

make estimates → use anchor value & adjust from there

-ex: estimate mult problem in 5 sec

Front 48

attitude

Back 48

evaluation of people/obj/things

NOT PERSONS MOOD

Front 49

Attitude prop:
Valence
Extremity
Strength

Back 49

valence = overall eval = pos/neg
extremity = how pos/neg
strength = how strong/weak

Front 50

IAT (implicit association test)

Back 50

Measure rxn time on natural assoc in head btwn things

Front 51

Bogus pipeline

Back 51

Tell ppl know when lying → get them to tell truth (have pipeline to real attitude)

Front 52

Moral hypocrisy

Back 52

appear moral while avoid cost of being so

ex: want less violent games but violent games = most pop

Front 53

Specificity Principle

Back 53

to predict behavior, match level of specificity btwn attitude & behavior

- specific behavior/attitude: recycle newsp = recy news @ home
- general behavior/attitude: environ friendly behavior = helping environ

Front 54

Theory of Planned Behavior

Back 54

attitude toward behavior
subjective norm (how others think)
perceived behavioral control (how easy is intended behavior)

ex: want to tutor/friends say i should/nothing preventing me

Front 55

Self presentation theory

Back 55

Express behaviors to make us seem consistent/non-hypocrite

(don't need to actually change attitude)

Front 56

Dissonance theory (attitude change)

Back 56

Reduce dissonance/discomfort by changing attitude

- psych arousal

Front 57

Insufficient justification

Back 57

the less external justification for bad action → feel more responsible → attitude change

ex: $20/$1 --> changing opinion
(Said something inconsistent with belief & $1 not enough to justify lie → change belief )

Front 58

buyers remorse

Back 58

More free choice/responsibility have in decision → more dissonance
•After make decision: upgrade choice, downgrade non-choic

Front 59

Self perception theory (attitude formation)

Back 59

observe behavior → imply attitudes that caused it
- change attd to match observed behavior

-changing facial expression --> affect mood
ex: agree to persuasive editorial via headphones if move head up/down

** predict overjust effect

Front 60

Overjustification effect

Back 60

reward for something already like to do → red intrinsic motivation → behavior less appealing

- vs discounting principle (more pos beh effects = not sure why did beh)

Front 61

system justification theory

Back 61

motivated to believe systems/status quo are good/just

- justify systems = don't feel bad about inequality (--> disson)

Front 62

compensatory stereotype

Back 62

justifies inequality by showing that ‘no one has it all’

ex: poor but happy

Front 63

terror management theory

(maintain self esteem = protect self frm anxiety)

Back 63

use processes to deal with anxiety frm when aware of inevitable death

- indirect/symbolic immortality
- more commit to in group, uphold institution values

Front 64

social identity theory

Back 64

group part of → affect self esteem

Front 65

culture

Back 65

behaviors/attitudes/ideas shared by group & passed down

Front 66

Norms: (universal)
friendship
status
incest taboo
war

Back 66

status= talk in specific way (familiar vs formal)
war = uniforms, human treatment of prisoners

Front 67

Independent Self Concept

Back 67

- personal identity, western

Front 68

Interdependent Self Concept

Back 68

- social identity, collectivist cultures

Front 69

Cultural Diff:
Norms (personal space, being late, life pace)
perceptions (notice/describe world)
self concept
correspondence bias
cog dissonance

Back 69

norms:
- personal space: indep = bigger space
- late: interdep = more accepting of being late
- life pace: indiv = faster

perceptions:
- indiv = describe major feature, inter = details

self concept:
- inter = group identities, don't need to see self favorably

correspondence bias:
- inter = attribute behav to disposition but will red bias w/ situational factors

dissonance:
- inter = red indiv dissonance less (vs group dissonance)

Front 70

Predicting conformity:
size
unamity
cohesion
status
public response/prior commit

Back 70

conform more:

big group, unanimous, more cohesion, higher status, public response

Front 71

Obedience

Back 71

conformity frm AUTHORITY

incr obed: emotional distance frm victim, closeness/legitimacy of authority, gradual incr of bad behavior, fear of violating norm

Front 72

compliance

Back 72

conformity frm DIRECT REQUEST

Front 73

Milgram Experiment (shock & obedience)

Back 73

result: 65% obeyed = end of shock dial, EVERYONE went to 300 v (when person started to complain)

obey bc: socialization of obedience, gradual incr of shock = rationalization, diffusion of responsibility (put it on authority)

decr obedience: low prestige setting (in office), person in same room, touch person, experimenter in diff room, exp = ordinary person, rebel

Front 74

Sheriff Study (norm formation)

Back 74

ask to see how far light moved --> change indiv answer to match group norm

*informational influence

Front 75

Informational Influence

Back 75

believe others behave correct --> copy behavior (use their behavior as info)

* ambiguity (don't know if answer right/wrong)
* no arousal/discomfort
* private conformity

Front 76

Normative Influence

Back 76

fear of neg social consequence of being diff --> conform to be accepted

* unambiguous (know right answer)
* arousal/discomfort
* public superficial conformity

Front 77

Asch Study (norm influence)

Back 77

everyone in room said wrong answer --> conform to wrong answer/be deviant frm group (75% conformed)

red conformity: write answer, 1 confederate said right answer

*normative influence