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;
36 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Evidence for the need to belong |
baby rhesus monkey without contact with other rhesus monkeys but with access to "mother surrogates" props vaguely resembling monkeys |
as adolescents, monkeys highly fearful, inable to interact with peers, engaged in inappropriate sexual behavior like attacking potential mates. |
|
|
Relationships central to our identities (relational self) |
-14 descriptive sentences about a positive significant other and a negative significant other -20 sentences describing what they were like with that person -given a description of another person resembling either positive or negative significant other -14 statements describing themselves at that moment -exposed to a new person like s/o more likely to describe themselves in terms that resemble what they are like with that person |
-encounter someone who reminds us of a significant other, the specific "self" associated with that person is activated -transfer beliefs, feeling, and interaction patterns to that person |
|
|
Relational self cont'd Berk & Anderson 2000 |
Participants interact with a target person resembling a positive or negative s/o
Part. liked target resembling + s/o more than -- s/o
well liked target more likely to show positive emotion toward the participatn |
1) target reminds me of good old X, 2) I therefore like the target, 3) so I express positive affect toward the target, and 4) as a consequence, the target expresses positive affect toward me |
|
|
Communal relationships |
those in which the individuals feel a special responsibility for one another and often expect that their relationship will be long term |
|
|
|
Exchange relationships |
trade based relationships, often short term, in which individuals feel no special responsibility toward one another |
|
|
|
attribution theory |
the study of how people understand the causes of events |
|
|
|
causal attribution |
the process people use to explain both their own and others’ behavior |
|
|
|
explanatory style |
person’s habitual way of explaining events, assessed along three dimensions: internal/external, stable, unstable, and global/specific |
|
|
|
internal cause |
implicates self |
|
|
|
external cause |
does not implicate self |
|
|
|
stable cause |
implies things will never change |
|
|
|
unstable cause |
implies that things may improve |
|
|
|
global cause |
affects many areas of life (“I’m stupid”) |
|
|
|
specific cause |
applies only to a few areas of life (“I’m bad with names”) |
|
|
|
Attributions about controllability |
is the behavior controllable or up to the situation |
|
|
|
strongest cues of agency |
equifinality or goal directedness |
|
|
|
amygdala |
tuned to detecting agency |
|
|
|
covariation principle |
we try to determine what causes --- internal, external, symptomatic of the person in question or applicable to everyone---”covary” with the observation or effect we try to explain |
|
|
|
consensus |
what most people would do in any given situation---that is, does everyone behave the same way in that situation or do few other people behave that way? |
|
|
|
distinctiveness |
refers to what an individual does in different situations---whether a behavior is unique to a particular situation or occurs in many situations |
|
|
|
consistency |
refers to what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions---that is, whether the behavior is the same now as in the past or whether it varies |
|
|
|
covariation information |
an external attribution is likely if the behavior is: high in consensus: everyone else does it; high in distinctiveness: the person’s behavior is unique compared to past behavior; high in consistency: the person does the behavior frequently. aninternal attribution is likely if the behavior is: low in consensus: the person’s behavior is unique compared to other people’s behavior; low in distinctiveness: the behavior is consistent compared to that person’s past behavior; high in consistency: the person does that specific behavior consistently |
|
|
|
consensus |
what most people would do in any given situation---that is, does everyone behave the same way in that situation or do few other people behave that way? |
|
|
|
distinctiveness |
refers to what an individual does in different situations---whether a behavior is unique to a particular situation or occurs in many situations |
|
|
|
consistency |
refers to what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions---that is, whether the behavior is the same now as in the past or whether it varies |
|
|
|
covariation information |
an external attribution is likely if the behavior is: high in consensus: everyone else does it; high in distinctiveness: the person’s behavior is unique compared to past behavior; high in consistency: the person does the behavior frequently. an |
internal attribution is likely if the behavior is: low in consensus: the person’s behavior is unique compared to other people’s behavior; low in distinctiveness: the behavior is consistent compared to that person’s past behavior; high in consistency: the person does that specific behavior consistently |
|
|
discounting principle |
our confidence that a particular cause is responsible for a given outcome must be reduced if there are other plausible causes that might have produced it |
|
|
|
augmentation principle |
we can have greater confidence that a particular cause is responsible for a given outcome if other causes are present that we imagine would produce the opposite outcome |
|
|
|
augmentation/discounting experiment |
jones 1961: participants witnessed another in either an extraverted or introverted manner during an interview. Half of the participants were led to believe they were interviewing for submarine or astronaut job (submarine = extroverted, astronaut = introverted), and the participant ratings of the interviewee as introvert extrover followed logic of augmentation or discounting accordingly. Someone who acts withdrawn when he should be outgoing is assumed to be a true introvert vice versa. |
|
|
|
counterfactual thoughts |
thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened “if only” something had been done differently |
|
|
|
emotional amplification |
our emotional reaction to an event tends to be more intense if it almost did not happen |
|
|
|
discounting principle |
our confidence that a particular cause is responsible for a given outcome must be reduced if there are other plausible causes that might have produced it |
|
|
|
augmentation principle |
we can have greater confidence that a particular cause is responsible for a given outcome if other causes are present that we imagine would produce the opposite outcome |
|
|
|
augmentation/discounting experiment |
jones 1961: participants witnessed another in either an extraverted or introverted manner during an interview. Half of the participants were led to believe they were interviewing for submarine or astronaut job (submarine = extroverted, astronaut = introverted), and the participant ratings of the interviewee as introvert extrover followed logic of augmentation or discounting accordingly. Someone who acts withdrawn when he should be outgoing is assumed to be a true introvert vice versa. |
|
|
|
counterfactual thoughts |
thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened “if only” something had been done differently |
|
|
|
emotional amplification |
our emotional reaction to an event tends to be more intense if it almost did not happen |
|
