Psych Test 2

Front 1

cognitive dissonance theory

Back 1

the aversive drive state caused by holding 2 or more inconsistent cognitions, consonance is pleasant, dissonance is unpleasant, we have a motivation to reduce dissonance

Front 2

reduce dissonance

Back 2

change relevant behavior, change relevant cognition, add new consonant cognition

Front 3

post decision dissonance

Back 3

Dissonance aroused after making a decision, similar alternatives, irrevocability

Front 4

post decision dissonance study

Back 4

Monet prints - moved up or down in rankings

Front 5

Irrevocability: Gilovich & Ebert (2002)

Back 5

o Students make 2 photos and choose one to keep
o Decision is either revocable (4 days to swap) or irrevocable (never)
o Students either predicted what their satisfaction will be in 3 days or go away and report satisfaction 3 days later
o Joy of being stuck: irreversible decisions reported much more satisfaction than those of the reversible group
o Choice makes people less happy

Front 6

insufficient justification

Back 6

Dissonance aroused when one’s behavior does not appear justified by external forces

Front 7

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) - insufficient justification

Back 7

• All P’s go through tedious, boring study
• After, asked to stay and do next task, help with next study---pay one dollar or twenty dollars
• $20 participants --- I told someone it was very interesting, but I was paid 20 dollars to do it.
• $1 participants --- I told someone it was very interesting, but I was only paid one dollar to do it. –but why???
• Insufficient justification: expect the one dollar group to reduce their dissonance by actually liking the study more
• Given anonymous surveys: 20 dollar people hated it, one dollar people liked it
• Uncomfortable to say no to someone

Front 8

Justification of effort

Back 8

Tendency to increase liking for something we’ve worked hard to attain

Front 9

Aronson and Mills (1959) – initiation type experiment

Back 9

• Either randomly assigned to group, mild tasks to get in, more severe tasks to get in
• Listened to pre-recorded discussion, rate discussion
• Levels of initiation correlated with who rated the discussion higher or lower

Front 10

Overjustification effect

Back 10

When kids are paid to do something they like (e.g. reading, drawing), they end up liking it less

Front 11

Elaboration Likelihood Model (ELM) Petty and Cacioppo

Back 11

Low motivation and/or ability
• Persuaded on the basis of relatively superficial, easy to process cues
High motivation and/or ability
• Persuaded …

Front 12

Yale Attitude change approach

Back 12

o Who says what to whom
o Who: The Source of the communication
o What: The nature of the communication
o To whom: the nature of the audience

Front 13

Elaboration Likelihood Model Study

Back 13

o Presented ads for disposable razors
o Three independent variables: motivation, source, argument strength
• Celeb vs rando, good argument vs weak argument, etc
o Dependent variable: attitude toward the razor
o Results: in high motivation condition, people pay attention to the strength of the argument, in low motivation condition, celeb matters, but also celeb and strong argument was most

Front 14

Fear-arousing communications

Back 14

o The trick is to not scare people so much that they tune out the message
o Moderate fear + way to reduce fear

Front 15

Leventhal, 1970 - fear

Back 15

• Fearful message about tetanus shots
• ½ got fear appeal only → 3% got shots
• ½ got fear appeal + map to clinic → 28% got shots

Front 16

Milgram, Bickman, and Berkowitz (1969) - conformity

Back 16

passersby stopping and looking up,
more people originally looking up, more passersby who stop/look up

Front 17

conformity

Back 17

o Change in behavior due to the real or imagined influence of other people
o Most subtle, least recognized

Front 18

compliance

Back 18

o Change in behavior due to direct requests from another person
o Authority

Front 19

obedience

Back 19

o Change in behavior due to commands of an authority figure
o More effort to say no
o Milgram shock experiment

Front 20

Conformity → Compliance → Obedience

Back 20

o Increasing pressure on the individual
o Difficult to say no to conformity because not always conscious

Front 21

Why do people conform?

Back 21

o Curiosity, want to know something I don’t know
o To be accepted and liked
o Want to be liked by someone with power/will benefit you
o Conform because it is uncomfortable not to

Front 22

Informational Social Influence

Back 22

o Occurs when we believe others’ interpretation of a situation is more correct than ours
o Other people serve as a source of info for how to act
o Reflects a need to know what’s right

Front 23

Sherif’s Autokinetic Effect Study

Back 23

• Single P in dark room shown a single point of light
• Task: estimate distance that light moves
• Light is stationary but appears to move
• After practice trials, confederate comes into room
• Confederate gives consistently higher or lower estimates
• Result: Ps gradually conformed with confederate’s estimates

Front 24

Normative Social Influence

Back 24

o Occurs when we believe doing so will get others to like/accept us
o Others convey implicit or explicit social norms (rules about acceptable values and beliefs)
o Reflects a need to be accepted/liked

Front 25

Asch’s Line-Judgment Experiment

Back 25

o Ps run 1 at a time with several confederates
o Which of the three lines is the same length?
o Felt uncomfortable for them to not conform – once conformed once, continued to conform
o Easy and unambiguous task
o Control groups got answer right 100% of the time
o In practice trials, everyone agrees
o On 3rd trial, confederates choose obviously wrong line
o Results: 76% give at least 1 wrong answer

Front 26

Reflex Speed Study – Kassin and Kiechel (1996)

Back 26

o Confederate reads letters out loud, while Ps’ type, but don’t hit the ALT key!
o Fast vs. slow reading of the list
o 1 minute in, computer malfunctions
o Experimenter accuses Ps of hitting the ALT key
o All Ps initially deny it, but then confederate either reports seeing nothing (no witness condition) or “admits” to seeing P press forbidden key (witness condition)
o Experimenter demands P sign handwritten confession

Front 27

Public conformity vs. Private acceptance

Back 27

we may conform outwardly to keep harmony, but know the ‘right’ answer inside AND when we’re not sure we’re more likely to use others’ opinions, beliefs, behaviors, etc to inform our own behavior

Front 28

Composition of Groups

Back 28

o Groups have social norms to guide behavior
o Groups have well-defined social roles
o Vary in level of group cohesiveness

Front 29

Social norms

Back 29

o Implicit or explicit rules about acceptable behaviors, values, and beliefs of members of a group
o Berkley Naked Man

Front 30

social roles

Back 30

o Shared expectations about how particular group members should behave
o Potential costs
• Individual personality may be taken over by power of role
• Violation of social roles meets with censure from other group members

Front 31

cohesiveness

Back 31

How tightly bound the group is and how much group members like each other and the group

Front 32

Milgram Prison experiment

Back 32

glasses, uniforms, numbers, nightsticks, solitary confinement, power, control etc.

Front 33

Deindividuation

Back 33

o The state in which a person loses the sense of him or herself as an individual
o Occurs: in crowds, when physically anonymous, group chanting or stomping – uniforms
o Effects of deindividuation
o Brandon Vedas, a 21 year old man in a chatroom
o Took a fatal overdose of pills while others egged him on

Front 34

social facilitation

Back 34

Presence of others strengthens well-learned or dominant responses but inhibits less practiced or new responses

Front 35

social loafing

Back 35

o People to perform worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks if they are in a group and not being individually evaluated
o Audience matters if they can identify you or not

Front 36

social loafing

Back 36

o People to perform worse on simple tasks and better on complex tasks if they are in a group and not being individually evaluated
o Audience matters if they can identify you or not

Front 37

Evaluation, Arousal, and Task Complexity

Back 37

o Presence of others → Evaluation apprehension → arousal → enhanced performance or impaired performance on complex tasks
o Presence of others → no evaluation apprehension → relaxation → impaired performance on simple tasks or enhanced performance on complex tasks

Front 38

Social facilitation in cockroaches

Back 38

o Escape from light
o Simple vs. complex maze
o Audience or no audience
o Faster in simple when they had an audience
o Slower in complex ??

Front 39

Group polarization

Back 39

o Tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of their members
o Can shift to either greater risk or greater caution

Front 40

groupthink

Back 40

Kind of thinking in which maintaining group cohesiveness and solidarity is more important than considering the facts of what is being discussed…? – table in book

Front 41

emotion

Back 41

A brief physiological and psychological response to an event that is felt subjectively and prepares a person for action

Front 42

physiology

Back 42

o Sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems
• Heart rate, blood pressure, skin conductance, finger temp
o Central nervous system
• Brain etc.
o Profiles and locations help us understand arousal, intensity and possible circuits, but not to identify emotion

Front 43

Levenson, Ekman, and Friesen (1990)

Back 43

o Directed Facial Action Task (DFAT)
• Pull eyebrows down and together
• Raise your upper eyelid
• Push your lower lip up and press your lips together
o Findings:
• Participants were able to identify the emotion from the instructions
• Reliable physio profiles
o Can’t go from physio to emotion label

Front 44

James-Lange theory

Back 44

o Specific bodily (physio) response tells us what emotion we are feeling, phenomenology comes from physiology
o Event → Specific bodily response → subjective emotion
o See a bear, increase HR, sweat, run. THEN say “I’m scared”

Front 45

Two-Factor Theory of emotion

Back 45

o Schacter and Singer (1964)
o Arousal is generalized, not specific
o All emotions are the same
o Event → general arousal + cognitive appraisal → emotion

Front 46

Two-factor theory of love

Back 46

o Builds on Schacter and Singer’s 2-factor theory of emotion
o Romantic attraction = unexplained arousal + attribution of arousal to romantic partner

Front 47

the bridge study (Dutton and Aron, 1974)

Back 47

• Males crossed a bridge
• Attractive experimenter
• At end of study, gave them her phone number, they could call if they had questions
• Results: if rickety, 50% went home and called, if solid, only 13%
• Other: waits until after bridge to give number
• Rickety bridge with HR up → I like her, then call

Front 48

emblems

Back 48

thumbs up, giving the finger

Front 49

morality

Back 49

o A system of principles that guide evaluative judgments of good or bad in the character or actions of another
• Obligation
• Inclusion – everyone is subject to rules
• Sanctions – if not followed, punished
o Killing, incest, stealing, fidelity, lying

Front 50

Kohlberg: moral reasoning

Back 50

o Cognitive approach:
• Result of a reasoning process
• Levels of reasoning (like Piaget’s developmental stages)
• Judged not by the decisions one makes, but the reasons behind them

Front 51

Kohlberg's levels/stages

Back 51

• Preconventional level – to get something back or to not be punished
• Conventional – doing it because other people have sense that it is right or wrong – other people might think poorly of me, duty – others expect of you, against the law etc.
• Postconventional level – understand over time that it is wrong

Front 52

Kohlberg Heinz dilemma

Back 52

steal the medicine or not? asked different age groups

Front 53

problems with Kohlberg

Back 53

• Conscious? Controllable?
• Culturally biased?
• Western, male perspective
• Focus on justice, rights, and autonomy
• Excludes caring and duties to others
• How would Kohlberg deal with this?

Front 54

Social Intuitionist Model (Haidt, 2001)

Back 54

o Two step model:
1. Make moral judgment based on emotional reaction: “Ew, that’s wrong”
2. Try to justify evaluations based on a priori moral theories (e.g., harm)

Front 55

Study of the two-step model (Haidt, Koller, and Dias, 1993)

Back 55

• P’s in U.S. and Brazil read scenarios
• Harmful (e.g., push off swing)
• Violated social convention (e.g., eat with hands)
• Harmless, but offensive (e.g., burn flag, eat dog, sex with chicken)
• P’s reported whether the action bothered them and whether the person should be punished
• P’s also report emotion felt and why person should be punished
• Different results depending on U.S. and Brazil and SES

Front 56

introspection

Back 56

the process whereby people look inward and examine their own thoughts, feelings, motives

Front 57

self-awareness theory

Back 57

idea that when people focus their attention on themselves, they evaluate and compare their behavior to their internal standards and values

Front 58

causal theories

Back 58

theories about the causes of one's own feelings and behaviors; often we learn such theories from our culture (e.g., "absence makes the heart grow fonder")

Front 59

reasons-generated attitude change

Back 59

attitude change resulting from thinking about the reasons for one's attitudes; people assume their attitudes match the reasons that are plausible and easy to verbalize

Front 60

self-perception theory

Back 60

the theory that when our attitudes and feelings are uncertain or ambiguous, we infer these states by observing our behavior and the situation in which it occurs

Front 61

impression management

Back 61

the attempt by people to get others to see them as they want to be seen

Front 62

ingratiation

Back 62

process whereby people flatter, praise, and generally try to make themselves likable to another person, often of higher status

Front 63

self-handicapping

Back 63

strategy whereby people create obstacles and excuses for themselves so that if they do poorly on a task, they can avoid blaming themselves

Front 64

impact bias

Back 64

the tendency to overestimate the intensity and duration of our emotional reactions to future negative events

Front 65

lowballing

Back 65

unscrupulous strategy whereby salesperson induces a customer to agree to purchase a product at a very low cost, subsequently claims it was error, then raises price, frequently customer will agree to purchase

Front 66

external justification

Back 66

reason or explanation for dissonant personal behavior that resides outside the individual (e.g., in order to recieve a large reward or avoid a severe punishment

Front 67

internal justification

Back 67

reduction of dissonance by changing something about oneself (e.g., attitude or behavior)

Front 68

counterattitudinal advocacy

Back 68

stating an opinion or attitude that runs counter to one's private belief or attitude

Front 69

hypocrisy induction

Back 69

arousal of dissonance by having individuals make statements that run counter to their behaviors and then reminding them of the inconsistency between what they advocated and their behavior. the purpose is to lead individuals to more responsible behavior

Front 70

insufficient punishment

Back 70

dissonance aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity or object, usually resulting in individual's devaluing the forbidden thing

Front 71

self-persuasion

Back 71

long-lasting form of attitude change that results from attempts at self-justification

Front 72

attitudes

Back 72

evaluations of people, objects, and ideas

Front 73

cognitively based attitude

Back 73

an attitude based primarily on people's beliefs about the properties of an attitude object

Front 74

affectively based attitude

Back 74

an attitude based more on people's feelings and values than on their beliefs about the nature of an attitude object

Front 75

classical conditioning

Back 75

phenomenon whereby a stimulus that elicits an emotional response (e.g. your grandmother) is repeatedly paired with a neutral stimulus that does not (e.g. the smell of mothballs) until the neutral stimulus takes on the emotional properties of the first stimulus

Front 76

operant conditioning

Back 76

phenomenon whereby behaviors we freely choose to perform become more or less frequent, depending on whether they are followed by a reward (positive reinforcement) or punishment

Front 77

behaviorally based attitude

Back 77

an attitude based on observations of how one behaves toward an attitude object

Front 78

explicit attitudes

Back 78

attitudes that we consciously endorse and can easily report

Front 79

implicit attitudes

Back 79

attitudes that are involuntarily uncontrollable, and at times unconscious

Front 80

persuasive communication

Back 80

communication (e.g. a speech pr television ad) advocating a particular side of an issue

Front 81

elaboration likelihood model definition

Back 81

model explaining two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: centrally, when people are motivated and have the ability to pay attention to the arguments in the communication, and peripherally, when people do not pay attention to the arguments but are instead swayed by surface characteristics (e.g. who gave the speech)

Front 82

central route to persuasion

Back 82

the case whereby people elaborate on a persuasive communication, listening carefully to and thinking about the arguments, as occurs when people have both the ability and the motivation to listen carefully to a communication

Front 83

need for cognition

Back 83

personality variable reflecting the extent to which people engage in and enjoy effortful cognitive activities

Front 84

heuristic-systematic model of persuasion

Back 84

an explanation of the two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: either systematically processing the merits of the arguments or using mental shortcuts (heuristics), such as "experts are always right"

Front 85

attitude inoculation

Back 85

making people immune to attempts to change their attitudes by initially exposing them to small doses of the arguments against their position

Front 86

reactance theory

Back 86

idea that when people feel their freedom to perform a certain behavior is threatened, an unpleasant state of reactance is aroused, which they can reduce by performing the threatened behavior

Front 87

attitude accessibility

Back 87

strength of the association between an attitude object and a person's evaluation of that object, measured by the speed with which people can report how they feel about the object

Front 88

theory of planned behavior

Back 88

the idea that the best predictors of a person's planned, deliberate behaviors are the person's attitudes toward specific behaviors, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control

Front 89

subliminal messages

Back 89

words or pictures that are not consciously perceived but may nevertheless influence people's judgments, attitudes, and behaviors

Front 90

private acceptance

Back 90

conforming to other people's behavior out of a genuine belief that what they are doing or saying is right

Front 91

public compliance

Back 91

conforming to other people's behavior publicly without necessarily believing in what the other people are doing or saying

Front 92

contagion

Back 92

the rapid spread of emotions or behaviors through a crowd

Front 93

mass psychogenic illness

Back 93

occurrence, in a group of people, of similar physical symptoms with no known physical cause

Front 94

social norms

Back 94

implicit or explicit rules a group has for the acceptable behaviors, values, and beliefs of its members

Front 95

social impact theory

Back 95

idea that conforming to social influence depends on the strength of the group's importance, its immediacy, and the number of people in the group

Front 96

idiosyncrasy credits

Back 96

tolerance a person earns, over time, by conforming to group norms; if enough idiosyncrasy credits are earned, the person can, on occasion, behave defiantly without retribution from the group

Front 97

minority influence

Back 97

case where a minority of group members influences the behavior or beliefs of the majority - global warming

Front 98

injunctive norms

Back 98

people's perceptions of what behaviors are approved or disapproved of by others

Front 99

descriptive norms

Back 99

people's perceptions of how people actually behave in given situations, regardless of whether the behavior is approved or disapproved of by others

Front 100

group

Back 100

three or more people who interact and are interdependent in the sense that their needs and goals cause them to influence each other

Front 101

social roles

Back 101

shared expectations in a group about how particular people are supposed to behave

Front 102

process loss

Back 102

any aspect of group interaction that inhibits good problem solving

Front 103

transactive memory

Back 103

combined memory of two people that is more efficient than the memory of either individual

Front 104

groupthink

Back 104

maintaining agreement is more important than the facts etc

Front 105

group polarization

Back 105

tendency for groups to make decisions that are more extreme than the initial inclinations of its members

Front 106

great person theory

Back 106

idea that certain key personality traits make a person a good leader, regardless of the situation

Front 107

transactional leaders

Back 107

leaders who set clear, short-term goals and reward people who meet them

Front 108

transformational leaders

Back 108

leaders who inspire followers to focus on common, long-term goals

Front 109

contingency theory of leadership

Back 109

idea that leadership effectiveness depends both on how task-oriented or relationship-oriented the leader is and on the amount of control and influence the leader has over the group

Front 110

task-oriented leader

Back 110

a leader who is concerned more with getting the job done than with workers' feelings and relationships

Front 111

relationship-oriented leader

Back 111

leader who is concerned primarily with workers' feelings and relationships

Front 112

social dilemma

Back 112

conflict in which the most beneficial action for an individual will, if chosen by most people, have harmful effects on everyone

Front 113

tit for tat strategy

Back 113

means of encouraging cooperation by at first acting cooperatively but then always responding the way your opponent did (cooperatively or competitively) on the previous trial

Front 114

public goods dilemma

Back 114

social dilemma in which individuals must contribute to a common pool in order to maintain the public good

Front 115

commons dilemma

Back 115

social dilemma in which everyone takes from a common pool of goods that will replenish itself is used in moderation but will disappear if overused

Front 116

negotiation

Back 116

form of communication between opposing sides in a conflict in which offers and counteroffers are made and a solution occurs only when both parties agree

Front 117

integrative solution

Back 117

solution to a conflict whereby the parties make trade-offs on issues according to their different interests; each side concedes the most on issues that are unimportant to it but important to the other side

Front 118

social perception

Back 118

study of how we form impressions of and make inferences about other people

Front 119

nonverbal communication

Back 119

way in which people communicate, intentionally or unintentionally, without words - facial expressions, tone of voice, gestures, body position, movement, touch, gaze

Front 120

encode

Back 120

perform non-verbal communication

Front 121

decode

Back 121

interpret non-verbal communication

Front 122

affect blend

Back 122

facial expression in which one part of the face registers one emotion while another part registers a different one

Front 123

display rules

Back 123

culturally determined rules about which nonverbal behaviors are appropriate to display

Front 124

implicit personality theory

Back 124

schema used to group various personality traits together - someone who is kind will be generous as well

Front 125

analytic thinking style

Back 125

focus on properties of objects without considering their surrounding context - Western

Front 126

holistic thinking style

Back 126

focus on overall context, East Asian cultures

Front 127

independent view of self

Back 127

way of defining oneself in terms of one's own internal thoughts, feelings, and actions and not in terms of thoughts, feelings, and actions of other people

Front 128

interdependent view of self

Back 128

way of defining oneself in terms of one's relationships to other people; recognizing that one's behavior is often determined by the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others

Front 129

task-contingent rewards

Back 129

rewards that are given for performing a task, regardless of how well the task is done

Front 130

performance contingent rewards

Back 130

rewards that are based on how well we perform a task

Front 131

misattribution of arousal

Back 131

process whereby people make mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do

Front 132

appraisal theories of emotion

Back 132

theories holding that emotions result from people's interpretations and explanations of events, even in the absence of physiological arousal

Front 133

fixed mindset

Back 133

idea that we have a set amount of an ability that cannot change

Front 134

growth mindset

Back 134

idea that our abilities are malleable qualities that we can cultivate and grow

Front 135

moral transgressions

Back 135

violations of others' rights, harm to others

Front 136

social convention transgressions

Back 136

violations of social norms such as how we eat, greet each other, gender based roles, etc.

Front 137

ethic of autonomy

Back 137

framework of moral reasoning centered on protecting one's own freedom and rights to pursue own interests

Front 138

ethic of community

Back 138

duty, status, hierarchy, interdependence, protect relationships and roles within group/community

Front 139

ethic of divinity

Back 139

purity, sanctity, pollution, and sin etc.

Front 140

distributive justice

Back 140

type of justice based on whether people think the outcomes for them are fair or unfair

Front 141

procedural justice

Back 141

type of justice based on whether process by which rewards and punishments are distributed is fair or unfair

Front 142

restorative justice

Back 142

actions people take, such as apologies or punishment, to restore justice