Psychology

Front 1

social psychology

Back 1

the branch of psychology concerned with the way individuals' thoughts, feelings, and behaviors are influenced by others

Front 2

attribution processes

Back 2

how do people us attributions to explain behavior

Front 3

person perception

Back 3

the process of forming impressions of others

Front 4

social schema

Back 4

organized clusters of ideas about categories of social events and people

Front 5

stereotypes

Back 5

widely held beliefs that peoplehave certain characteristics because of their membership in a particular group

Front 6

illusory correlation

Back 6

occurs when people estimate that they have encountered more confirmations of an association between social traits than they have actually seen

Front 7

ingroup
outgroup

Back 7

a group that one belongs to and identifies with

a group that one does not belong to or identify with

Front 8

attributions

Back 8

inferences that people draw about the causes of events, others' behavior , and their own behavior

Front 9

internal attributions
external "

Back 9

ascribe the causes of behavior to personal dispositions, traits, abilities, and feelings

ascribe the causes of behavior to situational demands and environmental constraints

Front 10

Kelly's covariational model

Back 10

based on the assumption that people attribute behavior to factors that are present when the behavior takes place and absent when it does not

consider consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus

Front 11

consistency

Back 11

is the actor's behavior in a situation the same over time?

Front 12

distinctiveness

Back 12

is the person's behavior unique to the specific entity that is the target fo the person's actions

Front 13

consensus

Back 13

do other people in the same situation tend to respond like the actor

Front 14

have studies supported kelly's model?

Back 14

yes mostly, but people are not as deliberate as he makes them out to be, judgements are often colored by illogical biases

Front 15

fundamental attribution error

Back 15

refers to observers' bias in favor of internal attributions in explaining others' behavior

Front 16

defensive attribution

Back 16

tendency to blame victims for their misfortune, so that one feels less likely to be victimized in a similar way

Front 17

self-serving bias

Back 17

the tendency to attribute one's successes to personal factors and one's failures to situational factors

Front 18

individualism

Back 18

involves putting personal goals ahead of group goals and defining one's identity in terms of personal attributes rather than group memberships

Front 19

collectivism

Back 19

involves putting goup goals ahead of personal goals and defining one's identity in terms of the group one belongs to

Front 20

how does individualism and collectivism relate to patterns of attribution

Back 20

collectivist cultures are less prone to the fundamental attribution error and to the self-serving bias (exhibit self-effacing bias instead)

Front 21

interpersonal attraction

Back 21

refers to positive feelings toward another

Front 22

matching hypothesis

Back 22

proposes that males and females of approximately equal physical attractiveness are likely to select each other as partners

Front 23

reciprocity

Back 23

involves liking those who show that they like you
partners are especially happy when they idealize one another

Front 24

passionate love

Back 24

complet absorption in another that includes tender sexual feelings and the agony and ecstasy of intense emotion

Front 25

companionate love

Back 25

warm, trusting, tolerant affection for another whose life is deeply intertwined with one's own

Front 26

sternberg's expansion of companionate love
intimacy
commitment

Back 26

refers to warmth, closeness, and sharing in a relationship

an intent to maintain a relationship in spite of the difficulties and costs that may arise

Front 27

attitudes

Back 27

positive or negative evaluations of objects of thought

Front 28

3 types of components in attitudes

Back 28

cognitive, behavioral, affective

Front 29

cognitive
affective
behavioral components

Back 29

attitude made up of beliefs that people hold about the object of an attitude
attitude consists of the emotional feelings stimulated by an object of thought
consists of predispositions to act in certain ways towards an attitude object

Front 30

attitudes vary in:

Back 30

strength, accessibility, and ambivalence

Front 31

determinants of attitude strength:

Back 31

importance, vested interest, knowledge and information

Front 32

why don't attitudes lead directly to behavior?

Back 32

may contradict common norms to act on an attitude

Front 33

four parts of persuasion:

Back 33

source, receiver, message, channel

Front 34

source factors

Back 34

credibility: expertise, trustworthiness,
likablity: physical attractiveness, similarity

Front 35

message factors

Back 35

fear appeal vs. logic
one vs two sided arguments
repetition: validity effect (repeating a statement causes it to appear to be more valid)

Front 36

do appeals to fear work?

Back 36

yes, if they actually raise fear

Front 37

receiver factors

Back 37

personality
expectation
preexisting attitudes: disconformaion bias (scrutinizing arguments which go against existing attitudes)
intelligence

Front 38

learning theory

Back 38

classical conditioning can create affective components (pairing celebrities and products)

operant conditioning: agreement from others about an attitude reinforces it

observational learning: another person's attitudes may rub off on you

Front 39

dissonance theory

Back 39

inconsistency among attitudes propels people in the direction of attitude change (paid to tell others that the experiment was interesting, those paid less later said it was more interesting than those who were paid more)

Front 40

effort justification

Back 40

if you work hard and the reward sucks you'll say the reward was better than it really was (women had to read oscene passages in order to get into a discussion on sexuality then the discussion was boring)

Front 41

is dissonance supported?

Back 41

yes, mostly, people need different levels of cognitive consistency

E. Aronson-believes this occurs only when it is between self-concept and one's behvior

Steel and J. Aronson-occurs when people behave in a way that threatens their sense of self worth

Front 42

Bem's self-perception theory

Back 42

infer their attitudes from their behavior (as opposed to the traditional view in which behaviors extend from attitudes)

Front 43

elaboration likelihood model

Back 43

2 routes:
central people carefully ponder content of message

peripheral depend on nonmessage factors (the source for example)

Front 44

conformity

Back 44

occurs when people yield to real or imagined social pressure

Front 45

Asch

Back 45

lines, in unambiguous stimuli people resist conformity, though they still do

once one person breaks the conformity, subject is much more likely to also do so

Front 46

obedience

Back 46

form of compiance that occurs when people follow direct commands, usually from someone in a position of authority

Front 47

milgram's studies

Back 47

obedience, shocking another person for mistakes (65% administers 30 levels of shocks)

Front 48

group

Back 48

consists of two or more individuals who interact and are interdependent

Front 49

4 things most groups have

Back 49

roles, norms, communication structure, power structure

Front 50

bystander effect

Back 50

people are less likely to provide needed helf when they are in groups than when they are alone

Front 51

social loafing

Back 51

reduction in effort by individual when they work in groups as compared to when they work by themselves

Front 52

group polarization

Back 52

occurs when group discussion strengthens a groups's dominant point of view and producs a shift toward a more extreme decision in that direction

Front 53

groupthink

Back 53

occurs when members of a cohesive group emphasize concurrence at the expense of critical thinking in arriving at a decision

Front 54

group cohesiveness

Back 54

refers to the strength of the liking relationships linking gorup members to each other and to the group itself

Front 55

is groupthink more likely if there is higher cohesiveness?

Back 55

Janis claims that it is, but critics claim that it reduces it