Study your flashcards anywhere!

Download the official Cram app for free >

  • Shuffle
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Alphabetize
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Front First
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Both Sides
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
  • Read
    Toggle On
    Toggle Off
Reading...
Front

How to study your flashcards.

Right/Left arrow keys: Navigate between flashcards.right arrow keyleft arrow key

Up/Down arrow keys: Flip the card between the front and back.down keyup key

H key: Show hint (3rd side).h key

A key: Read text to speech.a key

image

Play button

image

Play button

image

Progress

1/60

Click to flip

60 Cards in this Set

  • Front
  • Back
Automatic processing
Little effort
Little conscious awareness that you’re performing the task
Parallel processing - doing the task at the same time as other tasks
o Ex. Reading: identifying letters, recognizing words, understanding sentences all together
Normally fast
Little or no interference with other tasks
o Ex. A good driver, talking, putting on make-up and driving all at once
Controlled processing
High effort
Very aware
Serial processing - one task at a time
o Ex. Driving: remember to check the mirror, then put the car in gear, then move, then stop, then turn
Normally slow
A lot of interference!
o Ex. Learning to drive and trying to hold a conversation - tend to forget what you’re talking about, or run into things
Schemas
Information about a concept (people, place, things, etc.)
o Ex. Teachers have particular traits, behaviors.
Scripts
Schemas for events
Ex. When you go to a restaurant you know you get seated, order food, get drinks, get your meal, pay, leave the restaurant.
Priming
Concepts in memory are linked together
• When one concept is activated, energy spreads to the connected concepts
• Experiment:
o Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996)
o Unscramble sentences: rude, polite or neutral
o Then have to get experimenter
o Experimenter is busy talking to a confederate (pretending to be the next participant)
o “Rude” participants interrupted most often, “polite” participants interrupted least often
Framing
The same information presented in different ways can lead to different decisions
Attribution theory
Group of theories which describe how we explain other people’s behavior (making up why people did that)
Kelley’s Covariation Theory
Based on the covariation principle
o Attribute behavior to factors that are present with behavior, and absent when the behavior is absent
• Covariation information: (does she only drink around the same group or no?)
o Consensus - do other people do the same thing?
o Distinctiveness - is it a unique behavior for the individual?
• Consistency - does the person do the behavior repeatedly?
Heurisitics
Frequently we use shortcuts to make attributions - faster, but biased
Availability
Strategy based on how easily things come to mind
• The media may bias our decisions, by making certain things seem more likely
Another example:
• Things that you’ve done yourself may come to mind more easily than things done by others
o Ask husbands and wives to estimate their responsibility for 20 household chores (making dinner, watching the kids, grocery shopping)
o They both claimed to have more responsibility for the activities!
Representativeness
You make a decision based on how representative an example is of a population
Actor-observer effect
Make situational attributions for our own behavior (but personal attributions for other people’s behavior)
Fundamental Attribution Error
Focus on personal causes instead of situational factors in understanding other people’s behavior
• Why does this happen?
• Attribution is a 2-step process
o Step 1 - easy & automatic; observe behavior, personal attribution
o Step 2 - difficult, effortful; situational attribution
• When we do this for whole groups of people, it’s called Ultimate Attribution Error
Confirmation Bias
Tendency to seek, interpret & create information that confirms our beliefs
• Perseverance of beliefs
o Tendency to maintain beliefs, with ambiguous or false information
• Confirmatory hypothesis testing
o Seeking evidence to support beliefs - leading questions
• Self-fulfilling prophecy
o Predictions about someone become true through subtle influences
Conjunction fallacy
• More event seems more likely as it becomes more specific because the specific elements seem true
• Ex. Remember Linda? Bank teller & feminist
• But really, the more specific the less likely something is because more things have to be true
Illusory correlation
Sometimes we think we see plausible relationships in observations that aren’t really there
Base rate fallacy
We tend to ignore base rate information
• Base rate: the actual probability of something
Gambler’s fallacy
If you watch a roulette wheel and it comes up red 8 times in a row, would you place your bet on red again, or on black?
• It may seem that after 8 reds in a row, a black is more likely - BUT the roulette wheel isn’t keeping track!
False consensus
Overestimate extent to which others share your opinions, behaviors, etc
False uniqueness
Underestimate extent to which others share your most unique (special, prized) characteristics
Statistical regression
• Regression to the mean: extreme behaviors, scores, etc. will tend to return to the mean
o Really good performance will become worse
o Really bad performance will become better
Illusion of control
We believe we can control random events
o Ex. Doing a rain dance, having a lucky charm when gambling
Magical thinking
2 things that touch each other pass properties
 Ex. May imagine contamination after wearing a sweater owned by someone with HIV
o Things that look alike share properties
 Ex. May avoid eating candy shaped like insect
o Thoughts can influence the world
 Ex. Thinking about bad things will make them happen
Counterfactual thinking
Imagine what didn’t happen (what might have been)
• Emphasize disappointment by thinking about a close success
o Coming in second
Emotion
o Subjective experience (I feel happy)
• Physiological response (increased heart rate)
o Behavioral or expressive response (smiling or laughing)
James-Lange Theory
Earliest psychological theory of emotion 1884
• Your body reacts to an event
• Then you decide how you feel
• Ex. Being dumped by a boyfriend/girlfriend makes you cry, so you feel sad because you cried


Problems with this theory
o The only way to have different emotions is to have different bodily responses
o But, we cry when we are happy OR sad
• Support for this theory
o Reducing the body’s ability to respond (I.e. spinal cord damage) does reduce emotional response
Facial feedback hypothesis
Izard, 1971
• Feedback from your facial muscles can strengthen or trigger an emotion
o Smiling makes you happy
Cannon-Bard Theory
Cannon was a major critic of James’ theory
• The thalamus in the brain receives information and passes it on to the cortex, creating emotion, and to the autonomic nervous system, creating bodily response
• Arousal & emotion happen together
Two factor theory
Schacter-Singer Theory
• 1960s
• 2 factors contribute to feeling an emotion
o 1: physiological arousal
o 2: cognitive interpretation
o Arousal + attribution = emotion
Love Bridge
3 versions of critical slide
• Neutral - woman riding bike
• Unusual - woman carrying bike
• Emotional - woman wrecked her bike
Emotional Stroop task
Show phobics words related to their phobias
o If you have an insect phobia you would take longer to name the color of words related to insects
• SPIDER CHAIR
Insufficient justification
behave in a way that isn’t consistent with your own attitudes without reward
Insufficient deterrence
don’t engage in a behavior, without threat of substantial punishment
Attitude-discrepant behavior
Insufficient deterrence
Insufficient justification
Attitude polarization
Attitudes become more extreme when people think about them
o Biased evaluation of information
• Look for support for your attitude, ignore evidence that goes against your attitude
Social Learning
Also called observational learning
o More likely to imitate behaviors that you see other people rewarded for
o And avoid behaviors that you see others punished for
Operant Conditioning
Condition voluntary behaviors using reinforcement or punishment
o Reinforcement increases frequency of a behavior, punishment reduces it
Classicial Conditioning
o Food --> saliva reflex
 Food is Unconditioned Stimulus
 Salivation is Unconditioned Response
o Bell --> attention orienting reflex
 Bell is Conditioned Stimulus
o Pair the Conditioned Stimulus with the Unconditioned Stimulus
o Conditioned Stimulus may cause salivating reflex (Unconditioned Response)
 Unconditioned Response has become the Conditioned Response
Mere exposure effect
Being exposed to something can change your attitude towards it
o Seeing something repeatedly will make you like it more
 Familiarity = liking
o Except, if you dislike something on the first exposure, repeated exposures make you like it less
 Strengthen the initial attitude of dislike
Measuring attitudes
May measure nonverbal behaviors (facial expression, tone of voice)
o Facial EMG
 Measure muscle contractions in face as an indication of emotion
o ERP (event related potential - a type of EEG)
 Measure changes in activity related to change (novel items), inconsistency, & positive/negative change
Bogus pipeline
Self-reports while attached to a fake lie detector (more likely to be honest)
Attitude scales
Multiple questions that are combined
 Likert scale
 Can be biased
Explicit Attitudes
o Controlled
o Conscious
Implicit Attitudes
Automatic
o Not conscious
Attitude
o Positive, negative or mixed reaction to a person, object or ideas
o Evaluations
4 steps are required to create behavior based on cognitive dissonance
Attitude-discrepant act with unwanted consequences
o Feeling of personal responsibility
o Arousal or discomfort
o Attribution of the arousal to the attitude-discrepant behavior
Cognitive dissonance theory
Inconsistency between attitudes and behavior creates unpleasant psychological tension
• Motivated to reduce cognitive dissonance, people change their attitudes
• Kinship selection
Protect own genes by helping close relative
Reciprocal altruism
Those who give also receive (if I help you, you’ll help me)
• Group selection
Members of a social group help each other survive
Egoistic
Motivated by desire to increase own welfare
Altruistic
Motivated by desire to increase another’s welfare
Empathy
Involves understanding & concern for another
 Cognitive: perspective taking
 Emotional: personal distress & empathic concern
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis
• Empathic concern for a person in need produces an altruistic motive for helping
 When altruistically motivated, people will help even when they can avoid it easily
o Not taking another person’s perspective creates the self-oriented emotion of personal distress, which can produce an egoistic motive to reduce your own distress (low empathy)
 Will only help if it is the only way to relieve personal distress
The bystander effect
• The presence of other people decreases the chances that an individual will help
Step 1: Noticing
 Notice that someone needs help, that something unusual is happening
 Potential helpers may be distracted
 Potential helpers may be caught up in own concerns
Step 2: Interpreting
 Need to interpret event as an emergency
 Ambiguity: people are less likely to help when a situation is unclear
 Less likely to help if they think attacker knows the victim
 Pluralistic ignorance: assume other bystanders know something that they don’t
Step 3: Taking Responsibility
 Take responsibility for providing help
 Diffusion of responsibility
• Belief that others should or will take responsibility
• Most likely when number of bystanders is high & number of victims is low
• Most likely under anonymity
• Responsibility can be increased by a person’s role
Step 4: Deciding how to help
Decide what to do
 Direct help is more likely when the person feels competent to help
 People can also help indirectly by calling for help
Step 5: Providing help
 Take action
 Audience inhibition
• Reluctance to help based on fear of making a bad impression on observers (may also fear that not helping will make you look bad)
 Costs-rewards comparison (I’ll be sued)
• When rewards to self & victim outweigh potential costs, people are more likely to help