Social & Cultural Midterm Exam

Front 1

Social Cognition

Back 1

How we think about and perceive others; how we interpret information about ourselves and others.

Front 2

Social Concept

Back 2

Beliefs about who we are.

Front 3

Self-Schemas

Back 3

mental frameworks or representations that help us describe, predict, etc.

Front 4

Unified Self-Schema

Back 4

GLOBAL view - these are individuals who view themselves as stable across situations; they maintain consistent attributes such as interpretations and reactions.

Front 5

Differentiated Self-Schema

Back 5

Individuals who view themselves as changing in different circumstances; these individuals have the ability to compartmentalize.

Front 6

Self-Schema Components

Back 6

Actual Self - realistic impression of oneself.

Ideal Self - who we would like to be in an ideal world.

Ought Self - morally who you think you "ought" to be.

Front 7

Self Esteem

Back 7

How we evaluate ourselves; these are affective or emotional components.

Front 8

Looking-Glass Self

Back 8

Sense of ourselves from the point of view of other people.

We come to know ourselves by imagining what others think of us.

Front 9

Self Perception

Back 9

When internal cues are hard to interpret, we turn to our behavior for insight.

Ex: guy whose friend says "oh you must really like her!" in regards to them going out a few times; friend then says "well, yea, I guess so..."

Front 10

Social Comparison (Festinger)

Back 10

Involves comparing ourselves to others in a number of situations.

Front 11

Downward Social Comparison

Back 11

Selecting someone we believe isn't as good as us in something and comparing ourselves to them for a self esteem boost.

Front 12

Self-Awareness Theory

Back 12

1) When prompted by certain situations an individual notices their faults and discrepancies.
2) Some people are just more self-focused.

Front 13

Self-Focusing Persons

Back 13

1) Private Self Consciousness - introspective individuals
2) Public Self-Consciousness - "image conscious" individuals who are more concerned with how they come across socially.

Front 14

Implicit Egotism

Back 14

Subtle form of self-enhancement

Front 15

Self Serving Cognitions

Back 15

Thoughts that reflect positively on us.

Ex: overestimating performance on a test, then when the score is not good saying the test is invalid.

Front 16

Self Handicapping

Back 16

Self sabatoging behavior.

Ex: partying all night before the GRE so we have an excuse if our score isn't good.

Front 17

Bask in Refleced Glory

Back 17

Way to improve self esteem by associations with others considered to be important.

Front 18

Self Presentation

Back 18

Strategies used to shape other people's impressions of oneself.

Front 19

Strategic Self Presentation

Back 19

We have a goal in mind and want to be thought of in a certain way; often to gain sympathy or approval.

Front 20

Self Verification

Back 20

more authentic; not trying to gain anything, simply a desire for people to know who you are.

Front 21

Social Perception

Back 21

The process we use to understand others.

Front 22

Attribution Theory

Back 22

The way we explain causes of behavior.

Front 23

Internal Attribution

Back 23

Attributing things to personality characteristics.

Front 24

External Attribution

Back 24

Attributing things to environmental or situational factors.

Front 25

Covariation Principle (Kelley)

Back 25

Determines when and why we make internal vs. external attributions.

Front 26

1) Behavior

Back 26

Johnny raves about a new Thai restaurant

Front 27

2) Covariation Information

Back 27

1) Consensus - do the other people who went agree with Johnny?
2) Distinctiveness - how common is this kind of a reaction from Johnny?
3) Consistency - the agreement between consensus and distinctiveness.

Front 28

3) Attribution

Back 28

1) Personal Attribution - (low consensus + low distinctiveness) other people didn't like it and Johnny always responds that way.
2) Stimulus Attribution - (high consensus + high distinctiveness) other people did like it and Johnny rarely raves about a restuarant.

Front 29

Attributional Bias

Back 29

We make attributions and other decisions using shortcuts as much as possible.

Front 30

Attributional Bias -

Cognitive Heuristic

Back 30

We do this to minimize the information coming at us.

Front 31

Attributional Bias -

Availability Heuristic

Back 31

We make judgments based on how easily available an example comes to mind.

Ex: your sis just got a divorce bc hubby cheated, so when a friend tells you she is getting one you assume it's for the same reason.

Front 32

Attributional Bias -

False Consensus Effect

Back 32

Overestimating the extent to which others share your opinion on something.

Front 33

Attributional Bias -

Base Rate Fallacy

Back 33

Being insensitive to statistical information and more interested or influenced by dramatic examples.

Front 34

Fundamental Attribution Error (Ross)

Back 34

The tendency to make internal attributions about other's actions [often failures].

a) we are more likely to assume negative explanations for things we hear about other people.

Ex: hearing the new girl at work did something stupid and assuming she is just stupid rather than thinking that maybe she's having a bad day.

Front 35

Self-Serving Bias

Back 35

The tendency to take credit for successes (internal), but to make external attributions for failures.

Front 36

Stereotypes

Back 36

Basic cognitive process we use to minimize the amount of information we have to process.

Helps us to make judgments quicker.

Problem - we become too rooted and sometimes fail to examine information that contradicts our stereotype.

Front 37

Stereotype Activation

Back 37

The extent to which a stereotype is available.

Front 38

Prototype Stereotype

Back 38

Our idea of the most "typical" member of a group.

This is usually based on an abtract person, not an individual we know.

Front 39

Exemplar Stereotype

Back 39

Our idea of person that fits the stereotype - this is based on our interaction with a specific person.

Front 40

Associative Network Model of Stereotypes

Back 40

Information is stored in individual units or nodes in our memory.

When information is triggered is causes other nodes to trigger which result in our larger concept of a stereotype.

Front 41

Effects of Stereotyping

Back 41

Jane Elliot's trails with students.

Front 42

Effects of Stereotyping

Prejudice

Back 42

Affective component, + or -

Front 43

Effects of Stereotyping

Discrimination

Back 43

Behavioral component, + or -

Front 44

Effects of Stereotyping

Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Back 44

One's expectations about someone can cause the person to act in that way.

Front 45

3 Steps of Self-fulfilling Prophecy

Back 45

1) perceiver has expectations about the target.
2) perceiver acts in ways consistent with those beliefs.
3) target unwittingly adjusts their behavior to agree with the perceiver's expectations.

Front 46

Impression

Back 46

Coherent view of an individual.

Front 47

Impression

Impression Formation

Back 47

Bringing together or integrating information to form an impression or opinion.

Front 48

Impression

Trait Negativity Bias

Back 48

We tend to pay more attention to negative informaiton.

Front 49

Impression

Implicit Personality Theory

Back 49

Network of assumptions people make about the relationships among traits and behaviors.

Ex: knowing that a person has one particular trait leads us to assume they have a general set of traits we associate with that one trait.

Front 50

Impression

Primary Effect

Back 50

The tendency for info that is presented early to have a larger impact than info presented at a later time.

Front 51

Impression

Confirmation Bias

Back 51

It is very difficult to change our existing impressions and opinions.

We are unlikely to make changes even in the presence of info that contradicts or refutes our opinions.

Front 52

Impression
Confirmation Bias

Belief Perseverence

Back 52

We continue to maintain our beliefs even after they have been discredited.

Front 53

Conformity (IMPLCIT)

Back 53

The tendency to change our perceptions, thoughts, and behaviors in order to be consistent with a group's norms, rules, etc.

Front 54

Why do people conform??

Back 54

1) Informational Influence - person conforms because they believe the others are correct in their judgments/assessment of the info.

2) Normative Influence - person conforms because they fear the social consequences of not conforming (ex: being made fun of)

Front 55

Private Conformity

Back 55

Change of beliefs that occurs when you accept the position held by others.

Front 56

Public Conformity

Back 56

Superficial or overt change in behavior without the accompanying change in belief or opinion.

Front 57

Compliance (EXPLICIT)

Back 57

Involves a direct request to engage in some particular act.

Front 58

Foot-in-the-door

Back 58

The influencer gets you to comply to a small request and then presents you with a larger request.

Front 59

Low-balling

Back 59

The influencer secures agreement with a small request and then reveals hidden costs.

1) Commitment Effect - you have already agreed so you feel you can't back out.

Front 60

Door-in-the-face

Back 60

The influencer presents a completely outrageous request they know you won't accept, and then they come back with a "real" more reasonable request.

1) Reciprocal Concessions - they made a concession by offering something more reasonable, so I should concede too.

Front 61

That's-not-all

Back 61

The influencer begins with a large (inflated) request and then reveals some bonuses and discounts.

1) Planned Concessions - you get all of this for this amount, but that's not all! Now you get double!

Front 62

Obedience

Back 62

Going along with the commands of an authority/powerful individual while seemingly going against your better judgment.

Front 63

Milgram Study

Back 63

65% of the subjects delivered the maximum shock.

Front 64

Study of Administrative Obedience (Meeus & Raaijmakers, 1995)

Back 64

Similar to Milgram's Study except the admin was to verbally insult a job applicant when they answered a question incorrectly.

91% of people showed complete obedience despite indicating their discomfort with the task.

Front 65

Social Facilitation

Back 65

The improvement of performance when in the presence of others.

Front 66

Social Interference

Back 66

The impairment of performance when in the presence of others.

Front 67

Altruism

The Bystander Effect

Back 67

Reluctance or hesitancy to come to the aid of someone who appears to be in distress.

Front 68

Altruism

Diffusion of Responsbility

Back 68

Assuming someone else will do something.

Diffusion increases as the number of people present increases.

Front 69

Altruism

Implicit Bystander Effect

Back 69

Simply being mentally primed to imagine being in a group results in the same bystander effect as physically being in a group.

Front 70

Power of the Group

3 Components of a Group

Back 70

1) Roles - whether formally or informally est., there is a role for everyone in the group; some are instrumental (helps the group reach goals) and some are expressive (emotional support).

2) Norms - rules of conduct for the members (implicit).

3) Cohesiveness - forces that exert themselves on the group to bring them closer.

Front 71

Social Loafing

Back 71

The tendecy to put forth less effort when you are a part of a group; this may or may not be conscious.

Front 72

Social Loafing

Collective Effort Model

Back 72

On a group task, individuals will exert effort to the degree they think their efforts will be important or relevant in achieving outcomes they find personally meaningful.

Front 73

Social Loafing

Social Compensation

Back 73

What individuals engage in when the outcome is considered to be important or meaningful.

"Compensation" refers to countering social loafing on the part of the other group members.

Front 74

Social Loafing

Sucker Effect

Back 74

What individuals engage in when the outcome isn't considered important.

Front 75

Deindividuation

Back 75

Losing oneself in the group; loss of identity as a result of being in a group.

Front 76

In-Group

Back 76

The group with whom you identify.

Can increase the likelihood of conforming.

Front 77

Group Polarization

Back 77

The group's dominant view becomes more exteme over time.

Front 78

Group Think

Back 78

The tendency for members of the group to become so invested in a consensus opinion that they start to ignore and supress dissenting views.

Front 79

Group Think Study - Janis (1982)

Back 79

1) Antecedents
2) Group Think
3) Symptoms (closed mindedness, pressure of uniformity)
4) Consequences (defective decision-making, mistreatment of group members)

Front 80

Process Loss

Back 80

Reduction or decrease in group performance as a result of group process.

Ex: communication issues, coordination of efforts, motivation, etc.

Front 81

Escalation Effect

Back 81

When a group is invested in a particular course of action that is failing, they pour more time and energy into it, rather than regrouping and considering another option.

1) They want to be able to justify the time and energy that has already been put in.

Front 82

Attitudes
3 Components

Back 82

A view we hold about something or someone.

1) Cognitive
2) Affective
3) Behavioral

Front 83

Attitude Formation

Back 83

Seems to be based on experience.

Front 84

Changing Attitudes

Elaboration Likelihood Model

Back 84

There are two routes to attitude change or persuasion.

Front 85

Central Route to Attitude Change

Back 85

Focusing on the message itself; focused on the content of the message, its meaning to you, etc.

If you're going to change your mind, it is going to be based on sound reasoning; does this make sense to me, will it impact me positively, etc.

Ex: Oprah comes to campus and you agree with her speech because of what she said.

Front 86

Peripheral Route to Attitude Change

Back 86

Focus is on the superficial aspects (like whether you find the person delivering the message appealing), rather than the content of the message.

Ex: Oprah comes to campus and you agree with what she says because it's Oprah!

Front 87

Cognitive Dissonance (Festinger)

Back 87

The tension produced by holding discrepant beliefs or attitudes.

We are motivated to reduce the tension because it is causing us discomfort.

Front 88

Cognitive Dissonance
4 Factors (Cooper & Fazio)

Back 88

1) Negative Consequences - are there neg consequences to this behavior? what does the behavior indicate about future events?
2) Personal Responsbility - if you take personal responsbility for the outcome, dissonance increases even more.
3) Physiological Response - the body's rxn to creating dissonance; anxiety, stomach ache, sweating.
4) Attribution - attributing the physiological arousal to the dissonance.

Front 89

Attitude-Discrepant Behavior

Back 89

Behaviors that are out of line with our cognitions.

We have to examine whether what we did was a total aberration, or whether we weren't actually committed to our cognition.

Front 90

Crowding (Evans et al 2000)

Back 90

Distinction between tolerance for crowding (in terms of psychological stress) and personal space preferences.

Front 91

Crowding
Key Findings

Back 91

--Whites and Black reported feeling a greater sense of perceived crowding than Mexican and Vietnamese Americans.
--BUT all four groups were effected equally in terms of psychological stress as density increased.

Front 92

Pollution (Downey & VanWillisen 2005)

Back 92

Industrial activity was the key variable.

Looked at facilities and waste production.

Front 93

Pollution
Key Findings

Back 93

--Residential proximity to industrial activity is an important factor.
--Associated with depression, neighborhood disorder, and powerlessness.
--Individuals living in tracts with high levels of waste reported higher depressive and neighborhood disorder, and lower control.

Front 94

Noise (Evans et al 1998)

Back 94

Studied two groups of German children--one was exposed to much higher levels of noise.

--Findings: there was a big difference btw the two both in terms of physiological and psychological stress.
---Rise in blood pressure, lower quality of life ratings.

Front 95

Noise (Wallenius 2004)

Back 95

Studied noise stress and project stress (interaction) and its effects on health.

--Findings: definite relationship btw noise, project stress, and activity disturbance variables.

--There was a stronger relationship btw noise stress and somatic symptoms -- the effects seemed to be notably worse when personal project stress was present.