Social Psych Exam 1

Front 1

definition

Back 1

-scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior and thought in social situations.
-attempt to understand and explain how thought feeling and behavior of indidivuals in social situations real, imagined, and implied.

Front 2

folk wisdom/common sense

Back 2

-contradictory and we don't know right path to follow.
-not reasonable approach to human behavior

Front 3

Pennebaker

Back 3

-conducted exp about common sense: "confession is good for the soul" -> test for well being, cannot test for soul
-does have enormous mental and mental benefits -> burden lifted.
-boosting immune system
-"let sleeping dogs lie"
-self disclosure can lead to harm if coerced in some way - the person who witnesses the disclosure may be judgemental in some way.

Front 4

what makes is scientific?

Back 4

-testing
-objective
-accuracy
-reliability
-peer review-revision
-duplication

Front 5

scientific vs not

Back 5

-core values
1 acuracy
2 objectivity
3 skepticism
4 open-mindedness
-utilization of specific method

Front 6

Lippa's model

Back 6

1 - group variables (social, biological, cultural)
2 - individual variables (child rearing)
3 - internal variables ("the self")

Front 7

midrange theories for social behavior

Back 7

1 - learning theory (classical/operant conditioning) - not specific to social psych
2 - cognitive consistency (strive for consistency in thoughts) - if thoughts not consistent, promotes uncomfortable motivational state that you must work to resolve -> may create a special category or choose to dislike a person (cognitive dissonance plays into theory)
3 - attribution (why do people behave that way?) - focus on thought processes used to figure out others' behavior.
4 - Equity and Exchange (concern for cost and benefit - economically driven) - want low cost and high benefit - what is it that you bring to the relationship? (i.e. influence social networking)

Front 8

how would you chose one midrange theory over another?

Back 8

-why do we have theories? - open minded, more easy to revise, serve as guideline -> intergrated set of principles that describe, predict, and explain -> this is how we organize facts we know about phenonenon -> create cohesive whole -> generate testable predictions -> gives direction to future of research -> can be modified as new data and predictons enter

Front 9

empirically tested

Back 9

-can say it will support but not prove

Front 10

need operational definition

Back 10

-know what we are looking at so we know how to measure it -> used to measure concept -> difficult to agree on definition
1 - subjective (reports on own experiences [interview/questionaire] filter through consciousness)
2 - objective (behavioral measures [direct observations of behavior] -> look at what people do)

Front 11

subjective vs objective

Back 11

-sometimes you cannot rely on subjective info because people lie -> say what they think you want to hear of what is right.
-SUBJECTIVE REPORT WITH OBJECTIVE MEASURE

Front 12

characteristics measures must have

Back 12

- reliability - repeatable and consistent results
- validity - does it measure what it's supposed to
-reliability is prereq to validity, but validity is not natural consequence to reliability

Front 13

experiments

Back 13

-let us get cause-effect relationships
-rigidly control, know about subjects to get random assignment

Front 14

correlational study

Back 14

-no random assignment
-no manipulation of variables
-study dependent in natural setting
-may give parent form to fill out
-CANNOT say one causes the other, but CAN say they are related
-direction of correlation not specified
-may have 3rd variable
advantages:
-seem as more realistic that experiments
-in experiments you might rule out most important variable
-if ethical problems, correlational studies better than experiments

Front 15

Lab/field studies

Back 15

-field -> go out and see what happens
-lab -> more controlled and standardized -> in lab setting
-field studies add in messiness of life because there is no control over what happens
-labs -> criticized for artificiality, contriving, and lacking realism

Front 16

realism

Back 16

- mundane realism -> how much does study approximate a real life situation
- experimental realism -> regardless of setting how much does subject buy into it. The subject makes it as real as life -> how involved do they get? [most important]

Front 17

Mundane Realism

Back 17

-helping study
-moral/immoral

Front 18

Experimental Realism

Back 18

-what subject is experiencing -> how they feel -> how much they buy into things

Front 19

How to create Experimental Realism

Back 19

-have to have good actor -> must be convincing
-eliminate experimenter bias
-have to look at situation from viewpoint of perticipant [field vs lab]

Front 20

Subject variance

Back 20

-not use just college students if you want view on everyone.

Front 21

external validity

Back 21

-degree to which finding applies to broader population or setting

Front 22

internal validity

Back 22

-confounding variables

Front 23

How to increase confidence in external validity

Back 23

-replication
-exact replication
-conceptual relication
-systemic replication

Front 24

exact replication

Back 24

-do exactly what experimenter did

Front 25

conceptual replication

Back 25

-same conceptual variable but diff procedure or diff operational applications of variable

Front 26

systemic replication

Back 26

-theoretically expand concept -> new variables

Front 27

if you don't believe result and don't think its due to statistical or procedural error

Back 27

-do exact rep.

Front 28

example of conceptual

Back 28

-obedience study - but diff procedure
-in hospital - medication orders too high - if incorrect will they administer? - yes, but were interrupted before they could

Front 29

example of systemic

Back 29

-add new variables - Milgrim study - proximity to learner, having physical contact, giving learner name -> create diff results

Front 30

experimenter bias

Back 30

-experimenter influencing participants behavior

Front 31

Liebert and Baron

Back 31

-students running students
-rate expressions in photos (1/2 success and 1/2 failure -> but actually random assignment)
-actually testing student experimenter for expectations
-when student experimenter thought success, the subjects thought same and vice versa -> experimenter expectations affect subject
-Solutions:
-mechanized delivery
-experimenters blind

Front 32

subject bias

Back 32

-want to figure out what study in sometimes think things are studies when they are not
-do I cooperate of not?
-once cognition is there, it will not be normal behavior usually due to strong inherent demand in study on subject.

Front 33

solutions to subject bias

Back 33

-measure subjects w/o their awareness
-non-obtrusive measures/non-apparent measures
i.e. drinking -> could ask them, or look in their trash can (measuring w/o awareness)

Front 34

naturalistic observations

Back 34

-invasion of personal space
i.e. in men's room with camera -> look at onset on urination and duration when person next to them
-not deceptive because there is not lying

Front 35

deception

Back 35

-lying to someone -> subject does not know purpose of study.

Front 36

when is it appropriate to deceive?

Back 36

-must respect privacy of subjects feelings

Front 37

informed consent

Back 37

-should sign paper that says in general terms of what will happen

Front 38

debriefing

Back 38

post experimental interview
-subjects don't believe debriefing nor anything else out of experimenters mouth sometimes.

Front 39

Walster

Back 39

-told subjects they were participants in study of interpersonal relationships
-questionaire about "socializing ability" -> told either high or low in social skills
-go to speed dating
-debriefing -> say don't know anything about social skills
-come back to fill out things -> people who were told they had poor social skills initially, wrote that they had poor social skills and filled out ?s as if they had poor social skills.
-debriefing not always work even if done correctly

Front 40

Kelman

Back 40

-2nd order deception: deception built on deception.
-when and how you use deception makes it ethical vs unethical
-lie 2x and subject may go deceive someone else.
-when appropriate: if no other way to do experiment -> have looked at possibilities
-alternate ways to not do deception: role playing -> participant be active in experiment people aware of playing tole -> experimental realism needs to be present -> this process may not always work.

Front 41

people in potentially dangerous situation

Back 41

-need to make quick decision -> mostly make appropriate decision

Front 42

social cognition

Back 42

-how people think about themselves and social world
-how people select, interpret, remember, and use social info to make judgements and decisions.

Front 43

processing info

Back 43

-what info is available?
-w/ info, what info is notice?
-w/ info noticed, what into used and not used?
-w/ info used, how is info going to be used?
-generate accurate impressions of world is the goal.

Front 44

-two types of cognitive processes

Back 44

1- automatic
-you don't have to pause, you just know how to do it
-act w/o consciously deliberating what's happening or consequence of task
2- controlled
-careful deliberation and consideration -> effortful
-careful attention to detail, history, and possible consequences
-large cognitive effort

Front 45

controlled

Back 45

-have to have capacity for manual override to take in situation more carefully

Front 46

automatic

Back 46

non-conscious, unintentional, involuntary, effortless. (that's why we like it so much) -> trying to understand some new situation by relating it to something we know.
-when meeting someone -> categorize -> what do you know about his person based on what categories you place him/her in

Front 47

schema

Back 47

-mental structures used to organize knowledge about social world -> might be applied to person, place, or situation -> influences how you perceive, organize, and remember person, place or situation.
-categories of social schemas are not clear cut
-not just a bundle of facts, they are dynamic mental categories -> constantly in motion
-whenever eployed into might be consistent, inconsistent, or irrelevant to schema

Front 48

Taylor and Crocker

Back 48

-talk about specific types of schemas: person, role, event

Front 49

Person schema

Back 49

-particular individual description (we have schemas about self as well)

Front 50

Role schema

Back 50

-may be due with gender, race, religious, groups, occupational groups

Front 51

event schema (scripts)

Back 51

- tell you expected or appropriate behavior for situation

Front 52

Taylor and Crocker schemas

Back 52

-each contain basic info and interpretations

Front 53

Korsakoff's syndrome

Back 53

-no access to previous memories -> difficulty with new memories

Front 54

Kelley

Back 54

-schemas will effect what it is you notice
-how it is that schemas influence info gathered by people in certain situation -> somewhat ambiguous situation
-went to college classes and told enrolled people there would be guest lecturer, handed out little biological background of lecturer -> 2 versions 1 was a warm peson and the other was a cold person
-descriptions given at random -> lecturer given 20 minutes, then ask students what they thought.
-argued that because ambiguous situation they would use schema provided for them to analyze him -> predicted correctly -> EXPECTATION
-rolls into self-fulfilling prophecy

Front 55

Cohen

Back 55

-memory for events -> dependency what you think, you remember certain things
-influence of role schema on memory had subjects watch video tapes having b-day dinner with spouse -> some told librarian and some waitress -> contains character roles of each
-people more likely to remember things that went along with role schema
-80% consistency with schema consistent facts
-50% consistency with schema inconsistent facts

Front 56

Hastie

Back 56

-sometimes we have remarkable memory for things very inconsistent
-if you have enough time/motivation you will ponder inconsistent info and make it fit with original schema in some way - will remember facts because moving away from automatic processing -> control, processing
-only for entirely inconsistent, not irrelevant
-why? if people unsure of memory, they will go with things consistent with schema -> memory is not precise or exact.

Front 57

Carli

Back 57

-Jack and Laura go for romantic weekend - half of subjects told jack proposed and other half told jack raped laura
-2 wks later Carli went back and the people told jack proposed misremembered into -> like wanting to meet parents or getting dozen of roses
-people told jack raped laura misremembered info -> like jack liked to drink or was aggressive
-remembering things that are not there but consistent with facts -> can make schema stronger/richer and elaborated -> will not change over time.

Front 58

how do you know which schema to employ?

Back 58

-on MARTA -> man gets on and is yelling and getting in peoples faces -> what do you think?
-mental illness? alcoholic?
-will react differently in each case which will you pick?

Front 59

Schema Accessibility

Back 59

-extent to which a schema is sitting at forefront of head and more likely to get evoked
-with some people schemas are chronically accessible. (i.e. if you have mental illness in family, you may be more likely to think man is mentally ill) - may have history
-some schemas can be temporarily available - if you read book about mental illness or just saw drunk person you are PRIMED

Front 60

Primed

Back 60

-process by which recent experiences increase accessibility of certain schema

Front 61

Higgins, Rohle, and Jones

Back 61

-subjects told they will take place in 2 diff experiments - 1 perception study: identify colors while memorizing words and 2 reading passage and give impressions of guy
-depending on words memorized, would create impression of "Donald" -> Priming
-some thought adventurous and other conceited
-colors were distractor task

Front 62

Heuristics

Back 62

-applications of specific roles and shortcuts
-to discover in greek

Front 63

Tversky and Kahnaman

Back 63

-struggle with diagnosing
-logical, objective, rational assessment
-physicians use availability heuristic when making diagnoses

Front 64

Weber, Brockenhut, Hilton, and Wallace

Back 64

-more likely to diagnose something they have just read

Front 65

Schwartz

Back 65

-ease to which someone can bring something to mind
1 - asked group 1 to come up with 6 times they had acted assertively
2 - asked group 2 to come up with 12 times
-the group with 6 times judged themselves to be assertive because it was easy to come up with 6 examples the 12 example found it hard to come up with 12 and judged themselves not assertive.

Front 66

how similar? [representative heuristic]

Back 66

-how similar is this example to typical case
-state schools have higher instate -> could assume person is from state
-base rate information - relative frequency of members of diff categories in population -> often most informative
-base rate vs representativeness contradicting -> what do we do? people tend not to use base rate

Front 67

Tversky and Kahnaman -> base rate

Back 67

- no base rate info used if conflicts with representativeness -> people too much emphasis on observed characteristic then more reliable info

Front 68

Anchoring

Back 68

-take some piece of info at face value
-judges mind effected by irrelevant info along with relevant -> what is he doing after how was previous case -> if thinking about 5, will give 5 and if thinking about 75, will give 75.
-specific value/number
[priming brings up schema in these situations there is not necessarily a schema]

Front 69

Social perception

Back 69

-judging traits and characteristics of others and generating beliefs about that person to guide behavior and interaction
-usually think of sensory
-social perception -> want social reality
-trying to get abstract stable qualities from inconsistent info -> relatively stable internal intuitions

Front 70

Differences between social and object perceptions

Back 70

-social perception -> more prone to error and bias - perceive people and not things as causal - have intentions and motivations in addition to surface behvaior - people may try to deceive you and mislead you - perception of a person may change person's behavior
[self fulfilling prophecy] - late bloomer/early bloomer with teacher in class.

Front 71

how do we form beliefs about other people?

Back 71

-direct judgement: rapid judgements based on surface cues -> dress, mannerisms, etc.. -> may be correct or incorrect -> since judgement can affect future interactions
-first impressions -> physical characteristics allow judgements - judge based on how attractive people are -> more attractive thought to be better
-diff traits for men and women -> not saying we believe it, but know them -> because we know it that adds in making judgements whether we believe it or not
-ethnic stereotypes -> even if aware they effect
-names
-after make judgement -> you think you know more than you do
-nonverbal behavior -> stylistic dynamic cues
-when conflict btwn verbal and nonverbal we rely more on nonverbal

Front 72

Paul Ekman

Back 72

-5 types of nonverbal behavior based on movement of some part of body
1-emblem -> culturally learned ->specific definition within culture
2-affect displays -> emotional expressions: anger, surprise, fear, disgust, sad, happy -> thought they were universal but some are not
3-illustrations -> illustrate psychical effects or constructs
4-regulators -> lend structure to social interaction -> facilitate -> segment conversation -> often unconscious
5-adapters -> slef-directed gestures -> maybe when not paying attention, conflict, distraction - rolling tape when thinking

Front 73

Barley

Back 73

-US college students, African American college students, and Intl students -> looked at happy, sad, angry, fearful expressions - US college students more accurate -> degree of acculturation -> intl student confused angry and happy -> some thought fearful was sad

Front 74

there are other types of nonverbal behvaiors that do not necessarily use language but some other vocalization

Back 74

-rhythmicity of action -> someone talks, then you talk -> if someone talking fast, you can't talk slow
-spatial awareness -> bubble of personal space -> culturally varying
-gestural -> postural actions -> affect inferrence for impression
-facial reference -> making eye contact hand shakes
-inappropriate facial expression -> saying sad thing with smile
-para-language -> way voice is used

Front 75

dyssemia

Back 75

-difficulty reading signs - often then have difficulty with interpersonal relationships
1-para-language
2-facial expressions

Front 76

Luchins

Back 76

-3 groups read story about character named "jim"
1-goes to get stationary - talks to lots of people, sunny -> extrovert
2-left classroom alone, shady side, no socializing -> introvert
3-both linked together ->what would they think?
-people who read both made same judgements as first group -> primacy effect
-primacy more powerful than recency

Front 77

Jones, Davis, and Shaver

Back 77

-subjects do 30 ? IQ test
-half did well on first half
-half did well on second half
-everyone gets total score the same, but individual rates them -> ones who started strong got rated better -> rater estimated that person who started strong got 21/30 other group only 11/30. -> primacy effect

Front 78

primacy effect

Back 78

-most strong when no time to make judgement or no consequence for being correct or incorrect

Front 79

lie detection

Back 79

-most of us pretty bad at it
-gaze aversion seen as most useful tools, but not correlational with lying
-general behaviors liers exhibit more than people who are not
-moves arms, legs, fingers less -> more conscious of actions
-blink less
-differences in para language
-general bodily quieting
-speech not really fluid
-additional cognitive effort -> know previous stories
-fewer speech errors
-rarely backtrack
-feel fear, guilt or delight at fooling people -> will trigger changes in exp -> micro-exp -> most observers do not notice
-not all liers display all signals
-just because signal is present does not mean they are lying
-people are about 55% good at detecting

Front 80

Vrij

Back 80

-does research on laboratory detection
-video tape interrogations
-diff btwn lying and telling truth
-liers tended to blink less
-liers tended to pause more when talking
(signs of increased cognitive load)
-increased stress of situation
-interview 100 police officers -> looked at video tape of real life lies or truth -> for criminals, officers correct about 70% of time (much better then in laboratory)
-accuracy rates consistent in multiple tests, suspects, and crimes
-police officers better than normal people -> more experience and nature of lies (more at stake)
-very few people are about 100% correct all the time

Front 81

O'Sullivan

Back 81

-wanted to find people who could detect liers 100% of time
-called them wizards -> incredibly observant and attentive
-non-verbal behaviors
-nuances
-rubric -> personal standard for people

Front 82

eyes being more telling for fake vs genuine smile

Back 82

-genuine -> automatic consciousness required -> zygomatic and orbicularis oculi and pars orbitalis -> make eyes crease up and eyebrows dip
-fake -> pulls sides up -> zygomatic muscle
-lines around eyes can be intense fake smile
-fleshy part of eye btwn eyebrow and eyelid are most telling -> dip of eyebrows

Front 83

FACS

Back 83

-Facial Action Coding System

Front 84

Attribution

Back 84

-to what do you assign behavior
-focuses on thought processes
-how you attribute behavior influences response
[deciding whether behavior due to internal vs external and stable vs unstable]

Front 85

Weiner

Back 85

-internal source -> caused by something inside person
-external -> caused by something outside person
-stability -> permanent and enduring
-unstable -> temporary and flurrying
-causality of internal vs external and stable vs unstable
-caveat -> all other things being equal when making attributions of people we prefer to use internal over external -> fundamental attribution error - often cannot distinguish between behavior and cause
- focus more on individual than situation
-more comfortable thinking about people more than setting

Front 86

Jones and Davis

Back 86

-how do we arrive at internal attribution?
-someone donates money to organization - maybe know someone, or are very generous - if think generous, you have made correspondent inferrence - some underlying disposition or trait from observing behavior.
-in terms of making CI's look at behaviors most informative to determine if trait belongs to person
1- is it freely chosen> -> if forced, will not probably be true behavior and thoughts
2- social desirability -> tend to want behavior low in social desirability (low = unusual behavior)
-girl with red attire for grad interview when everyone else in black and white
-category based expectations -? where expectation comes from
3- common and uncommon effects -> what is shared in situation and what is unique
-diff behaviors with same effect = common
-diff behaviors with diff effect = uncommon
-cars -> what is unique? - most informative mercedes = high fashion car
-most likely to conclude internal behavior if behavior is freely chosen, uncommon effects, low social desireability
-correspondent inferrences made from single isolated incidences.

Front 87

kelley cube model

Back 87

-day to day we get multiple obs of behavior making decisions of internal vs external
1-consistency -> how does it vary across instances and time.
2- consensus -> how does behavior compare to others' behavior
3- distinctiveness -> vary to whom directed
-co-variation principle -> says we attribute behavior to cause with which it varies over time.
- high consistent, low consensus, and low distinctive = internal attribution
- high consistent, high consensus, high distinctive = external attribution

Front 88

McArthur

Back 88

-people given to scenario
-people do make attributions
-but kelley's model says you will use all 3 pay less attention to how everyone else is acting (consensus) but more consist. and distinct. -> info outside individual.

Front 89

Attitude

Back 89

-beliefs, cognitions, evaluation
-relatively new topics

Front 90

Aronson

Back 90

-learned evaluative response, involves liking and disliking, emotional response (people are generally not neutral observers of world), diff from emotion or mood, directed toward specific object or idea, relatively enduring (emotions come and go but attitudes more stable), attitudes more motivating and can be reflected across certain situations
->all learned
-attitudes influence behavior -> behavior motivated by attitude
-learned evaluative response, directed @ specific object, enduring influences behavior in generally motivating way

Front 91

How to change attitude?

Back 91

-cognitive dissonance -> inconsistency btwn 2 thoughts or instances
-cannot be honest person and lie to friend so you find a way to reduce inconsistency if you can explain away inconsistency then feel better
-external justification -> something outside you, in situation, that makes you say that [problem develops if no outside reason]
-counter-attitudinal advocacy -> find a redeeming quality -> you will start to change attitude -> if you get person to change attitude when justify something - utilizes concept of commitment, don't want to be hippocrit - will convince oneself - best in one on one.
-persuasive communication -> larger scale

Front 92

Hovland

Back 92

-research projects look at this
-Yale Attitude Change Approach (after WWII -> propoganda)
-studied how people most likely to change attitude
-3 variables
1-who (source)
2-says what (nature)
3-to whom
-(1)credible speakers are going to persuade others more readily than others w/o credibility
-(1)attractive people more persuasive than unattractive people
-(2)who has greatest effect after delivery -> presentation
-(2)do not want to do hard sell -> people will be resistent -> more interested in things that don't look like trying to sell something
-best to present one sided version of story
-converted -> what it is they know
-mixed/degree -> want 2 sided and refute arguments counter to your position -> leaving your position
-do you want to go first or second - depends on when decision made
-if back to back and then delay before decision -> best to go first
-if speech first then delay then another speech and then vote -> best to go second.
-(3)to whom...
-not bad to have distractions
-audience distracted will often be more persuaded than audience not distracted
-could take away from message -> perhaps not logical transitions from one area to another
-age-group -> imressionable age -> 18-25 -> people much more susceptible to attitude change.

Front 93

really is one more attitude change approach we need to add...

Back 93

-how?
-best way to change mind if face to face
-immediacy -> makes it difficult to ignore message person is sending -> salient and personal
-mass media reaches large # of people in short period of time
-written message will be more persuasive in complex issue -> want to see facts and figures (newspaper, magazines...) -> lose influence of speaker variable and focus on content -> if not solid argument, do not print
-films and sound bites -> speaker variable easily understood issues, if you don't want people reading into message.

Front 94

Petty and Cacioppo

Back 94

-how do we know when variables most important?
-elaboration likelihood model: sometimes people more motivated by facts and pay attention/motivated -> most persuasive way use central route to persuasion
-sometimes people not motivated by facts influenced by other variables -> these people not prepared to be swayed -> use peripheral route to persuasion.
-personal relevance -> if matters to me, I will pay attn.

Front 95

Petty, Cacioppo, and Goldman

Back 95

-individuals in study told that University was thinking about starting to give conprehensive exams -> some students told it will happen during their time there -> other students told it will happen in long term
-high personal relevance -> directly influenced vs low personal relevance not directly influenced.
-rating:
1- strength of argument -> 1/2 heard strong arguments and others heard stupid argument
2- source of the argument -> 1/2 author of argument was prominent researcher in educational psych and other half was senior in high school
3- high relevance -> 1/2 heard strong arg, 1/2 heard weak argument and 1/2 heard prominent person, other 1/2 heard high school senior. -> same for low relevance
-high relevance -> good argument is good argument -> content important
-low relevance -> matters who said it because not directly effected -> more interested in credentials
-low relevance use the peripheral route, but high relevance do not necessarily use the central route.
-if issues too complex it is hard to pay attn even if relevant and if competing demands like internal or external distractions (weak argument = more easily distracted, strong argument = less easily distracted)

Front 96

Personal Variables

Back 96

1- need for cognition - likes to think and reason things through -> more likely to make decisions central route -> others more into peripheral route
2- self-monitoring -> tendency to regulate behavior on external cues such as how others act: high self-monitor -> looks at others (behavior changes with situation), low self-monitoring -> internal cues -> beliefs or values tend to behave consistently -> central route.