Reading...
Play button
Play button
Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
95 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
spotlight effect
|
you are so aware of yourself, you think that others are just as aware
you see yourself as center stage we overestimate the amt. that others notice us or our behavior |
|
|
illusion of transparency
|
we overestimate how much others are aware of our inner thoughts and feelings
-- we think that our thoughts leak through and obvious to others |
|
|
sources of illusion/distortion
|
- social surroundings: how much we "stick out"
- self serving social judgment: "her fault, not mine" - self concern/self preservation - social relations define us: social identity |
|
|
social influence
|
two directions: SELF, OTHERS
|
|
|
self concept
|
"who am I?"
collection of SELF SCHEMAS: schemas centered around the self; traits or attributes important to one's self |
|
|
schema
|
network of knowledge and info. contained in L/T memory
retrieved through spreading activation among nodes (concept, places, people, etc.) that are highly related (links b/t nodes are weighted as a result of accum. of learning and experience) |
|
|
self-reference
|
when info. is relevant to our self concept, we process it and remember it faster than non-self relevant info.
memories, schemas, etc. arranged around relevance to self: - we compare ourselves to others - we hear our names better in crowds - we feel responsible when we really have small impact - we misinterpret behavior to be directed at us |
|
|
possible selves
|
we develop multiple possible selves, ideal selves, etc.
diff. b/t selves is feedback for improvement |
|
|
contributions to social self development
|
1. roles (child, friend, brother, etc.)
2. social ID (culture, religion, etc.) 3. social comp. 4. successes and failures (as FB) 5. others judgement of self 6. cultural norms |
|
|
social comparision -- festinger (1950)
|
self-eval. among others as measuring stick
upward vs. downward social comparison |
|
|
looking glass self - coolet (1900s)
|
we see ourselves as we imagine that others do
|
|
|
self and culture
|
WEST: independent, individualistic
- adoloscents want to to be independent and rebel - more likely to happen in cultures with affluence, mobility, urban, mass media - higher rate of compliments - conservative economy, but liberal morals EAST: collectivistic, interdependent - adolescents are more helpful with family, siblings, etc. - dont say I as much - more self-critical - liberal economy, conservative morals guides when.. - people feel unhappy, or - threatened |
|
|
self knowledge
|
- more accurate when causes of behavior are very visible, NOT unclear
-- when causes are unclear, bias and error can get in the way of memory, predictions, and explanations - accuracy also depends on state when making predictions vs. state in which predicted behavior will occur (ex: grocery shopping implusiveley when hungry) |
|
|
impact bias
|
we overestimate the effect of an event (end of relationship, defeat, etc.) on personal happiness/sadness
|
|
|
dual attitude system (implicit vs. explicit)
(wilson) |
IMPLICIT: unconscious, uncontrolled, hard to verbalize, feelings, predicts spontaneous behavior, hard to change
EXPLICIT: conscious, controlled, self-report, explanation for behavior or choice (must verbalize), more predictive for rational and L/T behavior, changes more often implications: self report is not trustworthy, interpretations can be flawed |
|
|
self esteem (bottom up vs. top down)
|
evaluative component of self; can be good or bad
BOTTOM UP: small details put together in mind to get big picture; depends on self schemas and discrepencies between ideal self and actual self TOP DOWN: one thing to trigger whole concept; people with high self esteem overgeneralize positive eval. of self to all characteristics about themselves (ex: they think they are good at most things) |
|
|
maintaining self-esteem
|
maintaining high self esteem can be hard b/c of all the social comparison you are engaged in at most times, which causes friction b/t:
- with friends, siblings, peers - when there is a great interval of ability b/t self and other, esp. if other is younger than self |
|
|
motivation and self esteem
|
if failing, people with high self esteem engage in protective behavior:
- view others as also failing - over exagerrate self's abilities - make excuses for failure; don't blame self |
|
|
the dark side of self-esteem
|
low self-esteem can be assoc. w/ depression, drug abuse, etc., BUT...
high self esteem is also dangerous - requires a lot of maintenance and support - methods to maintain can be dangerous (putting others down, violent reactions, etc.) - when unstable/insecure ("big ego") -- explicit/self-report sugest high self esteem, but implicit suggest low self esteem -- motivated by ext. instead of int. forces |
|
|
perceived self control
|
control limits:
- like muscles, cognitive processing and effortful control over behavior has limits and can be over-exerted/depleted - can get better w/ exercise/practice EX: willpower = dieting, exercising, overcoming drugs, etc. we need to feel in control; it makes us happier |
|
|
self-efficacy
|
perceived level of competence (on one task, generally, etc.); higher levels are assoc. w/ persistence, less anxiety and depression, healthier lives, more success; hard-earned achievements provide motivation
|
|
|
locus of control
|
INTERNAL: you believe YOU control your own destiny
EXTERNAL: you feel chance or OUTSIDE FORCES determine fate internal LoC: assoc. w/ success, healthy behavior, safety, interpersonal issues, income, delayed gratification; ahcievement of LT goals, persistence |
|
|
learned helplessness
|
paralysis of will
depressed/oppressed people become passive (do not attempt to escape bad, escapable situations) b/c they beleive their efforts will have no effect emphasizes benefits of feeling in control; feeling in control = happy |
|
|
excess choice
|
too many choices are overwhelming and can lead to paralysis (tyranny of freedom)
less satisfaction with choice when many choices are offered |
|
|
intuition
|
doing things unconsciously
-- light turns red and we hit the break before consciously deciding to we know more than we think we know automatic/implicit: - schema activation - emotional reactions (skips cortex) - expertise (extensive, rich schemas) - procedural learning (not declarative/facts) - subliminal messages (but they dont last) |
|
|
overconfidence
|
we estimate our accuracy to be 75-78%, but in reality its less than 63%
lower test scorers are more apt to overestimate their gifts - if people are incompetent, they don't realize - especially for easier tasks we are also bad at predicting future behavior and emotional responses - academic plans - planning fallacy: always takes longer and more $ to accomplish big projects - stockbroker overconfidence: stocks are more random than stockbrokers believe - political overconfidence |
|
|
confirmation bias
|
we fail to seek, ignore, explain away, etc. info. that disconfirms our beliefs
|
|
|
self verification
|
we seek friends and spouses who bolster our self view, even if we think badly of ourselves
|
|
|
planning remedies
|
always break down plan into small parts
think of ways that plan may NOT work have a back up plan always say maybe or potentially before everything |
|
|
hueristics
|
the mind's shortcuts
we make snap judgments and form quick impressions, and invent explanations - speediness promotes survival - BUT allows implicit processing to wreak havoc 2 kinds: representative, availability |
|
|
representative huersitic
|
lawyer and bank teller example
comparing something to our mental representation of a category representativeness = typicalness |
|
|
availability hueristic
|
you answer a question, make a decision, explain, etc. based on most readily available info. (in our memories - priming)
the more absorbed and transported the reader is, the more the story effects their later beliefs we are slow to get instances from a general truth, but are quick to infer truth form a certain instance (news and media have an effect, power of anecdotes and emotion over statistical info.) |
|
|
counterfactual thinking
|
mentally stimulating "what might have been"
ex: bronze medalists feel more joy then silver medalists; B+ students who was one point away from an A feels worse than a student with a lower grade who barely made a B+ |
|
|
illusory thinking
|
illusory correlations
illusion of control -- gambling -- regression towards the mean searching for order in random events illusory correlations: if we believe a correlation exists between 2 events, we are more likely to notice and recall confirming instances |
|
|
illusion of control
|
chance events are subject to our infleunce
- gambling - stocks - regression towards the mean : test taking example |
|
|
"moody memories"
|
certain memories are effect by our mood at the time of retrieval
|
|
|
causal attributions
|
how we explain people's behavior -- person vs. situation
-- person: dispositional attribution -- situation: situational attribution - which is it? BOTH, depends on situational constraints vs. ambiguity normal or expected behavior tells us less about a person than unusual behavior |
|
|
inferring traits: person vs. situation - how to decide
|
consistency: how consistent is the person's behavior in the situation?
distinctiveness: how specific is the person's behavior to the situation? consensus: to what extant would others behave this way in this situation? BUT, we are still biased |
|
|
Fidel Castro speech study
|
example of FAE
person gives pro-castro speech, participants were told that either the person is pro-castro or was assigned to topic; even if the person was assigned the topic, that he was pro-castro was assumed |
|
|
quiz show study by ross
|
another example of FAE
random assignment into 1 of 3 groups: questioners, contestants, and observers - questioners were encouraged to make up their own questions (all groups knew this) - both the contestants and observers thought questioners were more knowledgable (not true) |
|
|
fundamental attribution error (FAE)
|
by lee ross
discounting the power of a situation - actor-observer difference: person is center of attention, causing situation; situation becomes invisible, as a result of the person - the camera perspective bias: if the person is the center of the focus - perspective changes w/ time: FAE fades over time - self-awareness: if self-conscious, FAE of self increases; we see ourselves across a wider range of situations (self-schemas), so we consider ourselves to be more variable than others cultural differences: ind. vs. group |
|
|
expectations
|
self-fulfilling prophecies -- beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment (self-handicapping can lead to this)
you act on our environment (often w/out conscious awareness) signaling expectations, which can facilitate an outcome |
|
|
pygmalion effect
|
rosenthal:
teacher expects student to do well b/c sibling did -- teacher gives that student more attention -- student gets better grade >>> expectations are confirmed |
|
|
self-serving bias
|
ONE OF PSYCH.'S MOST ESTABLISHED CONCLUSIONS -- COGNITIVE
explaining positive vs. negative events depends on success vs. failure - success: attributes to self and int. abilities - failure: attributed to outside forces (bad luck, others who are out to get me, etc.) internal LoC is situation dependent -- we not consistent ambiguous tasks: games that involve skill and luck and vulnerable to this (win: because of skill, lose: due to bad luck) |
|
|
better than average
|
we all think we are
group estimates of contribution to a joint task almost always add up to over 100% |
|
|
unrealistic optimism
|
prediction for..
- postive future events: too high (higher prob. for self than others) - negative future events: too low (lower prob. for self than for others) good? better than pessimism, but we may no be prepared for loss or disappointment |
|
|
false consensus and uniqueness
|
we overestimate how much others think or behave like ourselves, but we underestimate how much we are like others
defense mech.: rationalizing or justifying questionable behavior guide: due to lack of info. we project ourselves onto others to predict what they may do relevant to success, ability, and morality (ex: I am special) |
|
|
adapting the self-serving bias
|
self esteem:
- normal (most people): high - depressed: average, moderate good: terror mgt.; high self-esteem buffers anxiety when faced with moral issues bad: people who blame others for mistakes are unhappier than people who can acknowledge their own |
|
|
self-presentation
|
how honest are we?
we try to control behavior in a socially strategic manner -- to give others a good impression - apologies, excuses, self-serving biases - deplete cognitive resources (automatic in familiar situations) - self-monitoring: social chameleon, a table trait false modesty - praise competitors, self disparaging how does this help? reassurance from others, makes us look good, distracts others attention to own performance, motivates person to focus on their performance and improve it |
|
|
perception
|
we respond to reality as we construe it, not to the way it actually is
self-serving bias impacts perception and memory |
|
|
priming
|
auto. processing -- most social processing is automatic
activation of associations in memory (remember schemas) experiment examples: sentence completion "old", "wise" leads to person walking slower and hunching over after the experiment real life: watch scary movie, interpret noises as intruder; symptoms = disease; daily horiscope predictions "a bird in the hand" example, object recognition |
|
|
ambiguity is scary
|
paves the way for self-serving bias
amibivalent face/nazi example |
|
|
spontaneous trait interference
|
when we say something good or bad about someone else, people sometimes tend to assoc. that trait with us
words or traits that we use to describe others are usually relevant to ourselves |
|
|
belief perseverance
|
people cling to their initial beliefs and reasons why a belief may be true, even if bias towards that belief is discredited
|
|
|
constructing memories
|
reconstruction of attitudes, behaviors, etc.: our memories actually form when we retrieve them and therefor are vulnerable to distortion based on attitudes/feelings at the time of retrieval
|
|
|
cognitive dissonance
|
we feel tension/dissonance when 2 simul. thoughts/beliefs/cognitions are psych. inconsistent (ex: doing something that we have mixed feelings about)
to reduce this, adjust thinking: we do not want to be hypocritical or inconsistent -- ex: war - finding new weapons vs. liberating people attitude/behavior effect stronger when participant felt that they had a choice |
|
|
self justfication
|
dissonance after decisions
two = attractive choices; what do you do? - worry you made wrong decision, think of good parts of rejected alt. and fret of bad parts of the chosen one? NO - pick one and focus on the good in that and the bad in the rejected one -- breeds overconfidence in decision!!! |
|
|
self-perception
|
remember: situational vs. dispositional
- is person forced or constrained into behavior? same, but directed at self -- watching yourself do this tells you about yourself |
|
|
expressions and attitudes
|
college students told to make angry expressions for experiment end up feeling more angry than before
when we are mad and some ends up being nice to us, we suddeney brighten up |
|
|
over-justification
|
insufficient justification: smallest incentive to get someone to do something is the most effective (we justify behavior internally, according to cognitive dissonance)
|
|
|
intrinsic motivation
|
too many rewards: i dont do it b/c i like it, i do it to get paid (extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation)
note behavior under condition which it occurs unnecessary rewards have hidden costs |
|
|
comparing 3 theories
|
self-presentation: why actions appear to effect attitudes
self-justification/dissonance theory: to reduce cognitive/psych. tension - dissonance as arousal: can be measured physically (higher HR, sweating) self-perception: making inferences based on observations - self affirmation: justifying actions - good when attitudes are forming none are right, depends on your bias |
|
|
genes, evolution, and culture
|
evolutionary (kinship) vs. cultural (diversity) perspective
natural selection: organism have many varied offspring, which compete for survival; bio. and behavioral patterns increase chances of reproduction and survival; offspring that do survive pass on genes, so population changes over time -- most useful traits are passed on >> leads to adaption |
|
|
diversity vs. similarity among cultures
|
diversity: important in heterogeneous regions (ex: NY); growing w/ tech. and internet
OVERALL: culture, group context similarity: across the world, age 4-5 "theory of mind" emerges (infering what others are thinking) - universal friendship: eye contact; privacy - universal traits: big 5, NEO - incest = bad - norms: formal vs. familiar "you"; name basis of superiors and subordinates - laws/norms for war OVERALL: evolution, species |
|
|
cultural norms and expectations
|
etiquette -- appropriate social behavior
- we take it for granted until we go to another country; different everywhere |
|
|
attitude
|
good or bad evaluative reaction towards something
behavior predicts attitudes, not the other way around |
|
|
attitude ABCs
|
Affect - feelings
Behavior - tendency Cognition - thoughts |
|
|
predictive power of attitudes
|
attitude towards something has little effect on what the person will actually do when it comes down to it
(ex: attitude towards cheating was not tied to who actually cheated, attitude towards church barely linked to church attendance) attitudes and behavior are subject to different sources of influence |
|
|
moral hypocrisy
|
greed outweighs morality
|
|
|
when attitudes DO predict behavior
|
when social influence on what we say is minimal
when influences on behavior are minimal when attitudes specific to behavior are examined when attitudes are potent |
|
|
minimal social influences on self-report
|
sometimes we say what we think others want to hear, so public attitude is different from private one
depends on suseceptibility to social desireableness lower correlation b/t implict and explicit attidues |
|
|
attitude specific behavior
|
SPECIFIC attitudes predict SPECIFIC behavior
(ex: health benefits for exercise/jogging; environmental issues >> recycling frequency) |
|
|
theory of planned behavior
|
attitude towards behavior, subjective norms (what other people are doing), perceived control (i can do this) >> behavior intention (i will start) >> BEHAVIOR!
|
|
|
potent attitudes
|
out attitudes become potent IF we think about them
- novel situations lack scripts: we think before we act - self-conscious people are more in touch w/ their attitudes - self awareness promotes consistency b/t intention and action (ex: people less likely to cheat if sitting in front of a mirror) |
|
|
implicit attitudes
|
implicit assoc. test
- pairing two adjectives: attitude-specific object and adjective; good vs. bad words; compare response times implicit = immediate, spontaneous, emotional behavior |
|
|
interaction b/t implicit and explicit
|
low correlation b/t implicit and explicit
high explicit, low implicit explicit: L/T, planned behavior implicit: emotional, spontaneous behavior |
|
|
when behavior effects attidues
|
role playing
saying becomes believing foot in door technique evil and moral acts racial attitudes social movements |
|
|
role playing
|
when behavior effects attitudes
prison study: normal people do terrible things when playing a role |
|
|
saying = believing
|
when behavior predicts attitude
tendency to alter message to please listeners (tell good news before bad, adjust message to listener) when we say something that goes against our beliefs we will start to believe it IF.. - there was no coercion - no prob. cause or reason for action |
|
|
weapons of social influence
|
foot in the door: getting way too deep into a commitment and not understanding how it happened
- get someone to consent to small commitment and follow up w/ increasingly bigger ones others: reciprocity (make a good deal); commitment and consistency (foot in door, cognitive dissonance); authority (obedience); liking (being persuaded by people you like); scarcity (only wanting what you cant have) |
|
|
evil - morality?
|
evil: gradually escalating commitments (one little white lie leads to more white lies)
we start to dislike people we hurt: defense and self-justification mechanism; stronger effect when we were coaxed but not coerced |
|
|
scientifically supported gender differences
|
average female:
more fat, less muscle, shorter, lighter, more sensitive to smell and sound, more vulnerable to anxiety and depression average male: slower to hit puberty but quicker to die; more likely to have ADHD, commit suicide or be hit by lightning; more likely to be able to wiggle ears |
|
|
average group differences in social behavior
|
independence vs. connectedness
social dominance aggression sexuality |
|
|
independence vs. connectedness
|
women: talk more intimately, play less aggressively, describe themselves in more rational terms; experience more relationship emotions; more supportive in groups; longer conversations (esp. phone); turn to fam and friends for support when stressed; go towards jobs that reduce inequality; more empathetic
men: more aggressive; more task focused; more connections w/ large groups; like jobs that enhance inequality; but less gifts; less personal letters, fewer phone calls; usually turn to women to disclose feelings; not good at decoding nonverbal cues/emotion and expressing them |
|
|
social dominance
|
men are more driven to be dominant and aggressive in all societies
communication: men are more autocratic, women are more democratic; women are more inspirational and team building leaders, men are more directive and task focused men take more risks and are overconfident |
|
|
aggression
|
behavior meant to hurt
mostly a male thing across cultures can depend on situation: when provoked gap b/t genders may close |
|
|
sexuality
|
men and women are more similar than different
men are more into casual sex, but levels vary across cultures but same pattern overall; does not differ as a function of sexual pref. men think about it more often, are more likely to initiate it, seek more partners, are aroused faster, want it more, will risk more, will expend resources to get it when there are fewer men, the pregnancy rate is actually higher |
|
|
evolution and gender
|
salient bio. differences:
- muscle mass = hunters - ability to breast feed: feeders cross cultural gender differences: point to evolutionary and genetic factors, esp. for dating, mating, and reproduction |
|
|
dating, mating, and reproduction
|
sperm is cheaper than eggs: less time to invest, women are pickier about mates
natural selection: traits >> survival -- women: emotional skills, youthful looks (fertility) -- men: physical strength, money (taking care) |
|
|
issues w/ evolutionary psych.
|
focus on genetics (the past, change over time)
- ultimate hindsight bias - circular reasoning: why men and women differ -- b/c of genes... - exp. research not supportive of evolutionary explanations |
|
|
hormones
|
men: testosterone
-- women w/ too much = boyish behavior -- more = aggression |
|
|
gender roles
|
social expectations for men and women; culture based
- vary w/ culture: most people want equality, still more men in better jobs - vary over time: more people now approve of married women working, more women going to college, gap is closing - peer transmitted: cultures come in many flavors in the same region, nurture assumption |
|
|
nurture assumption
|
cultural values and expectations fed to us by parents, teachers, peers, media, etc.
-- parenting is very important in development of personality, intelligence, etc., BUT not as strong as we would like -- genetic influence: explains only 50% of personality traits |
|
|
peer transmitted culture
|
more likely to do something if peers do
-- kids may refuse to try food if told by their parents, but may if friends do -- immigrant children grow up preferring new language and norms |
|
|
person-situation debate
|
we are not completely passive, we act and react
we want to feel in control: attributing causes of behavior to culture takes that away interaction b/t person and situation - given soc. situation effects people differently - people often choose their own situations or create them |
