Social Psych Test 2

Front 1

Schema

Back 1

Knowledge structures that represent substantial information about a concept, its attributes, and its relationships to other concepts
Used for evaluation, role-playing, identification, prediction

Front 2

Script

Back 2

Knowledge structures that contain information about how people or other objects behave under varying circumstances (event schema)

Front 3

Heuristic

Back 3

Cognitive shortcut

Front 4

Types of schema

Back 4

Role schema, person schema, group schema (stereotypes)

Front 5

Stereotype threat

Back 5

Anxiety or concern in a situation where a person has the potential to confirm a negative stereotype about their social group
Study example: black students taking GRE

Front 6

Fundamental Attribution Error

Back 6

We have a tendency to overestimate the importance of personal (dispositional) factors and to underestimate the situation influence as causes of behavior

Front 7

Self-determination theory

Back 7

focuses on the degree to which an individual’s behavior is self-motivated and self-determined

Front 8

Extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation

Back 8

Extrinsic: money, praise (Duncker’s candle problem)
Intrinsic: competence, autonomy, psychological relatedness; meaning (dan ariely)

Front 9

Duncker’s candle problem

Back 9

Extrinsic vs intrinsic motivation
Glucksberg: 2 x 2 design of inside/outside box and cash prizes/no cash
Low-drive (no prize): told obtaining norms for a task;
High-drive (cash prize): instructed they would get cash prize depending on how quickly the problem was solved. Performed WORSE than low-drive subjects. Creates stress, or causes dominant habit to be prolonged preventing correct habit

Front 10

Kahneman and Tversky

Back 10

Framing effect
hypothetical life and death situation. Participants asked to choose between treatments for 600 people affected by a deadly disease.
Treatment A chosen when presented w/ positive effects (saves 200) but not when presented as negative (400 will die)

Front 11

Framing effect

Back 11

Cognitive bias: react differently to particular choice if it is presented as a loss or a gain. Avoid risk w/ positive frame but seek when negative frame.

Front 12

Framing heuristics

Back 12

Representativeness: when people use categories (ex/ deciding is a person is a critical). High representativeness for a category if they are very similar to a prototype of that category
Availability: Ease with which a particular idea can be brought to mind; estimate how likely or frequent an event is on the basis of it’s availability
Anchoring and adjustment: when people estimate a number. Starting from a readily available number and shifting either up or down to reach an answer that seems plausible; in T&K, people did not shift far enough away from the anchor.

Front 13

Base Rate Fallacy

Back 13

Error in thinking; if presented with base rate (generic) information and specific information (pertaining to a specific case) brain tends to ignore the former and focus on the later

Front 14

Prejudice

Back 14

negative prejudgement of a group & its individual members (an attitude consisting of affect, behavior and cognition)

Front 15

Why does prejudice exist?

Back 15

Realistic conflict theory: Perception of conflicted goals and competition over limited resources; you want your group to do better than others’
Contact hypothesis: Allport. Ignorance of other people leads to prejudice. One of the most effective ways to reduce prejudice- if one has opportunity to communicate with others, they are able to understand and appreciate different points of views involving their way of life; as a result of new appreciation and understanding, discrimination/prejudice should diminish
Rationalization for oppression
Cognitive shortcut
To boost self esteem

Front 16

Discrimination

Back 16

unjustifiable negative behavior toward a group or its members

Front 17

Stereotypes

Back 17

an overgeneralized belief about the personal attributes of a group of people

Front 18

Outgroup homogeneity effect

Back 18

perception of outgroup members as more similar to one another than in-group members; recognizing people in your group are different from you but painting members of an outgroup as all the same

Front 19

Sherif 1

Back 19

Robbers Cave camping study with the Rattlers and Eagles
Three stages: ingroup formation (split into groups); friction phase (groups entered in competiton with each other in various games & negative attitudes and behaviors developed); integration stage (tensions reduced through team-work driven tasks requiring cooperation)
individual differences not necessary or responsible for intergroup conflict to occur
Hostile & aggressive attitudes toward an outgroup arise when groups compete for resources that only one group can attain
Contact with an outgroup alone is insufficient to reduce negative attitudes

Front 20

Vohs and Schooler

Back 20

Encouraging a belief in determinism (instead of free will) encourages anti-social behavior

Front 21

Joiner Interpersonal Theory of Suicide

Back 21

Three factors: Perceived burdensomeness, sense of alienation, and increased ability to harm oneself

Front 22

Rational Choice theory

Back 22

balancing costs against benefits to arrive at action that maximizes personal advantage

Front 23

Effect of alcohol on self-regulation

Back 23

The self’s abilities to regulate its own behaviors
Alcohol is not good for it!
How: Decreases glucose > energy of brain > inhibition lowered

Front 24

Baumeister research into self-control

Back 24

Self-control is like a muscle; can be fatigued like any other muscle
Ego depletion. Ability to self-regulate is limited and after using it there is less ability/energy to self-regulate
Link btw ego depletion & blood glucose levels
Fatigue only affects controlled behaviors, not automatic
Automatic vs. controlled behaviors

Front 25

Dan Ariely research

Back 25

Meaning to task = more productive

Front 26

Johnson & Goldstein research:

Back 26

Organ donation by country
Reviewed what default option was
Where donation is default there is an increase in donor rate. Most Americans express favor of organ donation, but burden of switching lies on them

Front 27

Social influence

Back 27

change in belief, attitude or overt behavior based on real or imagined pressure from others
My Lai Massacre; Jonestown

Front 28

Normative social influence

Back 28

we want to fit in; we want to be liked publicly
public conformity, people fear social rejection
strong group consensus leads people to do things they wouldn’t normally
groupthink: emphasis on group unanimity at expense of critical thinking
Asch lines study

Front 29

What factors affect normative social influence?

Back 29

we want to fit in; we want to be liked publicly
public conformity, people fear social rejection
strong group consensus leads people to do things they wouldn’t normally
groupthink: emphasis on group unanimity at expense of critical thinking

Front 30

Informational social influence

Back 30

if other people are doing it, it’s right.
public conformity & private acceptance
fear of rejection
Sherif autokinetic

Front 31

More likely to conform to informational?

Back 31

Informational:
Situation is ambiguous
Situation is in crisis
when other people are experts

Front 32

Miller and Maner

Back 32

behavioral mimicry: Chameleon effect! Appears when subject wants the other person to like them
Function?: Mating; being impressive (affiliation)

Front 33

Sherif study looking at the autokinetic effect

Back 33

Labeled as visual perception; look at how long it takes group to come to consensus on how far an unmoving dot moved; if they changed in reaction to each other
Informational social influence
Autokinetic; in a dark room we perceive an unmoving light as moving