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;
122 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
attribution theories
|
theories that describe how people explain the causes of others behaviors
|
|
|
actor
|
a person whose behavior is being explained
|
|
|
observer
|
a person doing the explaining
|
|
|
internal / dispositional explanation
|
a person is behaving in a certain way because of something about the person's attitude, character, or personality. The behavior is voluntary and facilitates a prediction of future behavior
|
|
|
external / situational explanation
|
Based on the environment, says little about the persons character or personality. The inference that a person is behaving in a certain way because of the situation they are in. Does not facilitate a prediction of future behavior.
|
|
|
Internal attribution
|
"She helped me because she is generous."
|
|
|
External attribution
|
"She helped me because she wanted to impress our friends"
|
|
|
Correspondent Inference theory
|
We learn about a person when behavior is freely chosen, behavior deviates from norms, and behavior doesn't lead to positive consequences
|
|
|
Correspondence Bias Fundamental Attribution Errors
|
We frequently overestimate dispositional causes of behavior and underestimate situational causes of behavior
|
|
|
Actor-observer effect
|
We are aware of situational forces acting on us, but are not as aware for other people. (We realize that a situation we are in caused us to act in a certain way, but we don't think the same for our friends.)
|
|
|
Perceptual Salience
|
The tendency to attribute our own behavior to situational causes and the behavior of others to dispositional causes (personality traits). This is especially true with failures
|
|
|
Information Access
|
Actors have more information about themselves than do observers. They know how consistent their present behavior is to their past behavior.
|
|
|
Motivational Bias / self-serving attributions
|
Explanations for ones successes that credit internal, dispositional factors as opposed to failures, which are explained by external, situational factors.
|
|
|
Social cognition
|
A study of how people think / feel about themselves and the social world. How we organize, interpret, remember and use social information to make decisions
|
|
|
Low effort
|
Automatic thinking that is unintentional, effortless i.e. knowing how to get to class after the first couple of weeks
|
|
|
High effort
|
Controlled, intentional, voluntary and effortful thinking i.e. on the first day of class you have to think of the building you are going to / how to get there
|
|
|
Cognitive misers
|
Willing to take shortcuts to understand / predict the social world
|
|
|
Schema
|
Mental structure that help organize knowledge about the social world and guide the selection, interpretation and recall of information (help us organize behavior, schemas applied to a group are called stereotypes)
|
|
|
Examples of schemas
|
social roles, social norms
|
|
|
Scripts
|
step-by-step order of events for a particular situation, helps us know what to expect, and we may fill in things that didn't actually happen
|
|
|
Schema inconsistent and consistent within an office
|
Inconsistent: excercise equipment Consistent: stapler, filing cabinets, book shelves
|
|
|
Priming
|
The process by which recent experiences increase the accessibility of a schema, trait, or concept. (Seeing a drunk person makes you consider whether or not they are mentally unstable or have some other sort of disorder because you just read a book about mental disorders and what they cause -- alcoholism)
|
|
|
Schemas influence behavior.....studied when the participant would interrupt the experimenter based on his use of rude words
|
Independent variable: primed polite, rude, or neutral words
Dependent variable: how long the participant waited to interrupt the experimenter |
|
|
Confirmation Bias
|
Tendencies to interpret, seek, and create information that verifies our preexisting beliefs or schemas
|
|
|
David Rosenhan's study of Being Sane in Insane Places was an example of....
|
Confirmation Bias
|
|
|
Self-fulfilling prophecies
|
A false belief that leads to its own fulfillment.....perceiever develops false belief about a target, treats target in manner consistent with false belief, target responds to the treatment in such a way as to confirm the originally false belief
|
|
|
Judgmental Heuristics
|
Mental shortcuts people use to make judgements quickly and efficiently
|
|
|
Availability Heuristics
|
A mental rule of thumb whereby people base a judgement on the ease with which they can bring something to mind
|
|
|
Representativeness
|
The tendency to assume that someone or something belong to a particular group if similar to a typical member. Insensitive to prior probability and sample size, and instead rely on representativeness.
|
|
|
Base rate information
|
Information about the frequency of members of different categories in the population.
|
|
|
Anchoring
|
Start with "anchor", fail to adjust away enough -- upper and lower bound thing (i.e. number).
|
|
|
Examples
|
First impressions, judges and penalty decisions, personal experiences
|
|
|
Low effort processes
|
Deciding on the color of your future car
|
|
|
High effort processes
|
Determining gas milage, dependability, and affordability
|
|
|
Counterfactual thinking
|
Mentally changing an aspect of the past and imagining what it might have been, enhances thoughts of cause and effect and meaning in our lives. Is more common after failures than successes.
|
|
|
Upward counterfactual thinking
|
Imagining better outcomes
|
|
|
Downward counterfactual thinking
|
Imagining worse outcomes
|
|
|
Counterfactual thinking focused on WHY negative outcomes occurred leads to
|
better strategies and performance in the future
|
|
|
Thought suppression
|
The attempt to avoid thinking about something we would prefer to forget, often backfires, may be the starting point for obsessive thoughts.
|
|
|
Advantages of correlational research
|
Can study real world factors that cannot be manipulated in a laboratory, and can collect large amounts of data.
|
|
|
Correlation coefficient
|
A statistical measure that indicates the extent to which two factors vary together and thus how well either factor predicts the other (positive correlation r = .01 to 1, negative correlation r = -.01 to -1)
|
|
|
Dependent variable
|
CANNOT CONTROL. This is the variable that the researchers measure. It is hypothesized to change in response to the manipulations of the independent variable.
|
|
|
Independent variable
|
Is manipulated by the researchers to find a result in the dependent variable.
|
|
|
A researcher is interested in how the aggression level of a 4 year old is affected by viewing a 30-minute video of Barney vs. the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles. IV and DV?
|
IV: Video clip watched
DV: Aggression level |
|
|
A researcher wants to find otu if adolescents increase condom use after participating in a peer based, counselor-based or no-information intervention. IV and DV?
|
IV: Type of intervention
DV: Condom use |
|
|
Single blind study
|
Participant does not know which group he / she is in
|
|
|
Double blind study
|
Neither the participant nor the researcher knows which group the subject is in
|
|
|
Quasi-experiment
|
pre-existing differences make an experiment "quasi", no or partial random assessment, 2 or more groups are exposed to an IV and differences in a DV are examined, there is no or partial random assignment (often self-selection)
|
|
|
Probability level
|
How likely it is that the results occurred by chance and not because of the IV's (an effect that is statistically significant is an effect that would occur by chance less than 5% of the time)
|
|
|
Statistical Significance
|
When we find that 2 or more groups differ from each other on our dependent variable, we must determine whether that difference is meaningful or whether it probably occurred by chance.
|
|
|
Internal validity
|
The extent to which we can draw conclusions about cause and effect (good design, control for confounds)
|
|
|
External validity
|
the extent to which the findings generalize to other people, settings IVs and DVs.
|
|
|
Between subjects design
|
Each participant participates in one and only one group / treatment, the results from each group are then compared to each other to examine differences
|
|
|
Within subjects design
|
Each participant participates in more than one group or treatment
|
|
|
Between or within? Participants experience a mild, neutral and severe initiation in order to be a part of a discussion group on sex. After each initiation, they are asked to rate how much they want to belong to that group
|
Within, multiple
|
|
|
Between or within? Participants are assigned to either write a pro-abortion or anti-abortion essay and then asked to rate their attitudes towards the topic
|
between, either or
|
|
|
Attitude
|
Evaluation of a person, object or idea. Can be positive, negative, neutral or ambivalent
|
|
|
3 Attitude Components
|
Affective, Behavioral, Cognitive
|
|
|
Affective
|
a positive or negative feeling about the attitude object (emotional)
|
|
|
Behavioral
|
Behavioral reaction to attitude object (approach vs. avoid)
|
|
|
Cognitive
|
A cognitive representation that summarizes ones evaluation of the attitude object (thoughts and beliefs)
|
|
|
Affect
|
attitude based on emotion (reaction to maggots, island, political candidates), people's values, sensory reaction (such as liking the taste of chocolate)
|
|
|
Classical Conditioning
|
Learning by association, unconditioned stimulus / response, neutral stimulus
|
|
|
Unconditioned stimulus / Unconditioned response
|
A stimulus that elicits a reflexive response / an unlearned response to a stimulus (reflexive response)
|
|
|
Conditioned stimulus / conditioned response
|
A neutral stimulus that elicits a conditioned response through association with an unconditioned stimulus (NS - doctor, UCS - needle, baby learns to cry when she sees a doctor because she knows that the needle means pain = conditioned response)
|
|
|
Attitude conditioning
|
Berkowitz and Knuerk created favorable and unfavorable attitudes to the names Ed and George by repeatedly presenting the names with paired positive and negative adjectives
|
|
|
Operant conditioning
|
Behaviors we freely perform become more or less frequent, depending on whether they are followed by a reward (positive reinforcement) or punishment
|
|
|
Reinforcement increases
|
the likelihood of emitting a behavior in operant conditioning
|
|
|
Punishment decreases
|
the likelihood of emitting a behavior in operant conditioning
|
|
|
When do attitudes predict behavior?
|
Attitude and behavioral measures correspond. Generally, global attitudes predict behavior across a variety of contexts. Specific attitudes predict specific behaviors.
|
|
|
Persuasion
|
An attitude change as a result of information processing, often in response to messages about the attitude object
|
|
|
Theories of persuasion can be categorized by the amount of
|
cognitive effort involved in the change process (persuasion processes requiring little cognitive effort, requiring effortful processing)
|
|
|
In Langer's compliance study, between "May I cut the line?", "May I cut in line, I'm in a hurry.", or "May I cut in line, I need to make copies." produced the WORST response?
|
"May I cut in line?"
|
|
|
Norm of Reciprocity
|
Compliance more likely if you've been given a gift
|
|
|
The difference between Door in the Face and Foot in the Door
|
In the Door in the Face technique, someone makes an excessive request that the other person is most likely to refuse, at which point they make a second, more reasonable request that the other person is more likely to accept. In the Foot in the Door technique, someone asks for something small, and when the other person says ok, the person asks for something a bit bigger, and then bigger again.
|
|
|
Low Ball technique
|
An artificially low price that is increased after decision (car salesman)
|
|
|
What is social proof?
|
We view a behavior as correct in a given situation to the degree that we see others performing it (everyone else is doing it!)
|
|
|
Psychological Reactance
|
We want what we cannot have or may not be able to have in the future
|
|
|
Reactance
|
When people feel their freedom to perform a certain behavior is thereatened, an unpleasant state of reactance is aroused, which they can reduce by performing the threatened behavior (a sign that says NO smoking made someone want to smoke)
|
|
|
As a result of reactance, people may...
|
ignore the message, derogate the source of the message, become more attracted to the undesirable behavior
|
|
|
The amount of reactance people have depends on
|
importance of the freedom, strength of the threat, and proportion of the freedoms threatened
|
|
|
Exceptions to the reactance theory (there are 2)
|
extremely large or extremely small threats
|
|
|
Central route processing
|
Person is fully engaged with the message content, high effort / more controlled processing (reasoned and analytic)
|
|
|
Peripheral route processing
|
use cognitive resources that need little cognitive effort (attractiveness, liking)
|
|
|
What would be the central and peripheral routes for a Pepsi commercial?
|
Britney Spears is the peripheral route, discussion of taste and thirst quenching ability is central
|
|
|
People differ in their....
|
need for cognition (the extent to which they enjoy effortful cognitive activities)
|
|
|
Sleeper Effect
|
A delayed increase in the persuasive impact of a non-credible source (we remember the message but we forget why we discounted it)
|
|
|
Discrepancy - How extreme a position should you take in order to maximize attitude change?
|
Moderate discrepancy is best...two extreme a position will lead people to quickly reject and refute the arguments
|
|
|
One sided is better if
|
the audience already agrees, is unaware of opposing views, and is less knowledable
|
|
|
Why did men del cross true breeding individuals?
|
He crossed true breeding individuals with different traits, mated them, and statistically analyzed the inheritance of the traits in the progeny
|
|
|
Short gap between messages
|
Decision based on primacy
|
|
|
Long gap between messages
|
Decision based on recency (what is most recent in memory)
|
|
|
Results of flashing the "lipton ice" on the computer screen (subliminal messaging)
|
Participants who were thirsty and primed were more likely to choose Lipton Ice and had higher intentions of drinking it
|
|
|
Arousing both positive and negative issues can lead to
|
an attitude change
|
|
|
Feeling good --> more positive outlook --> increases ones tendency to use the peripheral route to persuasion. Example?
|
People who watch commercials while eating are more easily persuaded than those who watch the commercials but don't eat
|
|
|
Someone who displays central characteristics is
|
highly motivated, the issue is relevant and important to them, they like to think, they are knowledgable, and there are no distractions
|
|
|
Someone who displays peripheral characteristics is
|
low motivation, issue is irrelivant, don't like to think, little prior knowledge, distracted
|
|
|
How attitude change occurs for central route processing:
|
strong arguments, tends to be longer lasting and harder to change
|
|
|
How attitude change occurs for peripheral route processing:
|
speaker characteristics (expert, attractive, etc)., # of arguments, shorter lasting
|
|
|
Key variables in fear appeals
|
amount of fear (threat), recommendations of how to change the behavior (efficacy)
|
|
|
A high threat message is
|
personal, vivid language and pictures, it can happen to me and is a threat to my health
|
|
|
a high efficacy message
|
explains how to do the recommended response, gives evidence of recommended response effectiveness
|
|
|
Response efficacy
|
Belief that the advocated response works
|
|
|
Self efficacy
|
Perceived ability to perform the response
|
|
|
Behaviorism
|
A school of psychology maintaining that to understand human behavior, one need only consider the reinforcing properties of the environment, i.e. how positive and negative events in the environment are associated with specific behaviors.
|
|
|
Gestalt Theory
|
A school of psychology stressing the importance of studying the subjective way in which an object appears in peoples minds rather than the objective, physical attributes of the object
|
|
|
Hindsight bias
|
The tendency for people to exaggerate how much they could have predicted an outcome after knowing that it occurred
|
|
|
Ethnography
|
The method by which researchers attempt to understand a group or culture by observing it from the inside, without imposing any preconceived notions they might have
|
|
|
Observational method
|
The technique whereby a researcher observes people and systematically records measurements or impressions of their behavior
|
|
|
Internal Validity
|
making sure that nothing besides the independent variable can affect the dependent variable; this is accomplished by controlling all extraneous variables and by randomly assigning people to different experimental conditions
|
|
|
External validity
|
The extent to which the results of a study can be generalized to other situations and to other people
|
|
|
Psychological Realism
|
The extent to which the psychological processes triggered in an experiment are similar to psychological processes that occur in everyday life
|
|
|
Analytic thinking style
|
A type of thinking in which people focus on the properties of objects without considering their surrounding context; this type of thinking is common in Western cultures.
|
|
|
Holistic Thinking Style
|
A type of thinking in which people focus on the overall context, particularly the ways in which objects relate to each other (this is common in East Asian cultures)
|
|
|
Affect blend
|
A facial expression in which one part of the face registers one emotion while another part of the face registers a different emotion
|
|
|
Display rules
|
Culturally determined rules about which nonverbal behaviors are appropriate to display
|
|
|
Implicit Personality Theory
|
A type of schema people use to group various kinds of personality traits together; for example, many people believe that someone who is kind is generous as well
|
|
|
Covariation Model
|
A theory that states that to form an attribution about what caused a persons behaior, we systematically note the pattern between the presence or absence of possible casual factors and whether or not the behavior occurs
|
|
|
Consensus Information
|
Information about the extent to which other people behave the same way toward the stimulus as the actor does
|
|
|
Perceptual Salience
|
The seeming importance of information that is the focus of people's attention
|
|
|
Two step process of attribution
|
1. Make an internal attribution, we assume that a person's behavior was due to something about that person. 2. We then attempt to adjust this attribution by considering the situation the person was in
|
|
|
Heuristic Systematic Model of Persuasion
|
An explanation of the two ways in which persuasive communications can cause attitude change: either systematically processing the merits of the arguments or using mental shortcuts (heuristics) such as "Experts are always right"
|
