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;
77 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Social psychology |
The scientific study of feelings, thoughts, and behaviors of individuals in a group |
|
|
Channel factors |
At the surface, seemingly unimportant things that affect behavior |
|
|
Construals |
People's interpretations/inferences about stimuli or situations they confront |
|
|
Gestalt psychology |
People perceive objects not by means of some automatic registering device but by active, usually unconscious, interpretations of what the object represents as a whole |
|
|
Prisoner's dilemma |
Situation involving payoff for two people, cooperation produces the best result for both |
|
|
Schemas |
Generalized knowledge about the social world |
|
|
Stereotypes |
Schemas that we have for people of various kinds |
|
|
Automatic processing |
Reacting quickly to frightening situations so they can take immediate actions |
|
|
Controlled processing |
Conscious thoughts |
|
|
Naturalistic fallacy |
The way things are differ from the way things "should" be |
|
|
Hindsight bias |
Overconfidence in predicting a given outcome |
|
|
Observational research |
Not in a lab, low internal validity, high external validity |
|
|
Archival research |
Looking at evidence found in archives to make conclusions |
|
|
Reverse causation |
In correlational, possible explanation of why causation cannot be concluded |
|
|
Third variable |
In correlational, possible explanation of why causation cannot be concluded |
|
|
Experimental research |
Manipulating a variable, very controlled, high internal validity, low external validity |
|
|
Longitudinal study |
Looking at same Ps at at least two different times |
|
|
Self-selection |
Experimenter has no control over assignment of variables, or levels |
|
|
Natural experiments |
Events occur that investigator believes to have causal implications for some outcome |
|
|
Field experiment |
Experiment conducted outside the lab |
|
|
Basic science |
Seeks to understand phenomena |
|
|
Applied science |
Studying real problems, which gives rise to basic science |
|
|
Deception research |
Research which involves a level of deception to the participant |
|
|
Snap judgments |
Immediate judgments about a person, there may be a transactional relationship in the accuracy of snap judgments, but they are not 100% accurate |
|
|
Pluralistic ignorance |
People act in ways that conflict with their private beliefs because of a concern for social consequence
Ex: not asking question in lecture |
|
|
Primacy effect |
Disproportionate influence of judgment by information presented first |
|
|
Recency effect |
Disproportionate influence of judgment by information presented last |
|
|
Framing effect |
The way information is presented, including order, can "frame" the way it is processed and understood |
|
|
Positive and negative framing |
Ex: changing the name of the War Department to the Defense Department |
|
|
Construal level theory |
Psychologically distant actions and events are thought about in abstract terms; actions and events that are close at hand are thought about in concrete terms |
|
|
Confirmation biases |
Tendency to test a proposition by searching for supporting evidence |
|
|
Bottom-up processes |
Data driven, individual forms conclusions based on stimuli encountered through an experience |
|
|
Top-down processes |
theory driven mental processing; individual filters and interprets new information in light of existing knowledge |
|
|
Encoding |
Filing information away in memory based on what information is attended to and the initial interpretation of the information |
|
|
Retrieval |
Extraction of information from memory |
|
|
Priming |
Momentarily activate a concept and hence make it accessible |
|
|
Self-fulfilling prophecy |
Tendency for people to act in ways that bring about the very thing they expect to happen |
|
|
heuristics |
Intuitive mental judgments that allow us to make decisions quickly |
|
|
Availability heuristic |
Process whereby judgments of frequency or probability are based on how readily pertinent instances come to mind
Ex: tornadoes in Kansas |
|
|
Representativeness heuristic |
Process whereby judgments of liklihood are based on assessments of similarity between individuals and group prototypes or between cause and effect
Ex: Is he gay? Does he seem like other gay people I know? |
|
|
Anchoring and adjustment |
Ex: Think population of Turkey, over under 10 or 100 million |
|
|
Fluency |
Feeling of ease associated with processing information |
|
|
Base-rate information |
Information about relative frequency of events of members |
|
|
Planning fallacy |
Tendency for people to be unrealistically optimistic about how quickly they can complete a project |
|
|
Illusory correaltion |
Idea that two ideas are related when they are not |
|
|
Attribution theory |
Study of how people understand the causes of events |
|
|
Causal attribution |
Process people use to explain both their own and other's behaviors |
|
|
Explanatory style |
A person's habitual way of explaining events with 3 dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific |
|
|
Covariation |
Try to determine what causes, intern/extern, symptomatic of the person in question or applicable to everyone, coincide with observation or effect we are trying to eplain
Consensus, distinctiveness, consistency |
|
|
Consensus covariation |
What most people would do in a situation |
|
|
Distinctiveness covariation |
What an individual does in different situations |
|
|
Consistency |
What an individual does in a given situation on different occasions; whether the next time, the person would act the same way |
|
|
Discounting principle |
The idea that people should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if other plausible causes might have produced it |
|
|
Augmentation principle |
Idea that people have greater confidence that a particular factor is the cause of behavior if other causes are present that would normally produce the opposite outcome |
|
|
Counterfactrual thoughts |
Thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened, "if only" something had been done differently |
|
|
Emotional amplification |
Our emotional reaction to an event tends to be more intense if it almost did not happen
Ways to amplify: time/proximity, routine/deviation |
|
|
Self-serving attributional bias |
Tendency to attribute failure and other bad events to external circumstances, but attribute success and other good events to oneself |
|
|
Fundamental attribution error |
Tendency to attribute people's behaviors to elements of their character or personality, even when powerful situational forces are acting to produce the behavior |
|
|
Just world hypothesis |
People get what they deserve in life, and deserve what they get |
|
|
Perceptual salience |
Stuff that is more salient is more likely to be thought of as causal |
|
|
Cognitive mechanics of attribution |
(1) observe behavior in question, identify what behavior is, what it means (2) characterize person based on behavior observed (3) Adjust judgment basedon situational constraints, change initial dispositional inference |
|
|
Actor-observer difference |
Difference in attribution based on who is making the causal assessment: the actor (who is relatively disposed to make situational attributions) or the observer (who is relatively disposed to make dispositional attributions |
|
|
Culture and attribution |
Western societies pay less attention to situations than do the rest of the world, we see personalities as less malleable |
|
|
Perseverance Effect |
Tendency to maintain one's beliefs even if it's been discredited |
|
|
How can our impressions be changed? |
1. Outcome dependency 2. Increasing cost of being wrong 3. Accountability 4. Debiasing instructions MOTIVATION/MENTAL ABILITY |
|
|
Two key dimensions to avoid schema driven thinking? |
Motivation & Ability |
|
|
Types of Schemas |
1. Types or groups of people 2. Traits 3. Situations (scripts) 4. Ourselves 5. Objects |
|
|
Basic Characteristics of Schemas |
1. We have schemas for EVERYTHING 2. Schemas are FUNCTIONAL 3. Schemas vary WITHIN individuals 4. Schemas vary BETWEEN individuals |
|
|
Effects of Schemas |
1. Influence attention & memory 2. Allow filling in the gaps (making inferences) 3. Shape interpretations of ambiguous info 4. Speed up processing |
|
|
Stages of schema usage |
Availability --> Accessability --> Application |
|
|
Sources of accessibility |
Temporary & Chronic |
|
|
Function of attributions |
1. Help predict and control environment 2. Help determine thoughts, feelings, & behaviors 3. Influence expectations for future 4. Impact on own performance |
|
|
When do we make attributions? |
Negative or unexpected |
|
|
Heider's 2 types of attributions |
Internal & External |
|
|
Correspondent Inference Theory |
We often infer that behaviors correspond to people who engage in them |
|
|
Cues that people look for in correspondent inference theory |
Social Desirability Choice Social Role |
|
|
Cognitive Roots of Attributional Errors & Biases |
1. Perceptual Salience 2. People are Cognitive Misers 3. Self-Esteem Concerns 4. People seek a coherent understanding of the word (fluency) |
