Social Psychology Final Exam

Front 1

How do you infer causation?

Back 1

There has to be:

- a correlation

- time order (must lead to a specific outcome)

- must eliminate all other possible causes

Front 2

Naturalistic Fallacy

Back 2

What is normal is right/good

e.g. homosexuality is wrong because in nature sex is used for reproduction

Front 3

Hindsight bias

Back 3

I knew it all along, something becomes obvious after you learn the results

Front 4

Social Desirability

Back 4

Saying what you want others to hear, the "right" answer

Front 5

Mundane Realism

Back 5

An experiment that is superficially similar to everyday situations

e.g. Robbers Cave experiment, the summer camp seemed real so participants participated like they were actually at camp

Front 6

Experimental Realism

Back 6

The experiment absorbs and involves its participants (psychologically)

E.g. The prison study where they had to be guards and prisoners

Front 7

Theory

Back 7

principles that explain and predict observed events

Front 8

Hypothesis

Back 8

testable predictions that describe possible relationships that occur between events

Front 9

Independent Variable

Back 9

causes a change in the dependent variable

Front 10

Dependent Variable

Back 10

depends on the manipulation of the independent variable

Front 11

Valid

Back 11

measures what it's supposed to measure

e.g. measuring violence as physical hitting

Front 12

Reliable

Back 12

measures the same thing over and over

e.g. a thermometer consistently reading the temperature

Front 13

Surveys

Back 13

a snapshot of a group's opinion on a specific issue

Front 14

Random Sampling

Back 14

A small group representative of the larger population

Front 15

Anchoring Effects

Back 15

questions that pull you in a certain direction

Front 16

Framing effects

Back 16

questions framed to seem like there is only one answer

Front 17

compliance

Back 17

acting in accord, but privately disagreeing

Front 18

obedience

Back 18

acting in accord, direct order

Front 19

acceptance

Back 19

acting and believing in accord

Front 20

What did Sherif's study of norm formation discover?

Back 20

Groups come to an agreement, and this is how norms are formed. Norms last over time and transfer on to other groups.

Front 21

chameleon effect

Back 21

synchronizing your behavior to what you see/hear

e.g. you see someone cross their arms, you do the same

Front 22

What is the Wherther effect?

Back 22

After a highly-publicized suicide, suicides in that area increase, showing the suggestibility of suicide

e.g. after marilyn monroe's suicide, there were 200 more suicides than usual in that area

Front 23

What did Asch's study with matching the length of lines discover?

Back 23

People are more likely to conform under group pressure, going along with what the majority says to not sound stupid

This only works if everyone else is thinking the same thing, if there is one other person that disagrees, rates of conformity drop

Front 24

Normative Influence

Back 24

Going along with what other people say because of pressure, wanting to fit in, not look stupid

e.g. Asch's group pressure study

Front 25

Informational Influence

Back 25

Going along with what others say because you believe their input is valuable

e.g. Sherif's norm formation study

Front 26

What are the steps of the 'decision tree' that we use to decide whether to help others?

Back 26

1. Notice the incident?

2. Is it an emergency?

3. Am I the only one that can help?

4. Try to help

*any answers that are no = no help

Front 27

Pluralistic Ignorance

Back 27

deciding whether it's an emergency or not, you look around and notice no one else is reacting to an emergency so you stay cool, but everyone else is doing the exact same thing

e.g. Smoke filled room study (the confederates didn't react to the smoke coming from the door)

Front 28

Diffusion of responsibility

Back 28

deciding if you are responsible, if there are many people around, you think that someone else will likely do it

e.g. kitty genovese incident

Front 29

What are some things that breed obedience?

Back 29

Victim's emotional distance (can't see/hear them)

The authority's legitimacy (recognized institution)

The authority's closeness (proximity)

Front 30

What are some things that breed conformity?

Back 30

If we are insecure

If we make a public response

Larger group size (min. 3-5)

Unanimity

Group cohesion

High-status people have more impact, we follow

If we publicly made a commitment

Front 31

Hostile aggression

Back 31

anger, goal is to injure

Front 32

Instrumental aggression

Back 32

goal is to injure, but as a means to an end

e.g. terrorist suicide bombings are to stop america from bringing war to their country

Front 33

frustration-aggression theory

Back 33

frustration triggers a readiness to aggress

frustration is when a goal is blocked

Front 34

relative deprivation

Back 34

the perception that you are less well off than those you compare yourself to

e.g. explains high crime and low happiness in areas that have large income inequality

Front 35

social learning theory

Back 35

Bandura

we learn social behavior by observing others act and noting the consequences

e.g. watching your older sister get in trouble for something you know not to do that

Front 36

self-concept

Back 36

"who am i?"

Front 37

self-schemas

Back 37

beliefs about yourself that organize how you process self-relevant information

e.g. perceiving yourself as intelligent, you will notice other people's level of intelligence and you will also welcome information that is consistent with this schema (getting good grades)

Front 38

what are the ways in which we develop our self-concept?

Back 38

Social identity

comparisons with others

our successes/failures

how others judge us

the surrounding culture (indiv/collect)

Front 39

social identity

Back 39

who am i? that comes from group membership

e.g. I am Canadian

Front 40

learned helplessness

Back 40

1. experience an unforeseen circumstance that was beyond your control

2. you feel a lack of self-control, incapable

3. when a problem arises that is within your control, you don't do anything about it because you think you just can't

Front 41

self-serving bias

Back 41

perceiving yourself favorably in relation to others

e.g. i do more work around the house than my sister

Front 42

self-serving attributions

Back 42

attribute positive outcomes to yourself, and negative ones as external factors

e.g. Do well on an exam = that was all me!

Do poorly = my teacher can't teach

Front 43

false consensus

Back 43

overestimating how common your beliefs are, we think people agree with us most of the time when they don't

if i like this, so do other people

e.g. a political party

Front 44

false uniqueness

Back 44

underestimating the commonality of your beliefs/behaviors

e.g. thinking only you listen to this certain cool band

Front 45

what type of temporal comparison do we usually make?

Back 45

we tend to think of ourselves in the present as doing much better than in the past, as a way to maintain a positive view of ourselves

Front 46

group-serving bias

Back 46

excusing your group from negative behaviors stereotypically associated with it

e.g. thinking your sorority sisters aren't conceited and bitchy like other sororities

Front 47

self-handicapping

Back 47

self-sabotage

engaging in behaviors that create an excuse for later failure as a way to protect your self-image

e.g. getting wasted the night before your exam so you can blame your poor grade on that

Front 48

basking in reflected glory

Back 48

latching onto other people's success to make you feel better

e.g. being supportive of your famous friend, "that's my friend!! I know her!!"

Front 49

confirmation bias

Back 49

we tend to search for information that confirm our preconceptions, less inclined to see evidence that might disprove it

e.g. ignoring evidence that your crush is a player, focusing on the good parts about him

Front 50

representative heuristic

Back 50

tendency to presume, if someone/something belongs to a particular group if they resemble/represent a typical member

e.g. is this person most likely a lawyer or engineer?

Front 51

availability heuristic

Back 51

judging the likelihood of things in terms of availability in memory, what comes readily to mind

e.g. what's more common, car accidents or bombings in the middle east?

Front 52

illusory correlation

Back 52

perceiving a relationship where there isn't, or perceiving a stronger relationship than what is

e.g. remembering the bad behaviors stereotypical of a certain ethnicity group more than the positive ones

Front 53

misattribution

Back 53

mistakenly attributing a behavior to a wrong cause

e.g. misattributing a woman's friendliness as flirting

Front 54

fundamental attribution error

Back 54

aka correspondence bias

we see behavior as a function of the person more often than considering situational factors

e.g. seeing someone fall thinking they are clumsy instead of considering that they might have slipped

Front 55

self-fulfilling prophecies

Back 55

beliefs that lead to their own fulfillment

e.g. a teacher thinking some of their students are gifted, more likely to give them more attention and they end up doing well

Front 56

low ball technique

Back 56

if you agree to an initial request you will comply if the requester ups the ante

e.g. agreeing to participate in a study, find out it's at 7 am, still go

Front 57

foot in the door technique

Back 57

if you agree to a small request you will comply with a larger request

e.g. agreeing to put a small sign on your lawn, likely to agree to put a bigger one later

Front 58

cognitive dissonance

Back 58

self-preservation

aware of 2 inconsistent cognitions, to reduce the conflict you change your way of thinking

e.g. 'I enjoy smoking' is dissonant with 'smoking is bad for you' so you change your way of thinking, 'smoking isn't that bad'

Front 59

insufficient justification

Back 59

when external justification is insufficient, you justify your behavior to reduce dissonance

e.g. paid $1 to lie any say the activity was enjoyable is insufficient justification, so you convince yourself that it actually was fun

Front 60

self-perception theory

Back 60

overjustification effect, intrinsic/extrinsic

No external reward: I'm doing this because I like it = intrinsic

External reward ($): I'm doing this because I'm getting paid = extrinsic

Front 61

social facilitation

Back 61

performing a task/activity better when others are present

e.g. working hard in fitness class, competing at a swim meet

Front 62

social loafing

Back 62

exerting less effort when you pool your efforts with other people towards a common goal

e.g. playing tug of war

Front 63

free ride

Back 63

benefitting from the group, not giving much back in return

e.g. letting your group members do almost all of the work on a project

Front 64

what are some factors that get us to like someone?

Back 64

- proximity

- liking those who like us

- similarity

- 'good match' similar level of physical attractiveness and traits

- physically attractive

- mere-exposure

Front 65

reward theory of attraction

Back 65

liking those who reward us, or those whom we associate with rewards

e.g. "I like rob because of how I feel when I'm with him"

Front 66

What are the kinds of love according to Sternberg?

Back 66

romantic, fatuous, companionate, consummate, empty, intimacy, passion (7)

Front 67

what is romantic love?

Back 67

intimacy + passion

Front 68

what is fatuous love?

Back 68

passion + commitment

Front 69

companionate love?

Back 69

intimacy (liking) + commitment

Front 70

consummate love?

Back 70

intimacy + passion + commitment

Front 71

Two-factor theory of emotion

Back 71

arousal x its label = emotion

e.g. Capilano bridge study

Front 72

realistic group conflict theory

Back 72

prejudice arises when there is competition for scarce resources among groups

e.g. Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment

Front 73

just-world phenomenon

Back 73

believing the world is just, so that everyone gets what they deserve, and deserve what they get

Front 74

out-group homogeneity effect

Back 74

perceiving out-group members as all the same, and in-group members as unique individuals

e.g. All the people that go to Laurier are the same type of people, but at UW we are diverse

Front 75

social identity theory

Back 75

any distinction between groups causes favoritism for your group

Front 76

aversive racism

Back 76

don't want to be prejudiced so they won't overtly discriminate, but if there is an excuse to do so they will

e.g. Job candidate hiring - 2 applicants with the same credentials and experience, choose to hire the one with the more White sounding name over the Black candidate

Front 77

implicit stereotyping

Back 77

stereotyping that occurs outside of our awareness

when people are threatened they tend to discriminate more

e.g. looking at pictures of white and black men holding objects, more likely to think the black man is holding a gun

Front 78

group-serving bias

Back 78

we grant those from our group the benefit of the doubt, and also dismiss positive behaviors from out-groups, calling it a special case

e.g. He's not like most Aboriginals

Front 79

benevolent sexism

Back 79

stereotypical roles, but subjectively positive

e.g. 'women are morally superior', referring to women as 'wife, mother, daughter' when talking about equality but those roles matter in relation to men > cast them as fragile, needing protection

Front 80

hostile sexism

Back 80

put women on a pedestal, objectifying them

e.g. 'cleaning is a woman's job'

Front 81

stereotype threat

Back 81

a disruptive concern when facing a negative stereotype, that you will be evaluated based on that stereotype

e.g. giving men and women a difficult math test, threaten stereotype by saying women have more difficulty, women will perform poorly

if you remove the stereotype women perform on par with men

Front 82

how persuasive is eyewitness testimony?

Back 82

they are most likely believed, more confident than correct about what they saw

Front 83

misinformation effect

Back 83

remembering things that didn't even happen, look like real memories

e.g. asking a child if they remember how they got their hand stuck in a mousetrap (fake), they come up with stories on what happened

Front 84

what are some things that can influence a jury's decision?

Back 84

- physical attractiveness of the defendant: what is beautiful is good

- minority influence

- group influence: 2/3 disagree then come to a consensus

- group polarization: initial sentiments are magnified, get more extreme

- in doubt: will let the defendant go free

- trial presented as a story: jurors better persuaded

- statistical info: don't pay much attention

- inadmissible evidence: hard to ignore

Front 85

the prisoner's dilemma

Back 85

1) If prisoner A confesses and B doesn't, B will go free and A will get maximum penalty

2) If they both confess they will receive a moderate sentence

3) If neither confesses, they will receive a light sentence

Front 86

tragedy of the commons

Back 86

a situation within a shared-resource system where individual users acting independently for own personal self-interest to behave contrary to the common good of all users by depleting/spoiling that resource through collective action

e.g. 100 cows for 100 farmers, getting another cow to double profit and speed up time, other people get the same idea, cows eat all the grass and becomes a mud-less field

Front 87

non-zero sum game

Back 87

both parties could win and both could lose

e.g. prisoner's dilemma - both will get the lesser sentence if they both stay quiet (6 mo), but they are both afraid that one might confess, so to avoid getting the max sentence (10yrs) so they both confess and equally get lower time (2yrs)