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;
108 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Social Cognition |
process by which people think about and make sense of other people themselves and social situations |
|
|
4 Assumptions about Social Cognition |
1) Motivated to make sense of the world by seeing ordered patterns 2) Social world loaded with information 3) Limited capacity (attention and info processing) 4) Cognitive miser (make errors and have biases) |
|
|
3 Types of Simplification Strategies |
1) Dispositional Inference Biases 2) Confirmatory Biases 3) Cognitive Heuristics |
|
|
Dispositional Inference Biases |
Attributing somebody's behavior to being the influence of their personality and not the situation |
|
|
Fundamental Attribution Error |
Dispositional Inference Biases Biases toward dispositional (personality based) inferences Ex. seeing somebody eating alone --> loner |
|
|
Jones and Harris (1967) |
Fundamental Attribution Error Shown anti/pro-Castro essays, were told that writers were free/forced to write their thoughts (4 conditions total)
|
|
|
Actor-Observer Bias |
Fundamental Attribution Error Your behavior is based off personality, mine is based off situation |
|
|
Confirmatory Biases |
Mental shortcuts to confirm pre-existing beliefs Ways of Confirming Biases: 1) Interpreting info to confirm 2) Seeking info to confirm 3) Creating info to confirm |
|
|
Darley and Gross (1983) |
Confirmatory Biases - Interpreting Info Evaluate potential of 9 year olds, some were told that kid was raised well (high expectations), some told she had a poor home life (low expectations), some rated girl before watching her perform average task, some rated after watching Results: high expectation led to higher rating, low expectation led to lower rating, initial expectation influenced interpretation of ambiguity |
|
|
Synder and Swann (1978) |
Confirmatory Biases - Seeking Assigned interviewer or interviewee role, interviewer told extravert or introvert, interviewer chose questions related to interviewee's extraversion/introversion Showed people seek to confirm biases |
|
|
Self-Fulfilling Prophecy |
Confirmatory Biases - Creating inaccurate expectation leads to expectation-consistent behavior, Ex. Depression: rumor that bank is bad when its not --> people freak out and run on bank --> bank actually goes under |
|
|
Synder, Tanke, Berscheid (1977) |
Confirmatory Biases - Creating Males told to have phone conversation with females, shown fake picture of person they are talking to (attractive or unattractive) Men coded for warmth and openness based off female's conversation. Results: men shown unattractive female coded for lower openness than men shown attractive female (self-fulfilling prophecy) |
|
|
Cognitive Heuristic |
mental shortcut used to form impressions and make judgements |
|
|
4 Types of Cognitive Heuristics |
1) Anchoring and Adjustment 2) Representativeness 3) Availability 4) Straightness |
|
|
Anchoring and Adjustment Heuristic |
beginning with rough estimate and then adjusting from there Ex. Factorial People say that 8*7*6*5*4*3*2*1 is larger than 1*2*3*4*5*6*7*8 because anchored by first number Real Life: Sales using anchoring original price, use ourselves as anchor |
|
|
Representativeness Heuristic |
Strategy of basing likelihood judgements on prototypes Sometimes people think subset is more probable than the entire whole (impossible) |
|
|
Conjunction Error |
Representativeness Heuristic when the combination of two events is thought to be more likely than two independent events Ex. people think H,H,H,H,T,T,T,T is less likely than H,T,H,H,T,T,H,T (both are just as likely) |
|
|
Gambler's Fallacy |
Representativeness Heuristic belief that the onset of a certain random event is more or less likely to happen following the occurrence of a prior random event "The card is due to come up" |
|
|
Hot Hand Phenomenon |
Representativeness Heuristic in sports belief that if people succeed several times in a row, they get “on a roll” Belief that independent events are linked |
|
|
Availability Heuristic |
when likelihood estimates are based on how easy examples come to mind Ex. Listing likelihood of deaths, terrorism vs. cancer, thinking of available words |
|
|
False Consensus Effect |
Availability Heuristic tendency to overestimate others’ agreement with us because we hang out with people with similar beliefs as us, think that people around us represent everybody |
|
|
Straightness Heuristic |
tendency to “tidy up” untidy realities to make more in line with “prettier picture” Remember things in a more tidy way than they are Which is farthest west: San Diego or Reno |
|
|
Characteristics of Heuristics |
Speed and accuracy tradeoff Generally adaptive |
|
|
Unconscious Bias |
People think they aren't biases when they are People in relationships can have mutual bias situations |
|
|
Affective Forecasting Errors |
tendency to mispredict the intensity and duration of emotional reactions to future events Caused by focalism and immune neglect |
|
|
Focalism |
the tendency to overestimate how much we will think about an event in the future Anxiety from big life events Will think that this will happen again in the future |
|
|
Immune Neglect |
the tendency to ignore automatic psychological processes that help us cope with emotional events |
|
|
Accessibility |
information that is more easily retrieved is more likely to be used |
|
|
Priming |
temporarily increasing the accessibility of a concept by presenting a related stimulus brings cognitive categories to attention (Mindy tricks Josh about eating soup with fork) |
|
|
Higgins, Rholes, and Jones |
Accessibility and Priming People shown a list of words to memorize, adventurous list and reckless list, second part: had to rate donald based off same essay Adventurous list saw him as adventurous and same with reckless list Accessibility influences thoughts |
|
|
Bargh, Chen, and Burrows |
Accessibility and Priming complete scrambled sentences 3 conditions (polite, rude, and neutral) then rated on how often they interrupt others (rude most often, polite least often) Accessibility affects behavior |
|
|
Murphy and Zajonc |
Accessibility and Priming Shown Chinese ideographs for 2 seconds, blinked either a smiley, neutral, unhappy face for 4 ms (too short to comprehend) Rated each ideograph on how much they liked it (smiley face rated highest, unhappy face lowest rating) |
|
|
Holland, Hendrik, and Aarts |
Accessibility and Priming Completed questionnaire either with no smell or citrus smell, then ate a biscuit (lots of crumbs) then rated cleanliness of table with crumbs Citrus smell rated as cleaner than neutral Accessibility on smell |
|
|
Attitude |
a favorable or unfavorable evaluative reaction toward something or someone |
|
|
Types of Attitudes |
Explicit - consciously accessible Implicit - unconscious association between object and evaluative response |
|
|
Ways of Classifying Attitudes |
Univariate - one dimension with two endpoints Bivariate - two independent things |
|
|
Measuring Attitudes |
Explicit - self-reported, sometimes tailored to social situation Implicit - indirect methods, modern racism scale (wording implies racism), Implicit Association Test - test of sorting words based off two criteria like negativity and positivity, then pictures by race. Then test white with positive and black with negative. Then test white with negative and black with positive. Difference in two trials shows racism. |
|
|
Dual processing theories |
Implicit and explicit attitudes are separate processes Have an attitude about everything; implicit and explicit do not always agree (explicit depends on situation) |
|
|
Methods of Attitude Formation |
1) Mere Exposure 2) Basic Learning Processes 3) Cognitive Appraisal 4) Self-Perception 5) Physical Movement 6) Genetics |
|
|
Mere Exposure |
Attitude Formation More exposure leads to more positive feelings Shows why people prefer the mirror image of themselves because they see that more |
|
|
Zajonc 1968 |
Attitude Formation - Mere Exposure Shown chinese ideographs for 2 seconds at a time, presented at different frequencies, no idea what they mean Results: longer frequencies seen as more positive and shorter frequencies seen as more negative |
|
|
Basic Learning Processes |
Attitude Formation Classical Conditioning - training to have neutral stimulus become associate with neutral response Instrumental Conditioning - rewards and punishments affect frequency of behavior Observational Learning - watch what happens and rewards and learn from others' experience |
|
|
Cognitive Appraisal |
Attitude Formation Think through pro's and con's and come up with attitude and stick with it Pretty much no attitude is formed this way |
|
|
Self-Perception |
Attitude Formation Process of inferring internal states from behavior Behave in a way --> understand the underlying attitude |
|
|
Physical Movement |
Attitude Formation Can produce attitudes; body posture, facial structure can produce attitudes Embodied Cognition - brain and body are deeply intertwined and influence each other |
|
|
Strack et al (1989) |
Attitude Formation - Physical Movement Pen in mouth (either similar to smiling, frowning, or pen in hand), Showed cartoons and rated them on funniness Results: Similar to smiling rated high, similar to frowning gave low ratings, pen in hand was control |
|
|
Wells and Petty (1980) |
Attitude Formation - Physical Movement Listened to taped editorial with headphones Asked to test sound of headphones by moving head (either up and down or back and forth), Rated persuasiveness Results: Up and down rated higher persuasive than back and forth |
|
|
Genetics |
Attitude Formation Some attitudes are heritable, values of object can be inherited MZ Twins share attitudes on death penalty, jazz, and politics compared to DZ twins Genes --> basic traits --> attitudes |
|
|
LaPiere (1934) |
Attitudes Predicting Behavior Traveled with chinese couple during time of prejudice, stopped at 250 hotel (one refused service), wrote letter to each place for service 92% said no Conclusion: attitudes and behaviors are unrelated (not true) Problem: Response bias - only strong beliefs answered Difference between in person and via mail 0.30 coefficient is important |
|
|
When Are Attitudes Predictors of Behavior |
1) In the absence of situational constraints 2) When they are at the same level of specificity - people more like to have specific attitude 3) Strong Attitude --> higher consistency 4) When attitude is formed through direct experience 5) When attitude is assessed before behavior 6) FOR LOW SELF-MONITORS -high self-monitors follow others and try to fit in |
|
|
Regan and Fazio (1977) |
When attitude is formed through direct experience Housing shortage forced some students onto dorm cots, others got permanent rooms, asked people for their attitude on situation (is money worth the "room") Results: Cot people extremely negative, asked people to sign petition --> mostly cot people signed |
|
|
Cognitive Dissonance Theory |
People desire consistency among cognitions (attitudes and beliefs) Inconsistency --> dissonance (mental discrepancy) Want to reduce dissonance (usually through defense mechanisms) |
|
|
Counter Attitudinal Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) |
Cognitive Dissonance Performed dull peg task, asked to set expectations for next subject. Conditions: Tell truth, say its fun for $1, say its fun for $20 ($$$) Results Control: No dissonance $20: low dissonance (did it for the money, no attitude change) $1: High dissonance (sold out but not sure why) |
|
|
Dissonance-Based Phenomena |
1) Counterattitudinal Behavior Change attitude to allign with certain behavior 2) Spreading of Alternatives Ignoring positives of cell phone you didn't buy and stick closer to phone you did choose 3) Effort Expenditure Join sex discussion group, some gave really personal info others less info some gave none, ended up being about insect sex; Results: severe detail "liked" it most (spent most effort) 4) Dehumanization Ex. Nazi's saw prisoners as not human, called them vermin Ex. "people from middle east are terrorists not regular people so killing is justified" |
|
|
Ways to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance |
1) Changing Attitudes Ex. "I don't need to quit smoking" 2) Adding Consonant Cognitions Ex. "Smoking relaxes me and keeps my weight down" 3) Altering the Importance of Discrepancy "It's more important to stay relaxed and thin than to worry about cancer" 4) Changing Behaviors "I'm going to stop smoking" |
|
|
Alternatives to Dissonance Theory |
1) Self-perception theory 2) Impression Management Theory 3) Self-Affirmation Theory 4) Festinger and Carlsmith (studies) |
|
|
Self-Perception Theory |
Alternative to Dissonance Theory Attitude change due to behavior isn't driven by dissonance When unsure of behavior --> infer from behaviors (based off perception) |
|
|
Bem (1965) |
Self-Perception Theory Subject read Festinger and Carlsmith procedure and guessed result If observers could predict results, actual subjects probably inferred their attitudes from behavior Results: observers successfully guessed results Explanation: Attitude change is rational and emotionless People figure out attitude from behaviors |
|
|
Impression Management Theory |
What looks like attitude change is not People don't want to be consistent, they want to appear that way F&C Results: people are trying not to look bad in front of experimenter, act a certain way in order to avoid embarassment Problem: attitude change was private |
|
|
Self-Affirmation Theory |
Key is maintaining positive view of oneself (inconsistency is a threat), people do ANYTHING to restore positive view of self F&C results: if people given chance to self-affirm, no attitude change needed |
|
|
Steele (1988) |
Self-Affirmation Theory Asked to write essay favoring tuition increase (counter opinion), given choice (high dissonance) or no choice (low dissonance) Some participants self-affirmed by completing questionnaire Results: (ratings) No choice =5 High choice no self-affirmation = 10.8 High choice self-affirmed = 3.6 Self-affirmation an important value eliminates the effects of dissonance |
|
|
Elaboration Likelihood Model |
Persuasion 2 ways to attitude change 1) Central Route - based on argument, statements, and rational though 2) Peripheral Route - heuristic thinking, influenced by irrelevant cues, sex sells |
|
|
Determinants of Persuasion Route |
Motivated and Able Need both to do central, if not do peripheral |
|
|
Determinants of Extent of Attitude Change |
1) Source (Credibility and Likability) a) Credibility (Expert is better) b) Likability (Use celebrities) 2) Message a) Amount of Information (more = better) b) Repetition (variant repetition is best) 3) 1vs2 Sided If audience is initially in favor --> do one sided If audience is initially again --> do both sided 4) Reasons vs Emotion Analytic audience --> reason Less educated --> emotion Fear appeals |
|
|
Resisting Persuasion |
1) Reactance - responding to perceived threat to freedom by acting in opposite direction 2) Inoculation - exposing people to weak attacks on their attitudes so they can better refute stronger attacks 3) Forewarning - forewarning people about counter-attitudinal arguments decreases the effectiveness 4) Selective Avoidance - avoiding attack on one's belief to maintain the belief |
|
|
Altruism |
Desire to increase another person's welfare per se, without regard for one's self-interest Ex. Kitty Genovese Ex. Emily Green |
|
|
Bystander Effect |
A person is less likely to provide help when other bystanders are present |
|
|
Darley and Latane (1968) |
Bystander Effect Discussion of student via intercom, confederate starts having a seizure, three conditions (only bystander, one of two, one of three) Results Only bystander - 85% helped One of two - 62% helped One of three - 31% helped Diffusion of responsibility |
|
|
Latane and Darley's 5 Step Model |
1) Does the person notice the incident 2) Does the person interpret the situation as an emergency 3) Does the person assume responsibility of the situation 4) Does the person have the ability to help 5) Does the person decide to provide |
|
|
Obstacles to a person noticing the incident |
Obstacles: Distraction and Self-Concerns |
|
|
Darley and Bateson (1973) |
Does the person notice the incident Asked seminary students to walk to another building to give a sermon to a different group of people about being a good samaritan Three conditions: Ahead of schedule, on time, behind schedule Passed a confederate coughing and groaning Results: Ahead - 63% On time - 45% Behind - 10% |
|
|
Obstacles to person interpret the situation as an emergency |
Ambiguity Pluralistic Ignorance - assume nothing is wrong when nobody reacts Relationship between attacker and victim |
|
|
Latane and Darley (1970) |
Interpreting the situation as an emergency Placed in a room filling out questionnaires, white smoke start coming in through vents 3 conditions: alone, 3 naive subjects, 2 passive confederates Results: Alone -75% 3 Subjects - 38% 2 Passive confederates - 10% |
|
|
Obstacle to Assuming Responsibility for Situation |
Diffusion of Responsibility More people - less responsible each person is |
|
|
Obstacle to Person Having Ability to Help |
Lack of skills |
|
|
Obstacles to Person Deciding to Help |
Audience inhibition - deciding not to help out of fear that one will not respond completely in front of others Costs exceeds rewards Social Exchange Theory - human interactions are more transactions to aim to maximize one's rewards and minimize one's costs |
|
|
Predicting Help |
1) Mood 2) Reward for Previous Help 3) Modeling 4) Deservingness of Requestor 5) Specific vs General Helpee 6) Location |
|
|
Levine et al (1994) |
Examined 36 US cities Conditions: Dropping pen, confederate with leg cast picking up magazine, make change for confederate who asked, blind person crossing street, mailing a dropped letter, donating to donating way Number 1: Rochester |
|
|
Altruism vs Egoism |
Altruism - helping for unselfish reasons Egoism - helping for selfish reasons People tend to attribute their own helping to altruism and others' to egoistic reasons |
|
|
4 Explanations of Why People Help |
1) Empathy Altruism Hypothesis 2) Mood Management Hypothesis 3) Social and Personal Norms 4) Evolutionary Theory |
|
|
Empathy Altruism Hypothesis |
Why People Help When we see a person in need we empathize with their distress even if nothing to gain |
|
|
Batson et al. (1981) |
Empathy Altruism Hypothesis Participants took survey to show personality, watched a video of a woman elaine being shocked in another room Two independent variables High vs low empathy Easy vs difficult to escape Results: Showed empathy altruism hypothesis, high empathy and help with easy escape |
|
|
Mood Management Hypothesis |
We help in order to avoid negative emotions When we see another person in need of help we often experience sadness distress or anticipate guilt Helping makes us feel good Egoistic view |
|
|
Social and Personal Norms |
Social norms - expectation that people will help those in need Norm of social responsibility - expectation that people will help those in need Norm of reciprocity - expectation that people will help those who have helped them in the past Personal norms - expectation that people gain through their own personal history regarding how people are supposed to behave |
|
|
Evolutionary Theory |
Young children show helping behaviors Kin selection - most likely to help close relatives who share our genes and will be able to pass on traits Reciprocal altruism - helping non related people for good karma |
|
|
Receving Help - Threat to Self-Esteem Model |
Depends on if the help is seen as supportive or threatening Self-supportive - when recipient feels appreciate and validated Self-threatening - conveys message of inferiority, deviates from norms or values Double Binds Recipient - direct benefit & question character Helper - doesn't help to avoid negative message & feel guilty if they don't help |
|
|
Aggression |
Physical or verbal behavior intended to hurt someone against their wil |
|
|
Types of Aggression |
Emotional - hostile, lose temper and punch somebody Instrumental (means to an end) - cold and calculating |
|
|
How Aggression is Expressed |
Direct - intended to hurt somebody to their face Ex. punch Indirect - intended to hurt somebody behind their back Ex. malicious gossip |
|
|
Causes of Aggression |
1) Biology 2) Basic Learning Processes 3) Frustration |
|
|
Biology leading to Aggression |
Instinct - innate and natural behavior (Freud and Lorenz: "natural human animalistic aggression") Genes - Aggression and violent behavior can be inherited Neurochemicals - high testerosterone and low serotonin --> more aggressive |
|
|
Basic Learning Processes of Aggression |
Instrumental Learning - experience positive consequence --> most likely to repeat Observational Learning - learn from parents, see their actions and repeat them |
|
|
Bandura et al (1961) |
Observational Learning Preschool children see adults beat up bobo doll, presented a room of toys and can't play with them --> frustration, children beat up bobo doll Results: Children that did not see aggression --> not aggressive Children saw adults be aggressive with no punishment --> be aggressive Children saw adults be aggressive WITH a punishment --> kids act less aggressively |
|
|
Frustration as a Cause of Aggression |
Blocking of a goal directed in one way Core premise: frustration always leads to aggression Leads to displacement (putting anger on weaker people) Frustration Aggression Hypothesis: Frustration --> anger --> aggression |
|
|
Specific Situational Determinants of Aggression |
1) Aggression Cues 2) Heat 3) Alcohol 4) Direct Provocation 5) Viewing Violence on TV |
|
|
Aggression Cues |
Presence of something in environment linked to aggression (ie gun) causes aggression |
|
|
Berkowitz & LePage (1967) |
Aggression Cues Told would evaluate other's essay by giving shocks Two conditions: Anger and no anger Saw either: gun or badminton Results: no anger - gun and badminton had no difference anger - gun gave average of 6 shocks, badminton gave about 4.8 |
|
|
Frank and Gilovich (1988) |
Aggression Cues Hypothesized black sports uniforms are aggression cues Collected data on uniform color and number of penalties, looked within teams changed from light to black Results: Black uniforms --> more penalties Penalties increased with black uniforms |
|
|
Heat as Aggression Cause |
More heat more aggression Seen in weather records and baseball records |
|
|
Alcohol as Aggression Cause |
Makes sense More drunk --> more aggressive |
|
|
Direct Provocation |
If target of aggression, tend to be aggressive back Norm of Reciprocity Eye for an eye, cultural norm to have retaliation be understandable |
|
|
Viewing Violence on TV and in Movies |
Watching violence --> reduction of inhibition to violent True with Pornography and Violent Pornography |
|
|
Liebert & Baron (1972) |
Violence viewing causing aggression Children watched tv (violent or non-violent) Play with other children Their actions videotaped and coded for aggressive behavior Viewer more aggressive |
|
|
Eron & Huesmann (1984) |
Violence viewing causing aggression Collected data on amount violent TV children watched, friends and teachers weighed in, Longitudinal results: More violent TV early on --> more violent actions later |
|
|
Zilman & Bryant (1984) |
Nonviolent Pornography as Violence Cause Shown 36 movies over 6 weeks (either porn or regular movies) Weeks later sentence rape dependent in mock trial and other measures Results: Porn watchers: lighter sentences and less support for women Men: more negative attitudes towards women |
|
|
Violent Pornography for Aggression Study Results |
Straigth males who have viewed violent porn have: 1) Higher acceptance of rape myths 2) Reduced sensitivity to seeing rape scenes 3) More rape fantasies 4) Hold rape defendants less responsible in mock trials 5) Actually show more aggression toward females but not males |
|
|
How Viewing Violence Promotes Violence |
1) Modeling/Imitation - "So that's how you do it" 2) Disinhibition - "If they can do it so can I" 3) Desensitization - "All another beating, what else is new" 4) Attitude Change - "It's not that bad" |
|
|
How to Reduce Aggression |
1) Catharsis - emotional release, does not help with coping 2) Punishments - jail, teaches what not to do not what to do, does not help with coping 3) Reality Check - constantly remind people of horrible realities 4) Be Proactive - put positive chracteristics into mind, keeps people away from aggressive urges |
