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
Person situation controversy
|
even though traits are stable across time, specific trait doesn’t predict specific behavior/ not going to have behavior for every situation
|
|
Distinctiveness Hypothesis
|
find what makes us unique, highlight it in self concept
|
|
Social comparison
|
compare self to evaluate own abilities/opinions
DOWNWARD/UPWARD SOCIAL COMPARISON |
|
Glass self
|
shape self concept around how THINK others feel about us
not how they ACTUALLY think about us |
|
self beliefs (make up self knowledge)
|
o personal beliefs
o social self o relational o collective |
|
self image bias
|
judge other’s personalities based on how similar/not they from ours
|
|
self perception theory
|
infer attitudes/feelings from observed behavior/situation
|
|
misattribution of arousal
|
mistake in assuming what causes arousal
|
|
Locus of control
|
amount feel that events in life are frm chance/internal control
INTERNAL VS EXTERNAL |
|
Sociometer hypothesis
|
esteem is internal, is index of how much socially liked
|
|
Self eval maintenance model
|
motivated to see self as good in 2 ways
o Reflection (friend successful in domain don’t care about) • Use others’ glory to feel good by helping friends succeed more with things not important to us o Social comparison (use for stranger) • Notice when better at things |
|
self serving bias
|
tendency to see self favorably, to preserve pos self image
** blame failure = situation |
|
False consensus effect
|
overestimate commonality of opinion/bad behaviors/failures
|
|
False uniqueness effect
|
underestimate commonality of abilities/good behaviors/successes
|
|
Self handicapping
|
protect self image by setting up situation where hard to succeed but has excuse for failure
|
|
Spotlight effect
|
overestimate amount of attn aimed at us
|
|
Self reference effect
|
form memories around primary interests
(Remember info more if relates to us) |
|
Self fulfilling prophecy
|
belief comes true by behaviors (that are influenced by belief)
|
|
Rosenthal/Pygmalion effect
|
greater expectation → better performance
|
|
Ekman’s facial feedback hypothesis
|
change in expression → change in emotion
o face reflects & INFLUENCES internal states ex: chewing on pen, thinking cartoon funny |
|
Rosenberg Scale
|
standard scale to measure overall esteem
|
|
Attribution
|
explanation for behavior
|
|
explanatory style
|
person’s habitual way of explaining events
o internal/external (cause of event) o stable/unstable (how perm it is) o global/specific (extent of event affecting things) |
|
Attributional classes: Situational, Dispositional
|
• Dispositional = cause of behavior frm something internal to person
• Situational = cause frm situation |
|
Attribution Theory:
Free choice expectedness Effects of behavior |
• More free choice = stronger disposition attribution
• Not expect = weaker disposition attrbt • More pos effects frm behavior = less certain of WHY person did it |
|
Fundamental Attribution Error/ Correspondence Bias
|
tendency to think behavior matches personality
- DISCOUNT SITUATION - PAY MORE ATTN TO PERSON WHEN MAKE JUDGMNT ex: Alex Trabec Effect |
|
Big 5 Model
|
personality factors:
Conscientiousness Agreeableness Neuroticism Openness Extraversion Traits stable as adults, change during develop 50% Heritable Culturally Universal |
|
perceptual salience
|
when figure out others behavior, pay more attn to person instead of situation
|
|
actor/observer difference
|
•look at own behavior = we are actor (know ourselves so look @ situation)
•look @ others = we are observer (bc don’t know person) |
|
I <3 fidel castro exp:
|
o 2 speeches (one pro, one anti), writer had free choice vs assigned
o Anti castro writers = readers attributed to anti castro attitudes • Even though didn’t have free choice → still attributed behavior to personality |
|
Kelly Covariate Model :
Consistency distinctiveness consensus |
• consistent with previous behavior
• behavior distinct from situation? Does this with all situations? • Other ppl do behavior? Only you? high distin/consensus = external attrb low distin/consensus = internal attrb • Mary not usually sarcastic (low consistency + high distinctiveness) & others also sarcastic to M. = external |
|
Discounting principle
|
other possible causes of behavior present → perceived cause is discounted
- more pos effects frm behavior = less certain WHY did behavior ex: rewards for grades --> not sure if worked hard: to do well for $$ |
|
Augmentation principle
|
other causes present that would predict opp behavior → strengthen attrbtn
ex: threatened to be killed for beliefs & still believe |
|
Counterfactual thoughts
|
'If only' thoughts
|
|
Emotional amplification
|
incr in emotional rxn to event = how easy to imagine event not happening
ex: think easy about not grad = more emotional |
|
Pluralistic ignorance bias
|
act against private beliefs to conform to what they think is the group norm
ex: think other students more comfortable w/ drinking than they were |
|
Sharpening
|
emphasize important things when tell other person a story
|
|
Leveling
|
de-emphasizing boring things
|
|
Bad News Bias
|
Media overexaggerates bad things
• Correlation with time spent watching TV & thinking you’re going to be victim |
|
Asch Primacy Study
|
People read list of traits & rated person on how positive/neg
FIRST THING READ = MOST IMPORTANT (primacy effect) |
|
Pos & Neg framing
|
- avoid neg framing, endorse pos framing
ex: 75% fat free vs 25% fat ground beef |
|
Cognitive miser
|
use as little info as possible, lots of cog shortcuts when processing info
- use schemas, selective attn |
|
Confirmation bias
|
look for info that confirms preconception (self verification)
|
|
Belief perseverance
|
persistence of initial conception
• Even though WHY you think so = false, still think your explanation = right |
|
Representative Heuristics
|
assume someone part of group if they resemble typical group member
ex: Tom's description = means he's an engineer - ignore base rate info (stats) |
|
Availability heuristic
|
Think of something easier = think thing is more common
- interesting stories > stat info ex: more likely to die in plane crash bc think of crashes easier EVEN THOUGH STAT LESS LIKELY |
|
Anchor & adjustment heuristic
|
make estimates → use anchor value & adjust from there
-ex: estimate mult problem in 5 sec |
|
attitude
|
evaluation of people/obj/things
NOT PERSONS MOOD |
|
Attitude prop:
Valence Extremity Strength |
valence = overall eval = pos/neg
extremity = how pos/neg strength = how strong/weak |
|
IAT (implicit association test)
|
Measure rxn time on natural assoc in head btwn things
|
|
Bogus pipeline
|
Tell ppl know when lying → get them to tell truth (have pipeline to real attitude)
|
|
Moral hypocrisy
|
appear moral while avoid cost of being so
ex: want less violent games but violent games = most pop |
|
Specificity Principle
|
to predict behavior, match level of specificity btwn attitude & behavior
- specific behavior/attitude: recycle newsp = recy news @ home - general behavior/attitude: environ friendly behavior = helping environ |
|
Theory of Planned Behavior
|
attitude toward behavior
subjective norm (how others think) perceived behavioral control (how easy is intended behavior) ex: want to tutor/friends say i should/nothing preventing me |
|
Self presentation theory
|
Express behaviors to make us seem consistent/non-hypocrite
(don't need to actually change attitude) |
|
Dissonance theory (attitude change)
|
Reduce dissonance/discomfort by changing attitude
- psych arousal |
|
Insufficient justification
|
the less external justification for bad action → feel more responsible → attitude change
ex: $20/$1 --> changing opinion (Said something inconsistent with belief & $1 not enough to justify lie → change belief ) |
|
buyers remorse
|
More free choice/responsibility have in decision → more dissonance
•After make decision: upgrade choice, downgrade non-choic |
|
Self perception theory (attitude formation)
|
observe behavior → imply attitudes that caused it
- change attd to match observed behavior -changing facial expression --> affect mood ex: agree to persuasive editorial via headphones if move head up/down ** predict overjust effect |
|
Overjustification effect
|
reward for something already like to do → red intrinsic motivation → behavior less appealing
- vs discounting principle (more pos beh effects = not sure why did beh) |
|
system justification theory
|
motivated to believe systems/status quo are good/just
- justify systems = don't feel bad about inequality (--> disson) |
|
compensatory stereotype
|
justifies inequality by showing that ‘no one has it all’
ex: poor but happy |
|
terror management theory
(maintain self esteem = protect self frm anxiety) |
use processes to deal with anxiety frm when aware of inevitable death
- indirect/symbolic immortality - more commit to in group, uphold institution values |
|
social identity theory
|
group part of → affect self esteem
|
|
culture
|
behaviors/attitudes/ideas shared by group & passed down
|
|
Norms: (universal)
friendship status incest taboo war |
status= talk in specific way (familiar vs formal)
war = uniforms, human treatment of prisoners |
|
Independent Self Concept
|
- personal identity, western
|
|
Interdependent Self Concept
|
- social identity, collectivist cultures
|
|
Cultural Diff:
Norms (personal space, being late, life pace) perceptions (notice/describe world) self concept correspondence bias cog dissonance |
norms:
- personal space: indep = bigger space - late: interdep = more accepting of being late - life pace: indiv = faster perceptions: - indiv = describe major feature, inter = details self concept: - inter = group identities, don't need to see self favorably correspondence bias: - inter = attribute behav to disposition but will red bias w/ situational factors dissonance: - inter = red indiv dissonance less (vs group dissonance) |
|
Predicting conformity:
size unamity cohesion status public response/prior commit |
conform more:
big group, unanimous, more cohesion, higher status, public response |
|
Obedience
|
conformity frm AUTHORITY
incr obed: emotional distance frm victim, closeness/legitimacy of authority, gradual incr of bad behavior, fear of violating norm |
|
compliance
|
conformity frm DIRECT REQUEST
|
|
Milgram Experiment (shock & obedience)
|
result: 65% obeyed = end of shock dial, EVERYONE went to 300 v (when person started to complain)
obey bc: socialization of obedience, gradual incr of shock = rationalization, diffusion of responsibility (put it on authority) decr obedience: low prestige setting (in office), person in same room, touch person, experimenter in diff room, exp = ordinary person, rebel |
|
Sheriff Study (norm formation)
|
ask to see how far light moved --> change indiv answer to match group norm
*informational influence |
|
Informational Influence
|
believe others behave correct --> copy behavior (use their behavior as info)
* ambiguity (don't know if answer right/wrong) * no arousal/discomfort * private conformity |
|
Normative Influence
|
fear of neg social consequence of being diff --> conform to be accepted
* unambiguous (know right answer) * arousal/discomfort * public superficial conformity |
|
Asch Study (norm influence)
|
everyone in room said wrong answer --> conform to wrong answer/be deviant frm group (75% conformed)
red conformity: write answer, 1 confederate said right answer *normative influence |