Social Psych Quiz1 (Chapter 5&6)

Front 1

The process of learning about other people.

Back 1

Person Perception

Front 2

Used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) scans to test whether people stored information about other people in a different location in the brain than where they stored information about animals, and they found that this was the case.

Back 2

Mason and Macrae (2004)

Front 3

For instance, research has found that when other people are looking directly at us, we process their features more fully and faster, and we remember them better than when the same people are not looking at us.

Back 3

(Hood & Macrae, 2007)

Front 4

Is any type of communication that does not involve speaking, including facial expressions, body language, touching, voice patterns, and interpersonal distance.

Back 4

Nonverbal behavior

Front 5

Are an important form of communication and they are particularly important in expressing our liking of, and caring for, others.

Back 5

Nonverbal behaviors

Front 6

Are a type of nonverbal behavior for electronic messages.

Back 6

Emoticons

Front 7

Found that people were better at recognizing the faces of other people when those faces had angry, rather than neutral expressions.

Back 7

Ackerman and Colleagues(2006)

Front 8

Found that people could more quickly and more accurately recognize negative, rather than positive, words.

Back 8

Dijksterhuis and Aarts (2003)

Front 9

Crowds of Nine Faces

Back 9

Hansen and Hansen

Front 10

One important person perception task that we must all engage in sometimes is to try to determine whether other people are lying to us.

Back 10

Detecting Deception

Front 11

Why is it so difficult for us to detect liars?

Back 11

One reason is that people do not expect to be lied to.

Second reason is that most people are pretty good liars.

Third reason it is difficult for us to detect liars is that we tend to think we are better at catching lies than we actually are

Front 12

Found that in most cases it was very difficult to tell if someone was lying, although it was easier when the liar was trying to cover up something important (e.g., a sexual transgression) than when he or she was lying about something less important.

Back 12

Bella DePaulo and her colleagues (2003)

Front 13

Are important because they are the basic language by which we understand and communicate about people.

Back 13

Traits

Front 14

Found that people described with these two sets of traits were perceived very differentlythe warm person very positively and the cold person very negatively.

Back 14

Solomon Asch(1946)

Front 15

The traits of warm and cold , which are characteristics that have a very strong influence on our impressions of others (Asch, 1946).

Back 15

Central traits

Front 16

Describes the tendency for information that we learn first to be weighted more heavily than is information that we learn later.

Back 16

The Primacy Effect

Front 17

In which information that comes later is given more weight

Back 17

Recency effect

Front 18

The influence of a global positive evaluation of a person on perceptions of their specific traits.

Back 18

Halo effect

Front 19

The process of trying to determine the cause of peoples behavior (Heider, 1958)

Back 19

Causal Attribution

Front 20

Made when we decide that the behavior was caused primarily by the person.

Back 20

Personal (internal or dispositional) attribution

Front 21

Made when we decide that the behavior was caused primarily by the situation.

Back 21

Situational (external) attribution

Front 22

Conducted a classic experiment in which the participants viewed one of the four different videotapes of a man applying for a job.

Back 22

Edward Jones and his colleagues (Jones, Davis, and Gergen, 1961)

Front 23

States that a given behavior is more likely to have been caused by the situation if that behavior covaries (or changes) across situations.

Back 23

Covariable Principle

Front 24

3 kinds of covariation information (Cheng & Novick, 1990)

Back 24

• Consistency Information

• Distinctiveness Information

• Consensus Information

Front 25

A situation seems to be the cause of a behavior if the situation always produces the behavior in the target.

Back 25

Consistency Information

Front 26

A situation seems to be the cause of a behavior if the behavior occurs when the situation is present but not when it is not present.

Back 26

Distinctiveness Information

Front 27

A situation seems to be the cause of a behavior if the situation creates the same behavior in most people.

Back 27

Consensus Information

Front 28

Was interested in how we determine the causes of success and failure because he felt that this information was particularly important for us: accurately determining why we have succeeded or failed will help us see which tasks we are good at already and which we need to work on in order to improve.

.

Back 28

Bernard Weiner

Front 29

When we tend to overestimate the role of person factors and overlook the impact situations

Back 29

Fundamental Attribution Error

Front 30

When we attribute behavior to people's internal characteristics, even in heavily constrained situations.

Back 30

Correspondence bias

Front 31

When we tend to make more personal attributions for the behavior of others than for the behavior of others.

Back 31

The Actor Observer Bias (Difference)

Front 32

A tendency for people to view their own personality, beliefs, and behaviors as more variable than those of others. (Kammer, 1982)

Back 32

Transcription Bias

Front 33

Attributions that helps us meet our desire to see ourselves positively.

Back 33

SELF-SERVING BIASES // Self Serving Attributions

Front 34

The tendency to attribute our successes to ourselves, and our failures to others and the situation.

Back 34

Self-serving bias

Front 35

A tendency to make internal attributions about our ingroups' successes, and external attributions about their setbacks, and to make the opposite pattern of attributions about our outgroups. (Taylor & Doria, 1981)

Back 35

Group Serving Bias or Ultimate Attribution Error

Front 36

A tendency to make attributional generalizations about entire outgroups based on a very small number of observations of individual members.

Back 36

Group attribution error

Front 37

Causing to place too much weight on the person and not enough on the situation, can lead us to make attributions of blame towards others, even victims, for their behaviors.

Back 37

VICTIM-BLAMING BIASES

Front 38

Tendency to make attributions based on the belief that the world is fundamentally just.

Back 38

Just world hypothesis

Front 39

Occurs when we make attributions which defend ourselves from the notion that we could be the victim of an unfortunate outcome, and often also that we could be held responsible as the victim.

Back 39

Defensive attribution

Front 40

Refers to the tendency to think carefully and fully about our experiences, including the social situations we encounter (Cacioppo & Petty, 1982).

Back 40

Need for cognition

Front 41

Tend to believe that peoples traits are fundamentally stable and incapable of change.

Back 41

Entity theorists

Front 42

Those who believe that personalities change a lot overtime and who therefore are more likely to make situational attributions for events.

Back 42

Incremental theorists

Front 43

Refers to the type of attributions that we tend to make for the events that occur to us.

Back 43

Attributional Style

Front 44

Those that we think will be relatively permanent, whereas unstable attributions are expected to change overtime.

Back 44

Stable Attributions

Front 45

Are those that we feel apply broadly

Back 45

Global attributions

Front 46

Are those causes that we see as more unique to particular events.

Back 46

Specific attributions

Front 47

The tendency to explain negative events by referring to their own internal, stable, and global qualities. "I failed because I am no good." (an internal attribution) "I always fail." (a stable attribution) "I fail in everything." (a global attribution)

Back 47

Negative attributional style

Front 48

People who have an extremely negative attributional style, in which they continually make external, stable, and global attributions for their behavior.

Back 48

Learned helplessness

Front 49

Ways of explaining events that are related to high self-esteem and a tendency to explain the negative events they experience by referring to external, unstable, and specific qualities. I failed because the task is very difficult (an external attribution) I will do better next time (an unstable attribution) "I failed in this domain, but Im good in other things (a specific attribution)

Back 49

Positive attributional style

Front 50

The tendency to be overly positive about the likelihood that negative things will occur to us and that we will be able to effectively cope with them if they do.

Back 50

Unrealistic optimism

Front 51

Occurs when we make statements or engage in behaviors that help us create a convenient external attribution for potential failure.

Back 51

Self-handicapping

Front 52

2 Varieties Of Conformity

Back 52

•Spontaneous Conformity

•Informational Conformity

Front 53

A tendency to follow the behavior of others, often entirely out of our awareness. Even our emotional states become more similar to those we spend more time with (Anderson, Keltner, & John, 2003

Back 53

Spontaneous Conformity

Front 54

Conforming To Be Accurate

Back 54

Informational Social Influence:

Front 55

Also sometimes occurs because we believe that other people have valid knowledge about an opinion or issue, and we use that information to help us make good decisions.

Back 55

INFLUENCE

Front 56

We believe that our friends have good judgment about the things that matter to us.

Back 56

Informational Conformity

Front 57

Real change in opinions on the part of the individual.

Back 57

Private Acceptance

Front 58

Is the change in opinions or behavior that occurs when we conform to people who we believe have accurate information.

Back 58

INFORMATIONAL SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Front 59

The process of comparing our opinions with those of others to gain an accurate appraisal of the validity of an opinion or behavior (Festinger, Schachter, & Back, 1950; Hardin&Higgins,1996;Turner,1991).

Back 59

SOCIAL COMPARISON

Front 60

Conforming to Be Liked and to Avoid Rejection

Back 60

Normative Social Influence:

Front 61

We express opinions or behave in ways that help us to be accepted or that keep us from being isolated or rejected by others.

Back 61

NORMATIVE SOCIAL INFLUENCE

Front 62

Socially accepted beliefs about what we do or should do in particular social contexts (Cialdini,1993; Sherif, 1936; Sumner, 1906).

Back 62

SOCIAL NORMS

Front 63

Is a superficial change in behavior (including the public expression of opinions) that is not accompanied by an actual change in ones private opinion.

Back 63

PUBLIC COMPLIANCE

Front 64

Conforming To The Group

Back 64

Majority Influence

Front 65

TWO TYPES of INFLUENCE

Back 65

Majority Influence

Minority Influence

Front 66

Occurs when the beliefs held by the larger number of individuals in the current social group prevail.

Back 66

MAJORITY INFLUENCE

Front 67

Occurs when the beliefs held by the smaller number of individuals in the current social group prevail.

Back 67

MINORITY INFLUENCE

Front 68

Used a perceptual phenomenon known as the autokinetic effect to study the outcomes of conformity on the development of group norms.

Back 68

Muzafer/Muzafir Sherif (1936)

Front 69

It is caused by the rapid, small movements of our eyes that occur as we view objects and that allow us to focus on stimuli in our environment.

Back 69

Autokinetic Effect

Front 70

Resisting Group Pressure

Back 70

Minority Influence

Front 71

The French social psychologist that was particularly interested in the situations under which minority influence might occur. In fact, he argued that all members of all groups are able, at least in some degree, to influence others,regardless of whether they are in the majority or the minority. Created the opposite of Aschs line perception studyIn the experiment, the two confederates had been instructed to give one of two patterns of answers that were different from the normal responses.

Back 71

Serge Moscovici

Front 72

The two confederates gave the unusual response(green) on every trial.

Back 72

CONSISTENT-MINORITY Condition

Front 73

The confederates called the slides green on two-thirds of their responses and called them blue on the other third.

Back 73

INCONSISTENT-MINORITY condition

Front 74

Had participants work in groups off our on a creativity task in which they were presented with letter strings such as tdogto and asked to indicate which word came to their mind first as they looked at the letters.

Back 74

Nemeth and Kwan(1987)

Front 75

Increases in this increase conformity regardless of whether the conformity is informational or normative.

Back 75

The Size of Majority

Front 76

Is an important variable that influences a wide variety of behaviors of the individuals in groups.

Back 76

Group size

Front 77

Consistency or = ?

Back 77

Unanimity

Front 78

Is reduced when there is any inconsistency among the members of the majority groupeven when one member of the majority gives an answer that is even more incorrect than that given by the other majority group members (Allen & Levine, 1968).

Back 78

Conformity

Front 79

Can be defined as the ability of a person to create conformity even when the people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes (Fiske, 1993; Keltner, Gruenfeld, & Anderson, 2003)

Back 79

SOCIAL POWER

Front 80

Refers to the process of social influence itselfthose who have power are those who are most able to influence others.

Back 80

POWER

Front 81

Was interested in understanding the factors that lead people to obey the orders given by people in authority. He designed a study in which he could observe the extent to which a person who presented himself as an authority would be able to produce obedience, even to the extent of leading people to cause harm to others.

Back 81

Stanley Milgram

Front 82

Used newspaper ads to recruit men (and in one study, women) from a wide variety of backgrounds to participate in his research.

Back 82

Stanley Milgram

Front 83

PERSONALITY CHARACTERISTICSBy: Milgram

Back 83

•Authoritarianism

•Conscientiousness

•Agreeableness

Front 84

A tendency to prefer things to be simple rather than complex andto hold traditional values.

Back 84

AUTHORITARIANISM

Front 85

A tendency to be responsible, orderly, and dependable.

Back 85

CONSCIENTIOUSNESS

Front 86

A tendency to be good natured, cooperative, and trusting.

Back 86

AGREEABLENESS

Front 87

Both predict resistance to the demands of the authority figure.

Back 87

MORAL REASONING

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Front 88

The manner in which one makes ethical judgments.

Back 88

MORAL REASONING

Front 89

An ability to develop a clear perception of the situation using situational cues.

Back 89

SOCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Front 90

Argued (you can tell that he is a social psychologist) that human behavior is more influenced by things outside of us than inside. He believes that, despite our moral and religious beliefs and despite the inherent goodness of people, there are times when external circumstances can overwhelm us and we will do things we never thought we were capable of doing. He argued that if youre not aware that this can happen, you can be seduced by evil. We need inoculations against our own potential for evil. We have to acknowledge it. Then we can change it (Driefus, 2007).

Back 90

Zimbardo

Front 91

One of the most influential theories of power was developed by them.

Back 91

Bertram Raven and John French

Front 92

5 TYPES OF POWER

Back 92

•REWARD POWER

•COERCIVE POWER

•LEGITIMATE POWER

•REFERENT POWER

•EXPERT POWER

Front 93

The ability to distribute positive or negative rewards.

Back 93

REWARD POWER

Front 94

The ability to dispense punishments

Back 94

COERCIVE POWER

Front 95

Authority that comes from a belief on the part of those being influenced that the person has a legitimate right to demand obedience

Back 95

LEGITIMATE POWER

Front 96

Influence based on identification with, attraction to, or respect for the power-holder

Back 96

REFERENT POWER

Front 97

Power that comes from others beliefs that the power-holder possesses superior skills and abilities

Back 97

EXPERT POWER

Front 98

Occurs when one person is able to influence others by providing them with positive outcomes.

Back 98

Reward Power

Front 99

is power that is based on the ability to create negative outcomes for others, for instance by bullying, intimidating, or otherwise punishing.

Back 99

Coercive Power

Front 100

Is power vested in those who are appointed or elected to positions of authority, such as teachers, politicians, police officers, and judges, and their power is successful because members of the group accept it as appropriate.

Back 100

Legitimate Power

Front 101

Have an ability to influence others because they can lead those others to identify with them. In this case, the person who provides the influence is (a) a member of an important reference groupsomeone we personally admire and attempt to emulate; (b) a charismatic, dynamic, and persuasive leader; or (c) a person who is particularly attractive or famous

Back 101

Referent Power

Front 102

Thus represents a type of informational influence based on the fundamental desire to obtain valid and accurate information, and where the outcome is likely to be private acceptance.

Back 102

Expert Power

Front 103

One type of person who has power over others, in the sense that the person is able to influence them.

Back 103

LEADERS

Front 104

Is the ability to direct or inspire others to achieve goals. Is a classic example of the combined effects of the person and the social situation.

Back 104

LEADERSHIP

Front 105

Are explanations of leadership based on the idea that some people are simply natural leaders because they possess personality characteristics that make them effective (Zaccaro, 2007)

Back 105

PERSONALITY THEORIES OF LEADERSHIP

Front 106

One personality variable that is associated with effective leadership.

Back 106

INTELLIGENCE

Front 107

Are leaders who are enthusiastic, committed, and self-confident; who tend to talk about the importance of group goals at a broad level; and who make personal sacrifices for the group. Use their referent power to motivate, uplift, and inspire others.

Back 107

CHARISMATIC LEADERS

Front 108

Are the more regular leaders who work with their subordinates to help them understand what is required of them and to get the job done.

Back 108

TRANSACTIONAL LEADERS

Front 109

On the other hand, are more like charismatic leadersthey have a vision of where the group is going and attempt to stimulate and inspire their workers to move beyond their present status and to create a new and better future.

Back 109

TRANSFORMATIONAL LEADERS

Front 110

Is a model of leadership effectiveness that focuses on both person variables and situational variables.

Back 110

CONTINGENCY MODEL OF LEADERSHIP EFFECTIVENESS (Ayman, Chemers, & Fiedler, 1995).

Front 111

FIEDLER Thought that three aspects of the group situation were important:

Back 111

1. The degree to which the leader already has a good relationship with the group and the support of the group members (leader-member relations)

2. The extent to which the task is structured and unambiguous (task structure)

3. The leaders level of power or support in the organization (position power)

Front 112

Two Types of Leader:

Back 112

Oriented Type

Task-Oriented Type

Front 113

Those who indicated that they only somewhat disliked their least preferred co-worker. Who were motivated to have close personal relationships with others.

Back 113

Relationship- Oriented Type

Front 114

Those who indicated that they did not like their least preferred coworker very much. Who were motivated primarily by getting the job done.

Back 114

Task-Oriented Type

Front 115

THREE IMPORTANT ASPECTS OF GROUP SITUATION:

Back 115

•Leader-member Relations

•Task Structure

•Position Power

Front 116

The degree to which the leader already has a good relationship with the group and the support of the group member.

Back 116

1. LEADER-MEMBER RELATIONS

Front 117

The extent to which the task is structured and unambiguous

Back 117

2. TASK STRUCTURE

Front 118

The leaders level of power or support in the organization

Back 118

POSITION POWER

Front 119

Predicts that task-oriented leaders will be most effective either when the group climate is very favorable and thus there is no need to be concerned about the group members feelings, or when the group climate is very unfavorable and the task-oriented leader needs to take firm control.

Back 119

Contingency Model

Front 120

Even in cases in which the pressure to conform is strong and a large percentage of individuals do conform, 24% of the participants never conformed on any of the trials.

Back 120

SOLOMON ASCHs Line-Judging Research

Front 121

People prefer to have an this between being similar to, and different from, others (Brewer, 2003). Supporting this idea, research has found that people who have lower self-esteem are more likely to conform in comparison with those who have higher self-esteem.

Back 121

Optimal Balance

Front 122

Are likely to hold their ground, act independently, and refuse to conform, whereas women are more likely to conform to the opinions of others in order to prevent social disagreement.

Back 122

Men

Front 123

Are socialized to be more caring about the desires of othersbut there are also evolutionary explanations.

Back 123

Women

Front 124

May be more likely to resist conformity to demonstrate to women that they are good mates.

Back 124

Men

Front 125

Men do better as leaders on tasks that are _(blank)_in the sense that they require the ability to direct and control people.

Back 125

Masculine

Front 126

Women do better on tasks that are more _(blank)_ in the sense that they involve creating harmonious relationships among the group members.

Back 126

“Feminine”

Front 127

Analyzed results of 133 studies that had used Aschs line-judging task in 17 different countries. They found a significant relationship: conformity was greater in more collectivistic than in individualistic countries.

Back 127

Bond and Smith (1996)

Front 128

Found that U.S. magazine ads tended to focus on uniqueness whereas Korean ads tended to focus more on conformity.

Back 128

Kim and Markus (1999)

Front 129

A strong motivational state that resists social influence (Brehm, 1966; Miron & Brehm, 2006).

Back 129

PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTANCE