Exam 2 - 4,5,6,8 Flashcards
(144 cards)
1
Q
Social perception
A
how come to conclusion for why their behavior/words
2
Q
Impression formation
A
development of first knowledge a person has about another person; easily observable; formed <100msec; young as 3; schemas fill in gaps
3
Q
Primacy effect
A
first piece of info influences how we interpret the rest
4
Q
Belief perseverance
A
stand by initial conclusions when even subsequently learned info suggest we shouldn’t e.g. jurors hard time disregarding evidence ruled inadmissible
5
Q
impression management
A
conscious and unconscious efforts to control how people see you
6
Q
Thin slicing
A
limited exposure can lead to meaningful first impressions of abilities and personalities - accurately predict ratings of teachers based off short video of behavior
7
Q
Nonverbal communication
A
way people communicate intentionally or un - w/out words; purpose = express emotion/convey personality
8
Q
Forms of nonverbal
A
facial expressions - innate (anger, happy, surprise, sad, fear, disgust)
9
Q
Shame and pride - universal
A
blind vs sighted athletes - same expressions in same circumstance; not culture specific (asian cultures may overlap emotions more)
10
Q
Why do we interpret facial expressions incorrectly
A
display affect blends (one part registers one emotion, another registers another emotion) e.g. flight attendant
11
Q
Approach oriented emotion vs avoidance oriented emotion
A
approach encoded fastest when stare at you (anger), avoidance encoded faster when look away (fear)
12
Q
Display rules
A
culture specific, which nonverbal behaviors are appropriate e.g. American men not supposed to cry
13
Q
Emblems
A
gestures w/clear, well understood definitions w/in a culture - have verbal translations e.g. ok, fuck you
14
Q
emotional labor
A
expressing/regulating emotions as part of one’s job; surface acting vs deep acting
15
Q
surface acting
A
fake emotions, wearing mask; internal left intact, more exhausting
16
Q
Deep acting
A
attempting to change your internal emotions to be more genuine in display (both have implications for emotional regulation and health (anxiety, burnout)
17
Q
Attribution theories
A
describe how people explain the causes of others’ behavior; why they did that, how people understand/predict social behavior
18
Q
Naiive/commonsense psychology
A
people are amateur scientists trying to understand others’ behavior by piecing together info until arrive at explanation
19
Q
Actor vs Observer
A
person who is being explained vs person doing the explainer; person can be both
20
Q
Internal - dispositional attribution
A
reflects personality, tells someone about a person, no situational forces, facilitates predictions of future behavior (gives sense of control)
21
Q
External - situational attribution
A
explanation about envir., says little about person, NOT facilitate prediction of future behavior; more if you ‘know’ person and can tell out of character
22
Q
Kelly’s covariation model
A
judge internal vs external based on consensus, distinctiveness, consistency
23
Q
consensus
A
how do others react in same situation - % acting same; high = yes (sit) low = no (disp)
24
Q
Distinctiveness
A
does this person act this way in other situations; yes = high (sit), no = low (disp)
25
Consistency
how often does this person do this behavior in this situation; high = always (disp), low = ? something going on - special kind of attribution (e.g. first time)
26
Correspondent inference theory
do others' behaviors reflect who they really are; infer internal when choice (behavior = vol), expectedness (when beh deviates from norms), consequences (beh no have positive or common conseq.)
27
E.g. of consequences in correspondent inference theory
e.g. most would loan 5$, jack says won't even give 1$, more informative of personality
28
Correspondence bias
when making attributions for others' behaviors - overestimate disp. causes, underestimate sit. causes (FAE)
29
Castro study e.g. of correspondence bias
Ps told to read pro/anti castro essay - told writer had choice of side or were assigned, then rate pro castro attitudes - Ps ignored situation of being assigned and assumed author has internal attitude pro castro
30
Two step attribution process
make internal attribution about behavior, then attempt to adjust attribution by considering situation
- only adjust when conscious attention/effort, not when distracted
31
Actor-observer bias
tendency to attribute own behavior to situational causes and behavior of others to dispositional causes - esp. w/failures - aware of sit forces on us but not others
32
Reasons for A-O difference
perceptual salience (notice our sit. more), information access (know more about selves), motivational bias (want to maintain own self esteem)
33
Self serving attributions
tendency to credit our successes to internal but blame external factors for failures - opposite for others
34
Belief in a just world
people get what they deserve and deserve what they get - no acknowledge element of randomness to being a victim - keeps anxiety at bay
35
Self knowledge
beliefs about who we are and way we organize this info; how we feel/think about selves influences/is influ'd by how we perceive/interact w/others
36
Self awareness theory
when focused on ourselves, evaluate and compare our current behavior to our internal standards; become self conscious so are objective observers of ourselves
37
E.g. of self awareness theory
want to quit smoking, see smoking in window, if can change beh. to match inside - will - if feel can't change, being self-aware = uncomfortable b/c disagreeable feedback
38
Negative state
escape by avoiding either through not looking at self, alcohol abuse, binge eating - aim to turn off internal spotlight
39
Self perception theory
when our attitudes/feelings uncertain, 1. infer these feelings/states by observing our behavior (if ambiguous attitude) 2. judge whether behavior reflects how they feel or if situation made them act that way
e.g. was it you or your partner who turned on music
40
Steps of Two factor theory of emotion
1. experience physiological arousal 2. seek explanation/cognitive label for it
41
Two factor theory - details
use info in situation to help make attribution for why we feel aroused; label is result of experience/cues, perception and thought influence type of emotion felt
42
Experiment for two factor
give epi vs. placebo, either misinformed (told minor side effects), uniformed, informed, control (placebo), Ps w/no reason for arousal rated highest effect - look to environment for label
43
Misattribution of arousal
mistaken inferences about what is causing them to feel the way they do e.g. men mistake arousal from bridge as attraction to woman giving her #
44
Self recognition
rouge test - see if child reaches to own forehead
| 18-24mo.; need social interaction
45
Self descriptions
as age less emphasis on physical more on psychological/how others judge
- physical, social (son, GW student, American), psychological (shy), holistic (vague - human)
46
Self concept
knowledge about who we are; depends on situation/culture; individual vs collectivist answer differently
who am I
47
Independent view of self
define oneself in terms of own internal thoughts
48
Interdependent view of self
define oneself in terms of one's relationships to other people and recognizing that one's behavior determined by thoughts of others
49
Women focus more on relational dependence, closer relationships
Men focus more on collective interdependence; larger social groups
50
Self reference effect
tendency for people to remember info better if they relate it to themselves
- better memory if relate to self
51
Why remember what was set about you rather than others
self produces a rich set of cues, self reference instructions encourage people to consider how their personal traits are related to one another; rehearse material more frequently if associated w/yourself
52
Global self-esteem
how much value people place on themselves
| - high and low, measure w/rosenburg self esteem scale
53
State self esteem
based on immediate situation, returns to global level quickly
54
Self esteem comes from
self evaluation (social acceptance vs. rejection), successes in valued domains, societal values (men higher than teens)
55
Bask in reflected glory (BIRG)
INC self esteem by associating w/others who are successful; wear school shirt after sports win "we win"
56
Cut off reflected failure (CORF)
distancing from others who have lost "they lost"
57
Terror Management theory
self esteem serves as a buffer, protecting people from terrifying thoughts about death - protect selves from anxiety caused by thoughts of own death, people embrace cultural world views that make them feel like effective actors
58
Intrinsic motivation
pursuing goal/engaging an activity b/c enjoy it/find it interesting
- individualized/self-regulatory, absence of external reward/pressure
59
Extrinsic Motivation
pursuing goal/engaging in activity b/c of external rewards/pressures
- less individualized
60
Over justification effect
tendency for intrinsic motivation to diminish for activities that have become associated w/extrinsic rewards
- now see extrinsic as primary motivation, underestimating intrinsic interest - only works when activity is initially interesting
61
e.g. of over justification effect
kids draw either no reward, reward, surprise reward
| - week later, no reward group did most, promised reward did least, surprise group had developed intrinsic so still drew
62
Task contingent rewards
given for performing a task, regardless of how well task is performed e.g. trophy little league
63
Performance contingent rewards
based on how well task is performed e.g. grades; less likely to DEC interest b/c earned reward says you are good at task - can also put pressure that can lower interest
64
Fixed mindset
have set amount of an ability that cannot change - > likely to give up after setbacks, less likely to hone skills
65
Growth mindset
achievement is result of hard work; try new strategies, seek input from others - view setbacks as opportunity to improve
66
Social comparison theory
people learn their own abilities and attitudes by comparing themselves to others and revolves around - prefer objective, non-social standards but if unavailable will use others for comparison
67
Who do we compare ourselves to
depends on if want accurate assessment of abilities - influences who we use as a target
68
Upward social comparison
compare w/people better than you at said activity; dispiriting, see what can strive for at top level
69
Cardiac patient study
IV = pre vs post op, cardiac vs. other, roomate vs. alone; DV = recovery time/anxiety
- post op cardiac roomate shorter recovery than alone or noncardiac
70
Downward social comparison
compare w/people who are worse in said activity - feel good about own ability; can do w/past selves performance e.g. cancer patients
71
Negatives of downward SC
implies negative shift in future, can be depressing, leads to shift in lower personal standards
72
Lateral social comparison
accurate comparison, compare w/someone of similar ability
73
Self control vs Self regulation
control inhibit impulses; regulation identifies cause and reduces intensity of impulses
74
Social tuning
process where people adopt person's attitudes - can happen when meet first time (unconscious) adopt views of people like, reject views of those they don't
75
Implementation intentions
specific plans about where, when, and how will fulfill a goal/avoid temptations - make in advance of situation where need self control
76
Self control requires energy
use control in one aspect, becomes more difficult to not give in on later aspects e.g. emotions about covid then diet
77
Social exclusion
being ignored can impact ability to self regulate in immediately following situation e.g. chosen or not chosen - taste these cookies
- rejected ate more; if extrinsically motivated - rejection no matter
78
Ingratiation
using flattery/praise to make yourself likeable to another; e.g. compliments, sympathy
79
Self handicapping
create obstacles/excuses in case do poorly and can avoid blaming self; protect self esteem
80
Behavioral self handicapping
act in ways that actually reduce likelihood they will succeed e.g. drugs/alcohol (>men)
81
Reported self handicapping
devise ready made excuses in case fail - claim to have e.g. feel bad, anxiety; may believe excuse and try less - women hate this b/c value effort > than men
82
Fake IQ test e.g. for self handicapping
easy vs. hard problems, all told done well, Ps choose drug to enhance or disrupt intellect; easy chose facilitate, hard chose disrupt as excuse in case
83
Why do people self handicap in hard problem group
discounting: eliminate internal cause if external cause available (create external attribution)
augmentation: succeed despite odds (make internal attribution)
84
Spotlight effect
believe social spotlight shines more brightly on us than actually does e.g. speech errors, tripping
85
Self awareness
how do I know who I am
86
Cognitive dissonance theory
discrepancies b/t attitudes and behavior can produce psychological discomfort - resulting in dissonance - motivated to reduce this; if cannot change beh., attitude changed to reduce dissonance
87
Cog. Diss. more likely when
behavior produces negative consequences (risky), feeling of personal responsibility, physiological arousal, attribution of arousal to own behavior (if can justify w/external reason, no diss.)
88
Children can't play w/toy - either mild or extreme punishment, now can play w/it
mild kids have more dissonance that toy not as fun as initally thought and not worth playing to resolve dissonance (devalue toy) provide own justification/attitude change
89
Insufficient punishment (less leads to more)
diss. aroused when individuals lack sufficient external justification for having resisted a desired activity - results in devaluing forbidden activity
- less external, higher need for internal
90
Reduce dissonance
change behavior to align w/attitude, change on dissonant cognitions (no real evidence of cancer), add consonant cognitions (relieves stress), minimize importance of conflict (IDC), change perception of behavior (barely do it anyways), reduce perceived choice (everyone does it)
91
3 types of cognitive dissonance
justifying attitude-discrepant behavior, justifying effort, justifying difficult decisions
92
Justifying attitude-discrepant behavior
Ps do boring task, ask to tell someone it was fun, 1$ - knows dull, has discrepant thoughts, need suff. int. justification so reduce diss. w/change attitude, maybe I was wrong initially; 20$ - knows dull, has discrepant thoughts but has suff. justification so no diss. - minimal attitude change
93
Justify own immoral actions - cheating
start same, if do, saying victimless cirme, everyone does (reduce diss.) if don't say sin; attitude diverges as consequence of actions
94
Justify effort
INC liking for something one worked hard to attain e.g. hazing/grad school - lots of work to get in so like it more than if no work was put in
95
Justifying difficult decisions
post decisional dissonance: aroused after making a decision - reduce by making chosen alternative better than nonchosen (devalue one not picked); convince made best choice even when originally both attractive
96
Low balling
decision is reversible, illusion of commitment, "I'm already here why wait"
97
More important the decision, greater the dissonance
More permanent decision, greater dissonance
98
Positive effect of dissonance
produce beneficial change in behavior; publicly advocating one way then acting another creates feelings of hypocrisy
99
Counter attitudinal advocacy
stating an opinion/attitude that runs counter to one's private attitude/belief/behavior - when little external; what we believe conforms to lie we told
100
Hypocrites
judge others more harshly, present selves as virtuous
101
Hypocrisy induction
arousal of diss. by having indiv. make statements that run counter to their behaviors - remind them of own inconsistency e.g. condom study - those made to think about failures > likely to change
102
Ben Franklin effect
help someone you don't like - will like them more after doing them a favor
103
Justifying cruelty
i am good person but killing others so they must deserve it; demean civilians to justify actions b/c can't retaliate like military can
104
For Cognitive dissonance to change behavior
must public advocate desired behaviors, must be induced to think about own failures to show these behaviors, must be given access to direct means to reduce diss (efficacy)
105
Self-affirmation theory
can also reduce diss. by focusing on and affirming competence on some dimension unrelated to the threat "i smoke but i'm a great cook"
106
Self evaluation maintenance theory
people experience diss. in relationships when feel close to another person who is outperforming us in area that is central to our self esteem
107
Reducing diss in self evaluation maintenance theory
distance self from person, change how relevant the task is to our self esteem, change our performance relative to theirs (e.g. sabotage)
108
Conformity
change in one's behavior due to real/imagined influence of other people
109
Chameleon effect (automatic mimicry)
unconsciously mimic/adapt to behaviors, mannerisms/actions of people interacting with, like those who mimic more
110
Informational conformity
conform b/c believe others' interpretation of ambiguous situation is more accurate than ours and will help us choose how to act - desire/need to know correct response
111
When is informational conformity more likely
when situation is ambiguous, a crisis, other people are experts
112
Normative influence/conformity
influence of other people that leads us to conform to be liked/accepted - fear social rejection/expected behavior - desire approval
113
Private acceptance
conform out of genuine belief that what doing/saying is right (persuaded) - more likely w/informational
114
Public compliance
conforming publicly w/out necessarily believing in what we are doing/saying - more likely w/normative
115
Autokinetic study
alone then in group - private acceptance b/c group estimate remains after time passes - people conform w/out explicit pressure, rely on each other to define reality, social norms influ later behavior
116
Asch line experiment
know not informational conformity b/c easy task; mostly normative, most public compliance, group size levels @4
117
When answer alone = posterior brain (vision/perception)
When conform to wrong answer = same as if alone
| when give right answer and disagree w/unanimous wrong = amygdala (neg. emotions/social modulation)
118
Variations of Asch
written over spoken - DEC conformity; having dissenter ally - DEC conformity (even if not same dissent); more important (easy = less, hard = more conform)
119
Factors that influence conformity
physical closeness, group importance, status, public response (> in public), prior commitment (< likely if someone goes after you), culture (collectivist conform more to group)
120
Social norms
implicit rules for acceptable behaviors, values, beliefs
121
Descriptive norms
perceptions of how others are behaving/what do you perceive as typical - young adults overestimate risky behaviors esp. if do themselves
- motivate behavior by informing what is adaptive
122
Injunctive norms
perceptions of approval or disapproval of behaviors
| - motivate behavior by promising rewards for normative behavior/punish for non-normative; what we 'should' do
123
Norms at play
If low descriptive (no friends do), think friends would disapprove (low injunctive) - lowest levels of use
- low descriptive counteracts high injunctive (even if friends thought ok, if thought no one did, low personal use
- high and high = high use
124
Boomerang effect
flyers on campus say avg student only drinks x amount, those who drink less than that will increase to become more normative
125
Issue w/making normative messages
impact of injunctive (disapproval) undermined by high descriptive (making seem normative) - if don't relate to person who disapproves, fall into rest of people who normalize it
- need both norms in same direction
126
Consequences of nonconformity - johnny rocco
book club, Ps reacted most to deviate opinion, tried to change it, when realize couldn't, ignored them, when asked who to eject, picked deviate
127
Minority influence
when minority of group members influence behavior of majority - key = consistency - unite w/similar msg - use informational since no #s for normative
128
Majority vs Minority and compliance type
Majorities get public compliance b/c normative
| Minorities get private acceptance b/c informational
129
Idiosyncrasy credits
if person conforms to norms most of time, can deviate time to time - build credit to be able to diverge and not be socially rejected
130
Why do people conform
accuracy and acceptance (involves public compliance but not always private acceptance)
131
Obedience
change in behavior due to commands of authority; a social norm; do even when authority not present (traffic lights)
132
Indicators of authority
title/position/credentials, wealth, power/status, physical stature
133
Why obey?
Approval, learning, rewards, avoid punishment
134
Before milgram's study, what did preliminary psychologists say
less than 1% would go all the way, even though pilot shower many obeying
135
Results of Milgram
majority 62% went all the way - all went at least 240, no gender differences
136
Ethical concerns of milgram; even though most said learned something
psychological immediate harm, deception (v. high), wasn't clear could withdraw, no informed consent, inflicted insight (learn things about selves not agreed upon beforehand)
137
Factors of informational in milgram
from experimenter, yale, lab coat, ambiguous situation, when 2 experimenters disagree, DEC obey
138
Factors of normative in Milgram
believed was common for others to give high shocks, when see others disobey, DEC obey of P
139
Variable authority in Milgram
closer authority figure is = MORE obey, phone in = DEC obey; legitimacy high = MORE obey e.g. yale vs. office building and secretary vs. experimenter
140
Physical proximity in Milgram
farther away/no physical touch to learner = INC obey,
141
Procedure in Milgram
gradual escalation = foot in the door, commitment/consistency easier to self justify; absolved responsibility - feel > resp. if no obey; peer modeling > obey, dissenters < obey
142
Milgram is not about aggression
Ps could choose level of shock, most chose mild - few gave max - most obedience when tell peer to give shock (emphasizes absolved resp.)
143
Burger replication
only went to 150, self reported willingness, exclude psych disorders/psych experience, experimenter = clinical psychologist; most would have continued, no gender
144
Social impact theory
likelihood you will respond to social influence depends on strength of group importance, immediacy of how close in space/time are to other members, # people in group (more = > normative
