Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM


Top Flashcards (Certified)
All Flashcards

YEAR 1 Semester 1👩🏼‍🎓 > Social Key Words🗣 > Flashcards

Social Key Words🗣 Flashcards

(103 cards)

Start Studying
1
Q

Heider’s view of naïve scientists

A

Think in terms of cause and effect, assign this to behaviour
Motivated to form a coherent view of the world and be in control of the environment

Heider and Simmel shapes: described in terms of intentional actions of people or animals

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

How can causal attributions differ

A

Locus of causality (internal or external)
Stability
Controllability

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Covariation model

A

Attributions based on co-occurring factors (behaviour and event)

Consensus (high=situational low=dispositional)
Distinctiveness (low=dispositional high= situational)
Consistency (high= dispositional low= situational)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Correspondent inference theory

A

Make dispositional attributions

Choice- did the person freely choose to perform this behaviour
Social desirability- was the behaviour expected in the context?
Hedonistic relevance- did behaviour affect you?
Personalism- intended to affect you?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Augmentation principle (covariation model)

A

Assign greater influence to cause of behaviour if factors are present that would normally produce a different outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Discounting principle (covariation model)

A

Cause discounted if other plausible cause is present

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Fundamental attribution error

And causes

A

More likely to make dispositional explanation

Lack of awareness of situational constraints
Unrealistic expectations of behaviour (how much situation effects)
Inflated categorisations of behaviour
Incomplete corrections of dispositional influences

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Fundamental attribution error evaluation

A

Participants may overestimate degree to which debater’s behaviour was due to specific internal factor vs another specific internal factor e.g. pleasing instructor

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Correspond inference theory/ fundamental attribution error research

A

Jones and Harris
When told people had choice of position on Castro essay, rated pro Castro essay writers having a positive attribute towards Castro. HOWEVER when told the positions were random, still rated positive essay writers as having more positive attitude

Ross
Quiz contestants rated own general knowledge worse than hosts rated their own, even though randomised

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Cultural attributions differences

A

Morris and Peng
US higher dispositionalattributions AND lower situational attributions than Chinese but not for graduate students

-not very fundamental, affected by age and culture

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Actor-observer effect

Reasons

A

Attribute other’s behaviour to dispositional factors and our own to situational factors

Perceptual focus: individuals draw our attention, not situation
Informational differences: more info about how we behave in situations

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Actor-observer effect research for and against

A

Participant attributed own choice of major to internal and external choices BUT
Attributed friend’s choice of major more to internal than external

BUT new meta analysis finds true for negative behaviours not for positive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Self serving attribution bias

A

Attribute positive events to self (self enhancement bias)
Dismiss negative events as attributable to other causes (self protecting bias)

Adaptive to maintain self esteem and good mental health

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Where is self serving attribution bias least found

A

Adolescents and adults
Non-western cultures
Samples with psychopathy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Time to form sufficient impression formation

A

100ms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Negativity bias

A

More influenced by negative traits

Remembered more

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Impression formation consensus on which trait

A

Consensus on trustworthiness

Adaptive

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Asch configural model

A

Overall impression, not combination of traits
Central traits determine overall impression
Gestalt

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Primacy effects

A

First terms set direction for how information is perceived

Asch configural model

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Anderson cognitive algebra

A

Assign subjective value to traits

Summative- add up scores
Averaging-strong traits influence more than mild
Weighted averaging-certain traits weighted greater depending on context, what is valued

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Impression formation methods

A

Explicit- computer generated faces, lab

Implicit-assess reaction times, exposure to stimuli

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Halo effect

A

Positive qualities assigned to attractive people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Baby faces

A

Less powerful (presidential candidates)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Evaluate theories of impression formation

A

First scientific study, replicated methods

Artificial, not systematically analysed for significance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Cross cultural attractiveness
Strong agreement between US and Bolivian ratings on attractiveness Halo effect attractive in both Baby faces less dominant in both
26
Real world impacts of impression formation
Ballew and Todorov-faces of winning politicians identified on face competence Real CEOS rated more competent, attractive. Correlated with pay Guilty verdicts are formed on less evidence for untrustworthy faces
27
Social categorisation
People put into categories, shows difference and equivalence
28
Why we socially categorise
Gradual, revolve around a central prototype, most typical. Understand other’s disposition, adaptive: who is an enemy
29
Social categorisation: automatic or not
Simplify world, use salient categories so should be automatic If this simplifies, we shouldn’t do it when not needed or irrelevant SO thought to be conditionally automatic dependent on context (People only categorised faces by gender when instructed to)
30
Stereotypes
Traits society associates with a social group, consensus from socialisation Learnt from peers, parents, social media and part of everyday language
31
Prejudice
Negative attitudes towards a social group
32
Discrimination
Negative behaviour towards a social group
33
Outgroup homogeneity effect and why we show it
``` View outgroup as more similar than ingroup members Less familiarity (representative contact) and less diverse experience with members of outgroup (cognitive) ``` (Predict uni students from other uni would respond same way, outgroup)
34
Explanations for stereotype formation | kernel of truth
SOCIAL | Based on actual differences, exaggerated to all members
35
Explanations for stereotype formation | Stereotype content model
SOCIAL Reflects changes in society Classified along warmth and competence, reflect group’s status for competition
36
Explanations for stereotype formation | Illusory correlation
COGNITIVE Correlate two statistically infrequent events Overestimate due to distinctiveness (encoded better) group associated with negative behaviour Group B negative behaviours most distinctive, less statements but same proportion of positive to negative as A. Assumed more bad behaviours were done by B than A
37
Assimilation effect
Individual perceived as more similar to stereotype than they really are
38
Prototype model
Store abstracted representations of group’s typical features and judge members on comparison to this
39
Why do stereotypes persist
Save energy, reducing cognitive load with mental shortcuts. Social justification to legitimise inequalities Group allowed to use stereotypes remembered more in second task, used less mental resources Those primed with benevolent stereotypes more likely to endorse current gender roles even if disadvantaged
40
Stereotype activation and how to measure it
Degree to which a stereotype is accessible in the mind Lexical decision task, decide whether stimuli (black text) is real v.s non words (red text)
41
Stereotype application and how to measure it
Use of activated stereotypes in judgements e.g. forming impressions Rate degree participant possesses stereotypical traits
42
Stereotype activation: automatic or not
Faster responses to recognise gun pictures when primed with black faces compared to white Occurred only conditionally, when asked More likely to be activated with sufficient cognitive resources, higher prejudice and if activating them would help maintain a positive sense of self
43
Self fulfilling prophecy And research
Expectancies cause behaviour that confirms others’ stereotypes Greater mean hostility ratings on African Americans
44
Biases in exposure and interpretation of information
Choose to view more stereotype confirming info (Physics student) Ultimate attribution error:negative as dispositional and positive as situation
45
Stereotype threat
Concern may act consistent with negative stereotypes Affect performance on stereotype task (cognitive load) Less women in STEM, disengage
46
Stereotype threat research
Black participants performed worse when told intellect is measured but equally well when told test was neutral Implicit Association Test (known to them)showed white people to be more racist in their fear to appear not so
47
Reducing stereotype threat
Reframing and reappraisal: tests reformed as challenging learning experience, anxiety presented as helpful De-emphasis of threatened social identity or domain: Can list negative and positive attributes describing personal identity
48
Stereotype intervention, Miyake
Expose to counter stereotypes Biographies of female leaders Affirm personal values
49
Social comparison theory
Festinger Innate drive to assess how we are doing When no objective standard to use or uncertain about self Compare to similar people, seek accurate image
50
Upward social comparison
Uncertain of progress Seek inspiration to improve, compare to someone better at ability Can make us feel inadequate though, low self esteem
51
Downward social comparison
When feeling threatened, seek way to boost self esteem | Compare to someone worse at ability
52
Motives to drive social comparisons
Self knowledge- who who we are, anticipate and predict performance Self enhancement-boosts self esteem if another is worse off Self improvement-example of what to aim for Social connection-build relationships, build bonds by comparing
53
Assimilation
Could become like the target, perceived closeness Upward-will become as good Downward-will become as bad
54
Contrast
Could never be like the target, perceived difference Upward- will never be as good Downward-will never be as bad, think superior
55
Proxy model
Someone performed similarly | Can expect to perform at this level
56
Consequences of social comparisons
Eating- upward value meal less and eat less, downwards value meal more and eat more Dieting-upward and downward comparisons=think more about dieting and eating Those presented with thin ideal subliminally had greater body anxiety, automatic
57
Race and social comparisons
Asian and white women- downward comparisons associated with body satisfaction Hispanic and Latina- downward comparison positively associated with disordered eating Downward comparisons not universally protective
58
Who do women compare themselves to, shaping self esteem and disordered eating
Younger women: Greater comparison to those who are similar, friends and colleagues, younger self = disordered eating Older women: greater comparison to younger self= disordered eating
59
Mutability
Degree image of self is unclear | Room for additional information about self
60
Social media and self esteem
More upward AND downward comparisons=low self esteem Low self esteem online linked to self destruction through comparisons
61
Self esteem and motivations
Low self esteem- want to feel better, self enchantment motivation Downward contrasting comparison High self esteem- want to improve, self improvement motivation Upward assimilative comparison
62
Social influence
Attitudes or behaviours influenced by real or implied presence of others
63
Compliance
Surface level change in behaviour
64
Obedience
Perform action in direct response to authority
65
Conformity
Deep seated change in behaviour (cognition, attitude)
66
Compliance techniques | Foot in door
Smaller request all would agree to, followed by target large request Homeowners who put up small sign first more likely to put up large sign after vs control (55% vs 17%) Commit to course of action, feel must continue for self image
67
Compliance techniques | Door in face
Larger request first, expected to be rejected, follow with smaller request. Accepted seems reasonable 3x more likely to chaperone once when first asked to take young offenders to the zoo Social responsibility to help, Guilt from first declining, Norm to reciprocate
68
Compliance techniques | Low balling
People don’t like to change mind after committing to course of action Participants later told time was 7am vs own choice attendees 53% compared to 24% control
69
Milgram findings and explanation
65% delivered 450v Agentic state-acts as an instrument of experimenter, psychological distance with no responsibility Dehumanisation of victim- cannot see learner (unnamed) or human element of receiving shocks Slippery slopes-15 v increments, started so finish
70
Evaluate findings on Milgram obedience
Harm, deception in aims, insufficient debriefing and distress Replication impossible today, no guidelines and ethics May not reflect obedience, in groups formed 50% sceptical Researcher improvised prods
71
Research on majority influence
Sherif- All judgements merged to confederate’s view of autokinetic light movements Asch- 3/4 conformed to confederate on at least one trial
72
Asch evaluation
25% resisted the group norm Demand characteristics Lines have little importance Confusing situation, not passive (had to make sense of situation) Are majority actually the minority (in what the population would have done)
73
Factors of majority influence
Size of majority= Asch error rate increases up to 7 but then decreases Ally= 1 supporting confederate reduced consensus and conformity even if ally gives wrong answer
74
Research on minority influence
Persuades larger group, consensus causes gradual social change Moscovici- blue slides called green by 2/6 confederates 8% said green consistent minority 1.25% said green inconsistent minority
76
Why people conform
Informational social influence- look to others, assumed to know more Normative social influence- fear appearing foolish, need to be accepted Referent informational influence- derive identity from majority response, want to belong in ingroup
76
How to influence the majority
Be consistent over time and within minorities: alternative clear and confident view, appear unbiased and show personal sacrifice, be flexible Latent influence: majority consider viewpoint over time, align attitudes with minority view
77
Social facilitation | Research for and against
Enhanced performance with the presence of others +Cyclists faster with others present, children turn crank faster and longer with others -Presence leads to arousal, increases dominant (habitual) response. Simple practiced tasks done correctly but difficult tasks done incorrectly Take longer to dress in difficult task with others present
78
Social loafing and research
Working in a group affects performance Group force on rope was about 50% less than sum of predicted individual efforts. Generate less energy than when alone
79
Social loafing explanations (Geen)
Evaluation apprehension- Uninteresting task, not motivated. Can’t be identified, anonymous Output equity- Expect fellow members to loaf so do so yourself Matching to a standard- People have no clear performance standard benchmark so reduce effort so don’t appear foolish
80
Collective effort model (reduce loafing)
Will work hard if believe efforts will make a difference and have valued outputs
81
Reducing loafing
``` Input evaluated Small groups, less anonymous See contributions make a difference Meaningful tasks, high involvement Strong group identity, common goal ```
82
Groups and anti social behaviour
Deindividuation- lose identity and self awareness, feel anonymous and less personally responsible for actions Diener- children took fewer sweets when identified (not in Halloween costume) Share common goal identity to match group motives
83
Deindivduation and aggressive online norms
More aggressive posts when anonymous and exposed to aggressive norm blog (working in a bad team to win money online)
84
Personality
Expression of internal traits in a social environment | Consistent across time and place
85
Allport and saucier personality definitions
Allport- psychological systems that determine adjustments to the environment Saucier-psychologically relevant attributes that distinguish behaviour, thoughts and feelings
86
Goals of personality research
Description- key features, reduced or a broad variety Explanation - where do differences originate (environment or genes) Prediction- stable across time and place?
87
Methods of personality research
Nomothetic- common traits apply to all | Idiographic- combination of traits that best account for the individual
88
Personality: humanist
Rogers Individual’s perception of reality is important. People are inherently good and strive for greatness. Personality is shaped by experiences of how you view the world
89
Personality: Motivational
Murray Focus on motives and drives, forces that direct behaviour Needs from individual and press from environment
90
Personality: traits
Allport Trait inferred from a behaviour, degree individual shows a characteristic. Continuous qualities can vary across situations Physical component
91
Personality: conative
Little What a person does in a social context. Assessed with personal action constructs People’s goals and their engagement with them, goals vary in attainability and meaningfulness
92
Personality: the big three
Eyesenk, Heritable and physiological Psychotocism-ego control Extraversion-dimension (high cortical arousal) Neuroticism- emotional stability (low anxiety threshold)
93
Personality: the big five
Based on lexical approach ``` Openness Conscientiousness Extraversion Agreeableness Neuroticism ```
95
Big five criticisms
Cannot capture all variation in human personality May not consider cultural variations in language and descriptors Low accuracy, validity Less useful for predicting specific behaviours (lower order traits may be better) Has huge bandwidth
96
Personality: the big six (hexaco)
``` Honesty/humility Emotionality Extraversion Aggreableness Conscientiousness Openess to experience ```
96
Barnum effect
Tendency to accept general statements as applicable to oneself
97
Outcomes of personality
Interactionism- person and situation Situationism- situation itself produces changes in behaviour, personality traits are not as stable as assumed
98
Personality over time
1M sample all ages for the Big Five conscientiousness-teens score low but increases steadily with age Neuroticism-high spike in female adolescents but both genders slowly decrease over time Openness-slight increase with age
99
Lower order traits
Perfectionist striving (conscientiousness) Optimism (conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and - neuroticism) Procrastination (neuroticism and - conscientiousness) Perfectionist concerns (neuroticism and - agreeableness)
100
The dark triad
Strongly negatively connected with HEXACO Machiavellian- manipulate others Narcissism-grandiose Psychopathy-
101
Halo effect in all contexts?
Receptionist’s competency rated same whether dresses sexy or not Manager rated less competent if dresses sexy -halo effect depend on aspect of attractiveness and context
102
Baby faces always affect power?
Black CEOS baby faces positively correlated with perceived earnings
103
Are all voters influenced by first impressions ?
Physical appearance more influential for Republican than Democratic voters Greater television viewing more related to appearance influenced voting especially if limited political knowledge

YEAR 1 Semester 1👩🏼‍🎓 (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions