Social Psych Flashcards

(56 cards)

1
Q

Kurt lewin

A

Field theory 1930s

Behavior is a function of the interaction between ppl and env

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

Life space

A

Field theory - tension moves people

Valence

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

Gordon alport

A

Defines social psychology how a persons thoughts feelings and beg are influenced by the presence of other people

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

Zygarnic effect

A

We remember unfinished tasks better than finished tasks (remember that which you’re unsure about)

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

Social comparison theory

A

Low self esteem (compare to those less fortunate)

When unsure of our opinion or ability, we compare ourselves to others who are similar

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

Attribution theory

A

Causal attributions

  • external or situational
  • internal or dispositional
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Fundamental attribution error

A

Underestimate situational causes of others

That is, overestimate the dispositional of others

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

Belief in a just world

A

Result of fundamental attribution error

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

Prisoners dilemma game

A

People compete straight away

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

Self perception theory

A

When internal cues are absent, we infer feelings and beliefs from behavior or external cues

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

Self verification theory

A

We need and seek confirmation of our self concept whether positive or negative

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

Social identity theory

A

Self esteem through personal and social identity. Social identity is enhanced by believing the I group is attentive and belittling tha out group

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

Life events relate to happiness how

A

Short term but not long term

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

Personal fable

A

Adolescence (formal operational)

Uniqueness and invulnerability

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

Two types of relational aggression

A

Reactive - easily provoked, difficulty controlling impulses, react aggressively - intent to retaliate
Proactive - means of achieving a goal

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

Incomplete consideration of alternatives and consequences can lead to

A

Groupthink

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

Actor observer effect

A

Our own actions are seen as more influenced by circumstances or the task itself

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

Self-serving bias

A

Get job applied for - attribute to self
Don’t get job - circumstances - external
Influenced by the outcome of our behavior
Not apply to depressed (opposite)

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

Attitudes

Correlatin with behavior

A

Stable predispositions
bUT correlation between attitude and behavior is weak EXCEPT under certain circumstances such as specific, well informed, and consistent with social norms

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

Attitude change

Cognitive Constance theories

A

Discomfort when cognition a are inconsistent - so change cognitions

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

Fritz heiders balance theory

A

Liking and agreeing go together

When not in balance, you shift to agree or change opinion

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

Festingers cognitive dissonance theory

A

Contradiction between belief and behavior

Likely to change belief if believe that behavior was voluntary

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

Participate unpleasant activity for $500 versus $1

A

$1 likely to change attitude (must be invested since no incentive)

24
Q

Attitude change
Source-> target
Factors for change

A
Understanding
Attention
Acceptance: 
  Characteristics of source
   Content 
    Target
25
Attitude change Acceptance Source
Prestige (expertise) Trustworthiness (credible) Attractiveness Similarity (like them)
26
Attitude change | Characteristics of message
Brief Repeated (exposure) Moderate difference Some targets prefer one sided Inclined already to agree, less educated, unlikely to hear other side Some two sided Initially opposed, well edu, likely to hear other side
27
Fear and attitude change
Not influential unless message includes clear concrete way to avoid consequence
28
Attitude change | Context
Inoculation - small amount of persuasive argument to raise your defense against that argument OR weak against own idea prevents new strong idea Forewarning - if told content before hears argument lowers effectiveness UNLESS target wants to be liked by the source
29
Attitude change | Targets
Low self esteem, low iQ - simple argument most pursuasive | High - more complex more pursuasive
30
Pro social behavior | When will a bystander act to help a stranger in distress?
Fewer people around more likely to help May fear helping wrongly or worry they'll be blamed for situation later on - evaluate cost Assume others will help - diffusion of responsibility If distress is conspicuous do help, personally involved do help
31
Social influence and by stander effect
Look to others for how to behave when situation is ambiguous
32
Cooperation - Robbera cave experiment
High cohesion within group and high conflict between groups | Super ordinate goals resulted in loss of conflict
33
Aggressive behavior Social learning theory Bandura TV
Learned | Bobo dolls
34
Aggression Catharsis Deindividuation
Draining aggression - not supported and leads to more aggression Crowd effect - lessens inhibition and ncrwSes aggression
35
Social Role theory | Or script theory
We internaliSe our social roles and eventually become these rolls
36
Zombardo's prison study
Assigned roles determine behavior or strongly influence it
37
Pseudo patient experiment | Rosenhan
Drs treated confederates as crazy -psychotic Roles influence the behaviors of others But other patients generally not fooled
38
Obedience - submit to authority | Milgrim
Teacher and learner - shocks People obey when they think a person is a legitimate authority Subjects underestimated how much they and others would obey
39
Conformity Due to social pressure conform behavior Influences:
Deviancy: if we already feel different and we want to avoid disapproval - more likely to conform Unanimous in judgement Group size: as increases so does conformity Cohesiveness; as above Anonymous: less conformity The more different the more pressure to conform Low iq high need for approval low self esteem authoritarianism
40
Minority influence
Under the following conditions: bEST: Position is firm and consistent but not perceived as biased or rigid Not a member of a familiar social group arguing in favor of that groups interest Idiosyncrasy credit: hx of conforming then occasionally differing - spending brownie points
41
Compliance - agree to behave a way because asked Foot in the door Door in the face Jack Brent and reactance theory
Agree to small request then asking for larger Asking big then asking for less (fake compromise) Opposite of compliance - higher pressure lead to feeling of losing choice and digs in
42
``` Social power - influence needs power French and Raven propose 5 or 6 power relationships - often combine Coercive Reward Legitimate Expert Referant power Informational ```
``` Power to punish Reward Actual, Milgrim experiment Superior skill or knowledge Admire or like Has info we need ```
43
Group behavior Social facilitation Social loafing
Sometimes we perform better in front of others - task simple or well learned When others are there to pick up the slack, we slack - simple, boring, and require same effort for everyone - reduced if believe contributions are identifiable or necessary - or when seen as challenging or personally relevant
44
Group decision making Group polarization or risky shift Group think - Janis
Generally superior But tendency for more extreme positions after group discussion ( risky if in risky direction ) - more likely if pursuasive and if perceived as in group Cohesive groups with a strong leader where dissent is stifled and criticism stifled - can produce extreme views. Assign a devils advocate or leader refrains from giving opinion
45
Crowding
High density situations enhance whatever feeling you're already having Less if distracted Men more sensitive
46
Field theory - as get near approach/avoid conflict
Strength of both increase but negative increases more
47
The Y and the chain | The circle and the all channel
Centralized communication networks - info flows through one person - only person likely to be satisfied Efficient for simple tasks Decentralized communication networks - info flows freely - all people likely to be satisfied
48
Health belief model
``` Perceived susceptibility Perceived severity Perceived benefits Perceived barriers Providing cues to action (reminders) ```
49
Threats of retAliation
Work to deter violence if threatened is of high power | Increase aggression if the retaliatory has previously provoked the person
50
``` Group tasks Additive Conjunctive Disjunctive Compensatory Complementary ```
Add- addition of individual efforts so outcome is combination Con - product determined by least competent member Dis- product determined by most skilled member Compensatory - average input (judges) Complementary - more than sum of parts (orchestra)
51
Subjective validation Barnum effect Forer effect
Evaluating as accurate because find it personally meaningful - accepting as uniquely personal not realizing could be applied to anyone
52
Contrast effect
What precedes or presented together effects judgment (shades of color, attractiveness, performance etc)
53
Social facilitation | Social inhibition
Increased arousal may underlie - do a better job with others around Do worse when others around
54
Adverse impact
Hiring rate for a minority group is less than 80% of majority group
55
Decrease cohesiveness Heterogeneous Not directive leader
Better decision making
56
Decentralized network
Higher worker satisfaction