unit 4 - social psychology & personality Flashcards
(100 cards)
attribution theory, who proposed it and what is it
a psychological concept by fritz heider
explains how people interpret and assign causes to behaviours and events
dispositional attributions vs situational attributions
DA: explanations based on personality traits, characteristics, etc. for example, if someone is late you might assume things like “they’re irresponsible” or “they’re always late”
SA: explanations that relate to the external environment or circumstances, for example if someone is late you might think that “there must have been traffic” or “ maybe their alarm didn’t go off”
fundamental attribution error
the tendency to explain others’ behavior as due to their internal character (disposition) while attributing our own behavior to external situational factors. In simpler terms, we tend to blame others for their actions while making excuses for our own
actor-observer bias
the tendency to explain one’s own actions with situational factors (external causes) while explaining others’ actions with dispositional factors (internal causes)
for example,
as the ACTOR: you had a rough day, so it explains your rude behaviour (snap at someone), and its due to the external circumstances (situational attribution)
as the OBSERVER: if someone else snaps at someone, you are more likely to apply it to their personality (dispositional attribution) instead of considering that they may have also had a stressful day
spotlight effect
The spotlight effect is a psychological phenomenon where individuals overestimate how much others are paying attention to them, particularly on their mistakes and other negative actions, judging our appearance…actions..etc
when in reality, no one pays as much attention
self-serving bias
the tendency to attribute successes to internal factors (like your own abilities) and failures to external factors (like luck or circumstances)
false consensus effect
a cognitive bias where people overestimate how much others share their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviors
we assume others share our opinion…
upward social comparison
comparing oneself to someone perceived as better or more successful in a particular area
positive impact: motivating factor to do better and strive for higher goals, to study harder!!
negative impact: lower self esteem, frustration due to feeling one cannot achieve the same level of success
downward social comparison
when individuals compare themselves to someone they think is worse off or less skilled
positive impact: can boost self esteem and make individuals feel better about their own situation, like a person who is struggling at work might feel more competent when they compare themselves to a colleage who is performing worse
negative impact: relying too much on downward comparisons can lead to complacency —> individuals feel content at their current status and lack the motivation to challenge themselves
relative deprivation
the feeling of dissatisfaction when people believe they are worse off compared to others, even if they are objectively doing better
subjective experience feeling deprived based on social comparison
e.g, seeing friend go on luxury vacations and feeling deprived even though they have a stable income, house…they can percieve themselves as less —> envy
stereotypes
generalized beliefs about a group of people
prejudice
prejudice is a negative attitude towards a group, often based on stereotypes and generalizations
discrimination
discrimination is a negative behaviour, for example, choosing not to date someone due to their ethnicity, not hiring a person due to age/gender….
the just-world phenomenon
the tendency for people to believe that the world is just and therefore people get what they deserve and deserve what they get
a cognitive bias where people believe that the world is fair and people get what they deserve
in group vs out group
IG: “us”, people we share a common identity with (athletic team, friend group, ethnicity)
OG: “them”, people perceived as different/apart from “us” (rival teams, other schools)
the scapegoat theory
proposes when things go wrong, finding someone to blame can provide a target for negative emotions
explains how individuals or groups misdirect their frustration and aggression towards those who are not responsible for their difficulties. Essentially, it’s the tendency to blame someone else for one’s own problems, often resulting in prejudice or discrimination
lappiere study (1930)
focused on how attitudes toward POC were very negative and prejudicial in the US
a chinese couple spent time in hotels..motels..cafe..restaurants and were only refused service ONCE —> the experiences were generally positive
but when the establishments were asked if they would provide service to chinese patrons 91-92% said no..
it shows that our attitudes and behaviours have little to no relationship!!!!!!!!!!
there are two ways that someone can be persuaded to change their attitudes……
central route & peripheral route
central route vs. peripheral route
CR: central route persuasion relies on logical arguments and strong evidence to change attitudes
Example: A consumer chooses a product based on positive reviews and product features.
PR: peripheral route persuasion uses superficial cues like attractiveness or emotional appeals.
Example: A person buys a product based on a celebrity endorsement or a catchy commercial
the halo effect
a cognitive bias where an initial positive impression can lead to associating more positive traits with that individual —> even when unrelated
e.g, we tend to think that attractive people have more positive traits, like being kinder, being funnier, more intelligent, happier…
foot in the door technique
persuasive tactic where a small initial request is followed by a larger, related request. People are more likely to comply with the larger request after agreeing to the initial, smaller one
individuals strive to maintain a positive self-image, making them more likely to comply with requests that align with their previous actions
door in the face technique
persuasion tactic used in social psychology, where a large, unreasonable request is followed by a smaller, more reasonable request, increasing the likelihood of acceptance of the smaller request.
conformity
when we adjust our behaviour to coincide with a group’s standards
the asch effect
the tendency for people to conform, even if they are aware that the behaviour is incorrect
