Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Exam #2
Social Psychology
| Question | Answer |
|---|---|
| social perception | how we view our internal and external social worlds |
| attributions | causes that we assign to behaviors |
| is it important for us to believe that life is random | no we like to believe that life is not random so we use attributions to help us understand it |
| situational or external causes | we see the cause as something outside the individual, something in the environment, something in the setting. aka if the setting had been different then the behavior might of been different |
| internal attribution | things that you cannot change, your trip because you are clumsy, you miss class because of strep throat |
| when are we more likely to engage in attributional thinking | when we dont suspect something |
| what matters in forming attributions: expectancy or success | expectancy |
| what are the two things that actually matter in forming attributions | unexpected outcomes and self relevant outcomes |
| unexpected outcomes | things that happen that we are surprised by |
| self relevant outcomes | things that happen to you. if you friend is smart and fails a test then you don't think twice about it but if you are smart and you fail then you have a long list of attributions |
| stability | how variant is it |
| locus of causality dimensions | where do we find the cause of the individuals behavior |
| are we ever willing to go against law #2 | yes in order to figure out why people do what they do |
| different dimensions of attribution | locus of causality stability and control ability |
| what are the classifications of locus of causality | situation or external and internal |
| situational attributions | causes that are found in the environment, in the setting or situation |
| kelly's co variation theory | trying to figure out the process that people go through in deciding that somebody's behavior is due to internal or external causes (chart) |
| consistency | the extent to which this person does his behavior in this setting |
| distinctiveness | all about this setting (not people, it is backwards) the extent to which this person does this behavior in other settings |
| consensus | the extent to which other people do this behavior in other settings |
| do we usually get attributions right | yes most of the time |
| discounting principal | we can reduce or discounts the importance of a cause if other potential causes exist |
| augmenting/strengthening | we can strengthen the importance of a cause if a factor is present that should inhibit the behavior |
| fundamental attribution error | other directed error is designed to explain the process of attriutions that are formed about other people, it is not about trying to find out why we did something it is other directed, about why other people have done something |
| attribution errors | situations where we get wrong our guesses of causes of our behavior and others behavior |
| what will you do if you are missing information (consistency, distinctiveness, consensus) | you will do the best with what you have |
| are we more likely to get attributions right or wrong | right |
| what causes errors in attributions | we over emphasize and put too much weight on internal or dis-positional causes, we don't give enough weight to the potential role play by external or situation force |
| focus of attention | when you watch somebody do something you tend to be focused on them and see them as the cause |
| stability | all about how stable is the cause |
| controlability | how controllable is the cause |
| two causes of atrributional errors | focus of attention effort required |
| Gilbert 3 stage factor theory | stage one: identification stage two: automatic internal stage three: effortful external |
| what is stage one in gilberts three factor theory | identification |
| what is stage two in gilberts three factor theory | automatic internal |
| what is stage three in gilberts three factor theory | effortful external |
| what attributions are easier to come up with internal or external | internal attributions are easier to come up with, external takes more effort |
| what are the two types of cultures that we discussed | individualistic and collectavistic |
| individualistic | societies that put the emphasis on one person. USA, Canada, England, France. "phrases like be all you can be, reach your potential, externalize |
| collectivistic | unit of analysis is at the group level, its not so important what each person does, it is more important how the group does. externalize |
| self serving bias | internalize successes and externalize failures. |
| who lacks the self serving bias | people who are depressed. they take the blame for when they are wrong. when they win the lottery they say that they just got lucky |
| attributional style therapy | teach self serving bias to people with low self esteem. a dr worked with somebody for 2 months when he barged into his office and said doctor i get it now, what you have been trying to teach me is what is so great about reality anyway. |
| are we better with or without the self serving bias | with |
| hot approach | they believe in motive, believe in intent, their belief is that his behavior is done on purpose, it may not be conscience purpose |
| cold approach | there is not intent, no desire, no motive or purposeful behavior. rather this is just how we are made, it is just naturally how we work/are put together |
| hot approach in terms of the self serving bias | we understand that if we internalize success we will feel better and if we externalize failures we wont feel bad. we get it, it may be on a subconscious level but we do get it |
| cold approach in terms of the self serving bias | the self serving bias is something that we are born with, it is just how we are made. it is just naturally with out purpose default mode process information. it is just how we work |
| what has more support the hot approach or the cold approach | hot approach |
| where is the self serving bias commonly found in individualistic cultures or collectivistic cultures | individualistic cultures |
| ultimate attribution error | the self serving bias at the group level rather than individually internalizing successes and externalizing failures, i think members of my fraternity are attractive or my fraternity grades are low because we have the hardest majors |
| self presentation | impression management, me trying to give you a certain presentation. i am presenting myself to you socially in a certain way |
| give examples of self presentation | what you wear, how yo do your hair or makeup, how long it takes you to get ready, and other things you do to change peoples perception of you |
| when do you not give your best impression or give an negative impression | when someone you do not like comes your way so you act negative and rude |
| what are two ways of self presentation | direct and indirect tactics |
| self enhancing | you are going to present yourself in a positive way. when interviewing for a job. |
| self deprecating | saying things bad about yourself. modesty and sandbagging |
| modesty | occurs after an event has happened. highest grade on the test and the person doesn't say anything because everyone will hate them if they tell the class |
| sandbagging | occurs prior to an event. here essentially you telling others around you that you might not do so well. ask students how they did after a test and they say they failed so that way if they did bad it doesnt look as bad and if they did good they look better |
| physical environment | letting people know who you are by what you wear, what bumper stickers are on your car, what posters or pictures are in your room |
| what are three ways of strategically manipulating our group associations | basking in reflected glory cutting off reflected failure cutting off future failure |
| BIRG | basking in reflected glory |
| basking in reflected glory | increasing our association with an successful group. we were successful, we were victorious, we won. |
| CORF | Cutting off reflected failure |
| Cutting off reflected failure | 2decreasing our association with an unsuccessful group. they got beat, they sucked, they lost. |
| cutting off future failure | going to resist the urge publicly to jump on the bandwagon and announce your association to a successful group because you are concerned about how that group will be perceived in the future. |
| self perceptions | our idea, our thoughts, our views about who we are |
| describe the file cabinet | self identity a brown larger folders and within that folder there are all these different folders about yourself, we are faster at processing self relevant information than anything else, our self is the first file for us to get to in the file cabinet |
| self knowledge | terrible term (knowledge implies accuracy) it is more things that we believe about about ourselves |
| is our self knowledge always accurate | no for example a 5'10 girl who weighs 180 lbs thinks she is fat |
| where does inaccuracy in our self knowledge come from | how other people respond to us (the looking glass self) true inner self |
| the looking glass self | we get ideas about who we are are based on how other people respond to us, it is as if the other people out there are a mirror and they are a looking glass |
| true inner self | sometimes the looking glass is disported, it is like we are looking at a fun house mirror. they dont know me only i know who i really am |
| can our self knowledge change? | it is hard law 2, we are resistant to change. over a lifetime you do see subtle. it is possible that you can get rapid almost instant changes when you get info that you cannot explain away about something you did not believe about yourself, it is violent. |
| self handicapping | setting up your environment in a way that provides an excuse for failure (person does not want to fail, they desperately want to succeed bu they are afraid that they wont |
| give an example of self handicapping | an athlete has a game coming up and family is going to be there. She over practices and gets an injury, or she could not practice, so that if she loses that match she can say she was injured or did not practice. that way she doesnt look bad if she loses |
| ego/self esteem protection | we are concerned that we are going to fail and we want to protect our ego or self esteem |
| ego/self esteem enhancement | not preparing so if you do well then you look even better. |
| what are the two reasons why people self handicap | ego/self esteem protection and ego/self esteem enhancement |
| self-reference effect | our files about ourselves are the biggest and it is also the first file that we get to in the file cabinet |
| what are the indirect tactics of self presentations | basking in reflected glory cutting off reflective failure and cutting off future failure |
| identification | how much does a psychological person associate with a group. if a person has loved a sport team there whole life they have a high identification with it and will continue to love them even if they consistently lose |
| self-efficacy | bandura says that it is our beliefs that we can achieve a certain level of success on some task |
| what are four sources of efficacy information | 1. past experiences 2. persuasion 3. vicariously through the observation of others 4. our INTERPRETATION of our level of our physiological arousal (it is not our level of arousal that matters, it is what we think our level of arousal means) |
| what are the initial stages of attraction | 1. proximity 2. contact 3. similarity 4. reciprocity 5. misattributed arousal 6. affect 7. physical attractiveness |
| what is law #4 | men are pigs |
| what is attractive | people tend to view peoples traits as long as it does not deviate from their perception of normal |
| what are the two lines of research in initial stages of attraction | characteristics with long term relationships (obvious) and impact initial stages to be attracted to someone (the one we covered) |
| proximity | people we are closer to (as in feet, miles, ect.) we tend to like more |
| contact | even though you may live close to someone contact is the key. if there isn't any contact then you wont like |
| similarity | we like people who are like us. whether it is background, likes and dislikes, attitudes, ect. |
| reciprocity | we like people who like us, and we especially like people who used to not like us but after time like us |
| affect | emotion. reinforcement affect model. the more you encounter someone the more likely you are to like them. the movie theater example |
| misattributed arousal | sometimes we think we are aroused because we are attracted to them but we not, we got it wrong |
| physical attractiveness | different by culture. the key is perception. people tend to view peoples traits as long as it does not deviate from there perception of normal |
| matching hypothesis | we tend to match up with people in terms of level of attraction. |
| what happens when you rate your significant other | you rate them higher than you and then they actually are because you want to think that you got the better end of the deal |
| what are the three types of self esteem | global vs specific trait vs state personal vs social/collective |
| global self esteem | your perception of who you are in completion |
| specific self esteem | you evaluation of one individual domain |
| trait self esteem | long term self esteem enduring, chronic. how you USUALLY feel about yourself |
| state self esteem | your evaluation at some specific moment in time, at that state in time, it is MOMENTARY |
| personal self esteem | my critical evaluations about ME as an individual |
| social collective self esteem | my evaluation of my GROUPS |
| what are the two levels of self esteem | low and high |
| what are two things you should consider about self esteem | level of self esteem and self esteem stability |
| high self esteem stable | low variance, they always like themselves |
| high self esteem unstable | usually like themselves but sometimes they do have their low days |
| low self esteem stable | never like themselves |
| low self esteem unstable | usually hate themselves but sometimes they have their good days |
| what do we know about people with low self esteem | 1. they have a confused self concept-they dont know who they are 2. they generally have a highly negative self identity 3. it is a myth that they want bad things to happen to them, they want good things to happen to the |
| does high self esteem or low self esteem people engage in ego enhancement and why | high self esteem they like themselves more and more, do they like themselves yeah and they want to like themselves even more |
| does high self esteem or low self esteem people engage in ego protection and why | low self esteem. hold on to what little they like about themselves and dont try to find anything else. all about not losing what they have |
| double bind | 1. we want positive feedback from others 2. self verification, or confirm our self identity in what people say to us |
| double bind with high self esteem people | there is not a problem, you think that you look good and others tell you that you look good |
| double bind with low self esteem people | they wnt positive feedback, but they dont think that they look good, in the bind self verification is the winner. thinking you look like crap and then people telling you that you look good puts you in a bind and eventually yourself wins |
| three strategies low self esteem people use to keep their evaluation of their best area positive | 1. downward social compare: THEY ONLY DO THIS ON THEIR "BEST" TRAIT. compare their self to people that are under them 2. self verification: they self verify positive in this area 3. self serving bias only in their best area |
| how does a best person score in global self esteem and in specific self esteem | they score themselves low globally but when to asked about their best trait they scored high. as opposed to high self esteem people who score globally high and specifically higher |
| prejudice | an UNJUSTIFIABLE negative attitude toward a group and its members |
| what are the three dimensions of prejudice | 1. affective component: not like people, be in a bad mood when they have to work with those people 2. behavioral component: discrimination 3. cognitive component: stereotype |
| do people who are prejudice show all three dimensions of prejudice | not necessarily but typically yes |
| what are the sources of prejudice | 1. social inequalities 2. cognitive load 3. conformity 4. institutions 5. limited resources 6. social learning |
| prejudice: social inequalities | unequal status, people use prejudice to justify their own status |
| prejudice: cognitive load | law 2 & 3. fundamental attribution error since our brain likes it easy we rely on the internal. we form these internal attribution based on gender and race, ect. if you are overloaded cognitively you are going to rely on the internal attribution. |
| prejudice: conformity | sometimes individuals reside in an environment that is full of people who are prejudice and one of the ways they realize if they are going to survive in that environment is to conform to the prejudice of that environment |
| prejudice: institutions | religion is the best predictor of prejudice. business, and marriage, schools are also good predictors |
| prejudice: limited resources | you dont like people that you are competing against and if they win you dislike them even more. we are constantly doing battle with others for the resources of like. as you battle people long enough you begin to hate them |
| prejudice: social learning | some times people are prejudice because they were taught to be prejudice |
| ingroup favoritism | our tendency to show favoritism or bias towards other members of the group |
| outgroup favoritism | people are derogatory/hostile towards out groups. negative behvior towards outgroups leads to derogation, only if derogate the relevant out group |
| self esteem hypothesis | we can make ourselves feel better by being mean to others |
| is the file for the ingroup larger or smaller than the file for the outgroup | larger |
| outgroup extremity effect | outgroups stick out more |
| ingroup extremity effect | negtive ingroup most negative |
Created by:
mreel91
Popular Psychology sets