Social Psychology Test 1

  1. Definition of Social Psychology
    • Scientific study of the feelings, thoughts, and behaviors in individuals in social situations
    • it's a science - emphasis on using objective evidence
    • Focus on the social world and how it filters through the individual
    • covers all domains of people's lives
  2. How is social psychology different than other areas of psychology?
    We are not concerned with the characteristics of the person -we are concerned with how the characteristics of the situation shape behavior (how different situations bring out different things)
  3. The Power of the Situation components - social influence
    • Culture - your values, how to behave, difference between cultures
    • Social Roles - your friends influence on you
    • Relationships
    • Group Norms
  4. What causes behavior? - the person or the situation?
    Power of the situation! when situations overpower personal factors (bullying, Miligram experiments)
  5. Person factors vs. situation factors
    • BOTH are important. Interactionism - both influence each other
    • Person factors - personality, genes, goals, beliefs
    • Situatio - culture, social roles, relationship, group norms
  6. Internalization vs. niche picking/construal
    Internalization: Social activation, when situation factors affect the person factors.

    Niche picking/construal: person can influence the situations they experience (choose environments, their outlook can affect the way you perceive a situation)
  7. The Power of the Situation
    • situations can influence personal behavior
    • often overlooked, underestimated, unappreciated
  8. The Principle of COnstrual
    • Interpretation of the situation is subjective - if situations are ambiguous individuals may have different interpretations
    • To understand social influence we must also understand the characteristics of the person that shape construal processes
  9. Confirmation bias and hindsight bias
    • Confirmation bias: seeing what we expect to see and overlooking the rest
    • Hindsight bias: "I knew it all along"
    • These biases show that a lot of our intuitions are inaccurate - must use scientific method!
  10. How can we draw causal inference?
    experimentation - experimenter manipulates something
  11. independent vs. dependent variable
    • independent: what is manipulated, causally important, the subject has no control over it
    • dependent: the effect variables, controlled by the subject
  12. tradeoffs between correlation and experimentation
    • experiment: get causal inferences,
    • correlation: may be impossible to manipulate the variable, greater realism, can create ethical problems,
  13. field vs. laboratory
    • lab: control, artificial
    • field: less control, more realistic
  14. internal validity
    are changes in dependent variable caused by changes in the independent variable --> more likely in laboratory, controlled
  15. external validity -
    do the results hold in other situations, for other people, at other times?

    can the results be generalized? -

    kinda hard in lab research
  16. Pitfalls in research
    faulty introspetion, reactivity, ethical dilemmas,
  17. faulty introspection
    people often are mistaken or unaware of the true reasons for their behavior - can't just ask them why they do things - makes research much harder
  18. reactivity
    • tendency for people to behave differently because they are being observed by a researcher
    • demand effect, social desirability bias
  19. demand effect and social desirability bias
    • Part of reactivity - problem in research
    • demand: if people think they know what the research is about, they tend to go along with it
    • Social desirabilty: people want to present themselves in a positive way
  20. ethical dilemmas and how they try to deal with it
    harm (they use informed consent), deception (debrief afterward if deception used), invasion of privacy (they look at groups, not individuals)
  21. What is social about the self?
    • How we define ourselves is important in shaping our social behavior.
    • And the interactions with the social world also shape how we define ourselves.
    • Sense of self cannot exist without the social world
  22. Sense of self
    • varies across species - humans have the most developed
    • varies across situations - mirror = more self-aware
    • varies across persons - some people are very self aware some just go with teh flow
  23. How do we define ourselves?
    introspection, self-perception, social comparisons, reflected appraisals --> its a social thing, we need others there too to define ourselves!!
  24. introspection
    look into ourselves - we report a theory about ourselves - can often be wrong tho
  25. self-perception
    we can't introspect, we dont have access to inner workings of the brain --> inner self can only be inferred from observable data (the same way we form impressions of others)
  26. can sense of self be manipulated?
    • yes -
    • situational manipulations can alter self-perceptions
    • changes in self-perception impact behavior

    if we introspected we wouldn't be able to manipulate the sense of self - it woudl be stable
  27. reflected appraisals
    what people tell us we are like
  28. 2 types of reactions to failure experiences
    • helpless - just give up, assume performance is because of lack of ability (Entity Theory - you are a fixed entity that doesn't change, can't change abilities)
    • Mastery Oriented - think failure is due to insufficient effort (incremental theory - you can change, develop the skill)
  29. can a positive view be healthy?
    yes - beneficial to think you have control over a situation - buffers the sting of failure, prvides motivation to improve
  30. Definition of self-esteem
    attitude/evaluation of yourself (affectively charged - emotion behind it, can exist at different levels at unconscious and conscious level)
  31. explicit vs. implicit self esteem
    • explicit: the kind you tell about
    • implicit: the most immediate emotional reactions, can be different than explicit, measured indirectly
  32. Where does self-esteem come from?
    external feedback - peers, performance outcomes, social comparison, social acceptance, effect of parental feedback
  33. how to protect your self-esteem
    • self-enhancement mechanisms (downward social comparisons, self-serving cognitions - the way we interpret our situations in which we flatter ourselves)
    • protects more our explicit self-esteem than implicit

    works better with people who already have a high self-esteem
  34. self-serving cognitions
    successes attributed to internal qualities, failures attributed to external things
  35. how is high self-esteem bad?
    High SE kids are more likely to be aggressive especially in frustrating situations
  36. defensive high self-esteem
    • high explicit SE, low implicit SE
    • take negative feedback really hard, prone to destructive self-enhancement
    • violence, unstable!
  37. so is it better to have low SE or high SE
    moderately positive SE = the best especiall if backed up by real competence (stable, not defensive)
  38. Does aspects of self change across cultures?
    • Individualistic - emphasize independence, personal self, uniqueness
    • Collectivist - emphasize interdependent, social self, value not standing out, value how they fit in
  39. do people in different cultures have different levels of self-esteem?
    • Explicit - people in USA tend to test higher but thats b/c the questionnaires focus on personal, individual self esteem not your collective self-esteem, and modesty norms
    • Implicit - no difference
  40. the general model of person perception
    appearance/behavior --> trait inferences --> global impression
  41. what makes someone attractive?
    • averageness effect - average faces more preferable
    • symmetry effect - facial symmetry = marker for health/genetic fitness
  42. other facial qualities that affect how people are perceived/experience life
    • Baby face effect - larger lips/smaller nose, larger forehead, smaller chin, larger eyes
    • competence -
    • power - competence, dominance, maturity
    • warmth - trustworthiness, likeability
  43. baby-face effect
    • have richer social life, more people initiated contact with them
    • are seen as more trustworthy, but not experts (can influence people differently then)
    • occupation outcomes also depend on domain - if job for leadership at disadvantage but if job for warmth are at advantage
    • advantageous in crimes of mallice (how can a baby be malicious!)
  44. can you get anythign from teh face that would be accurate about personality?
    strongest accuracy was in domain of extroversion, no correlation for a lot of other personality traits
  45. theory of somatypes
    • different body types = different personalities
    • endomorph - heavy
    • mesomorph - athletic
    • ectomorph - skinny

    you canot predict personality based on body type but people have sterotypes based on it
  46. what do your clothes reveal?
    strong impact for first impressions - seems like a valid signal because you choose your clothes but the accuracy is questionable
  47. thin slices of behavior
    • minimal samples of behavior (less than a minute)
    • accuracy was above chance
    • for intelligence, racial prejudice, sexual orientation
  48. thick slices of behavior
    • meaningful unit of behavior - richer behavioral evidence
    • correspondent inference theory
  49. correspondent inference theory
    • do someone's behaviors correspond to their inner qualities?
    • look for situational contrainsts on the behavior (free choice, intention, norms, role requirements)
    • look for noncommon effects (consequences of choosing that behavior that would not have emerged if didn't do the behavior) to deduce the reasons for the behavior

    no evidence for this!!
  50. problems for correspondent inference theory
    • we don't think that elaborately/rationally!
    • Castro essay thing
    • perceptions of intelligence in questioner, contestants, and audiences (perceive teh questioner to be really smart, questioner knows they aren't)
  51. correspondence bias (fundamental attribution error)
    • problem for the correspondent inference theory
    • we assume that someones behavior reflects their true personality regardless if there are other reasons for it, situations, contraints
    • assume that behavior corresponds with inner traits
  52. 2-stage model of trait inference - better than correspondent inference theory
    • 2 stages to forming impressions
    • automatic - inferences spontaneously - effortless, efficient, correlate behaviors with inner personality
    • corrective deliberation - adjustments made for situations, effortful, mental resources required
  53. proximal vs. distal factors
    • proximal - factors that exist in the here and now (power of the situation, dispositions, role of construal)
    • distal - are more removed in time from a given context (evolution/culture)
  54. channel factors
    situational circumstances that appear unimportant but can have consequence for behavior (either helping it, blocking it, etc.
  55. Role of Construal
    interpretation and inference about the stimuli/situations we confront
  56. schemas
    generalized knowledge about the physical/social world and how to behave in particular situations
  57. Automatic vs. Controlled Processing
    automatic - unconscious, implicit attitudes and beliefs, skill acquisition, production of beliefs w/o our awareness to cognitive processes that generated them

    controlled - conscious, results in explicit attitudes/beliefs of which we are aware
  58. observational research
    looking at phenomenon in reasonably systematic way
  59. self-selection
    what correlational research suffers from, the participant, not the researcher gets to select his level on each variable (not manipulated)
  60. Reliability vs. Measurement Validity
    • reliability: the degree to which teh particular way we measure a given variable is likely to yield consistent results
    • measurement validity: the correlation between some measure and some outcome that the measure is supposed to predict
  61. OCEAN
    • traits (openness, conscientiousness, extroverted, agreeableness, neuroic)
    • have been shaped by evolution, biologically based too, diversification also
  62. situationism
    our social self shifts according to the situation (OCEAN is usually constant however)
  63. distinctiveness hypothesis
    we identify what makes us unique in each context and we highlight that in our self-definition
  64. How we define ourselves, construal processes
    social comparison, social narratives, self-assessment
  65. self-reference effect
    tendency to elaborate on and recall info that is integrated into our self-knowledge
  66. self-shemas
    • knowledge based summaries of our feelings/actions and how we understand others views about the self
    • we are attuned to info that maps to our self-schema
  67. self-image bias
    tendency to judge other people's personalities according to their similarity/dissimilarity to our own personality
  68. self-discrepancy theory
    • there are three selves (actual, ideal, and ought)
    • ideal - primed by promotion focus - what we want to be
    • ought - primed by prevention focus - what we ought to be
  69. self-knowledge
    self-reference effect, self-schemas, motivates behavior, affects how we judge others, illusions/biases of the self
  70. trait self-esteem vs. state self-esteem
    • trait: teh enduring level of regard people have for their abilities/characteristics over time
    • state: dynamic, changing evaluations, momentary feelings about the self
  71. contingencies of self-worth
    self-esteem is contingent on successes/failures in domains in which their self-worth is based
  72. sociometer hypothesis
    self-esteem is an internal, subjective marker of the extent to which we are included/rearded favorably by others
  73. self-evaluation maintenance model
    • we are motivated to see ourselves in a favorable light (by reflection and social comparison)
    • we associate with others that are successful (not in our domain tho)
  74. self-verification theory
    • we strive for stable, accurate beliefs abotu the self -- they give coherence
    • attend to/recall info that is consistent with our views
    • we create self-confirmary social environments through our behavior
  75. self-monitorig
    moitor our behavior so it fits the demands of the situation
  76. self-handicapping
    tendency to engage in self-defeating behaviors in order to hae an explanation for poor performance
  77. the 2 types of communication
    • on record - statements intended to be taken literally (honest, direct)
    • off-record - when we need to deliver a message that threatens our public self/friends (indirect, ambiguous, hinting, like flirting or teasing)
  78. attribution theory
    set of theoretical accounts of how people assign causes to the events around them and the effects that people's causal assessments have (how people understand the causes of events)

    how we understand others - if an outcome a product of something internal to the person or a reflection of the circumstances?
  79. explanatory style
    • a person's habitual way of explaining events, typically assessed with internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific
    • pessimistic = global, stable, internal
  80. covariation principle
    • we should attribute behavior to potential causes that co-occur with teh behavior
    • consensus (what do most people do), distinctiveness (what an individual does in different situations), consistency (what an individual does in a certain situation at different times)
    • can determine if situational or dispositional from this
  81. discounting vs. augmentation principle
    • discounting: we should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behaior if there are other plausible causes
    • augmentation: we should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if there are other causes present that normally would produce the opposite outcome
  82. counterfactual thoughts
    thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened if only something had been done differently
  83. emotional amplification
    the pain/joy we get from an events tends to be proportional to how easy it is to imagine the event not happening
  84. self-serving bias
    attribute failure to external things, attribute succes to oneself (a motivational bias)
  85. just world hypothesis
    people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get
  86. causes of fundamental attribution effect
    • just world hypothesis (dispositional inferences can be comforting)
    • elements that catch our attention are more likely to be seen as causes (usually people not backgrounds stand out) (perceptive salience)
    • only after characterizing the person do we weigh in situational input
  87. actor/observer difference
    • actors: focus on situation, situational attributions
    • observer: focus on teh person, who they are dealing with
  88. pluralistic ignorance
    misperception of a group norm that results form oberving people who are acting at variance with their private beliefs because of a concern for the social consequences (like when no one asks questions in class)
  89. sharpening and leveling
    • sharpening: when telling a story, emphasze important/interesting elements
    • leveling: leaving out less important details when telling a story
  90. asymmetry between positive and negative information
    we are more attentive to negative info than positive b/c teh negative info has more implications for our well-being
  91. order effects (the different ones too)
    • the order in which items are presented can have a powerful impact on judgment
    • primacy and recency effects
  92. framing effect
    the influence on judgment resulting from teh way info is presented --> order effects are a type of framing effect
  93. confirmation bias
    • tendency to test a proposition by searching for evidence that woudl support it --> false beliefs b/c we can find evidence for anything
    • when we want a given proposition to be true so we seek out confirming evidence and discount contradictory evidence
  94. bottom up vs. top down processing
    • bottom up - data driven, basis of stimuli
    • top down - theory driven, interprets new info in light of preexisting knowledge/expectations
  95. schema
    organized body of prior knowledge, like a knowledge structure
  96. knowledge structure
    coherent configurations in which related informatino is stored
  97. how to schemas influence our judgment?
    attention, influence and construal (info in the brain can be primed), memory (advantage in recall if the info fits an expectation)
  98. schemas affect on memory
    • affect on recall, on encoding, on retrieval,
    • more of an effect on encoding than retrieval
  99. how is new info mapped onto preexisting schemas?
    • feature matching
    • expectations
    • recent activation
  100. feature matching
    • Whether a schema will be activated in interpreting new info depends on
    • the degree of similarity or fit between critical features of the schema and the
    • incoming stimulus
  101. the "two minds" for certain problems
    • intuition - quick, automatic, simultaneously
    • reason - slower, more controlled, serially
  102. Heuristics
    intuitive mental short cuts that allow us to make a variety of judgments quickly and efficiently
  103. availability heuristic
    • we judge the frequency/probability of some event by the readiness with which similar events come to mind
    • it is the ease of generating examples, not the number of examples that guides people's judgements
  104. fluency
    • teh feeling of ease associated with processing information
    • if presented disfluently to you, you take a more, slow, careful approach
  105. representative heuristic
    • we try to categorize something by judging how similar it is to our conception of the typical member of the category
    • similarity = likelihood
    • but sometimes blinds us from base-rate info
  106. base rate info
    info about the relative frequency of event or of members of different categories in the population (could be ignored with strong stense of representativeness)
  107. planning fallacy
    • tendency to be unrealistically optimistic abotu how long a project will take
    • b/c of tendency to approach the problem form the inside (no outside perspective, such as how often do i get things done on time usually)
  108. join effect of representative and availability heuristics =
    illusory correlation
  109. illusory correlation
    • joint effect of representative and availability heuristics
    • the belief that two variables are correlated when they are not
  110. Naive Realism
    • the naive belief that we have a realistic objective view of the world
    • in actuality because of our past experience/knowledge we are very subjective and biased
    • these biases are unknown to us
  111. automaticity
    • efficient, unintentional, uncontrollable, and without awareness
    • this is the way that impression formation typically occurs
    • it happens so fast that we fail to realize that we are making the conclusions that we are
  112. where do automatic reactions come from?
    • a storehouse of past experiences and knowledge - they get triggered when you encounter people/places
    • they get triggered automatically
  113. how are automatic associations created in teh first place?
    • from our own experiences, what we have learned
    • from culture
    • from our own experiences
    • innately born - like aversion to incest
  114. when do our mental associations influence us?
    Recency Principle and CHronicity principle
  115. recency principle
    if there is a recently used association that is readily available it will have more power to influence what we do/think in the future
  116. chronicity principle
    the associations you use chronically will also be at the ready to be used
  117. hostile attribution bias
    • tendency to perceive others behaviors as being hostile even though the actual behavior was ambiguous
    • connection to chroicity principle
  118. teh two things taht determine whether we use effortful deliberations or not
    • Motivation - extent to which we are motivated to have the perfect interpretation
    • but a lot of times we are not optimizers (dot need the best) but we are satisfiers (solve problem in adequate way)
    • Capacity - working memory has limited capacity, we can't think in a detailed, analytical way unless we have a bunch of time/luxury
  119. cognitive miser
    • unless the stakes are really high, we don't want to use up our mental resources to accurately interpret the world around us
    • therefore we come up with mental short cuts like heuristics
  120. mental short cuts
    • process evidence selectively (like anchoring)
    • rely on metacognition (feelings about our own mental processes) to make our best guess (like availabiilty heuristic, fluency effects)
  121. Primacy Effect
    • an example of anchoring on initial information only (process evidence selectively)
    • anchor on first evidence and we dont' adjust sufficiently for whatever we can learn afterwards
  122. availability heuristic
    • an example of relying on metacognition (cognitive feelings)
    • make judgments based upon the first information you can retrieve from your memory
    • if easier retrieval - think its more common
    • to judge frequency
    • salience bias
  123. salience bias
    • correlated with availability heuristic
    • salient information is easily available in memory - think its a common occurence
  124. availability based biases
    • salience bias
    • false consensus effect
  125. false consensus effect
    • tendency we have to think that our opinions are the most common opinions
    • the belief that most people agree with our attitudes
    • due to teh fact that we associate with people who have similar attitudes
  126. Fluency-based effects
    • how easy you can process info affects many kinds of judgments
    • The Truth Effect (repitition based, rhyme based, perceptual fluency)
  127. the truth effect
    • fluent information is more likely to be viewed as true
    • if repeated more
    • if rhymes
    • if easier to read at visual level
  128. threats to rationality in social thiking
    • if we rely solely on heuristics (dont' go beyond automaticity)
    • confirmation iases
    • sympathetic magic
  129. confirmation biases
    • biggest flaw in human reasoning
    • tendency to think that the world confirms your expectations -- cause many biases on how people see evidence/the world in general
  130. sympathetic magic
    • superstitious thinking
    • law of contagion - once in contact always in contact
    • law of similarity - image = object, we can't distinguish between the thing itself and its image
Card Set
Social Psychology Test 1
social psych