Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psyc 474 > Sept 3 > Flashcards

Sept 3 Flashcards

1
Q

“entire history of you” Black Mirror episode

A

imagine having access to memory implant that allows you to replay every interaction you’ve ever had

implications: trust issues, fear, hesitancy, commitment issues, self-consciousness, social withdrawal, self-doubt, overthinking

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

many social experiences are ________ and subject to _________ _________

A

ambiguous

multiple interpretations

ie. is my bf laughing at his ex’s jokes because it’s a party and he’s being friendly, or is he still hung up on her?

ie. are they taking too long to text back because they’re busy, or because they don’t want to talk to me?

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

percentage of our time that we spend trying to make sense of others

A

70% of our thoughts and conversations are spent trying to make sense of others

UK poll: 1/4 of adults admit to spending “hours” analysing wording/tone of a text

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

couple conflicts = often rooted in…

A

disagreements about the MEANING of an event

rather than disagreement about its OCCURRENCE

ie. one person may think it’s not serious, while the other does. or one person may be doing something for reasons unknown by the other

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

“needy is in the eye of the beholder”

A

the fact that two people are sharing the same experience doesn’t mean they’re interpreting it in the same way

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

attributions

A

explanations we make to understand causes of an event

“my partner bought me flowers because…

…he feels guilty
…he loves me
…he’s a considerate person”

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

attributions can be categorized along…

A

two dimensions

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

2 dimensions attributions are categorized along

A
  1. LOCUS dimension
  2. STABILITY dimension

often go hand-in-hand (ie. internal causes are more likely to be stable), but not necessarily

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

locus dimension of attributions

A

is the cause of the behaviour INTERNAL or EXTERNAL to the person?

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

stability dimension of attributions

A

is the cause of the behaviour TEMPORARY or STABLE?

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

“your partner is late for dinner” different attribution types

A

internal & stable attribution:
“he’s late because he’s a thoughtless jerk”

internal & temporary attribution:
“he’s late because he forgot to set his alarm”

external & temporary attribution:
“he’s late because he got stuck in traffic”

external & stable attribution:
“he’s late because the stupid car keeps breaking down”

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

relationship-enhancing attributions

A
  1. seeing POSITIVE behaviours as INTERNAL and STABLE
  2. seeing NEGATIVE behaviours as EXTERNAL and TEMPORARY
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

distress-maintaining attributions

A
  1. seeing POSITIVE behaviours as EXTERNAL and TEMPORARY
  2. seeing NEGATIVE behaviours as INTERNAL and STABLE
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

types of attributions made by satisfied couples versus distressed couples

A

satisfied couples: relationship-enhancing attributions

distressed couples: distress-maintaining attributions

pattern of attributions partners make also PREDICT which couples are likely to STAY HAPPY and TOGETHER over time

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

explanations we make for an event are called…

A

attributions

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

attributions shape our…

A

interpretation of the event

which in turn affects our behaviour

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

pre-existing knowledge that affects our interpretation of any given interaction

A

pre-existing knowledge of…

  1. what our partner is like
  2. what people are like in general
  3. what relationships are like
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

schema

A

mental frameworks/cognitive structures that help MAKE SENSE of complex world

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

interpretation of the event

A

construal

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

3 things that schemas do

A
  1. streamline info processing by providing an organizational structure where we can slot new info
  2. guide perception
  3. allow us to make predictions (includes experiences)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

expectancy confirmation

A

schemas can be updated with new info, but also tend to be SELF-PERPETUATING

they don’t update easily

expectancies tend to be confirmed through 2 pathways

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

2 pathways through which expectancies tend to be confirmed

A
  1. PERCEPTUAL CONFIRMATION: “we see what we expect to see”
  2. BEHAVIOURAL CONFIRMATION: “we behave in a way that makes our expectations happen”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

rejection sensitivity

A

disposition (individual tendency) to “anxiously expect, readily perceive, and overreact to rejection”

ranges from low to high

expectancies = activated in situations where rejection is possible

once activated, increase READINESS TO PERCEIVE REJECTION

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

high RS

A

people who anxiously expect rejection

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

low RS

A

people who calmly expect acceptance

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

2 dimensions used to assess RS

A
  1. degree of anxiety & concern about the outcome
  2. expectations of acceptance & rejection
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

RS measure

A

lists variety of interpersonal situations where rejection is possible and assesses responses along 2 dimensions:

  1. degree of ANXIETY & CONCERN about the outcome
  2. EXPECTATIONS of ACCEPTANCE & REJECTION

score for each situation calculated by weighting expected likelihood by degree of concern

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

for individuals high in RS, rejection-related cues…

A

are more likely to capture attention

this is called attentional bias

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

attentional bias and RS

A

for people high in RS, rejection-related cues = more likely to capture attention

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

emotional stroop task setup

A

Ps asked to process one aspect of a stimulus (ie. naming ink colour a word is printed in) while ignoring an irrelevant aspect of the stimulus (the content of the word)

content of the word:
1. rejection-related (ie. ignored, unwanted)
2. non-rejection negative (ie. accident, disaster)
3. neutral (ie. pavement, radiator)

if Ps take longer to name ink colour for rejection-related word relative to neutral word…

suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

emotional stroop task - what suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words?

A

if Ps take longer to name ink colour for REJECTION-RELATED WORD relative to neutral word, suggests attentional bias towards rejection-related words

shows struggle to disconnect from the rejection-related meaning

more salient meaning to them, which distracts them from identifying the colour of the word

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

emotional stroop task results

A

RS associated with SLOWER RTs on REJECTION-RELATED WORD TRIALS (controlling for response on neutral trials)

ie. greater interference on rejection-related word trials = greater attentional bias towards rejection-related cues

NO SUCH ASSOCIATION between RS and RT on negative trials

30
Q

emotional stroop task: what does the finding of no association between RS and RT on negative trials suggest?

A

does not suggest general tendency to pay more attention to negative stimuli

so it’s really the rejection aspect that causes people to take longer

31
Q

study setup: RS individuals are more likely to construe ambiguous social behaviour of a stranger as…

A

rejecting

experiment involves 2 “get to know you” interactions with another “participant”

after first interaction, told 1 of 2 things:
1. “Amy didn’t want to continue with second part of experiment”
2. “there isn’t enough time for the second interaction”

rejection sensitivity is linked to greater feelings of rejection in ambiguous condition

32
Q

the RS “get to know you” study is evidence of what type of confirmation?

A

perceptual confirmation

33
Q

people high in RS are more likely to construe insensitive behaviour of new partners as…

A

intentionally rejection

ie. attribute behaviour to hurtful intent

ie. “if your boyfriend/girlfriend was being cool and distant, you would feel they were being intentionally hurtful to you”

another example of perceptual confirmation

34
Q

behaviour confirmation - RS

A

people who expect rejection tend to behave in ways that elicit rejection from close others

self-fulfilling prophecy

35
Q

behavioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study setup

A

college-age (mostly) heterosexual couples in exclusive relationships

asked to select up to 5 topics of ongoing conflict (ie. commitment, sex, spending time together) from list and indicate MOST SALIENT ISSUE

assigned to discuss mutually agreed upon issue for 20 min

completed MEASURE OF AFFECT pre and post-interaction (RS was assessed on separate day)

BEHAVIOUR during interaction CODED by independent observers

36
Q

behavioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study results

A
  1. high RS women displayed MORE NEGATIVE BEHAVIOURS (ie. hostile tone, put-town, denial of responsibility) during interaction than low RS women
  2. partners of HRS woman were ANGRIER about the relationship following discussion relative to partners of LRS women
  3. women’s negative behaviour accounted for 54% of the effect of women’s RS on their partner’s change in anger
37
Q

behavioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study - what % of women’s negative behaviour accounted for effect of partner’s change in anger?

A

54%

38
Q

havioural confirmation RS study: college-age couple study - gender effects

A

no effect observed for male partners in this study

but in other research…lower levels of relationship satisfaction in female partners of men high in RS explained by these men’s JEALOUS and CONTROLLING behaviour

39
Q

why do people high in RS behave in ways that elicit rejection?

A
  1. HRS and LRS women are similar in hostility when not primed by rejection cues
    - so it’s not that they’re more hostile generally
  2. possible explanation: PARTNER SELECTION
    - maybe people high in RS seek out people who confirm this?
    - but controlled for number of partner & relationship variables and found that this wasn’t true
  3. possibly a BEHAVIOURAL MANIFESTATION of feelings of hurt, anger, frustration, hopelessness
40
Q

RS and relational impact of self-doubt

A
  1. individuals with LOW SELF-ESTEEM also have CHRONIC CONCERNS about ACCEPTANCE
  2. see themselves negatively & believe that others do too
  3. suffer from NAIVE REALISM
  4. may defend against relationship anxieties triggered by self-doubts by DEVALUING the relationship
41
Q

naive realism

A

idea that one’s perception of the world is an accurate representation of reality

people with low self-esteem suffer from this: see themselves negatively & believe that others do too

42
Q

does self esteem predict attractiveness?

A

no

43
Q

people with low self esteem may defend against relationship anxieties triggered by self-doubt by…

A

devaluing the relationship

44
Q

study setup: relational impact of self doubt

A

Ps completed purported measure of intelligence

3 conditions:
1. failure feedback
2. success feedback
3. neutral (no feedback)

45
Q

study results: relational impact of self doubt

A

for LOW self esteem individuals, self-doubts about intellectual abilities triggered…

  1. anxieties about partner rejection, lower confidence in partner’s regard
  2. low valuation of the relationship, derogation of the partner
  3. lowered confidence in partner’s regard mediated negative impact of failure manipulation on relationship devaluation

doubt themselves, which triggers doubts about partner and relationship, which is painful - to circumvent that pain, they derogate the partner and the relationship instead

OPPOSITE PATTERN FOR HIGH SE INDIVIDUALS

46
Q

expectancy confirmation

A

helps explain why many of us find ourselves experiencing the same relationship dynamics over and over again

“wherever you go, there you are”

47
Q

fundamental attribution error (FAE)

A

tendency to underestimate situational influences & overestimate dispositional influences on the behaviour of others

don’t realize that, in our relationships, WE often are the situation

48
Q

motivated cognition

A

the ways in which our motives and desires shape how we select, interpret and organize info, with the aim of achieving some desired outcome

motive: drive to reach a specific goal

bias: tendency to process info in a systematic way to reach a certain POV

49
Q

motive

A

part of motivated cognition

drive to reach a specific goal

50
Q

bias

A

part of motivated cognition

tendency to process information in a systematic way to reach a certain POV

51
Q

motive & bias in relationships

A

our MOTIVE to believe certain things about our partner & the relationship can lead to…

BIASES in how we perceive our partner & the relationship

52
Q

motive & bias in relationships helps explain…

A

why outsiders sometimes evaluate a relationship very differently from its participants

53
Q

motivated cognition in relationships: cognitive dissonance theory

A

we strive to maintain CONSISTENCY between our thoughts, beliefs & actions

few relationships are perfect and some degree of doubt & conflict is inevitable

how to resolve the tension between our desire for certainty and consistency and these inevitable doubts?

make COGNITIVE ADJUSTMENTS

54
Q

enhancement motive

A

in committed relationships, motivated to see our partner & relationship in positive light

leads to an ENHANCEMENT BIAS: processing info in a way that casts our partner/relationship in a positive light

55
Q

enhancement bias leads to…

A

a number of POSITIVE ILLUSIONS about the partner and relationship

56
Q

positive illusions about partner

A

satisfied partners tend to IDEALIZE their partners

see partners more positively than partners perceive themselves

can’t be explained by partners being modest - happy spouses rate partners more positively than their friends do

57
Q

why can partners seeing their partners more positively than the partners perceive themselves not be explained by modesty?

A

because happy spouses rate partners more positively than their friends do

58
Q

3 kinds of positive illusions

A
  1. elevate relational virtues and minimize faults
  2. ascribe special significance to relationship virtues (“I don’t think I’ll ever have to doubt his love for me because he’s always making me feel good about myself”)
  3. use “yes, but” arguments to minimize faults (“yes, he tends to over-react to things…but I have realized that he does this to protect me”)
59
Q

T/F: people believe their own relationship is better than those of other people

A

true

this is a positive illusion

60
Q

t/f: people rate likelihood of own marriage failing below base rates

A

true

this is a positive illusion

61
Q

t/f: people are less realistic about relationship prospects than outside observers

A

true

researchers asked relationship partners, and their friends and family, to predict whether the couple will still be tgt in 1 year

partners were MORE OPTIMISTIC and LESS ACCURATE than friends and family, despite their access to much more insider info

62
Q

are positive illusions bad?

A

no

63
Q

positive illusions are related prospectively to…

A
  1. greater relationship satisfaction & stability
  2. fewer & less destructive conflicts
  3. partner’s increasingly positive perception of self

recall SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY: if our expectations are positive, our relationships may flourish and partners may come to “live up” to our idealized image of them

64
Q

perceptions of partner vary in…

A

levels of abstraction - it’s a hierarchy

ranging from very specific to global

TOP of hierarchy: fewer objective standards, more latitude to place partner in positive light

65
Q

the fact that our perceptions of our partners vary in levels of abstraction, from very specific to global, means that…

A

it’s possible to view partner POSITIVELY at GLOBAL LEVEL

while acknowledging SPECIFIC POS & NEG traits

it’s more difficult to distort beliefs about concrete, specific aspects of partner

66
Q

glonal adoration, specific accuracy: newlyweds

A

high levels of enhancement at global level

fairly high accuracy at trait level, but significant variability

67
Q

heterosexual marriages: wives’ more accurate specific perceptions associated with…

A
  1. greater support behaviour
  2. greater feelings of control within marriage
  3. decreased likelihood of divorce
68
Q

t/f: love may be stronger when grounded in specific accuracy

A

true

69
Q

positive illusions blend…

A

“reality” and “illusion” based on projected ideals & hopes

70
Q

justification motive

A

we want to hold favourable attitudes about ourselves

not all motivated cognition is about relationship enhancement

in a clearly troubled relationship we can still uplift ourselves by blaming partner for faltering relationship

71
Q

self-serving bias

A

tendency to make internal attributions for positive behaviour, and external ones for negative behaviour

72
Q

self-serving bias in relationships

A

can occur even in happy relationships

don’t want to believe that we could cause our partner pain or distress

deflect responsibility by blaming the situation or blaming the partner

73
Q

dyadic nature of relationship interaction

A
  1. generally, 2 people involved in relationship interactions

both are susceptible to self-serving biases

  1. actor-observer difference
74
Q

actor-observer difference

A

degree to which you are oriented towards the person vs situation depends on whether you’re engaged in the action yourself (actor) or if you’re just observing someone else (observer)

actors more likely to make situational attributions

observers more likely to make dispositional attributions

again, don’t realize that we’re part of the situation for our partner

75
Q

memory bias

A

can leave out or amplify info to support our current view of the partner & relationship

autobiographical memory is not like a video recording

it’s a CONSTRUCTIVE process, selective editing

pieces of remembered info + current knowledge = the narrative that makes sense to us now

76
Q

memory bias study: McFarland and Ross, 1987

A

couples asked to rate partner’s personality & relationship

do it again 2 months later, ratings were compared

memories of past feelings are GUIDED BY CURRENT FEELINGS about our relationship

if satisfaction improved: remember feeling more positively than they actually did

if satisfaction declined: remember feeling more negatively than they actually did

Psyc 474 (23 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions