Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

social behavior final > Social Cognition > Flashcards

Social Cognition Flashcards

1
Q

Social Cognition

A

Study of cognitive processes and structures that influence and are influenced by social behavior

Dominant perspective to explain social behavior

impression formation and person perception are important aspects of social cognition

Sometimes even criticized for being too cognitive, not relating cognitive processes to language, social interaction and social structure

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

Behaviorism (Skinner, Thorndike, Watson )

A

Shift in explaining behavior based on overt observations, responses to stimuli in the environment based on reinforcement schedules (rewards/punishments

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

Cognitive Consistency

A

People people try to remain consistency in their cognitions, find inconsistency disturbing and therefore avoid it

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

naive psychology/scientist

A

People want to understand the world and use therefore rational, scientific-like, cause-effect analyses

but these are often biased (having to few information or motivations of self-interest when drawing conclusions)

Supports attribution theories

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

cognitive miser

A

People try to produce generally adaptive behavior and therefore use their least complex and demanding cognitions, to think in an easy and time-saving way

Because we can only process a limited amount of information, we take cognitive shortcuts/heuristics and our conclusions tend to be biased

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

Motivated tactician

A

Emphasizes importance of motivation in our thinking: we want to achieve personal goals, motives and needs

People therefore have multiple cognitive strategies available, which they choose in a tactic way

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

Configural model (Solomon Asch 1946)

A

Gestalt based model of impression formation

Gestalt view: impressions are formed as a whole, based on central cues

Traits= person characteristics (habitual patterns of behavior, thought and emotion)

central traits= have a huge influence on our final impression, Influence meaning of other traits and our perceived relationship among traits

Peripheral traits= significant less of an impact on final impression

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

biases of social thinking

A

Primacy and recency (effect found by Asch 1946)

Positivity and negativity

Personal Constructs (George Kelly 1955)

Implicit personality theories

Physical appearance

Stereotypes

Social judgeability

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

Primacy and order of presentation effect

Primacy: earlier presented information has more of an influence on social cognition (people pay more attention/ primary information acts as central cues)

A

order of presentation effect

Primacy: earlier presented information has more of an influence on social cognition (people pay more attention/ primary information acts as central cues)

eg. Ash experiment where first presented traits had more influence on final impression on the character=positive traits first/negative traits last)

Recency: later presented information has more impact on final impression formation (can happen when people are tired, distracted

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

Positivity

A

Positivity: If we lack negative information we have the tendency to form positive impressions and assume the best of others

Negativity: attracts our attention more (we are biased)

Especially: negative information is unusual and distinctive

Could be a signal for potential danger
harder to change negative impression once it is formed

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

Personal Constructs (George Kelly 1955)

A

We can form different expressions of the same person and we have our own way to characterize people

EG. To me humor is the most important organizing principle to form my impression of a person (others: prefer intelligence)

Develop over time, hard to change

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

Implicit personality theories

A

Theories about what sort of characteristics go together from certain types of personality (eg. intelligent and not self-centered)

Widely shared in cultures but differ between cultures

Resistant to change and based on personal experience

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

Stereotype

A

Simplified and evaluative images of a social group and its members

Salient characteristic of people we first meet: what group/category they belong to

Link to topic prejudice and discrimination
We try to make information we receive about others consistent with our stereotype

Try to remain cognitive consistency (eg. Intelligence does not go along together with our stereotype of a working men)

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

Social judgeability

A

We consider: Is it socially acceptable to judge a person?

We are unlikely to judge others if social rules/laws forbid it „politically incorrect“

If target perceived as socially judgeable, we have a greater confidence (eg. German-Jews Second World War)

Link to topic prejudice and discrimination

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

Schemas

A

Schemas are sets of cognitions that are connected with each other (thoughts, beliefs, attitudes)

Schema help us to know, what to do=If we only have limited information, schema help us to quickly make sense of a person, situation or location

By Bartlett: cognitive structures that represent knowledge about a concept or a type of stimulus (including its attributes and the relations amongst those structure)

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

Types of schemas

A

Person schemas

Role schemas

Scripts

Content-free schemas

Self-schemas

Social group schema

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

Person schemas

A

Knowledge about specific individuals (eg. best friend, politician)

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

Role schemas

A

Knowledge of structures about role occupant (eg. doctor=stranger, allowed to ask you to undress)

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

Scripts

A

Schema about an event (eg. having a party, going to the restaurant

Lack of relevant schemas= feeling disorientated, frustrated (eg. feeling lost in foreign countries)

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

Content-free schemas

A

More number of rules for processing information or on how to attribute a cause to someone’s behavior eg. Kelley: causal schemata

Example: If you like john and john likes Tom, in order to maintain balance, you should also like Tom

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

Self-schemas

A

How we structure our knowledge about ourselves, later on forms our self-concept

We store information aboutourselves in a similar, but more complex way than about others

Attributes important in our self schema= also important in the schematic perception of others

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

Social group schema

A

A widely shared schema about a social group is a stereotype

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

Categories

A

We apply our schemas by forming categories about persons, events or situations

People represent categories as fuzzy (=ungeordnet) sets of attributes/characteristics called prototypes

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

Prototypes

A

typical/ideal member of a category

prototype uni lecturer, attributes=glasses, intelligent, self confident

When categories are in competition (eg. environmentalists vs capitalists, prototype can be extreme member (eg. most radical environmentalist)

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

Difference between schemas and categories/Prototypes

A

Quite similar and often interchangeable: we activate schemas once a person/event/situation is categorized

Schemas: systematic and specified organization

Prototype: unorganized/fuzzy representation of a category

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

How are Categories organized?

A

HIERARCHICALLY

More inclusive categories (more members and attributes eg. European)

Less inclusive categories (few members and attributes eg. Italian, British) are included in more exclusive categories

People prefer to rely on intermediate-level categories (middle) than on very inclusive/exclusive ones =Not too broad/not too specific

How we organize categories depends on SITUATIONAL and MOTIVATIONAL factors

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

Family resemblance

A

= Some categories belong to a family of categories, even though they vary from the prototype

EG. Concerts (heavy mental, classical music..)

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

Exemplars

A

= specific example of a member of a category

often we prefer to use exemplars from using prototypes as a standard of a category (eg. Represent Category American in terms of Barack Obama/Trump)

Especially to represent outgroups they belong to

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

What are Associative networks?

A

We can represent our categories as associative networks: our traits/beliefs/behavior is linked to emotional or causal association

Model of memory: we form associative links by connecting nodes (Knoten) and ideas = spread cognitive activation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

Priming

A

categories that we often use and that are consistent with our current goals and needs come to mind quicker (woman who wants a baby sees babies everywhere)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Stereotypes

A

They are simplifies and generalized images about members of social groups

Link to prejudice and discrimination

Not necessarily „wrong“-they serve as a source of information

People easily stereotype, but stereotypes are slow to change

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Perceptual accentuation (Henri Tajfel)

A

The process of categorization highlights similarities/differences we perceive between groups (link=categorization produces stereotypes)

Accentuation principle (Hervorhebung):

A stimuli evokes perceptual accentuation of intra/inter-category similarities on dimensions with the categorization

Effect can be even stronger when the categorization is personally relevant to us

Or when we are uncertain about making judgements

Criticism on Tajfels Theory: categorization can‘t explain how stereotypes about specific groups are formed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

Using Schemas

A

People orientate more on subtypes than on superordinate/subordinate categories
EG. Career women, NOT women or lawyer

Prefer to access stereotype and role schemas from trait schemas
EG. Politician, NOT intelligent

We use schemas automatically and habitually or when they are accessible and salient in our memory

We especially use schemas when they are relevant to our self and congruent to our mood

When they are based on earlier rather than on later information (=primacy effect)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

The cost of being wrong

A

if high, we rather use less schemas and complex cognitions

Often high when we depend on actions/attitudes of others (get rewards/fear punishments)

We pay more attention, try to get more information and notice schema-inconsistent information

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

The cost of being indecisive

A

if high, we rather use more schemas (any decision might be better than no decision)

If we have performance pressure and less time , feel distracted and anxious

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

Individual differences

A

Attributional complexity= people have more/less complex explanations of other people

Uncertainty orientation= some people have interest in gaining information, some prefer to stay certain

Need for cognition=some people prefer to think more/less deeply about things

Need for cognitive disclosure= some are more/less quickly to make decisons and judgements

Cognitive complexity= people differ in the complexity of their cognitive processes and representations

Accessibility: It is easier to recall schemas that we already have in mind

We differ on self-schemas, political, gender and sex-role schemas

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

Acquiring schemas

A

The more processes/instance a schema includes, the more abstract and less concrete it becomes

More experience with person/instance, the more complex the schema

Schemas become more resilient=rather include expectations to remain validity of the schema

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Changing schemas

A

Schemas do not easily change as we tend to avoid cognitive inconsistency (rather reinterpretate information)

Only if they are really inaccurate, they change: (3 ways Rothbart 1981)

Bookkeeping

Conversion

Sub-typing

depends also on how easy it is to change schemas (which extend it is logical/practical disconfirmable)
EG. Honest person cheats, likely that schema changes (honest person don’t cheat)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

Bookkeeping

A

slow change of schema (if there appears only some schema inconstistent information)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Conversion

A

sudden and massive change of a schema (if the inconsistent information accumulates)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

Sub-typing

A

= schema turns into a sub category (to store/process disconfirming evidence)

EG women believes that men are violent and encounters many who are not: form subtype of non-violent men to contrast with violent men

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

Four stages of social encoding (way in which we process/store external stimuli in the mind)-Bargh 1984

A
  1. Pre-attentive analysis = We scan our environment automatically
  2. Focal attention= we define stimuli and categorize them consciously
  3. Comprehension= We start to comprehend the stimuli by giving them a meaning (verstanden)
  4. Elaborative reasoning (by linking stimulus to other knowledge, we allow more complex inferences
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What attracts our ATTENTION first?

A

Salience

Vividness

Accessibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

Salience

A

stimuli that catch our attention are salient

people can also be salient, attract our attention, be more influential in groups

they often stand out from other stimuli (eg. single male in a female group)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Vividness

A

vivid stimuli that are emotionally attention grabbing (eg. terrorist attack)

concrete and image provoking (eg. description of terrorist attack)

Often represented in television: entertaining and persuasive contents

close in time and place (terrorist attack in city)

46
Q

Accessibility

A

We tend to activate more on categories or schemas in memory that we already have in our heads

Gender: often an accessible and already primed category we use to interpret behavior
this has a huge influence on how we process new information

47
Q

Priming

A

Some stimulus are highly accessible and come quicker into our minds (categories we often/recently use, consistent with our goals and needs)

EG. Feminists tend to be aware of sexism more often

Depression as an example: chronic accessibility of negative self-schemas

48
Q

Memory for people

A

How we behave is influenced by how we store information about other people and what we remember about them

49
Q

Associative network/propositional model of memory

A

We store propositions (Thesen) (eg. The student reads the book) consisting of nodes and ideas (eg. book/ponytail)

These are linked by relationships between ideas

The more links, the more likely to be recalled

50
Q

Recall

A

Associative links become stronger the more they are activated by cognitive rehearsal

We are more likely to recall information that is inconsistent with our impression

inconsistent information attracts more attention, activates more cognition and thought

51
Q

Long-term memory

A

Huge store of information that can be potentially brought to our mind

52
Q

Short-term memory

A

Much smaller amount of memory we have in our consciousness

53
Q

Contents of person memory

A

Contents on person memory vary in how observable/concrete it is

  1. appearance
  2. behavior
  3. traits
54
Q

Traits

A

Characteristics of people

are not directly observable, based on complex interference from behavior and situations

Organized (with respect to)

Social desirability (warm, friendly, pleasant)
Competence (intelligent, industrious, efficient)
55
Q

Two ways of forming impressions about people

A
  1. on-line

we use incoming information and data to form impressions (little correlation memory and judgement)

  1. memory-based judgements (more unusual)

Wether we choose on-line/memory-based depends on personal goals/purposes in interaction/judgements

56
Q

Social interference

A

The way in which we process social information

57
Q

Interferial process

A

We identify, collect and combine information to form impressions and make judgements

Automatically=Schemas/Stereotypes

58
Q

Two ways of information process

  1. Top-down deductive fashion=
A

we rely automatically on general stereotypes and schemas

we look at the whole first and then at small individual parts

59
Q

Two ways of information process

  1. Bottom-up inductive fashion
A

=rely on specific instances

we look at small individual parts first and then we look at the whole

60
Q

Elaboration-likelihood model (Petty and Cacioppo 1986)

A

Central route processing
People consider information carfully to form impressions

Peripheral route processing
People make decisions based on stereotypes, schemas, cognitive short-cuts

61
Q

Heuristic-systematic model (Chaiken 1989)

A

People either process information carefully/systematically or rely automatically on cognitive heuristics

62
Q

Behavioral decision theory (Einhorn and Hogarth 1981)

A

Strategies of social interference are intuitive and and include many biases and errors

=fall short compared with those from the behavioral decision theory

63
Q
  1. Gathering and sampling social information
A

First step to make an interference

People rely to heavily on schemas

„Law of small numbers“-people are too much influenced by extreme examples (eg mass media)

64
Q
  1. Regression
A

First observations of instances from a category often seem more extreme than later observations

Ignorant of regression: make judgement mistakes (inferences from limited information)

Extreme information can later on be diluted by more information

( Eg 1. Hans kicks cats 2. He kicks cats and cares for his mother in his free time)

65
Q
  1. Base-rate information
A

factual, statistical information about an entire class of events

Often not interesting (salient/vivid) enough to people and therefore often ignored

66
Q
  1. Covariation
A

We judge how strong two things are related, this is often based on schemas (people not interested in disconfirming them)

67
Q

Illusory correlation

A

people assume that relationship between two variables exists

overestimate degree of correlation/see correlation where none exists

68
Q

Associative meaning

A

items are seen as belonging together because they „ought“ to (on basis of prior expectations)

69
Q

Paired distinctiveness

A

items share unusual feature and are therefore seen as belonging together

70
Q

Heuristics (cognitive short-cuts)

A

Cognitive short-cuts help us to make accurate inferences most of the time

Help us to deal with overwhelming amount of information

Biased by known schemas

71
Q

Representativeness heuristic

A

We assign instances/examples to categories on the basis of an overall similarity

EG. Steve is shy and has passion for details= he is rather a librarion than a farmer

72
Q

Availability heuristic

A

The more frequent and often an event occurs, the more quickly come associations to our mind

If Instances already available=we tend to just fill the frequencies

(eg. media reports on terrorist attacks/car crashes vs lung cancer)

73
Q

Anchoring (=Anker) and adjustment

A

We infer about other people based initial standards or schemas we already have

Belief about ourselves can be an anchor for judging others (judgement based on own self-schema)

74
Q

Improving social interference

A

We should try to rely less on intuitive inferential strategies to avoid biases and heuristics in our thinking and their causes (stereotyping, discrimination, depression)

Solution: More education in scientific, rational thinking and statistical techniques

Social inference not optimal (misinterpretations, mistakes) but suit everyday life very well

EG. Flee automatically from pitbull in the street

75
Q

Antecedents of affect (hopes, desires, abilities)

A

Cognitive evaluation wether we should act or not (process largely continuous and automatic)

Primary and secondary appraisals

76
Q

Primary appraisals

A

How relevant is what happens for my needs/goals?

amygdala =part of the brain that decides wether something is good/bad/, wether it has survival value

responsible for fast, automatic system-related emotional reactions

77
Q

Secondary appraisals

A

For more complex emotions and more slowly

Am I responsible for this situation? Can I cope with it?

78
Q

Consequences of affect

A

We judge others more positively if we are in a good mood

We are more likely to make negative evaluations/stereotypes of outgroups if we are in a bad mood

Emotions can help us to make better decisions by setting priorities and focus our attention

The effect of mood on our self-perception is greater for peripheral than central aspects

79
Q

Affect-infusion Model (Forgas, 1994)

A

Social judgements reflect our current mood (our cognition is influenced by our feelings)

4 WAYS in which people process information about one another

  1. Direct access- Using schemas/judgements directly stored in memory
  2. Motivated processing-We make judgements due to specific motivations/moods/to achieve goals
  3. Heuristic processing- We rely on cognitive short cuts/heuristics
  4. Substantive processing- We use informational sources to carefully come to a judgement
80
Q

Emotion regulation

A

People regulate their mood to reach their own goals (eg. decide not to show anger)

Instrumental reason

Hedonic reason

For some people it is easier/harder to regulate their emotions (find a good regulation strategy)

81
Q

Instrumental reason

A

= to cope with the situation

82
Q

Hedonic reason

A

=to feel happy/good

83
Q

Naive psychologist (Fritz Heider) =we construct our own theories to explain human

Three principles

A
  1. we have an urge to develop to causal explanations
  2. We want to be able to control our environment
  3. To determine causality in other peoples behavior we use

Internal/dispositional attributions: the personality has the main impact on a persons behavior

External/situational attributions: the situation has the main impact on the persons behavior

84
Q

Internal/dispositional attributions

A

The personality has the main impact on a persons behavior

85
Q

External/situational attributions

A

the situation has the main impact on the persons behavior

86
Q

Theory of correspondent inference (Jones & Davis)

A

Theory assumes that person behaves due to underlying dispositions/personality traits

Process of making correspondent interference:

Cues:

  1. act was freely chosen
  2. act produced non-common effect
  3. act was not considered socially desirable
  4. act had a direct impact on us (hedonic relevance)
  5. act seemed intended to affect us (Personalism)
87
Q

We are more likely to make correspondent (or internal/dispositional) attributions when:

A
  1. behavior is freely chosen (not controlled by external factors)
  2. behavior is exclusive:Non-common effects

Outcome bias : Belief that outcome of behavior was intended by the person who chose it

  1. act not considered socially desirable
  2. act has direct impact on us=Hedonic relevance
  3. act seemed intended to affect us (benefit/harm oneself rather than others)=Personalism
88
Q

Covariation Model (Kelly) (people as everyday scientists)

A

People use this model to decide whether to attribute behavior to internal/dispositional/external factors

Kelly assumes: people are rational observers and have enough time to process 3 types of information

Consistency information
Distinctiveness information
Consensus information

Criticism: Consistency, distinctiveness and consensus information require multiple observations

89
Q

Consistency information

A

high: Tom ALWAYS laughs at this comedian,
low: Tome only sometimes laughs at this comedian

90
Q

Distinctiveness information

A

high: Tom ONLY laughs at the comedian,
low: Tom laughs at everything

91
Q

Causal schemata

A

If we have incomplete/no information we draw causal conclusions on experience-based beliefs

92
Q

Emotional lability

A

It depends on ourselves, what kind of attribution we make on a first unexplained arousal (turn it into different emotions)

Example: Study by Schlachter and Singer (62) tried to give arousal a different label and turn it into something positive in therapy (made use of emotional lability)

93
Q

Weiners 1979 attribution theory on task performance

A

Theory on the causes and consequences when people attribute their performance on a task

3 performance dimensions in attribution making

1.Locus
What caused the performance? Internal (actor) or external (situational) attribution
Internal: typical effort
External: help/hindrance from others

  1. Stability
    Is the cause (internal/external) a stable one?
    Consistent help/hindrance from others
    Unusual help/hindrance from others

3.Controllability
To what extend is the future task performance under the actor‘s control?
Controllable: Task difficulty
Uncontrollable: Luck

94
Q

attributional style

A

Our individual predisposition to make a certain type of causal attribution to explain behavior

95
Q

We differ in the way we consider to have control over our life:

Internal/External attribution

A

Internals
We believe to have significant personal control over our life and destiny

Externals
Believe to have little control over destiny and attribute behavior to external/situational factors

96
Q

Three basic phases that interpersonal relationships go through (Harvey 87‘)

A
  1. formation
    Attribution helps with communication and to have more clarity
  2. maintainance
    When a stable relationship is established, attributions are reduced
  3. dissolution (Auflösung)
    People make more attributions to regain an understanding of the relationship
97
Q

Attributional conflicts

A

When partners have different interpretations of behavior

Attributions have a huge impact on the satisfaction in the relationship

Positive behavior: internal, stable, controllable factors

Negative behavior: external, unstable, uncontrollable factors

98
Q

Attributional biases

A

Attribution processes are often biased based on personality, interpersonal dynamics, communication needs

We are motivated tacticians and cognitive misers

99
Q

Correspondence bias/

Fundamental attribution error

A

People make dispositional attributions and tend to link behavior to stable, underlying PERSONALITY attributes (Internal factors)

EG. Factors such as temperament, genetics, individual personality traits

People see what they want to see and under/overestimate behavior

EG. Focus more on candidate than on parties programme, blame driver and not road

100
Q

Ultimate attribution error

A

In group contexts

To explain behavior to reflect attributes of a group rather than to situational/external factors

Related to:
Outcome bias
Essentialism

101
Q

False-consensus effect

A

We assume that other people behave in the same way that we do

See our behavior as more typical and normal than it really is

The stronger our beliefs are and the more we care about them, the stronger the effect

102
Q

Self-serving bias

A

Attributional biases to protect our self-esteem and serve our ego

103
Q

Self-serving /enhancing bias

A

We like to take credit for our successes and positive behavior and to enhance ourselves

Associate success with own efforts (INTERNAL attribution)

104
Q

Ego-serving bias

A

Cognitive component

People expect to succeed and exaggerate their amount of control over their performances

105
Q

outcome bias

A

The outcome/result of a behavior has an effect on our attribution

Believe it to be intended by the person who chose the behavior

EG. Attribute more responsibility to someone involved in an accident with large consequences

106
Q

Self-protecting bias

A

We make EXTERNAL attributions to our negative behaviors/failures to „explain them away“

107
Q

Self-handicapping

A

We try to reduce our personal responsibility for our failure and enhance our personal responsibility for our success

We can do this even before an event happens and „anticipate“ our failure due to external factors

108
Q

Belief in a just world

A

We believe in a just world where good things happen to good people and bad things to bad ones

Blame victims of poverty, rape as being responsible for what happens to them

EG. Jews in Second World War, believed to be responsible for being in holocaust

109
Q

Illusion of control

A

People have control for their outcomes (world controllable)

110
Q

ethnocentrism/ Ingroup-serving bias

A

We tend to prefer our own group membership and culture over others and see it as an ideal standard
We make positive ingroup and negative outgroup comparisons

111
Q

Ultimate attribution error

A

Tendency: attribute internally/dispositional BAD OUTGROUP and GOOD INGROUP behavior

Attribute externally GOOD OUTGROUP and BAD INGROUP behavior

112
Q

Attribution and Stereotypes

A

Stereotypes influence and are influenced by societal and intergroup attributions

Serve ego-defensive function

Scapegoating : Attribute failures/distressing events to specific groups (eg. economic crisis)

Justify actions against outgroups

social behavior final (7 decks)

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