Test 2 (Ch. 5-7) Flashcards
barnum effect
tell anybody something generic enough about them and they’ll think you’re psychic
social cognition
the intersection of social and cognitive components… investigating how people think about others
cognitive miser
humans are lazy and will conserve resources whenever possible
information overload
demands for cognitive capacity is greater than the actual capacity
sacrificer (info overload)
conserve resources, more likely to be wrong, happier
maximizer (info overload)
think about every aspect of a decision before making it, less happy
knowledge structures
organized packets of information stored in cognition
violations of expectations
when something goes against your schema
kelly, schemas, cold lecture
gave same lecture, but people were lead to believe the lecturer was hot or cold. people rated them as hot or cold based on the original statement, despite getting the same exact lecture
script
expectation on how an event should go
priming
what happens when you trigger a stereotype (Ex; ‘old’ words made people walk slow, ‘young’ words made people walk fast)
Bargh/Chen/Burrows (rude vs. polite)
primed with rude, polite, and neutral worlds, measure % of participants who then interrupted the researcher, 63% of the rude ones did, less neutrals, and almost no polites
framing
the way you’re presented info makes you process it differently
gain-framed
positive framing of a situation
loss-framing
negative framing of a situation
thought suppression
purposefully try to not think about a thing. it’s unsuccessful and will become the only thing you think about, conscious thoughts trigger the automatic system
stroop effect (colored words)
colored words, people have difficulty not reading word instead of color (deliberate vs. automatic process)
automatic vs. deliberate thinking (all igloos can eat eggs)
Awareness
Intention
Control
Effort
Efficiency
counterregulation, aka ‘what the heck’
you already messed up, so what the heck–let’s mess up some more!
fundamental attribution error
other’s behavior is due to their internal causes, downplay situation
actor/observer bias
actors make external attributions, and observers make internal attributions
weiner, attribution dichotomies (i/eu/s)
internal/external
unstable/stable
is: ability
es: task difficulty
iu: effort
eu: luck
heuristics
mental shortcuts about likelihood of uncertain events
representativeness heuristic
judge frequency of an event by the extent to which it resembles the typical case (matching)
availability heuristic
judge frequency of an event by how easily relevant instances come to mind
simulation heuristic
judge frequency of an event by the ease you can imagine it (counterfactual thinking)
anchoring and adjustment heuristic
judge frequency of an event by using a starting point (anchor) and adjusting up or down
confirmation bias
we search for info that confirms our beliefs and disregard contrary info
illusory correlation
overestimate link between variables that are related only slightly or not at all
one-shot
after one exposure to a weird thing, you assume all things like it are linked: ex; a mormon with a pet koala
base rate fallacy
ignore/underuse info about most people and instead are influenced by distinctive features of the current case
gambler’s fallacy
believe a particular chance event is affected by previous events
hot hand
lucky gamblers think they have a ‘hot’ hand and that their luck will continue
false consensus
overestimate # of other people who share your beliefs or ideas
false uniqueness effect
underestimate # of people who stare our most prized traits and abilities
theory/belief perseverance
when you draw a conclusion, you con’t change unless the evidence is crazy overwhelming
regression to the mean
extremes are followed by averages
illusion of control
false belief that you can influence uncertain events, especially random or chance ones
counterfactual thinking (up/down)
imagine alternatives to past/present events or circumstances–if we changed ONE THING, it would be so different (upward, downward)
first instinct fallacy
better not to change initial answer even if another seems correct
upward.downward counterfactual
imagine alternatives that are better or worse than actuality, regret
debiasing
reducing errors/biases by using deliberate processes instead of automatic ones
meta-cognition
thinking about your thinking
prototype
the ideal average
cause to effect
expect the cause to be the same magnitude as the effect
schwarz et. al (assertiveness)
think of 6 or 12 times you were assertive, then rate how assertive you are. 6 said they were more assertive bc it was easier to recall 6 events than 12
chou/edge (facebook)
had people rate happiness level of friends’ lives, asked how much time they spent on facebook. the more time they spent on facebook, the happier they perceived their friends to be
ehglich judges
make a sentencing decision after reading a file with a low or high anchor (5 vs. 30), those exposed to a harsher sentence decided on a harsher sentence whether the info came from a reporter or a lawyer
covariation model (kelley) (cdc)
- consensus (do others act in the same way as we do)
- distinctiveness (does this person act. the same in other situations)
- consistency (does this person act the same way in this situation across several instances)
actions vs. intentions
judge others by actions, ourselves by intentions
conformity vs. individuality
assume others are sheep
optimistic bias
we think things will go good for us rather than bad
overconfidence bias
we are overly trustworthy of ourselves
negative bias
we focus on negative information when it’s presented to use
illusory correlation
assume two things will happen together without any real link