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
alternative outcomes effect
past experience has influence on future random events
self-fulfilling prophecy
we act in ways to fulfill our expectations
daryl and gross (dumb kid)
gave packer of info on child applying to a fancy school, were lead to believe child is smarter or dumber, watched the kid take a test and those lead to believe the kid was smart thought they were smarter/had a higher test score and vice versa
bodenhausen (off times)
more likely to fall for errors and biases in our off times
emotion
a response to some sort of external stimuli, reaction
mood
a state not connected to any external stimuli, lasts longer
affect
good/bad, reflexitive reaction that is either positive or negative, reaction
emodiversity
degree wo which you experience different types of emotions, Ex; always happy people score low
stimulus (ES)
arousal (PA)
appraisal (CA)
triggers an emotion
how it physically feels
what you think
james-lange theory and facial feedback hypothesis
ES –> PA –> CA –> emotion
ffh = skips ES and tricks you with PA, but assumes each emotion has a specific PA
schacter-singer theory (schacter two-factor)
PA –> ES –> CA –> emotion
Ex; my heart beats fast. i look around and see a snake. i feel fear!
doesn’t have to be accurate
negative emotions are stronger than positive ones
last longer, more intense, matter to us more
excitation transfer
put physiological arousal onto a stimulus that did not cause it
duttor and aron (bridges)
70s, all college men, asked to cross bridges. one was scary and one was normal. at the end a hot assistant gave her number if they wanted results. those on the scary bridge called her for a date, fear = lust
yerkes-dodson law
dependent on the task at hand
medium arousal is generally the best for performance
basic emotions
happiness, anger, disgust
abel and kruger (baseball smiles)
smiling baseball cards lived around 7 years longer than those who didn’t smile
negative approach emotion
anger, a negative emotion that wants you to approach the stimulus instead of avoiding it
anger superiority effect
quicker to ID anger than any other emotion, and slower to look away from it
conceal/catharsis
hiding your anger (doesn’t last long) or taking it out on a different, safer stimulus (makes you angrier for longer)
negative avoidance emotion
negative emotion that wants you to avoid the stimulus instead of spproaching it
disgust
strongest physiological arousal, women are disgusted more than men (shocker)
ekman/universal emotions
six emotions are well-recognized by all; happy, sad, angry, disgust, fear, surprise, appear by 8 months
matsumoto and willingham (blind athletes)
compared born-blind and sighted athletes. blind ones has similar expressions to sighted during emotions in the six specific
display norms
cultural rules on how and to whom you display emotion
larson and pleck (emotional beeper)
gender differences; gave a beeper, when it went off you reported your emotional state. no significant difference was found
self-conscious emotions
critical in motivation and regulation, emerge later in development, don’t have specific facial expressions
social conparison emotions
envy, jealousy
envy (benign/malicious)
you want something, requires 2 people
benign: we want what they have and work to get it, self focused
malicious: we want what they have and will destroy what or who has it, other focused
jealously
a threat in a relationship, minimum 3 people
gender difference: women are more jealous of emotional threats, while men are more jealous of physical or sexual threats
self-evaluative emotions
evaluating yourself as you think others would evaluate you; empathy, guilt/shame, survivor’s guilt, ‘out damned spot’, embarrassment, pride/hubris
empathy
guilt increases and shame decreases
guilt vs. shame
guilt is about an action, while shame is about who you are as a person
survivor’s guilt
feel guilty with no way to make it up, lasts for a long time
mcmillen and austin (lies and volunteering)
waiting area with confederate who tells all OR says nothing. then asked if they know anything about the experiment, everyone says no, they don’t. those who really did know volunteered after for an hour longer, guilt drives us to do good and absolve ourselves
‘out damned spot’
cleaning is associated with an absolvement of guilt
embarrassment
unique, has a facial example (blush), occurs when you’ve violated a social norm
APOLOGIZE and REPAIR the norm
trivial violations
pride/hubris
about an ACCOMPLISHMENT, not a VIOLATION
pride: ACT; good grades on a test
hubris: PERSON; i’m a narcissist
purposes
group formation, group control, shared information, behavioral, guide cognition, guide decision, cushion us
kramer (+/- facebook)
altered facebook feed to be more + or -m people shared info that fit with the feed (+ to + and - to -)
affective forecasting
try to predict our resulting behavior or emotion based on a decision, and we are ass at it
beliefs
your thoughts/opinions about something, SEPARATE from understanding (opinion)
attitudes
global evaluations of something (i like this because this)
dual attitudes
having two attitudes about the same thing, Ex; automatic and deliberate attitudes
mere exposure effect
we like things we are routinely exposed to
classical conditioning
unconditioned stim = pig food
unconditioned response = drool
neutral stim = pig bell
(pavlov)
operant conditioning
we repeat rewarded behaviors and stop punished behaviors (bf skinner)
social learning
we learn by mimicking others, Ex; bobo doll and bandura
attitude polarization
people’s attitudes get more extreme when they reflect on them
effort justification
when people work hard, they convince themselves that it’s worthwhile
post-decision dissonance
cog. diss. after making a hard choice, tend to increase the goodness of our choice and decrease the goodness of the other
selective exposure
people seek info that supports their preexisting views and avoid what contradicts it
filter bubbles
algorithm that show you what you want on insta, etc.
a-b problem
inconsistency between attitudes and behaviors (general attitudes vs. specific behaviors)
behavioral intentions
plan to perform the behavior in question
subjective norms
perceptions about if others do or don’t think you should perform the behavior in question
perceived behavior control
believing if you can actually perform the behavior in question
coping
people try to deal with traumas and return to normal life
assumptive worlds
people believe these things about reality:
1. the world is benevolent
2. the world is fair and just
3. i am a good person
cognitive coping
beliefs play a central role in helping people cope with and recover from misfortune (downward and upward comparisons)
emotional intelligence
ability to percieve, generate, understand and regulate emotions
affect blends
emotion we feel is a mix of different facial expressions making it harder to perceive
facilitating thoughts
how we process our own emotional thoughts and incorporate them in our emotional cognition
mood congruence
we pay attention to information that matches our mood
tate dependent retrieval
easier to retrieve information when your emotion matches emotion you had when encoding
mood and attributions
mood matches attributions (ex; good mood = person is speeding bc of an emergency, not bc they’re an asshole)
affect regulation
managing emotions (get into, out of, prolong)
positive: do good feeling things, reach out for social support, exercise
negative: rumination, distraction, consumption
explicit vs. implicit
explicit: deliberate, recent experiences
implicit: automatic, childhood experiences
staats and staats (swedish)
paired random norwegian/swedish words with positive/negative words. those with positive words had a higher opinion of the country
instrumental learning
rewards and punishments are abstract (ex; you share a similar political view as your family and they give you more hugs or attention)
what affects the strength of an attitude?
embeddedness (embedded attitudes affect several aspects of your life)
commitment (how sure you are that it’s right)
age (older people have stronger attitudes)
lord/ross/lepper (polarization)
death penalty pro/con, told to read articles that both supported and denied their beliefs, the beliefs were still stronger.
when only exposed to opposite argument, attitudes were still stronger.
theory of planned behavior (intention predicts behavior)
attitude+subjective norms+control over your behavior
intention to act
=
behavior
spontaneous behavior
attitude = behavior
attitude follows behavior principle
we make attitudes based on behaviors we engaged in (and create self knowledge by looking at our own behavior)
lapiere (cars, chinese)
traveled us with a chinese couple, were served at 249/250 establishments. when sending a survey, 230 said they wouldn’t accommodate.
can’t tell if the person responding was the one they were interacting with
howerton, meltzer, olson (lapiere)
did with gay couple, still a big disconnect
accessibility
behavior varies based on the attitude you’re in (ex; if you’re at work, you need good customer service)
principle of aggregation
stronger predictive of attitude if you look across several instances
festinger ($)
1/20 dollar lie, those who got one dollar actually changed their minds and said it was a good, not a boring experiment (turning pegs and lying to a confederate about how interesting it was)
counterattitudinal action
behavior in opposition to your attitude
cognitive dissonance ingredients (4)
- negative consequences
- personal responsibility for consequence
- physiological arousal/response
- response must be attributed to their actions
salience of inconsistency
if you don’t know you’re being inconsistent, you won’t feel cognitive dissonance
