Studied by 5 people
Construal principle
If we want to know how a person will react in a given situation, we must understand how the person interprets that situation
Construal Level Theory
According to this theory, we see events that are further away more broadly. But, when the time on an event arrives, we view the event more concretely and more as a burden
Regression Effect
Statistical tendency when two variables are imperfectly correlated, for extreme values of one variable to be associated with less extreme variables of the other variable
Regression Fallacy
Applying a causal theory to what is really a simple statistical regularity
Example:
Concluding that a student who fails the midterm will also fail the final
Base-Rate Information
Relating to the relative frequency of events or of members of different categories
Example:
If twice as many people major in business as in the physical sciences, a new student you meet would more likely be a business major
Pure framing
When the content of the message remains exactly the same
Spin framing
The content of the message is buried to manipulate its interpretation; that is the reason spin framing is not a pure type of framing
Hypothesis 1
Situations are powerful
Corollary 1a
We are often unaware of the power of situations on us and others
The good Samaritan study
Darley and Batson (1973)
People who were studying biblical things were told to go teach a seminar. On the way to the seminar a confederate was placed. He was disguised to be poor. The scientists were studying whether or not people would stop and help the poor guy if they were late to the seminar or not since they had knowledge of the parable of the good Samaritan
Corollary 1b
we are often unaware of how situations influence our perception of others
self-schemas
represent people’s beliefs and feelings about themselves, both in general and in particular kinds of situations
replicated self-appraisal
a belief about what others think of ones self
Working-self concept
a subset of self-knowledge that is brought to mind in a particular context
Independent self-construal
the self is an autonomous entity that is distinct and seperate from others
Interdependent self-construal
the self is fundamentally connected to other people
Social comparison theory
when people have no objective standard by which to evaluate their traits or abilities, they do so largely by comparing themselves with others
Self-esteem
overall positive or negative evaluation people have of themselves
contingencies of self-worth
people’s self-esteem rises and falls with successes and failures in the domains in which they have staked their self-worth
sociometer hypothesis
self-esteem is primarily a readout of our likely standing with others; that is, self-esteem is an internal, subjective index of how well we are regarded by others and hence how likely we are to be included or excluded by them
self-enhancement
the desire to maintain, increase, or protect positive views of the self
better-than-average effect
they think they are above average in popularity, kindness, fairness, leadership, and so on
self-affirmation theory
focuses on people’s efforts to maintain an overall sense of self-worth when they’re confronted with feedback or events that threaten a valued self-image, such as getting a poor test grade or learning that they’re at risk for a certain illness
self-verification theory
sometimes we strive for stable, subjectively accurate beliefs about ourselves rather than invariably favorable ones
self-regulation
the processes by which people initiate, alter, and control their behavior in pursuit of their goals—whether the goal is doing well in school, being a good friend, or getting in better shape
self-discrepancy theory
people hold beliefs about not only what they are actually like, but also what they would ideally like to be and what they think they ought to be
actual self
the self you believe you are
ideal self
represents your hopes and wishes
ought self
represents your duties and obligations
promotion focus
a focus on attaining positive outcomes
prevention focus
a focus on avoiding negative outcomes
implementation intentions
specify how one will behave to achieve a goal under particular circumstances
self-presentation
presenting the person we would like others to believe we are
impression management
face
the public image of ourselves that we want others to have
self-monitoring
tendency to monitor one’s behavior to fit the demands of the current situation
self-handicapping
the tendency to engage in self-defeating behavior to protect the self in public and prevent others from making unwanted inferences based on poor performance
corollary 1c
history of situations you’ve been shape your experience and reactions today
pluralistic ignorance
henever people act in ways that conflict with their private beliefs because of a concern for the social consequences
self-fulfilling prophecy
our expectations lead us to behave in ways that elicit the very behavior we expect from others
Hypothesis 2
we often know why people do what they do
corollary 2a
we are also inaccurate about why we ourselves do the things we do
corollary 2b
conscious experience is constructed and not always accurate
primacy effect
the information presented first exerts the most influence
recency effect
the information presented last has the most impact
framing effect
the way information is presented, including the order of presentation, can “frame” the way it’s processed and understood
spin framing
varies the content, not just the order, of what is presented
construal level theory
the temporal perspective from which people view events has important and predictable implications for how they construe them
Hypothesis 3
we often don’t know what we don’t know
corollary 3a
we are built not to know what we don’t know
corollary 3b
we often don’t know the bais
confirmation bias
people more readily, reliably, and vigorously seek out evidence that would support the proposition rather than information that would contradict the proposition
hypothesis 4
it is amazing that we are as accurate as we are about why people do what they do and about what kind of people they are
corollary 4a
our judgements can be accurate because they are made automatically
bottom-up processing
takes in relevant stimuli from the outside world
top-down processing
filters and interprets bottom-up stimuli in light of preexisting knowledge and expectations
priming
certain types of behavior are elicited automatically when people are exposed to stimuli in the environment that bring to mind a particular action or schema
hypothesis 5
people have fundamental social motivations
corollary 5a
people want to be liked and have a need of belonging
corollary 5b
people want to be accurate and consistent
availability heuristic
when we judge the frequency or probability of some event by how readily pertinent instances come to mind
representativeness heuristic
when we try to categorize something by judging how similar it is to our conception of the typical member of the category
fluency
the ease (or difficulty) associated with information processing
base-rate information
our knowledge of relative frequency of the members of a given category
regression effect
the statistical tendency, when any two variables are imperfectly correlated, for extreme values of one of them to be associated with less extreme values of the other
regression fallacy
fail to see the regression effect for what it is and instead conclude that they’ve encountered some important phenomenon
illusory correlation
the belief that things are correlated when in fact they are not
external/situational attribution
when the three types of covariation information studied are all high
consistency
information relating to what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions
consensus
information relating to what most people would do in a given situation
internal/dispositional attribution
when consensus and distinctiveness are low but consistency is high
distinctiveness
information relating to what an individual does in a different situation
low in distinctiveness
The person behaves in the same way in similar situations.
low in consistency
If the same situation occurred again, the person would not behave in the same way.
high in consensus
In the same situation, most people would behave in the same way.
low in consensus
in the same situation, few people would behave that way.
high in consistency
If the same situation occurred again, the person would behave in the same way.
high in distinctiveness
The person does not behave the same way in similar situations.
global/specific
is something that influences other areas of their lives or just this one
stable/unstable
will be present again in the future or not
internal/external
participants then say whether each cause is due to something about them or something about other people or circumstances
Explanatory style
a person’s habitual way of explaining events, and it’s assessed along three dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, and global/specific
causal attribution
the construal process people use to explain both their own and others’ behavior
The linking of an event to a cause, such as inferring that a personality trait is responsible for a behavior
attribution theory
the study of how people understand the causes of events
the set of theoretical accounts of how people assign causes to the events around them and the effects of people’s causal assessments
covariation principle
We try to determine what causes—internal or external, symptomatic of the person in question or applicable to nearly everyone
situational attribution
when consistency, consensus, and distinctiveness are all high
dispositional attribution
when consistency is high but consensus and distinctiveness are low
discounting principle
ur confidence that a particular cause is responsible for a given outcome will be reduced if there are other plausible causes that might have produced that same outcome
augmentation principle
we can have greater confidence that a particular cause is responsible for a given outcome if other causes are present that we imagine would produce a different outcome
counterfactual thinking
considerations of what might have, could have, or should have happened “if only” a few minor things were done differently
emotional amplification
An emotional reaction tends to be more intense if the event almost didn’t happen
self-serving attributional bias
people are inclined to attribute their failures and other bad events to external circumstances, but to attribute their successes and other good events to themselves
fundamental attribution error
the tendency to attribute people’s behavior to elements of their character or personality, even when powerful situational forces are acting to produce that behavior
just world hypothesis
the belief that people get what they deserve in life
actor-observer difference
a difference in attribution based on who is making the assessment
Intuitive system
quick and automatic
everything occurs at once- parallel
associations
Rational system
slower and more controlled
based on rules and deductions
performs its operations one at a time- serially
Note
Flashcard