Psych 360 Exam 1

Construal principle

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