PSY 240 EXAM 2

Purdue - Dr. Gulker | Yellow: Chp 4 | Purple: Chp 5 | Green: Chp 6 | Blue: Chp 7

Identify the aspects of a person’s face that most influence snap judgments and assess the accuracy of those judgments.

sometimes accurate, but can be influenced by biases and stereotypes

• looking for dominance or trustworthiness based on their facial structure

Summarize the rules people follow to infer the causes of behavior and the common biases in causal analysis.

behavior is always a function of both the person and the situation (internal/external cause)

• attribution and covariation (consensus, distinctiveness)

Counterfactual Thoughts and Causal Assessments

Counterfactual thoughts can lead individuals to put the blame/responsibility on external factors …”if only”

Counterfactual Thoughts and Emotional Intensity

Counterfactual thoughts can increase an emotional reaction to an event that is proportional to how easy it is to imagine if the event never happened

• Silver medalists feel more strongly about not getting gold compared to bronze medalists because they were closer to “what might have been”

Independent Causal Inferences

Think about themselves more in the context of personal goals, attributes, and preference: attend to dispositions and internal causes

Interdependent Causal Inferences

think about themselves more in terms of the social roles they occupy and their obligations to other people and institutions: attend to situations and contexts

Counterfactual Thinking

Counterfactual thoughts let individuals mentally simulate “what might have been” if different decisions were made

Framing Effects

the influence on judgement resulting from the way information is presented, such as the order of presentation or wording

Primary Order Effect

this disproportionate influence on judgement by information presented FIRST in a body of evidence

Recency Order Effect

this disproportionate influence on judgement by information presented LAST in a body of evidence

Construal Level Framing

a theory about the relationship between psychological distance and abstract or concrete thinking

• more distant = abstract, closer = concrete

Positive and Negative Framing

negative information draws more attention than positive information

Confirmation Bias

tendency to test an idea by searching for evidence that would support it

• can lead to false beliefs because people may fail to attend to counter information

• motivation: wanting to maintain a certain belief (e.g. - pro and anti death penalty interpreting the same information in opposite ways)

Consensus

What most people would do in a given situation; whether most people would behave in the same way or not

• low consensus = we assume it’s something about the person

Distinctiveness

what an individual does in different situations; whether the behavior is unique to a situation or not

Consensus and Distinctiveness both HIGH

situational attribution

Consensus and Distinctiveness both LOW

dispositional attribution

Discounting Principle

the idea that people should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if other plausible causes might have produced it

Gender and Attribution

When it comes to failing math, we see the boy’s failure as a lack of effort (externalization), but the girl’s as a lack of ability (internalization)

Actor in Attributions

relatively inclined to make situational attributions - disposed to explain behavior as a result of the situation

Observer in Attributions

relatively inclined to make dispositional attributions - disposed to explain behavior as due to the dispositional qualities of the actor

Bottom-up Processing

data-driven mental processing, in which an individual forms conclusions based on the stimuli encountered in the environment

Top-down Processing (Schemas)

theory-driven mental processing, in which an individual filters and interprets new information in light of preexisting knowledge and expectations

Schemas and Attention

selective, we may pay attention only to things we want to see

Schemas and Memory

encoding, retrieval

Schemas and Construal

information may be interpreted in ways consistent with schemas

Schemas and Priming

schemas can influence judgements even when the schema activation occurs outside our consciousness

Priming

the presentation of information designed to activate a concept and hence make it accessible - the stimulus presented to activate the concept in question

Intuitive Systems of Thinking

Rapid responses based on associations, can be done in parallel (automatic processing)

Rational Systems of Thinking

slower and more controlled, based on rules and deductions (controlled processing)

Heuristics

intuitive mental operations, performed quickly and automatically, that provide efficient answers to common problems of judgement

Availability Heuristic

judgements of frequency or probability based on how readily pertinent instances come to mind

• can be influenced by personal attributes, cultural learning, or recent exposure

• biases in availability - ease of retrieval, risk assessment

Representativeness Heuristic

judgements of likelihood are based on assessments of similarity between individuals and group prototypes, or between cause and effect

• base-rate information - the relative frequency of events or members of different categories in a population

Illusory Correlation

the belief that 2 variables are correlated when they are NOT

Emotion

brief, specific response involving appraisals, experiences, expressions, and physiology, that helps people meet social goals

• helps us interpret our surrounding circumstances

Appraisal

construal or interpretation an individual that gives rise to the experience of emotion

• can be misattributed (mistaking fear for attraction)

Evolutionary Influences on Emotional Expression

portray emotions as adaptive reactions to promote survival and reproduction - physiologically based

Constructivist Influence on Emotional Expression

portray emotions as influenced by language, social roles, values, and institutions varying between culture and expression

Darwin and Emotional Expression

human emotions derive from motivations and displays that were evolutionarily advantageous for our mammalian and primate ancestors - emotions are universal

Darwin’s Evidence for Universal Emotions

• all humans have the same facial muscles and facial expressions are recognized cross-culturally

• since humans share an evolutionary history with other mammals, our emotionally expressive behaviors should resemble those of other species (primates)

• blind individuals still show expressions similar to those of sighted people even though they have no point of reference

Focal Emotions

emotions that are especially common within a culture, like culture of honor

Ideal Emotions (Affect Valuation Theory)

promote important cultural ideals that are valued and will play a more prominent role in social lives, like gender differences

Emotion Regulation

ways in which people modify their emotions to make ourselves feel better or fit the present context (reappraisal, acceptance, suppression)

Social Functional Theory

broad idea that emotions coordinate social interactions in ways that enable people

• promote commitment in familial relationships and friends

• expressions of certain emotions signals our sincere commitment

• can motivate us to put aside our own self-interest

Group Identity

some emotions can help us feel like we are a part of a larger social collective

Group Status

displays of such emotions like anger can increase social power within a group

• powerful in negotiations

Broaden-and-build Hypothesis

the idea that positive emotions broaden thoughts and actions, helping people build social resources and influence reasoning

• negative emotions will focus on the details

Cultural Variations in Happiness

• indigenous cultures - found in interdependence and a sense of reverence for nature

• american culture - personal achievement as a pathway to happiness

Emotional Well-being

the moment-to-moment balance of positive and negative emotions

Benefits of Happiness

• enables better work - more creative, curious, and productive

• personal relationships

• better health - may increase life expectancy

Are the benefits of happiness correlational or causational?

Correlational

Affective Forecasting

attempting to predict future emotions (what emotions and for how long)

• often incorrect

Immune Neglect

People underestimate their capacity to be resilient in responding to difficult life events, which leads them to overestimate the extent to which life’s problems will reduce their personal well-being

• painful experiences are often less upsetting than we expect

Focalism

focusing too much on a central aspect of an event while neglecting the possible impact of associated factors or other events

• we neglect to think about how we will feel after the initial event or the importance

Happiness and Memory

recollections of past pleasures are also sometimes biased

Duration Neglect

the relative unimportance of the length of an emotional experience (positive or negative) in retrospective assessments of the overall experience

Money and Happiness

• money will increase happiness for those with a lower annual income

• spending money on experiences rather than possessions will grant

• awe from experiences leads to an expanded sense of time

Touch

we can encourage people or dissuade them from inappropriate behavior using touch

Attitude Affect

how does it make you feel?

Attitude Cognition

memories/thinking associated with it

Attitude Behavior

how do you interact with it

Attitudes Predicting Behavior

may be poor predictors

Likert Scale Measuring

numerical scale used to assess attitudes (agree/disagree)

Response Latency Measuring

the amount of time it takes to respond to a stimulus

• nuanced questions will take more time

Implicit Measuring

an indirect measure of attitudes

• NOT self-report

Nonverbal Measuring

degree of physical closeness to another person, facial expressions

Physiological Measuring

increased heart rate in response to an attitude object

Bad versus Good

Bad is stronger than good - you need 5 good things for every bad thing

• bad can contaminate the good, but it doesn’t go the other way around

Ways attitudes may conflict with other influences on behavior

• social norms

• other conflicting attitudes

• situational factors

Introspection influencing Attitudes

may fail to capture the whole cause

• may cause a rift between your expressed attitude and subsequent behavior, but primarily when the bias of an attitude is affective (emotional)

• cognitive (thoughtful) analysis of your reasons for the attitude may yield misleading cognitive reasons

Attitudes are more accurate predictors of behavior when…

specific attitudes from a specific behavior are measured

• generally okay with eating meat, but you would freak out if someone told you to eat your pet

Why would an attitude change?

To be consistent with behaviors (reducing cognitive dissonance)

Consistency Theory

our tendency to justify or rationalize our behavior to minimize any inconsistencies between our attitudes and actions

Cognitive Dissonance

inconsistencies among a person’s thoughts, sentiments, and actions cause an aversive emotional state that leads to efforts to restore consistency

Decisions & Dissonance

difficult choices can induce dissonance

• we’re accepting the negatives of our decision and rejecting the positives of the option we didn’t choose

Rationalization and Decisions

behaviors can’t be taken back, so dissonance often causes a change in thoughts or feeling to rationalize behaviors

• rationalization can occur before or after a decision is made

Effort Justification

Reducing dissonance by justifying the time, effort, or money devoted to something that turned out to be unpleasant or disappointing

• feeling more committed to a fraternity after being hazed

Induced (Forced) Compliance

subtly compelling people to behave in a manner that is inconsistent with their beliefs, attitudes, or values in order to elicit dissonance and cause a change in hteir original views

• forbidden toy study - children who were told that playing with a certain toy would make the researcher upset were MORE likely to not play with the toy than those who were given a severe threat

^ SUBTLY compelling

Free Choice

choosing to engage in behavior that is inconsistent with beliefs will cause dissonance

• you’re not being forced, so there’s no good reason/rationalization to behave that way

Forced Behavior

forced behavior does NOT cause dissonance

• the reason for the behavior is clear (ex - being threatened)

• there’s no need to rationalize behaviors we DIDN’T choose

Insufficient Justification

dissonance may occur when the reason for a behavior is weak or unclear

Lack of Negative Consequence

inconsistent behaviors that were freely chosen may NOT cause dissonance if there was no negative - if nothing bad happened as a result, then there’s nothing to rationalize

• lying may not cause any dissonance if the person didn’t believe you anyways

Lack of Foreseeability

if the negative consequence could NOT be foreseen, then it causes less dissonance

• “accidents happen”

• if you had no prior knowledge, then you aren’t as liable

Self Affirmation and Dissonance

• cognitive dissonance results from challenges or threats to people’s sense of themselves as rational, moral, and competent

• self-affirmation can REDUCE dissonance by focusing on important aspects of the self

Is Dissonance Universal?

cognitive dissonance may be universal across cultures but aroused by different situations

Independent Dissonance

dissonance may result from threats to how people see themselves

Interdependent Dissonance

dissonance may result from threats to how people believe they are seen by others

Self-Perception Theory

people come to know their own attitudes by looking at their behavior and the context in which it occurred, then inferring what their attitudes were

• argues that people didn’t change their attitudes, but instead, they inferred their attitudes from their behavior in the situation

Overjustification Effect

when an extrinsic reward is offered for an activity that was already enjoyable, people conclude that they are doing it for the reward rather than internal interest

• doing cardio to complete your Apple Watch rings, even though you already liked cardio

Embodied Nature of Cognition and Emotion

a variety of physical actions associated with different psychological states

• if we’re induced to make bodily movements associated with certain attitudes, beliefs, or emotions, then we might find it easier to have/come to have those very attitudes

Cognitive Dissonance VERSUS Self-Perception

• cognitive dissonance argues that people change attitudes to fit their behavior because inconsistencies are mentally unpleasant

• self perception argues that an unpleasant mental state is not needed as explanation for the results of cognitive dissonance studies

Cognitive Dissonance TOGETHER WITH Self-Perception

• cognitive dissonance may occur when behavior doesn’t fit a preexisting attitude and the attitude is important to the self concept

  • detectable as heart rate or perspiration

• self perception may occur when attitudes are weak or ambiguous

  • many attitudes are relatively weak/changeable

System Justification Theory

people are motivated to see the existing sociopolitical system as desirable, fair, and legitimate to reduce dissonance

• blame the victim so that we don’t have to accept that the system is unjust

• promotes the virtues of the status quo, positive or compensatory stereotypes

Terror Management Theory (TMT)

people deal with the potentially crippling anxiety associated with the knowledge of the inevitability of death by striving for symbolic immortality through preserving valued cultural world views and believing they have lived up to their standards

• having children

TMT Study Salience

• mortality salience: having people write about death, read about it, etc.

• pain salience (control): feeling pain at the dentist

TMT Study Results

• more commitment to ingroups and hostility to outgroups and those who criticize one’s country

• more punitive to people who challenge prevailing laws

• reluctance to use cultural artifacts for mundane purposes

• more accepting of positive feedback about the self

study results have not been replicated + OG study happened during 9/11