Ch. 4, 5, 6

priming

priming

produces an effect where you are behaving one way (unknown to you) and it’s interpreted by someone else and they will behave the same way back to you, leading you to form an impression based on their behavior (ex: Rude study)

primacy effect

information that you receive first will be remembered longer and stronger and impression is formed by the information you first receive

Solomon Asch (primacy effect)

• if someone describes a person w/ positive traits first and then negative traits, you’re going to form a more positive impression of the person

• if someone describes a person w/ negative traits first and then positive traits, you’re going to form a more negative impression of the person

closure

as you’re trying to form impressions of people, the first information closes off any new information coming in

change of meaning

you’re going to form an impression based on the first info and any new incoming info will change → brain filters out or filters in new info (ex: if you get positive traits first and then negative, the negative traits will be manipulated into positive traits)

indirect cues

cues that arise from 3 sources:

1. cues the person is giving us

2. cues from the situation we find that person in

3. cues from the person’s behavior

things we judge people from

• clothes

• pronouns you use

• facial expressions

• face shape/eye size

• owned objects

mirror neurons

neurons that mimic the behavior of other people → causes us to make a connection and we try to interpret their behavior

affordance theory

we don’t perceive objects based on the info it is sending us, we perceive objects is the action that the object affords us (ex: recognizing a water bottle b/c of its functions)

scripts

a series of behavior that are expected in particular situations (learned from customs and culture)

• ex: tipping culture in US vs. tipping culture in other countries

ingrained scripts

sequence of behaviors based on context which influences how we behave

nonverbal cues

• body language → slouching viewed as unprofessional

• eye contact/gaze → making eye contact is viewed as trustworthy

• physical touch → touching people is seen as nurturing

• cultural differences → okay sign is offensive in Germany

4 channels of communication

• words (paid attention to the most)

• face (paid attention to the most)

• body

• voice (should be paid more attention to)

attributions

taking elements and turning them to dispositions

internal attribution

explanation of a person’s behavior based on their disposition

external attribution

explanation of a person’s behavior based on external characteristics, situations, or events

Jones’s Correspondence Inference theory

try to explain when we are more likely to make internal attributions (people think that every action is intentional)

• we try to match behavior w/ disposition

choice (Jones’s Correspondence Inference theory)

if we believe that the person had a choice, then we are going to say it’s based on personality/internal attributions (ask “was this behavior voluntary?”)

against norms (Jones’s Correspondence Inference theory)

if behavior goes against social norms, we make internal attributions (ask “was this behavior socially acceptable?”)

intended vs. accidental (Jones’s Correspondence Inference theory)

if behavior is seen as intentional, we make internal attributions (ask “was this behavior intentional?”)

Kelly’s covariation theory

a theory that explain judgments we make based on internal and external attributions

consensus

the extent to which other people behave the same way in the same situation

• are there other people behaving the same way as the person you are observing?

• how do others react

• a kind of covariation

distinctiveness

the extent to which the person behave in one situation vs. other situations

• is the behavior distinct? (do I only see it in a single situation?)

• is it not distinct? (seen in lots of situations)

• does this occur in multiple scenarios?

• a kind of covariation

consistency

the extent to which the person reacts the same way every time the same situation arises

• how often does this behavior occur?

• a kind of covariation

cognitive heuristics

the ability to not have to keep relearning information → enable us to think in ways that are quick, easy, and efficient

availability heuristics

using information that comes easily to mind/using information readily available and is perceived as more likely

false-consensus effect

an influence of cognitive heuristics where you think that your own opinions are common and thinking that everyone thinks like you

base-rate fallacy

an influence of cognitive heuristics where people value the power of dramatic effects and anecdotes over statistics (ex: trying crystals to help w/ illnesses b/c it worked for someone)

counterfactual thinking

an influence of cognitive heuristics where we are influenced by alternative outcomes that might never have occurred → tend to focus on how the past might have happened instead of what happened in the present (thinking about what could’ve been)

upward counterfactual thinking

closeness to success → tend to focus on just missing something good (ex: silver medal Olympic winners suffer from upward counterfactual thinking b/c the closeness to winning gold causes them to think about just missing the gold medal)

downward counterfactual thinking

when we think about the possibility and the possibility is worse → tends to make us feel satisfactory (ex: bronze medalists feel more happy than silver medalists b/c they think about how they could’ve missed getting a medal at all)

fundamental attribution error

we tend to overestimate the role of personal factors in other people’s behaviors (heavily weigh personal factors) and we underestimate the impact of situations in others’ behaviors (under weigh situations)

• when we look at our own behavior, we make an external attribution and when we look at someone else’s behavior, we make an internal attribution

actor-observer difference

• observer → most important piece of info is the behavior of others, thus ignoring the situation

  • we make internal attributions b/c the situation is weighted a lot less

• actor → under weighs the behavior/personality trait and overweighs the situation

  • come up w/ an external attribution and blames it on the situation

motivational bias

we judge others’ presumed motivation to help our self-esteem → we perceive others as having reduced motivation which then leads us to incorrectly interpret their behavior

• ex: group projects → social loafing (one person not putting enough effort) leads to people forming internal attributes (we would attribute their lack of effort to some personal characteristic → like being lazy)

  • the person who is social loafing would see their lack of motivation as an external attribute (ex: “I’m not putting in much effort b/c I am taking 5 other classes)

Two-Step Model of Attribution

1. identify behavior and make snap judgment (personal attribution)

2. adjust that inference of their behavior to then account for situational factors

• dependent on time

information integration theory

mix and combine new information w/ existing cognitions all based on value and weight

value (information integration theory)

whether we find that information favorable or unfavorable

weight

perceived info based on its importance to us

embodied cognition

we use our own physicality (of our bodies) to form an impression and attitude, not based on what anybody else is doing

spreading activation

the idea that once you activate one concept, any concept that is linked to that is also going to be activated

confirmation bias

the tendency to seek, interpret, and create information that verifies existing beliefs

self-fulfilling prophecy

the idea that your behavior towards somebody based on your impression of them would be reciprocated by the person (ex: seeing one person at a party alone while everyone else is having fun, you would think that the person is unhappy and you would ignore them b/c they are unhappy)

prejudice

a negative learned attitude towards a particular group

discrimination

a negative behavior directed at a specific group/an individual in that specific group

stereotype

a general belief about a particular group of people (can be positive, negative, or neutral)

gender socialization

children learn gender roles from surroundings (comes w/ gendered language)

generics

a type of gendered language that is a blanket statement about the members of a category and leads to assumptions about the entire group → leads to social essentialism (ex: “Asians are good at math”)

specifics

a type of gendered language that is specific to one person in a group and leads to causal statements (ex: “this Asian person is good at math”)

social essentialism

belief that certain social categories are fundamentally different (ex: “girls are bad at math” → stating that girls are different than boys

microaggressions

everyday non-verbal and environmental snubs that are often unintentional → subtle forms of modern racism → messages that show that you are different than the dominant culture

amygdala

the part of the brain that processes emotional information (such as fearful information)

fusiform face area

an area in the brain that activates when we see faces

Williams syndrome

a genetic condition where people form no emotional memories and are less prone to threatening social situations → no fear of people so they approach anyone

brain categorization

allows for faster perception, faster thought-process, faster formation of memory → efficient way to process incoming information

modern sexism

a subtle form of prejudice towards gender social groups

• a form of treating genders differently

• aka ambivalent sexism: the connotation that it’s a form of subtle prejudice

hostile sexism

a type of modern sexism that promotes dominance by asserting men’s power over women and aims to preserve men’s dominance

• ex: Hilary Clinton → she does not follow traditional roles and is perceived as a threat to the male dominant position aka running for president

benevolent sexism

a type of modern sexism that promotes male dominance in a patronizing/chivalrous way → expressed by emphasizing men’s role to protect and provide for women

• ex: men offering to help women change their tires b/c it is assumed that women couldn’t do it

ageism

being prejudiced or biased toward age groups

modern ageism

subtle forms of prejudice or bias toward an age group

techsplaining

younger generation trying to explain tech to older generations b/c of the belief that younger people know more about tech compared to older gen

acute ageism

older generation is biased towards younger generation

stigmatization

occurs when you have relentless feelings of prejudice and stereotypes

self-stigma

negative attitudes (including internalized shame) that people subjected to long-held stereotypes are gonna feel → feel as if they’re constantly being targeted

implicit stigma

the unconscious effects of a bias on your behavior towards someone

stereotype threat

the concern that you are being judged due to being a member of a marginalized group which then increases anxiety (anxiety of being evaluated based on negative stereotypes of the social group you’re in)

Yerkes-Dodson Law

a curve that shows association between arousal (stress) and performance → you need a moderate amount of stress in order to perform well

ingroups

the group you are a member of

outgroups

groups you are not a member of

ingroup-outgroup effect (intergroup bias)

people often treat others differently based on whether they are members of their ingroup or outgroup

social dominance orientation

you see your group as dominant over other groups

stereotype content model

used to figure out how stereotypes form

• 2 factors: 1. relative status to your ingroup 2. competition

realistic conflict theory

our belief that there is a “real” and direct competition for valuable and limited resources

• can be perceived and imagined

• creates hostility if you feel there is “resources hostility”

relative deprivation

the belief that a person will feel deprived or entitled to something based on the comparison to someone else

• ex: 1880-1930 → lynchings increased b/c cotton prices decreased → racism increased b/c of hostility

ingroup favoritism

believing your ingroup is better → you take pride in it and you will have higher self-esteem → increases hostility toward outgroups

Allport’s contact hypothesis

direct contact between hostile groups will decrease bias

• works under SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES/CONDITIONS:

  1. equal status (for both groups)

  2. one-to-one contact → personal contact w/ that person

  3. cooperative activity

  4. social norms in place that will support intergroup contact

shared motives

shared activity where all groups worked together to remove hostility

internal motive

you want to unlearn prejudices b/c of intrinsic motivation

external motive

you want to unlearn prejudice b/c of external factors i.e., it is not socially acceptable to be prejudiced

attitude

a reaction/opinion to an attitude object

• multidimensional/bi-dimensional

• allows us to evaluate/judge things quickly w/o much cognitive resource

high positive, low negative attitude

positive attitude

high negative, low positive attitude

negative attitude

low positive, low negative attitude

indifferent attitude

high positive, high negative attitude

mixed feelings/dual attitudes

high need to evaluate

people who tend to form more attitudes quickly and strongly

things that cause attitudes to form

• attitude objects

• people (friends, enemies, etc.)

• history of rewards and punishment (conditioning)

• culture

classical conditioning

something that does not normally give rise to emotion or reaction will be paired w/ something that does

• over time, the thing that did not give a reaction now produces a reaction

operant conditioning

we learn through associations of rewards and punishments

• being rewarded → increases behavior b/c it is pleasant

• being punished → decreases behavior b/c it is negative

affectively-based attitude

• emotionally based attitude

• “how do I feel about this?”

• argue w/ this attitude using emotions

behavior-based attitude

• action based attitude

• changing behavior may change their attitude

cognition-based attitude

• attitude is formed based on the knowledge you have about an object (knowledge-based)

• reason w/ logical and rational facts

utilitarian objects

objects that we need/objects that serves a purpose

social identity objects

objects that reflect who you are/speak more to your personal characteristics

• how you present yourself to the world

self-perception theory

behavior-based attitudes can come from looking outside yourself → you are going to perceive your own behavior and judge it by stepping outside your perception

theory of planned behavior

states that attitude might impact what we do but behavioral intentions are really important as well → connecting attitude w/ behavior

attitude toward a behavior

overall assessment of the behavior

subjective norms

attitude of others → what do others around you think of the behavior?

perceived control

self-efficacy/confidence in successfully executing that behavior

intention

the desired motivation/objective → created by attitude towards behavior, subjective norms, and perceived control

influences of attitude on behavior

• attitude strength → the stronger the attitude, the more we can predict behavior

• knowledge → having high knowledge about the situation/object, we might see a 1 to 1 prediction

• personal experience → having prior experience w/ the situation can give you a better ability to predict your behavior from the attitude

• attitude attacked

• accessibility → attitudes that are easily accessible, the more we can predict behavior

success in performing behavior

• assumes that people has acquired the opportunities and that they have the resources to perform that behavior

• a limitation of theory of planned behavior