Psych Prelim 2

System Justification Theory

the idea that you will convince yourself that the system is fair, because otherwise you will exprience idealogical dissonance

2 parts of Terror Management Theory

1. Indirect immortality = you don’t need to live on urself, your kids/legacy will, symbolic immortality = connection with institiutions (religion, sports teams, schoools)

2. Denial = religion

TMT suggests that when your mortality is brought to mind

you try to be more moral, you want to be in good standing with those institutions, they are more commited to ingroups and against outgroups

What are the Big 5 in the social self

Agreeableness, Openness to experience, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Neuroticism

biological connections for

extraversion

agreeableness

neuroticism

elevated dopamine

elevated vagus nerve activation

elevated sympathetic nervous system activity

Origins of the Self

biological makeup

our family

our culture

older vs younger children

younger children exceed at mimicry, are more agreeable and less neurotic, they are rebels. ahve to be clever. unconventional ideas, charm

older children are better leaders, more

earlier in the birth order means higher IQ, drop off with more kids (u aren’t teaching to younger siblings)

why east more interdependant than the west

1. west is wealthier

2. pathogen prevalance

3. rice/wheat

east vs west culture of indpependance vs interdependance

east

• more intrinsically motivated when mom choses ur anagram for u

rod-and-frame task

• east asians better at looking with context, vs west can see just line independant so better at setting it vertical

line task

• east asians better at setting proportional

object perception

• focus on individual thing versus surrounding context

holistic vs analytic

east defines themselves more intertwines with others

self schemas

Reflected self appraisals:

the working self concept

your beliefs about yourself

our believes about what others think about us is where self knowledge comes from

the self aspects most relevant to that situation

prevention vs promotion focus

lwk self evident

self-descrepencacy thoery

implementation intentions

people compare who they are to who they ought/ideal, causes dissonance and discomfort

if-then planning

self verification over

self enhancement..we just want people to see us to confirm thats how we are

Norms = foot in the door technique

pluralistic ignorance

reciprocal concession tehcique/door in face

small ask into bigger ask —> slippery slope

pluralistic ignorance is when people assume the other people in the group hold similar exterminty of beliefs to them

ask big, then small

static vs dynamic norms

descriptive vs perspective norms

why am i more likely to comply in a good mood?

1. mood maintnenace

2. constural of the ask

negative state relief hypothesis

want to remove negative mood through compliance (feel guilty for getting caught cheating on ur partner)

informational vs normative social influence

want to be correct, others provide information —> private acceptnace

want to be accepted, others approve —> public acceptance

5 norms

1. In a well-intentioned effort to activate an injunctive norm

to elicit desired behavior, one inadvertently activates

a descriptive counter-norm

2. We sometimes mislead one another about

what the norms are — pluralistic ignorance

3. Media, perhaps especially social media, can mislead

us about what the norms are (outgroup hate, attention, WTP displayed)

4. People are influenced not just by what the norms are,

but by whether they seem to be changing

5. Many of the norms we obey are “invisible” and followed

automatically

social influence types

conformity

compliance - request

obedience - demand

Elaboration Likelihood Model

central

• people are locked in, convince with quality of argument

peripheral

• person dgaf, convince with source attractiveness, expertise, consensus, number/length arguments

attitude innoculation

sleeper effect

small dose of fake enws + have them refute —> they r immune

smth from uncredible source becomes credible with time/distance

informational social influence

normative social influence

reliance on other people’s comments to form our own views, heightened when we dont know anything

desire to avoid being shunned

fundemental attribution error

failure to consider situational factors when evaluating behavior

17c

pique technique, be weird to get what u want

high mac not better than low mac at

How Hi Machs do not differ from Lo Machs

(although you might expect them to)

1. Not better at lie detection

2. Not better at remembering information

about people

3. Not better at the PDG

if behavior is a function of the person and situation, then the person is (weaker/stronger) than we expect and the situation is ___ than we expect

weaker, stronger

evidence of cross-situational inconcisistency

• Newcomb (1929) study of extroversion at a residential camp for troubled boys

  • When people are extroverted in one situation but not another 

• Hartshorne & May (1928) study of honesty among elementary and secondary school students

  • Do students take from a pile of corns (cheat/be dishonest) 

  • Are the kids who cheat on exams more likely to take coins? 

• Sears (1963) study of dependency on the part of preschool children

  • Leaving small group of friends to different friends

Why people seem more consistent than they really are

• we confuse temporal stability with cross-situational consistency

• people are acting a certain way aroudn us

• we only see people in certain situations

• we smooth over and overexplain discrepancies in the behaviors of others

prisoners dilemma game

community vs wal street changes cooperation vs defectoin rates

more normative vs informational social influence if

uk, u dk

whyd milgram get sm obedience

construal of situation

responsiblity offloading

step-by-step

Channel Factors

creating behaviroal change through small situational fixes

nudge vs sludge (subscription services)

• Art therapy at Walter Reed hospital 

• Tetanus at Yale

• Fly in urinal

• Weill Cornell autodefaults to generic/shorter opioid course

• French Paradox (small plates)

• Gun vioelnce (regulation)

sophias explanation chart: Behavior = f(person, situation) →

Behavior = f(person, situation) → Week Personal Effects (Mischel Evidence) OR Strong situational effects (Asch, Milgram, PDG) → Fundamental Attribution Error (we underestimate situational impact) → Small situation changes → (sometimes) big behavioral (Channel Factors/Nudges) 

Constructed preferences

is a behavioral decision theory stating that people do not possess pre-existing, stable preferences for every decision, but rather build them on the spot based on context, framing, and task demands.

Gestalt psychology

people percieve throguh active, non-concious interpretation of what the object means

automatic vs controlled processing

implicit attitudes/beliefs that can’t be controleld by conicous mind vs explicit attiudes

infleuncing activation of schemas

frequency, recency, expectations, primacy

how do you asses causality

distinctiveness and consensus (situational vs distributional attribution

discounting principle

our confidence u r a good person bc ur interview u were nice is less bc of the situaiton

self-serving attribution

faults external, wins internal

actor-observer difference in attribution

u attribute why u picked ur major to good reasons, but talk about ur friends personality

framing effects

primacy= ambigous vs recency (order effects, ambigous = primacy), spin framing, positive vs negative framing, temporal framing

base-rate frequency

representatitiveness

relative frequency of a population

leo lion = fierce

illusory correlation

making stuff up/finding relationships that odnt rly exist

3 Cs

conformity —> mimickry creates liking

compliance

construal

1. Recency

2. Frequence

3. Context

4. Motivation —> best dog on block

5. temporal —> abstract concrete

3 umpires

1. I call em how they are = naive realism

2. I call em how I see em = construal

3. they aint nothing till i call em = social construction

the affect heuristic

 how our feelings can be detached from the quality of the prospect or stimulus in question 

3 parts of the affect heuristic

1. Mere Exposure Effect (letter-name, iburprofen)

2. counterfactual thoughts

3. intension (one person) vs extension (just a stat), scope insensitivty

• identifiable victim effect

• if u lead with intension into extension, thats tm and its numbing

Fluency

• imagining something increases ur percieved likelihood

• flient things seem truer

• easier-to-process stimuli strike us better

• propaganda likes this

The Availability Heuristic

judge the size of a category by how easily info comes to mind

• biased estimates of risk, overclaiming, group project name listing

• study of couples show that whos responsible fro positive and negative summed over 100%

Headwinds/Tailwinds asymmetry

• we forget abotu our wins much faster

• we think our struggles r worse than other ppls

• ex: when asked on both ends of trial whether it was more uphill or odwnhill, people said more uphill both ways (because it took THEM longer to get throuhg uphill parts, so it took them the majority of the time) (attribute substitution)

• ex: accoutning experimentalists vs non, the more experimentalists think they have it harder, more find it more permissable to be morally dubious w it

Attribute Substitution

u swap a harder question for an easier one, This process happens involuntarily in the intuitive, fast-thinking system (System 1) rather than the slow, reflective system (System 2).

the 3 cs of judgement

construal

context dependance

constructed preferences