Social Psychology: Social Perception Quiz

The process of understanding and making judgments about other people's behavior and characteristics, using information gathered through observation and interaction.

Helps us create initial impressions of individuals based on their looks, actions, and social cues.

Helps understand the context of social interactions, including roles and expectations of different individuals and groups.

Allows us to make judgments and explanations about others' behavior, such as their trustworthiness, competence, or likeability.

Can influence how much we are swayed by others, shaping our beliefs, attitudes, and actions.

Strengthen our sense of belonging to groups and distinguish ourselves from others.

Communication without words, using things like facial expressions, body posture, and eye contact.

Powerful nonverbal cues that show emotions and intentions.

The idea that our facial expressions can influence our emotions. Smiling can make you feel happier, even if you weren't initially.

A form of nonverbal communication that involves using physical actions like hand gestures, posture, and movement. It speaks volumes about our true feelings.

The act of looking at something with intense focus and concentration often with astonishment.

The act of looking at someone directly in a bold and impolite manner. It can make others feel uncomfortable.

A form of nonverbal communication that can convey various emotions and intentions. It's a very powerful tool, but it can be easily misinterpreted.

Nonverbal communication that is universal across cultures. These expressions are instinctive and tell us about someone's emotional state.

The idea that our body's physical reactions to an emotion are relatively similar, regardless of culture. These responses are often instinctive and can be observed in both animals and humans.

The act of intentionally misleading someone about the truth, either through words, actions, or omissions.

Involuntary facial expressions that reveal a person's true emotions, lasting only a fraction of a second.

Inconsistent signals between different communication channels, suggesting deception.

Explanations we make for events or behaviour, attributing causes to internal or external factors.

Explains attribution based on internal factors like personality traits, abilities, or motivations.

Explains attribution based on external factors like environment, circumstances, or luck.

Attribution focused on explaining the cause of an event involving two or more people.

A theory of attribution that suggests people observe multiple instances of behavior and then attribute the cause based on consistency, distinctiveness, and consensus.

The extent to which other people behave similarly in the same situation. For example, if everyone laughs at a comedian, there's high consensus.

The extent to which a person behaves differently in different situations. For example, if someone laughs at only one comedian, there's high distinctiveness.

The extent to which a person behaves consistently in the same situation. For example, if someone always laughs at the same comedian, there's high consistency.

The process of predicting future events by connecting different occurrences. Attributions are used to make inferences about the likelihood of similar events occurring.

This theory suggests that people make judgments about a person's personality based on their intentional behavior. This means we're more likely to assume someone's actions reflect who they are if those actions were deliberate. For example, if someone chooses to donate to a charity, we may infer that they are generous.

According to this theory, internal attributions occur when we believe someone's actions were freely chosen, unexpected, and led to specific consequences. For example, if someone chooses to eat a healthy meal despite many unhealthy options, we may assume they value their health.

The theory suggests that we naturally try to explain other people's actions. We either attribute those actions to the person's personality (internal) or to external factors (situational). For example, if someone is grumpy, we might think they have a bad personality (internal) or that something bad happened to them (external).

This model states that people use past experiences to predict future outcomes. For example, if we believe that our failure in a previous exam was due to lack of studying, we might put more effort in the next one.

Attributions that are made based on a person's internal characteristics and traits. For example, if someone is always late, we might say they're lazy.

Our tendency to attribute someone else's actions to their personality or internal factors instead of considering situational factors.

This bias explains why we tend to attribute our own success to internal factors (skills, effort) and failures to external factors (bad luck, unfair circumstances).

The belief that one's thoughts, actions, words, or ideas can influence the course of events, despite no logical connection.

Attributing our own actions to external factors like situation or environment, rather than internal factors like our personality traits.

A model that helps us understand how people explain the causes of events to themselves, incorporating three dimensions: locus of causality, stability, and controllability.

Refers to whether the cause of an event is internal (within the person) or external (outside the person).

Considered whether the cause of an event is stable (consistent over time) or unstable (fluctuating or temporary).

Examines whether the cause of an event is controllable (something we can influence) or uncontrollable (beyond our control).