Midterm Study Guide.pdf

MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE CHAPTER 2: ATTRIBUTION Naïve Scientist: Heider (1958) People are motivated by two primary needs: o The need to form a coherent view of the world o The need to gain control over the environment...

MIDTERM STUDY GUIDE CHAPTER 2: ATTRIBUTION Naïve Scientist: Heider (1958) People are motivated by two primary needs: o The need to form a coherent view of the world o The need to gain control over the environment To satisfy these needs we act as naïve scientists, rationally and logically test our hypotheses about the behaviour of others According to Heider, people have a basic need to attribute causality because this ascribes meaning to our world, making it clear, definable and predictable, thereby reducing uncertainty o Just like scientists, they observe behavior, gather information, and make judgments to explain why things happen. However, they don't always have all the facts and might rely on simple or biased reasoning. This concept suggests that people try to be logical and objective when understanding others but often make mistakes due to limited information or personal biases. ▪ someone tries to explain why a friend is acting distant. They might gather clues, such as the friend not replying to texts or looking upset during a recent meeting. Based on this information, the person might conclude that the friend is angry with them. However, like a naïve scientist, the person may not have all the facts. The friend could be going through personal stress, such as work or family issues, which has nothing to do with the person. The explanation is based on limited observation, showing how people try to logically understand behavior but can still come to inaccurate conclusions. The locus of causality Refers to where people believe the cause of something comes from. It answers the question: "Why did this happen?" o Internal (person) attribution ▪ Any explanation that locates the cause as being internal to the person (personality, mood, attitudes, abilities, effort) ▪ "I failed the test because I didn't study enough." o External (situation) attribution ▪ Any explanation that locates the cause as being external to the person (action of others, the nature of the situation, luck) ▪ "I failed the test because the teacher made it too hard." Stability and controllability Stable vs. Unstable causes  o Permanent and lasting vs temporary and fluctuating ▪ If it's stable, it means we believe the cause is long-lasting and unlikely to change. For example, “I’m bad at math” (a stable cause). ▪ If it's unstable, the cause is seen as temporary or changeable. For example, “I didn’t do well on this math test because I didn’t sleep well last night” (an unstable cause). Controllable vs uncontrollable causes o Extent to which causes can be influenced by others versus the extent to which they are random o Refers to whether a person believes the cause of something is within their control or out of their control. ▪ If something is controllable, it means we believe we can influence or change it. For example, “I can do better on the next test if I study more.” ▪ If something is uncontrollable, we believe it’s outside of our control. For example, “I couldn’t do well because the room was too noisy.” Both independent from both internal/external dimension Attribution Biases The fundamental attribution error (Ross) o The tendency to make internal rather than external attributions for people's behaviour ▪ refers to the tendency to blame a person's behavior on their personality or character while overlooking the influence of the situation or environment. ▪ "That person is rude or careless" (internal cause) instead of considering that they might be in a rush or distracted by an emergency (external cause). The actor-observer bias (jones &nisbett) o The tendency for people to attribute their own behaviour to external causes but that of others to internal factors ▪ When you do something, you're more likely to blame the situation. For example, if you trip, you might say, "The sidewalk was uneven" (external cause). ▪ But when someone else does the same thing, you're more likely to blame their personality or actions. For example, if someone else trips, you might think, "They're clumsy" (internal cause). Self-serving attributions (Olson & ross) o The pervasive tendency to attribute successes to internal, personal attributions, and failure to external factors outside of our control (Olson & Ross) o Making attributions in this way protects and maintains our self-esteem  ▪ When things go well (success), people tend to credit themselves, like saying, "I did well on the test because I’m smart" (internal cause). ▪ When things go badly (failure), people tend to blame outside factors, like saying, "I failed the test because the questions were unfair" (external cause). Chapter 3: Social Cognition Cognitive Miser: Processing resources are valuable so we engage in timesaving mental shortcuts when trying to understand the social world (Fiske & Taylor) o Instead of carefully analyzing every situation or piece of information, we tend to rely on simple, fast, and efficient ways of thinking to conserve energy. ▪ For example, instead of fully researching a topic, someone might rely on stereotypes or general rules of thumb to make decisions. This is because our brains prefer to spend less energy on thinking when possible, leading to quick but sometimes less accurate judgments. Heuristics: Timesaving mental shortcuts that reduce complex judgements to simple rules-of- thumb (Tversky &Kahneman) They are quick and easy, but can result in biased information processing (Ajzen) Two most commonly used heuristics = representativeness and availability o For example, if you're trying to decide which restaurant to eat at, you might use the heuristic, "A crowded restaurant is probably good." Instead of reading reviews or analyzing menus, you make a quick judgment based on a simple rule. Representativeness Heuristic The tendency to judge the category membership of people based on how closely they match the prototypical member of that category A quick-and-easy way of putting people into categories Like any heuristic, the representativeness heuristic is prone to error In particular, there is a base rate fallacy-tendency to ignore statistical information in favour of representativeness information mental shortcut where people judge how likely something is based on how much it resembles a typical example or stereotype, rather than thinking about the actual odds or facts. For example, if you meet someone who is quiet and loves books, you might assume they are a librarian because they match your stereotype of what a librarian is like, even though statistically, they could be more likely to have another job. Availability Heuristic The tendency to judge the frequency or probability of an event in terms of how easy it is to think of examples of that event  Related to the concept of accessibility mental shortcut where people judge how likely something is based on how easily they can remember examples of it happening. If something comes to mind quickly, we tend to think it's more common or likely, even if it's not. For example, after hearing about a plane crash on the news, you might think that air travel is dangerous, even though it's actually very safe. Because the crash was recent and vivid in your memory, you overestimate how often crashes happen. False consensus Effect The tendency to exaggerate how common one's own opinions are in the genral population the tendency for people to overestimate how much others share their beliefs, opinions, or behaviors. In other words, we tend to think that more people agree with us or are like us than is actually the case. For example, if you really like a particular movie, you might assume that most people also like it, even though many might not. This happens because we tend to surround ourselves with people who think similarly, and this makes us believe that our views are more common than they really are. Anchoring Heuristic The tendency to be biased towards the starting value or anchor in making quantitative judgements mental shortcut where people rely too heavily on the first piece of information (the "anchor") they get when making decisions or judgments, even if that information is unrelated or not completely accurate. For example, if you see a jacket priced at $200 but then see it on sale for $100, you might think $100 is a great deal, even if $100 is still expensive for the jacket. The original $200 price acts as an "anchor," influencing your judgment about the sale price. Motivated Tactician People are flexible social thinkers who choose between multiple cognitive strategies based on their current goals, motives and needs There are a number of factors that determine whether we use these heuristic or systematic strategies of social inference, whether we act like naïve scientists or cognitive misers people switch between being thoughtful, careful thinkers and using mental shortcuts, depending on their goals and motivations in a situation. When something is important or personally meaningful, people will put in the effort to think deeply and make well-informed decisions. But when the issue feels less important, or they want to conserve mental energy, they will rely on simpler, faster thinking strategies like heuristics or shortcuts. Chapter 4: Attitudes Mere Exposure: Zajonc (1968) The tendency to develop more positive feelings towards object and individuals the more we are exposed to them no action or interaction is required people tend to like something more simply because they are exposed to it repeatedly. The more we see or encounter something, the more familiar and comfortable it feels, and we are more likely to have positive feelings toward it. For example, if you hear a new song on the radio several times, even if you didn’t like it at first, you might start liking it just because you've heard it a lot. Richard LaPierre travelled around the USA with a Chinese couple for three months. His aim was to examine intergroup attitudes, and to see whether those attitudes would predict behaviour. Cognitive Dissonance Theory Festinger (1957) A feeling of discomfort caused by performing an action that is inconsistent with one's attitudes A motivational instead of a cognitive approach the uncomfortable feeling people experience when they have two conflicting thoughts, beliefs, or behaviors. This discomfort motivates them to reduce the inconsistency, often by changing their beliefs or justifying their actions. For example, if you think smoking is bad for your health (belief) but still smoke (behavior), you may feel uncomfortable (cognitive dissonance). To reduce this discomfort, you might either quit smoking or convince yourself that smoking isn’t so bad. Chapter 5: Social Influence Social Norms: Sherif Visual perception experiment explored how people form group norms and conform to them. Sherif used the autokinetic effect—an optical illusion where a small, stationary point of light in a dark room appears to move—to study how people’s judgments are influenced by others. In the study, participants were asked to estimate how far the light moved, first on their own and then in a group. Over time, their individual estimates began to converge, and a group norm  (a shared estimate) emerged. Even when asked later on their own, participants stuck to the group’s agreed-upon estimate. Attitudes can be influenced by people around us Sherif's experiment demonstrates how group attitudes can be formed Individual or private attitudes Social norms or public attitudes Conformity: Ash (1951) Conformity experiment which showed how much people are influenced by others' opinions, even when the answer is obvious. In the experiment, participants were asked to look at a line and then match it to one of three other lines that were clearly different lengths. However, in a group setting where everyone else (who were secretly part of the study) gave the wrong answer, many participants went along with the group’s incorrect choice, even though they knew it was wrong. Groupthink Janis (1982) An extreme form of group polarization A deterioration in mental efficiency, reality testing and moral judgment in groups due to an excessive desire to achieve consensus Space shuttle "challenger" disaster in 1986 a way of thinking that happens when people in a group prioritize agreement and harmony over making the best decision. This can lead to poor choices because the group doesn’t fully consider alternatives, suppresses dissent, and ignores potential problems. For example, in a group meeting, if everyone is agreeing with the leader’s idea just to keep the peace, even though some might privately have concerns, groupthink is happening. Janis argued that this desire for consensus can result in flawed decision-making, especially in high-pressure situations, like political or business decisions. Milgram's study of obedience explored obedience to authority. Milgram wanted to see how far people would go in following instructions, even if it meant harming others. In the experiment, participants were told by an authority figure (the experimenter) to give electric shocks to another person (an actor pretending to feel pain) whenever they answered a question incorrectly. Even though the shocks weren't real, participants believed they were, and many continued to give shocks—even when the actor cried out in pain—just because they were following orders.  Milgram’s study showed that ordinary people could obey authority figures and do harmful things, even if it went against their morals, highlighting the powerful influence of authority on behavior. Explaining obedience Milgram argues that three factors are at work in contexts where obedience is high: There is a cultural norm to obey authority The requests to obey increasingly immoral acts were gradual There is a shift in "agency", so that people no longer regard themselves as personally responsible but attribute responsibility to other in the context Conformity is when you change your behavior to fit in with a group, even if no one directly tells you to do so. You might conform to group norms or expectations just to feel accepted. For example, wearing similar clothes as your friends to blend in is conformity. Chapter 6: Group Processes Social facilitation Floyd Allport (1920) The tendency for people to perform better when in front of an audience Depends on the task complexity Social facilitation occurs when people are performing simple tasks, with well- learned responses If the task is easy or familiar, people tend to perform better when others are present. For example, an experienced cyclist might ride faster in front of an audience. If the task is difficult or new, people tend to perform worse in front of others. For instance, someone might struggle more with a challenging math problem when being watched. Social Loafing the tendency for people to put in less effort when they are working in a group compared to when they are working alone. For example, if you're part of a group project, you might not work as hard because you assume others will pick up the slack. This happens because the responsibility is shared, so individuals feel less accountable for the outcome. Chapter 7: Self and Identity Theories of self-comparison Control theory of self-regulation explains how people monitor and adjust their behavior to meet personal goals or standards  Self-discrepancy theory Actual self the version of yourself that represents who you believe you are right now—your current traits, abilities, and behaviors. It’s based on how you see yourself in reality. Ideal self the version of yourself that represents who you want to be— your hopes, dreams, and personal goals. It includes the qualities, traits, and achievements you aspire to have. Ought self the version of yourself that represents who you think you should be, based on your responsibilities, duties, or what others expect from you (like family, society, or cultural norms). People are motivated to ensure that their actual self matches their ideal and ought self The greater the discrepancy between the actual self and a self guide, the greater the psychological discomfort