Social Lecture 3- Social Cognition and Perceptions

?
  • Created by: freya_bc
  • Created on: 13-03-18 15:56
Bruner et al., (1956)
in terms of categorisation- Object either belongs to a category or does not and has a rule based approach- every category represented by a set of features
1 of 24
Rosch, 1975, Barsalou, 1991
prototypical approach- share something in common, often an average but sometimes the most extreme case, categories fuzy centering around prototype
2 of 24
Bargh, Chen & Burrows, 1996)
Subliminal priming of the old-age stereotype - walked more slowly down the corridor compared to neutral primed pps primed schema of old age stereotype
3 of 24
Sagar and Schofield, (1980)
racial bias study 40 african american and 40 white- ambiguous drawings with actors depicted as W or AA- both AA and W pp rated behaviour more threaten when actor AA- stereo bias intep of ambig events
4 of 24
Heider, 1958
The Naive Scientist - how people think about other people- common sense theories. Inferring causes from observable behaviour/other info- predict and control envi
5 of 24
Kelley (1967)
covariation model - do behave this way reg (consistency), do others do the same (consensus), same in other situs (distinctive)- use covariation to see if internal or external cause, dominant approach
6 of 24
(Alloy & Tabachnik, 1984)
People are poor at assessing covariation
7 of 24
Hilton, 1988)
Covariation is not causation!
8 of 24
Fisk & Taylor, 1991)
Cognitive ‘laziness’ - cognitive miser rely on heuristics for decision making and interpersonal perception pref salient info
9 of 24
Kahneman and Tversky (1974)
availability and representativeness heuristics and anchoring and adjustment
10 of 24
Jones & Harris, 1967
Fundamental attribution error (aka correspondence bias- tendency to overestimate dispositional and underestimate situational factors salience of actor, and differential forgetting over time like to believe we have control
11 of 24
Jones & Nisbett, 1972)
Actor-observer effect tendency to make dispositional attributions for others and situational attributions for ourselves Differences in salience Differences in historical information about actor Can be reversed by perspective taking
12 of 24
Harré, Brandt & Houkamau (2004)
A-O effect- attribs of young drivers for own and friends risky driving- dispos attrib- showing off/cool for friends, situ- hurry im late, pp said friends were riskier than themselves
13 of 24
Miller & Ross, 1975)
Self-serving bias -tendency to take credit (make dispositional attributions for successes but not for failures (make situational attributions) protects self esteem also cognitive reasons – focus on own efforts and information
14 of 24
Tajfel and Turner, (1979)
ethnocentrism due to motivational reasons SIT
15 of 24
Evans and Durant (1995)
public perceptions examined empiricallt- 2009pp examined public understanding of science and public support for scientific research Knowledge correlates positively with general attitudes moderately (R = 0.30...
16 of 24
...
However different pattern within specific areas Factor analysed attitudes towards different research areas Useful – socially relevant and practical e.g. cancer research Non-useful – of intrinsic interest but not necessarily useful, e.g. person on mar
17 of 24
...
Moral issues – e.g. genetic engineering Significant correlation between knowledge and attitudes for useful basic research (R = 0.20) Almost no relation between know and attitudes for non-useful res(R = 0.05) & neg assoc for moral contenti res -.27
18 of 24
Wynne, 1992)
Often / Usually NOT the case that knowledge linked with support for an issue
19 of 24
Pidgeon and Rogers-Hayden, 2007)
upstream engagement- dialogue and deliberation amongst affected parties about a potentially controversial technological issue at an early stage of the research and development process and in advance of significant applications or social controversy
20 of 24
Liberman and Trope, 2008
construal level theory- psych close- low lvl construal- concrete, unstructured, contextualised, psych distance, high constru, abstract schematic decontextualised
21 of 24
Bar-Anan et al, 2007
automatic processing of psychological distance- word stroop task classify spatial distance of word presented, close/distance spatially, low/high uncertainty, close/dist socially, close/distn temp year or tomorrow ...
22 of 24
...
psych distance- temp/spat/soc/uncertainty related, activated auto, manip one aspect of distance cna influence other aspects
23 of 24
Stephan et al., 2006)
Manipulating one aspect of distance can influence other aspects of distance e.g. imagine meeting new roommate tomorrow or in 6 months? more familiar if tomorrow
24 of 24

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

Rosch, 1975, Barsalou, 1991

Back

prototypical approach- share something in common, often an average but sometimes the most extreme case, categories fuzy centering around prototype

Card 3

Front

Bargh, Chen & Burrows, 1996)

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

Sagar and Schofield, (1980)

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

Heider, 1958

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social Cognition and Perceptions resources »