Term
|
Definition
| an umbrella term used to describe the set of theoretical accounts of how people assign causes to the events around them and the effects that people's causal assessments have |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| linking an instance of behavior to a cause, whether the behavior is our own or someone else's |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a person's habitual way of explaining events tyipcally assessed along three dimensions: internal/external, stable/unstable, global/specific |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the idea that we should attribute behavior to potential causes that co-occur with the behavior |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| refers to what most people would do in a given situation |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| refers to what an individual does in different situations |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| refers to what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions (if next time under same cirucmatnces would person do the same thing or different) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the idea that we should assign reduced weight to a particular casue of behavior if there are other plausible causes that might have produced it |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the idea that we should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behavior if there are other causes present that normally would produce the opposite outcome |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
thoughts of what might have, could have, or should have happened "if only" something had been done differently
Our counterfactual thoughts also play into emotion
“what might have happened” has influence over our reactions/attributions…silver medalists |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| a ratcheting up of an emotional reaction to an event that is proportional to how easy it is to imagine the event not happening |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the tendency to attribute failure and other bad events to external circumstances, but to attribute success and other good events to oneself |
|
|
Term
| fundamental attribution error |
|
Definition
the tendency to believe that a behavior is due to a peron's disposition, even when there are situational forces present that are sufficent to explain the behavior
e.g. fidel castro experiment |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the belief that people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get |
|
|
Term
| actor-oberserver difference |
|
Definition
a difference in attribution based on who is making the causal assessment: the actor( who is relatively disposed to make situational attributions) or the observer (who is relatively disposed to make dispositional attributions)
causes:
1. assumptions about what it is that needs explaining can vary for actors/observers
2. ther perceptual salience of the actor and the surrounding situation is different for the actor and the observer
3. differ in the amount and kind of information they have about the actor and the actor's behavior |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The process by which we seek to identify the
causes of others’ behavior and to understand
their stable traits and dispositions.
Attributions involve decisions regarding the
extent to which behaviors are due to situational
constraints vs internal traits (Heider, 1958) |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
The belief that we can learn about internal traits by watching external behaviors. (Jones & Davis, 1965)
We make decisions based on how the behavior fits expectations. |
|
|
Term
| How do we formWo attributions? |
|
Definition
Attributions are based on the following expectations:
1. Consistency: would the individual act the same way over a period of time? Is there something about this time that causes them to be inconsistent?
2.Distinctiveness: Would the individual act the same way for other events? is there something about this event that makes them act differently then any other event?
3. Consensus: Would other people act in the same way the individual acts? Is the individual's choice different from what others would choose?
The situation is attributed to personality if there is :
1. HIGH Consistency: The individual would always act the same way
2. LOW Distinctiveness: The individual would make the same choice for other events too
3. LOW Consensus: Other people would not act in the same way in this situation |
|
|
Term
| Fundamental Attribution Error |
|
Definition
The strongest error we make is known as the FAE:
People have a strong
tendency to overestimate the importance of internal
traits and underestimate the importance of situation.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
There are three reasons that lead to the FAE:
1. Actor-Observer Bias: When we observe others, we
explain their behaviors as personality; for ourselves, we
are more aware of situational constraints.
2.Self-Serving Bias: We tend to explain our positive behaviors as due to our sparkling personality, and our
negative behaviors as situationally driven.
|
|
|
Term
| Other errors of attributions |
|
Definition
• Negativity Bias:psychological phenomenon by which humans pay more attention to and give more weight to negative than positive experiences or other kinds of information.
• The Primacy Effect:
The tendency for information presented early in a sequence to have more impact on
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
Perceiving partners in the best possible ways leads to satisfying, stable relationships.
not only makes lovers feel better, but can also create a self-fulfilling prophecy.
opposite is partner derogating bias |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| A mental characteristic in which the least amount of attention and mental effort needed to process information is used. This concept assumes that humans are limited in their capacity to process information and, therefore, make use of automatic processes (mental shortcuts, formally referred to as cognitive heuristics) that simplify complex problems. In other words, all other things being equal, we are motivated to use relatively effortless and simple mental shortcuts that provide rapid but often inaccurate solutions rather than effortful and complex mental processing that provides delayed but often more accurate solutions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
-can make snap judgment of a person based on appearance
-people are attuned to making highly functional judgments about others
*Whether they should be approached or avoided (dimension 1)
*Where they are likely to stand in a status or power hierarchy (dimension 2)
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a person’s habitual way of explaining events, typically assessed along three dimensions: 1.internal/external,
2.stable/unstable
3. global/specific.
people can be trained to adopt more productive attributional tendencies
boys and girls learn different attributional beliefs about academic outcomes….
boys=success due to ability while failure due to insufficient effort
girls=feedback is the reverse.
|
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| the idea that we should attribute behavior to potential causes to co-occur with the behavior |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
1. Consensus: refer to what most people would do in a given situation
2. Distinctiveness: refers to what an individual does in different situations
3. Consistency: refers to what an individual does in a given situation on different occasions. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| when covariation is all high |
|
|
Term
| dispositional attribution |
|
Definition
| when consensus/distinctiveness are low but consistency is high |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the idea that we should assign reduced weight to a particular cause of behavior if there are plausible causes that might have produced it. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the idea that we should assign greater weight to a particular causes of behavior if there are causes present that normally would produce the opposite outcome….gives the sense person truly believes in that position if sticks with it even if threatened |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
a ratcheting up of an emotional reaction to an event that is proportional to how easy it is to imagine the event not happening. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
the belief that people get what they deserve in life and deserve what they get. |
|
|
