Term
| Problems calculating probability |
|
Definition
| • Polyanna Principle Ignoring Baseline Rate Conjunction fallacy Framing effect |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Overestimating the probability of good outcomes
o Underestimate the proability of bad outcomes. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Under emphasizing important info about the occurrence of an event. 250,000 died in car accident while not wearing a seat belt. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Believing the probability of a conjunction is greater than the probability of its constituent events. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• Decision making is influencd by:
o Background context
o The way the question is worded (framed) –all the same information, if using DT the utility stops at the 1st choice/framing. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Believing project will take less time and be easier than it actually does/is |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • Tendency to be overconfident that our own view is correct |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| deciding what to do and doing it. How to influence decision making to influence motivation. How to make the next decision |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
how we explain the causes of behavior
• Includes our own behavior or that of others |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• DT based on expectations about future outcomes
• AT is based on the assumed causes of behavior (causal attributions) that has typically already happened. |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
o Explanations of behavior based on personality characteristics
o Considered persistent and stable |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
• External:
o Explanations based on situational factors
o Considered more transient and unstable |
|
|
Term
| • Ex: someone cuts you of= they’re an angry driver |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| • Cut someone off bc you’re texting |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
| • Ex: you’re sliping not bc YOU are a clutz, its bc its icy |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| • When making an attribution, we evaluate 3 dimensions using 3 fundamental questions |
|
|
Term
| 3 dimensions using 3 fundamental questions of kelley's AT: |
|
Definition
1. consistency
2. distinctiveness
3. consensus |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
is the person behaving in this situation as she/he typically behaves in other situations
• if yes: there is high consistency, if no then its low |
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| is the behavior directed toward one specific target or towards many or different targets? |
|
|
Term
• One specific target:
multiple |
|
Definition
|
|
Term
|
Definition
| : is the person behaving in this situation as you would expect others to behave? |
|
|
Term
• Is this normal behavior? Would the majority agree?
If yes-
if no- |
|
Definition
If yes: there is high consensus
If no: there is low consensus |
|
|
Term
| o If there is low consistency -> |
|
Definition
-> favors external attribution
• Environment changed, not personality bc you dont usually do it. |
|
|
Term
| o If there is high consistency, but low distinctiveness and low consensus -> |
|
Definition
| favors internal attribution |
|
|
Term
| o If all three are high -> |
|
Definition
| favors external attributions |
|
|
Term
The scenario: Brett is forward on his schools bbal team they are in championship.
• Five mins in player 43 pushes brett, brett pushes back and Brett gets a foul. Brett usually doesnt foul, but over the course of the game he continues to fould player 43.
consistency?
distinctiveness? |
|
Definition
• Low consistency- doesnt usually happen
• High distinctiveness- directed at one person |
|
|
Term
• Margaret has 3.96 GPA. She writes and speaks well and is usually among the first in class to respond to questions. But marg is struggling in French class. She is often withdrawn in this class and doesnt speak to anyone in French. No one else in class is having as much trouble as her. She is in true jeopardy of failing.
consistency?
distinctivenes? |
|
Definition
• Low consistentency- doesn’t usually happen
• High distictintiveness- directed at one class |
|
|
