the process of characterizing someone as having a personality trait that corresponds to his or her oberserved behavior.

Justified when:

1. individual freely chooses to perform the behavior

2. the behavior has few effects that distinguish it from other courses of action

3. the behavior is unexpected rather than expected or typical

the tendency to attribute our own behaviors to situational causes while seeing others' acts as due to their inner characteristics.  They occur when:

1. whatever grabs our attn stands out.

2. different sets of causal alternatives are considered for the self and for others.

3. actors usually explain their behaviors by their own beliefs and goals, while observers more often cite more remote causes of those beliefs or goals

info about potential causal factors that are present when the event occurs and absent when it does not.

Types:

distinctiveness - is the person acting different in this situation than in similar situations?

consensus - do other people behave the same way in the same situation?

consistency - do people behave the same way in similar situations?

having many and diverse self-aspects

high self complexity decreases impact of + event

self complexity has no effect of - events

an individual's interpretation of a self-relevant event or sitation that directs emotional responses and behavior. Two types of appraisals that are particularly important for influencing emotions:

1. appraisal of event's + or - implications of the self

2. appraisal of who or what caused or controlled the event - can you attribute responsibility to someone or a group

Basking in Reflected Glory

a way of boosting self-esteem by identifying oneself w/ the accomplishments or good qualitites of fellow in-group members

1. Interacting with others helps us master world

2. Interacting with others helps us feel connected

3. Familarl others seem likable

1. We tent to interact with people who are similar to us

2. We assume similar others will like us

3. Similar other validate our beliefs and attitudes

A relationship in which people exchange rewards in order to receive benefits in return (casual relationships)

1. Cogntive- Thinking about the self & partner as inextricably liked parts of a whole

2. Behavioral- Each person has great deal of influence on partners decisions, activities, and plans

3. Affective interdependence- Affective bond that links close relationship partners. 

1. peopel know their own thoughts and feelings but are usually unaware of others' thoughts and feelings

2. People perceive themselves in a wide rage of situation, whereas their opportunities to observe others are relativly restricted

3. People have different perspectives on themselves (as actors) than on others (as observers)

4. People can control their own actions but no those of other people 

Satisfaction- recognition of the rewards it brings

Comparision level for alternatives (perceived barriers)- See relationship as offering unique rewards that would be unavaliable from other relationships

Secure- Express positive views about both self and other

Dismissing- High in self-confidence, but low in emotional expressiveness

Preoccupied- High in emotional expression and most reliance on others

Fearful- Low in self-confidence and in the intamacy of their relationships

1. View relationships as 'destined to be together'

2. View relationship as achieved

An increase in the likelihood of highly accessible responses, and a decrease in the liklihood of less accessible responses, due to the presense of others

Leads to evaluation apprehension Or Distraction(deflect attention from task)

1. Forming

2. Storming- shape and negotiate roles

3. norming- consensus, cohesion, ad positive group identity develop

4. Performing- Cooperate so solve problems, make decision, work as group

5. Adjourning- Break-up

1. Cohesive groups encourage cooperation

2. Cohesive groups follow norms

3. Cohesive groups attract and keep valued members

1. Personal abilities-know how to fight, aggression easier

2. Gender differennces-aggression easeri for men

3. What do I have to lose?-costs of aggression  

1. Right to bear firearms and to use them

2. The norm of family privacy

3. The 'culture of honor' - readiness to respond with aggression to perceived insults or threats of materal loss

1. Emotional arousal

2. Alcohol use

3. Time pressure

4. Individual differences

1. In-group can do no wrong

2. Out-group can do no right

3. In-group is all powerful

1. In-group motives are positive; out group motives are negative

2. Situaions dictate in-group actions; charcter flaws prompt out-group actions

1. A difference in power between the groups translates desire into action

2. Moral exclusion blocks moreal outrage

3. Routinization produces desensitization

1. Cooperation should be for a valued common goal, which eliminates competition for material and social resources

2. Cooperation should provide repeated opportunities to disconfirm out-group strereotypes

3. Cooperation should produce succeful results

4. Cooperation should take place between equals, at least for the task at hand

5. Cooperation should be suported 

1. Affective forecasting- Making predictions about one's emotional reactiosn to future events

2. Impact bias- When people overestimate duration and intensity of emotional state at time of making forecast

3. Poeple often fail to think through processes when forecasting- positive events easier to forcast than negatative events

4. Pleasure paradox- seek to repeat positive and avoid negative- since easier to forecast positive feelings last for a shorter time

5. Immune negliect- we have system in place to protect us from negative feelings, we don't account for this when forecasting

Stone: Battling doubt by avoiding practice

Self-handicapping

1. To investigate whether stereotype threat would motivate targets to behaviorally acquire a handicap through the construcion of barriers to success prior to performance they held as important to self worth

2. Linking performace to athletic ability led people to self-handicap and not practice before performing task

The authors show that inferences of political candidates' competence from facial appearnance predict U.S. senate and house races better than chance alone. 

1. In snap judgment conditions, participants falsely claimed to see a gun more often when the presented face was black.

2. Black faces readies people to detect gun

1. Nonconscious mimicry is an unintentional, effortless, prosocial behavior that might be beneficial in order to regain favor or reestablish status with members of one's in-group after experiencing exclusion

2. Since non-conscious mimicry is unconscious and automatic  the finding that it can be selective and strategic encourages researchers to recongnize that some unconscious process adjust to meet situational requirements

Study 1- Correctly identified being excluded or included. If excluded they felt less included and more rejected.

Study 2- Whether the exclusion was the result of a script or not had no effect on feelings of exclusion

1. Intimates create positive illusions about partern to help alleviate the tension between their hopes and doubts about their relationship.
2. Illusion includes idealizing their partner, having exaggerated perceptoins of control over future conflict, and being unrealistically optimistic about the future.

3. Positive illusions predicted greater satisfaction, love, and trust, and less conflict and ambivalence in both dating and maritial relationships. 

Lepper (1973) Magic Marker Study

Overjustificaiton effect

Observe time spent with magic markers. Make use of markers attached to a reward. Afterwards children who tied use of markers to reward played with markers less. Danger in reward structer turns positive into means to an end.

Drawing becomes a means to an end rather than an intersting acivity in of itself 

If the code # of person you're suppose to talk to matches your birthday you rate them as liking them more than people's numbers that do not match b-day

When your name linked to 24 or 16, then you rate a woman wearining the number your name was linked to higher than if she is wearing different number. 

Barry Manilo study- person walks into room late wearing T-shirt with Barry Manilo on it. Asked how many people in room would id person on shirt- person wearing shirt estimates higher than actual number of people in room.

People in discussion secion about innercities. Eveyone ranks everone and their own performance. Individuals rated that their voices heard more, more attention paid to mistakes. 

People think others pay more attention to them then they really do. 

Asked about contributions they make to different activities around the house, clearing, etc.

Provided higher ratings for their activies than their spouses. 

Overestimate their contributions, underestimate spouses contributions. 

Study 1- Lie detection. aswer questions about where you lived, etc. Answer questions to truthe teller (person guesses if you're telling the truth). Person being judged flips card- 4 of 5 say tell truth- 1 says lie. Persion being judged thinks truth teller will guess righ 48 percent of time, in reality they only get it right 25 percent of time.

Study 2- neutral expression. Taste 5 beverages- 4 pleasant, 1 foul. Told to maintain neutral face. Person rates whether bev is pleasant or foul based on expression. Person tating think the rater will know which bev is foul, but in reality they do not get more right than chance. 

Redord data at football schools. After football team wins more people wear school apparel.

Also aske people question about number of married people on their campus. Told they got it right or wrong. People who got it wrong more likely to say we when referring to school. Those who got it right less likely to use we when refering to school 

Berglas & Jones (1978) Self-handicapping

Told study about measuring intellectual ability. One group given C1- 4 easy questions, rest based on ability- questions are able to be solved. C2. 16 questions not solvable.

Everyone told they got 16/20 right. Those in C1 felt reward deserved, c2 felt it was not deserved. 

Ask people whether they would take a drug before taking next text. Men picked drug that impeded sucess more than women. 

One of the few gender differences in soc pscy

Watch video of woman with out audio. Told that she was reacting to relaxing or anxious topic. In single task condition the people rating attributed reaction to the situation.

In dual task condition (watch video and remember the topic) less likely to attribute reaction to the situation. Attributing to the situation takes more cog energy. 

Part 1- take an iq test, told they did well (in 97th percentile) or that they did average (47th percentile). Get feedback about self-esteem

Part 2-Evaluate job candidate.1 candidate Itilian other is Jewish. People who were told they did poor on IQ test had lowest rating for jewish candidate than other conditions. These people also show the highest increase in self estem when asked again after rating job candidates. 

People told they would have conversatoin over the phone with woman of opposite sex. Show eith attractive or unattractive pic. Guys who though they were talking to attractive woman were rated as being more social, poised, humorous, etc.

Rating of women in the conversation showed that the women who were though to be more attractive were also rated as more poised, social, humorous, etc. They acted in accord with the stereotype. They met expectations- self fullfililng prophecy

Used prisoners dilema game. Found that cooperative actors beomc eless cooperative when parterner is competitive. Doesn't matter for competitive person, they don't change behavior based on who they are paired with.

A competitive person is less likely to understand their partner is cooperative. 

For cooperative person, things varry. They change based on who they are paired with. Competitive person just sees world as competitive. They can pull competition out of cooperative people, cooperative ppl can't pull cooperation out of competitive people 

Person presented with subliminal pictures of partner and told to respons how positive or neg they felt about partner. Also filled out self-report scale. 

DV- relationship makes me happy or not happy

Barrier to exit- Poor alternatives, would lose alot if relationship ended. 

Found higher compensation for relationship satisfaction when they have negative feelings about person and have high barriers to exit.