ILROB 1220: Prelim 2
101 Cards in this Set
| Front | Back |
|---|---|
|
fundamental attribution error
|
tendency to underestimate influence of personal and external factors while making judgements about the behavior of other people.
|
|
self-serving bias
|
tendency to accept positive feedback while rejecting negative feedback.
|
|
selective perception
|
allows us to "speed-read" other people or things.
ex. boss may reprimand some but not others doing the same thing.
ex. more likely to notice cars that are the same type as our own.
|
|
halo effect
|
drawing a general impression about an individual on the basis of a single characteristic.
|
|
contrast effects
|
we don't evaluate a person in isolation. our reaction is influenced by others persons we have recently encountered.
ex not wanting to be in a play with children
|
|
stereotyping
|
judging someone on the basis of our perception of the group to which he/she belongs.
|
|
decision
|
making a choice from among two or more alternatives.
|
|
why does decision making occur?
|
it is a reaction to a problem.
|
|
three types of decision making
|
1. rational decision making.
2. bounded rationality.
3. intuition.
|
|
rational decision making model
|
1. define the problem.
2. identify the decision criteria.
3. allocate weights to the criteria.
4. develop the alternative.
5. evaluate the alternatives.
6. select the best alternative.
|
|
bounded rationality
|
human mind cannot formulate and solve complex problems with full rationality, so we operate in bounded rationality; construct simplified models that extract the essential features from problems without capturing all their complexity; identify the "good enough" alternative.
|
|
intuitive decision making
|
least rational way; unconscious process that uses emotions to arrive at decision.
|
|
overconfidence bias
|
we tend to be far too optimistic about the prediction of outcomes.
|
|
anchoring bias
|
tendency to fixate on initial information and fail to adequately adjust for subsequent information.
|
|
confirmation bias
|
represents a specific case of selective perception: we seek out information that reaffirms our past choices (and current opinions) and discount information that contradicts them.
ex. vaccinations (read all this stuff about how vaccinations are bad).
|
|
availability bias
|
tendency to base judgements on information readily available.
ex. more people fear flying than driving in a car even though more people die from car crashes.
|
|
escalation of commitment (sunk costs)
|
staying with a decision even when there is clear evidence that it is wrong.
ex. even though there are struggles in a relationship, the guy may say he still wants to marry her because he has "invested so much in his relationship." :( v sad
|
|
randomness error
|
tendency to believe we can predict the outcome of random events.
ex. superstitions playing into decisions.
|
|
risk aversion
|
tendency to prefer a sure thing over a risky outcome.
|
|
hindsight bias
|
tendency to believe falsely, after the outcome is known, that we'd accurately predicted it.
|
|
organizational constrains on decision making
|
1. performance evaluations.
2. reward systems.
3. formal regulations.
4. system-imposed time constraints.
5. historical precedents.
|
|
three ethical decision criteria
|
"UCE"
1. utilitarianism: making decisions solely on outcomes.
2. consistent privileges and rights.
3. enforce consistent rules to ensure justice.
|
|
creativity
|
ability to produce novel ideas.
|
|
three-component model of creativity
|
1. expertise.
2. creative-thinking skills.
3. intrinsic task motivation.
|
|
representativeness heuristic (conjunction fallacy)
|
the occurrence of two events cannot be greater than the likelihood of either event alone.
|
|
wishful thinking
|
overestimate probability of success of entities of which they are associated with.
ex. favorite sports teams.
|
|
concord fallacy
|
under escalation of commitment; throwing good money after bad.
|
|
emotions and decision-making
|
when you allow emotions to play into your decision making you are not thinking rationally.
|
|
when are we more likely to see biases come into play?
|
situation is ambiguous; bias is incentivized; decision maker time constraints or cognitive load.
|
|
top-down processing
|
schemas; a way of automatically processing information top down from social situation; useful sometimes so we don't have to learn EVERYTHING about a social situation every time we come across it.
ex.
you have a schema of "what is in an office."
ex.
A 11
13 12
C 13
D 14
(you wou…
|
|
stereotype threat
|
when members of a group go into a situation knowing that there is a stereotype about them.
|
|
prejudice
|
a negative attitude about a group or person because of a stereotype.
|
|
stereotype has a _____ component whereas prejudice has a ______.
|
stereotype has a COGNITIVE component whereas prejudice has a IMPLICIT NEGATIVE ASSOCIATION.
|
|
discrimination
|
the behavior component of prejudice and bias;
putting group members at a disadvantage or treating them differently because of who they are.
:(
|
|
modern prejudice
|
people display discomfort rather than hate.
|
|
implicit discomfort
|
people display negative attitudes via non-verbal behaviors.
ex. eye contact, proximity, forward leaning; may lead to unintentional bias in hiring decisions.
|
|
attributional ambiguity
|
when the role of a given cause in producing a given effect is discounted because other plausible causes are also present.
ex. movie viewing study.
|
|
Ann Hopkins case
|
...
|
|
psychology of persuasion
|
people will do something because:
1. others are doing it.
2. consistent with previous behavior.
3. risk that it may no longer be available.
4. reciprocate previous behavior.
|
|
social proof
|
prescriptive norms; descriptive norms.
|
|
prescriptive norms
|
what you should (or shouldn't) do.
ex. you shouldn't litter, you should exercise.
|
|
descriptive norms
|
what the majority of people (especially people of your cohort) actually do.
ex. most students don't litter on campus, none of your friends go to the gym.
|
|
persuasive messages should rely more on ___ norms
|
descriptive norms.
ex. trash in the park.
|
|
social proof as an influence tactic
|
salting a tip jar.
|
|
liking as an influence tactic
|
ex. when experimenters dressed like "hippies" or "straights" approached "hippies" and "straights" on a college campus.
|
|
authority as an influence tactic
|
ex. lab coats in commercials; 3.5x more people followed a jaywalker in a suit into traffic than a jaywalker in street clothes.
|
|
commitment and consistency as an influence tactic
|
ex. people who had previously committed to watching someone's stuff on the beach chased after the robber.
|
|
scarcity as an influence tactic
|
the same exact item is valued more once it becomes scarce; triggers psychological reactance: we don't want our freedoms taken away so we respond by valuing more what we can't have.
|
|
psychological reactance
|
ex. censorship; we want to have what we can't.
|
|
reciprocity as an influence tactic
|
emotions associated with failures to reciprocate (anger, guilt).
ex. buying/receiving a present; receiving mailing stickers and encouraged to donate.
|
|
social engineering
|
uses influence and persuasion to deceive people by convincing them that the social engineer is someone he is not.
ex. Kevin Mitnik, Motorola hacker.
|
|
types of negotiation
|
1. distributive bargaining: self gain, demanding and conceding.
2. integrative bargaining: collective gain and trading, problem solving.
ex. story about sharing the orange.
3. process control: when, where, who.
ex. can I speak to the manager?
|
|
target price or target point
|
your ideal price, goal.
|
|
resistance point or reservation price (RP)
|
your bottom line, or minimum acceptable agreement.
|
|
best alternative to a negotiated agreement (BATNA)
|
your alternative if deal falls through.
|
|
zone of possible agreement (ZOPA)
|
the bargaining zone; can be "negative."
|
|
rights-based claiming value
|
what do we each deserve? what price is legitimate?
ex. reference points, justifications.
|
|
power-based claiming value
|
who has the most leverage?
ex. walking away from a deal.
|
|
anchoring
|
ambitious first offers will "anchor" the negotiation.
|
|
do men and women negotiate differently?
|
no.
|
|
does gender affect negotiation outcomes?
|
yes.
|
|
leadership
|
the ability to influence a group toward the achievement of a vision or set of goals.
|
|
management vs. leadership
|
management is more about day-to-day tasks; you manage things but lead people.
|
|
power
|
control over valued resources; a capacity that A has to influence the behavior of B so that B acts in accordance with A's wishes.
|
|
status
|
the extent to which an individual is respected, admired and highly regarded.
|
|
trait approach to leadership
|
asks what attributes make someone a good leader; uses Big 5 and EI
problems: traits predict leadership emergence rather than effectiveness (person who talks a lot will be a leader, but not necessarily a good one); says you can't train leaders.
|
|
behavioral approach to leadership
|
asks what behaviors make a good leader
two types:
1. task-oriented.
2. relationship-oriented.
|
|
task-oriented focus
|
under behavior approach; getting things done, goals and production and tasks.
helps productivity, performance.
|
|
relationship-oriented focus
|
under behavior approach; focused on building and maintaining relationships.
helps job satisfaction, motivation, respect.
|
|
Fielder contingency model
|
explains where task/relationship orientation might be appropriate.
results:
1) task oriented works best in favorable or unfavorable situations.
2) relationship oriented in moderately favorable situations.
|
|
contingency theory
|
asks what type of leader is best for a given situation; assumes traits and behaviors are not equally effective in all situation.
|
|
contemporary theory
|
charismatic or transformational leadership
|
|
charismatic leadership
|
under contemporary theory; attribution of heroic or extraordinary leadership abilities when followers observe certain behaviors; more valuable when things are going badly.
|
|
four key characteristics of charismatic leadership
|
"VUSP"
1. vision and articulation.
2. unconventional behavior.
3. sensitivity to follower needs.
4. personal risk.
|
|
transformational leadership
|
under contemporary theory; inspire followers to transcend their self-interests for the good of the organization.
|
|
four "I's" of transformational leadership
|
"I, IN...S.T.D"
1. idealized influence.
2. inspirational motivation.
3. intellectual stimulation.
4. individualized consideration.
|
|
difference between charismatic leader and transformational leader
|
charismatic is more about the leader, transformational leadership is more about the followers.
|
|
least liked people
|
people with high power, low status
ex. bouncers, immigration officers, bill collectors b/c status legitimizes the use of power.
|
|
leader-member exchange theory (LMX)
|
because of time pressures, leaders establish special relationships with smalls groups of their followers.
|
|
transactional leadership
|
only about clarifying goals and tasks and contingent reward.
|
|
servant leadership
|
leaders who go beyond self-interests to help followers grow (civil servant); acting towards the interests of the people.
|
|
Initiating structure
|
the extent to which a leader is likely to define and structure her role and those of employees in the search for goal attainment (related to task/production oriented leader)
|
|
3 Dimensions of Fielder's Contingency Model
|
Leader-member relations
Task structure
Position power
|
|
Path Goal Theory
|
Leaders who guide their followers toward established goals by clarifying the role and task requirements (Fiedler's model)
|
|
Authentic Leaders
|
know who they are, what they believe in, what they value openly and candidly
|
|
Socialized charismatic leadership
|
conveys other centered values by leaders who model ethical conduct
|
|
Consequences of Trust
|
1. Encourages taking risks
2. Facilitates info sharing
3. Trusting groups are more effective
4. Enhances opportunity
|
|
Attribution Theory of Leadership
|
says leadership is merely an attribution people make about other individuals
|
|
Formal power
|
Based on person's position in organization, can come from ability to coerce or reward
|
|
Coercive power
|
depends on fear of the negative results from failing to comply.
|
|
Legitimate power
|
Represents the formal authority to control and use organizational resources based on structural position in the organization. Is broader than the coerce and reward power.
|
|
Personal power
|
comes from an individual's unique characteristics, 2 bases of personal power: expertise and respect of others
Evidence suggests that informal power is the most important to acquire
|
|
Referent power
|
based on identification with a person who has desirable resources or personal traits
|
|
Power tactics
|
Legitimacy, Rational Persuasion, Inspirational Appeals, Consultation, Exchange, Personal Appeals, Pressure, Coalitions
Most effective: rational persuasion, inspirational appeals, consultation
|
|
Conflict
|
Process that begins when one party perceives another has or is about to negatively affect something the first party cares about. Conflict is aperception
|
|
Traditional view of conflict
|
It must be avoided and results from poor communication, lack of openness and trsut
|
|
Interactionist view of conflict
|
Encourages conflict on the grounds that a harmonious, cooperative group is open to becoming apathetic or unresponsive to needs for change. good bc u can grow from it
|
|
Functional conflict
|
Supports the goals of the group and improves its performance
|
|
Dysfunctional conflict
|
Hinders group performance
|
|
5 Stages of the Conflict Process
|
1. Potential opposition or incompatibility
2. Cognition and personalization (where conflict is defined)
3. Intentions
4. Behavior
5. Outcomes
|
|
5 Ways to Handle Conflict
|
1. compete (assertive and uncooperative)
2. collaborate (cooperative, assertive)
3. avoid (unassertive, uncooperative)
4. accommodate (unassertive and cooperative)
5. compromise- midrange of assertiveness and cooperativeness
|
ILROB 1220: Prelim 2