사회 인지, 귀인 및 사회 영향
GRE Subject Test · GRE Psychology 주제 20 4:11 영어 내레이션 · 영어 + 중국어 자막 burned-in
장
전사본
Attribution distinguishes situational and dispositional explanations.
归因区分情境解释与特质解释。
Informational influence treats others as evidence; normative influence concerns acceptance.
信息性影响将他人视为证据。 规范性影响涉及接纳。
Obedience involves an authority's direction.
服从涉及权威的指令。
An attitude includes evaluative components, while an action also depends on opportunity, incentives and constraints.
态度包含评价成分，而行为还取决于机会、激励和约束。
A mechanism needs discriminating evidence: public agreement alone cannot uniquely identify private belief.
机制需要辨别性证据。 仅凭公开一致无法唯一确定私人信念。
Attribution assigns causes to behaviour: internal (dispositional) or external (situational).
归因将行为的原因归结为内部或特质性，或外部或情境性。
The fundamental attribution error over-uses dispositional explanations for others, and the actor-observer asymmetry reverses this for ourselves.
基本归因错误过度使用对他人特质性的解释，而行动者-观察者不对称则反过来适用于我们自己。
Correspondent inference asks when an act reveals a trait: freely chosen, unexpected or low-consensus acts are the most informative.
对应推论询问何时一个行为揭示了一种特质：自由选择的、出乎意料的或低一致性的行为最具信息量。 影响分为两种类型。
Influence comes in two kinds: normative influence is conforming to be accepted; informational influence is accepting others' behaviour as evidence about reality.
规范性影响是为了被接纳而顺从。 信息性影响是将他人的行为作为关于现实的证据加以接受。
Asch's line studies showed conformity to a unanimous majority on unambiguous judgements; Milgram's obedience studies showed destructive compliance with an authority.
阿希的线段研究显示了在明确判断中对全体一致的多数派的顺从。 米尔格拉姆的服从研究显示了对权威的破坏性遵从。
Conformity falls sharply with one dissenting partner.
当有一个持不同意见的同伴时，顺从会急剧下降。
Cognitive dissonance is the tension from holding inconsistent cognitions, reduced by changing attitudes or justifications; with insufficient external justification, people internalise the behaviour.
认知失调是指持有不一致认知时产生的紧张感，可通过改变态度或寻找理由来缓解。 当外部理由不足时，人们会将行为内化。
Persuasion follows the elaboration likelihood model: the central route (arguments) produces durable change when audiences can and will think; the peripheral route (cues, attractiveness) is fragile.
说服遵循精细加工可能性模型：中心路径通过论证产生持久改变，前提是受众有能力且愿意思考；外围路径依赖线索和吸引力，效果较为脆弱。
Self-evaluation processes include self-affirmation (restoring worth in an unaffected domain after a threat), self-verification (seeking confirming feedback), self-monitoring (adjusting self-presentation) and the self-serving bias (success internal, failure external).
自我评估过程包括自我肯定，即在受到威胁后在不受影响的领域恢复价值感；自我验证，即寻求确认性反馈；自我监控，即调整自我呈现；以及自利偏差，即将成功归因于内部因素，将失败归因于外部因素。
Excitation transfer lets residual arousal from one event intensify a later emotional reaction.
兴奋传递指某一事件残留的唤醒水平会加剧后续的情绪反应。
A student copies a group's route choice because they believe the group knows the campus.
一名学生复制了小组的路线选择，因为他们相信该小组熟悉校园。
How does this differ from copying to avoid ridicule?
这与为了避免嘲笑而复制有何不同？
Believing the group has useful knowledge fits informational influence.
相信小组拥有有用的知识符合信息性影响。
Avoiding ridicule fits normative influence.
避免嘲笑则符合规范性影响。
The same outward action can arise through different mechanisms.
同样的外在行为可能源于不同的机制。
Anonymity, uncertainty and private accounts may help distinguish them in an ethically approved task.
在经伦理批准的实验中，匿名性、不确定性和私下评估可能有助于区分这两种影响。
The correct answer is unambiguous, so any conforming errors come from social pressure.
正确答案毫无歧义，所以从众的错误来自社会压力。
Read the labels before drawing a conclusion.
先读清标签，再下结论。
A late student is called lazy, but the bus stopped unexpectedly.
迟到学生被归因为懒惰，但公交车却意外停运。
Build a better attribution and name what remains unknown.
请构建更合理的归因，并指出尚不明确的因素。
Pause before the model.
请先暂停，完成这道原创练习再继续。
The bus interruption supplies a plausible situational cause.
公交车中断提供了一个合理的情境归因。
A single event does not establish a stable lazy trait, nor does it prove there are never dispositional contributions.
单一事件并不能确立稳定的懒惰特质，也不能证明不存在任何性格因素的贡献。
Compare behaviour across occasions, constraints and available alternatives before generalizing.
在概括之前，请比较不同场合、约束条件及可选替代方案下的行为表现。
Explain the evidence rather than merely naming attribution bias.
应解释具体证据，而非仅仅提及归因偏差这一术语。
Do not merge conformity and obedience (peer pressure versus authority), or call every dispositional inference an error; the error is neglecting the situation, not using traits at all.
不要将从众与服从混为一谈，即同伴压力与权威之间的混淆；也不要将每一种特质归因都称为错误。 真正的错误在于忽视情境，而非使用特质本身。
State the source and the limits.
请说明来源及其局限性。
An observer explains failure by laziness without knowing the situation.
观察者在不了解情境的情况下将失败归因于懒惰。
What evidence would permit a better attribution?
哪些证据能支持更合理的归因？
Pause and write a justified answer.
请先暂停，完成这道原创练习再继续。