Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
46 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
McGuire & Padawer-Singer (1978): American children describing themselves |
American children define themselves as how they are unique from their classmates |
|
|
Cousins, 1989: Americans vs Japanese self statements |
American and Japanese college students make 20 statements about themselves: American >> Japanese in stable, trait like dispositions (attributes) |
|
|
Trafimow et al., 1997: language and self-concept |
IV: language of response DV: personal traits vs group affiliations Results: english - personal > group chinese - group > personal language priming - language can bring out different aspects of the self, self-concept is context-dependent |
|
|
Taylor, Wood, & Lichtman, 1989: women with cancer |
women with cancer DV: upward or downward comparisons --> downward > upward |
|
|
Kruger & Dunning, 1999: better than average |
IV: Perceived test score DV: Actual test score --> no correlation. everyone thinks they will do better than average (except top quartile) |
|
|
Miller (1976): bogus feedback and attributions |
IV: feedback (80th or 20th percentile) DV: attributions for performance (luck or actual social perceptiveness) --> failure: luck>actual; success: actual>luck |
|
|
Ross & Sicoly, 1977: married couples |
sum of spouses' contributions > 100% --> overestimate contributions |
|
|
Weinstein, 1980: negative and positive life events |
people tend to overestimate their chances of having positive life events and underestimate their chances of having negative life events |
|
|
Berglas & Jones, 1978: drugs and intellectual performance |
IV: Problems (unsolvable/solvable) --> you had great score! Do again. DV: do you want to take performance enhancing, inhibiting, placebo drug? --> people choose inhibiting drug for unsolvable problems more often than for solvable problems bc they want to manage others' attributions in the face of expected failure Follow-up: no feedback --> don't choose inhibiting drug because no need to save face People are anxious about preserving an already-existing positive impression of themselves |
|
|
Swann et al., 1992: self-verification |
IV: high or low self-concept DV: partner type (favorable or not favorable) --> people prefer self-verification |
|
|
Do attitudes translate into actions? |
1) hotels and chinese people 2) pro-dental hygiene non-flossers, smokers are anti-lung cancer 3) doctors who do not perform testicular exams 4) cheating 5) church attendance |
|
|
Bushman and Bonacci (2004): attitudes vs behavior about arab americans |
misdirected email IV: name of student in email (Arab or not) DV: email response to correct mistake --> prejudices predict behavior |
|
|
Swann and Snyder (1976): attitude accessibility and behavior |
IV: attitude about affirmative action 2 weeks prior; some subjects given time to reflect beforehand on attitudes about aff action DV: judgment in case about affirmation action --> no reflection: no correlation --> reflection: correlation |
|
|
Birth control study |
attitudes better predictor of behavior when specificity (birth control vs bc pills vs using bc pills vs using bc pills in next two years) |
|
|
Persuasion and comprehensive exam at school |
IV: exam will affect you or be implemented in 10 years; strength of arguments DV: attitude change towards yes --> relevant: attitude very affected by strength of argument --> not relevant: attitude not affected by strength of argument as much Also, when expert vs non-expert, expert makes a difference in attitude change only when situation is not relevant (triggers peripheral path) |
|
|
Attitude inoculation study |
Cultural truisms attacked - write defense IV: before: no initial attack, supportive argument, or mild argument against. DV: belief in truisms after attack --> inoculation > supportive and no attack |
|
|
pool players |
IV: above or below average audience or no audience DV: % of shots made --> above average: audience > no audience --> below average: no audience > audience |
|
|
cockroaches |
IV: simple, complex maze; other cockroaches present DV: time to complete maze --> mere presence can enhance dominant responses |
|
|
typing name on computer |
IV: simple (name) complex (name+numbers) alone, blindfolded guy, attentive audience DV: time --> mere presence is sufficient to produce social facilitation/inhibition |
|
|
people clapping/cheering in groups |
IV: group size DV: individual cheering/clapping loudness --> group size increases, loudness decreases BUT could just be bc people don't want to be obnoxiously loud |
|
|
shouting with headphones in groups |
headphones, blindfolded IV: group size (and pseudo or real) DV: loudness --> loafing even in pseudo groups - isolates the effects of loafing without other confounds, coordination issues |
|
|
trick-or-treaters and deindividuation |
IV: kids alone or in group, asked name or no DV: will they grab more candy? --> more in group, more who are not named take candy deindividuation = deviant behavior video game study --> applies to both genders |
|
|
nurse vs KKK uniform and shocks |
subjects indicate shock levels for obnoxious confederate, posed in uniforms and picture posted IV: KKK or nurse costume, nametag and face with shock level displayed or no DV: shock level provided Results: KKK costume always > nurse in shock level deindividuated --> effects more exaggerated External cues matter in determining whether pro- or anti-social behavior will occur due to deindividuation |
|
|
De Gaulle and Americans - polarization |
IV: time - pre, group consensus, post discussion ratings DV: rating --> group polarization in either direction with consensus/post-discussion |
|
|
Aggression and gun/badminton racket |
Confederate shocks subject. Subject's turn... IV: gun or badminton racket on table DV: number of shocks --> gun: >shocks delivered cues can trigger aggression |
|
|
college students and violent video game |
IV: play violent or non violent video game weekly DV: later reaction test game with other person - winner gets to blast loser with loud noise - level/duration of noise --> violent video games = louder/longer noise |
|
|
catharsis ad aggression |
subjects write essay that is criticized IV: punch bag while thinking about other person, punch bag while thinking about getting fit, sit quietly DV: intensity of noise blast in game against other guy --> cartharsis actually had highest score, while sit quietly had lowest levels of aggression |
|
|
implicit racial stereotypes (Donald) |
IV: read list of words associated with blacks or neutral Read ambiguously hostile act Dv: is this hostile or assertive? black words --> judge as more hostile |
|
|
Robbers cave experiment |
kids divided into two groups and placed in competition IV: group DV: friendship choices, Results: friendship choices within groups, ingroup has more positive traits, fewer negative traits, mere contact not sufficient to improve things Later, unite groups in pursuit of common goal(super-ordinate goals). --> all metrics improve |
|
|
$50 Social dilemma, fear vs greed |
0 10 5 15 --> 50% contribute 5 10 5 15 --> (no fear) --> 58% 0 10 5 10 --> no gread --> 90%! Greed seems to drive non-contribution |
|
|
women vs men ratings of ideal body type |
Men: attractive, current, ideal all at same place; women rate ideal as different though Women: wide discrepancy between ideal and current; misperception of ideal (same as men misperception!) |
|
|
Cognitive appraisal of physiological arousal --> emotional experience |
subjects given epinephrin IV: epinephrine informed, epinephrine ignorant, no epinephrine IV: confederate + drug = euphoric, angry DV: self reported emotion Predictions: more arousal means more emotion; arousal without explanation means more emotion; confederate emotion will affect cognitive labeling of emotion Results: angry confederate Placebo: average emotions Epi Informed: happier Epi ignorant: more irritated than informed+placebo Results: happy confederate Placebo: average Epi informed: below average Epi ignorant: above informed+placebo arousal plays role in amplifying emotion, andsame arousal can --> different emotions |
|
|
risk and emotional circuitry |
game where it is rational to invest on every trial Hypothesis: anxiety, regret may cause people to invest less than is rational IV: damage to emotional centers or not, no brain damage DV: how much investment? Results --> emotional center damage patients = most investment, most $ earned bc least anxiety, regret |
|
|
Heinz dilemma vs. incest example |
IV: Heinz Dilemma or taboo DV: judgment or reasons first? Results Heinz: reasons --> judgment; keep reasons after cross-examination Taboo: judgment --> reasons, drop reasons after cross-exam; make unsupported declarations |
|
|
cultural differences in self-enhancement |
Recall proud or embarrassing moment IV: canadian or japanese DV: ease of recall, temporal distance from event --> Canadians: proud moments easier to recall, shorter temporal distance (japanese = no differences) --> west = self-enhancement tendency |
|
|
cultural differences in success and failure |
Canadians: persist in task they are told they are good at (self-enhancement) Japanese persist in task they are told they are bad at (don't want to stand out by being below average) |
|
|
asian vs european fifth graders and math training game |
IV: choices about game made by self, member of ingroup, outgroup DV: liking for math, task --> americans like task and math bettern when decisions made by self --> asians like when choices made by self or ingroup |
|
|
Haidt’s 5 Foundations of Morality: social justice (2) and honor (3) |
1) Autonomy: harm2) Autonomy: justice3) Community: ingrouployalty4) Community: authority5) Divitinity/Purity |
|
|
Hofstede’s aspects ofculture |
· Power distance· Masculinity· Uncertainty avoidance (rigidity)· Individualism |
|
|
Attachment styles |
Attachment styles(children)· Secure· Preoccupied(anxious): anxious when mom leaves, hostile when she returns · Avoidant:aroused when mom leaves, little distress upon leave, returnAttachment styles(adults) · Same, except avoidant divided into two subtypes: dismissing and fearful (avoidant+anxious)· Stable fromage 1 --> adulthood (but experience plays a role too!)Relationships |
|
|
Symptoms of groupthink |
o Illusion of invulnerabilityo Moral certaintyo Self-censorshipo Mindguards (people don’t relay all informationto leader)o Illusion of unanimity o Conformity pressureso Stereotyped view of outgroup |
|
|
Carol: altruism vs egoism |
Read story about Carol IV: high empathy vs low empathy easy vs difficult escape DV: will you help her catch up with work? results --> high empathy = escape doesn't matter low empathy = escape matters suggests that altruism is real as long as empathy is high! |
|
|
Cialdini Carol follow-up with mood freezing drug |
IV: high or low empathy placebo vs freeze mood DV: helping Carol Results --> fixed mood: fewer people help because if they can't change their mood with altruism, there's no point. |
|
|
epileptic seizure experiment and diffusion of responsibility |
people in isolated rooms, one person has seizure IV: group size DV: how long to respond, will they respond? increase in group size --> decrease in responding and increase in time to respond |
|
|
Good Samaritan experiment |
IV: religiosity speech about GS or no no hurry, hurry, moderate hurry DV: help the guy? results --> no effect of speech topic or religiosity; hurried people least likely to help situational factors in moral behavior rather than intrinsic moral character |
|
|
cheating and general knowledge test |
people get money based on difference between their own correct answers and partners correct answers IVs: threat (if other guy could cheat) framing (whether you misreport your own score or partner's score) DV: actual misreporting Results Threat: more people cheat when other guy can (level playing field) Framing: more people cheat when misreporting their own score |
