Psych 204 Exam Revision

Front 1

Latane and Darley (1976)

Back 1

Helping. Bystander effect and diffusion of responsibility. As regards Kitty Genovese.

Front 2

Hamilton (1964)

Back 2

Helping. Kin selection. Study where participants asked to select whether they were more likely to assist their brother or a distant cousin in a fight. Result: brother

Front 3

Burnstein, Crandall & Kitiyama (1994)

Back 3

Helping.Forced choice decision varying by relatedness, health and severity. They found that in everyday situations, people tended to help the sick. In life or death situations, people tended to help the healthy.

Front 4

Lerner and Miller (1978)

Back 4

The just world hypothesis

Front 5

Trivers (1971)

Back 5

Helping. Reciprocal Altruism

Front 6

Keating, Randall, Kendrick & Gutshall (2003)

Back 6

Helping. Lost resume, photos modified to be baby-faced (neotenous). The more neotenous, the higher rate of return in white males particularly.

Front 7

Darley and Batson (1973)

Back 7

Helping. The good samaritan study where seminary students in varying degrees of haste encountered a homeless person. Result: Less rush lead to more helping.

Front 8

Clark and Word (1974)

Back 8

Helping. Ambiguous situation - filling out survey then with varying degrees of ambiguity, a person pretends to be electrocuted. Result: The less ambiguous, the more helping.

Front 9

Latane and Darley (1968)

Back 9

Helping. Study where smoke enters the room and confederates do nothing. Result: More confederates = less tendency to act. Pluralistic ignoarance, audience inhibition.

Front 10

Latane and Rodin (1969)

Back 10

Helping. Fill out a survey, hear a ladder climbed and crashing. "Oh my foot". Varying conditions Alone vs Friend vs Confederate. DV= Leave to help, time to help. Result: Few helped with Confederate and took longer to do so.

Front 11

Darley and Latane (1968)

Back 11

Helping. Seizue study. Introduce self via microphone. Vary number of confederates. DV=Percent who helped, and how long. Result: More confederates caused fewer to help, and take longer.

Front 12

Pantin and Carver (1982)

Back 12

Helping. Perceived confidence. First aid training video. Group discussion 3 weeks later. High competence people likely to help even in 6 person group, suppressed bystander effect.

Front 13

King et al. (2006)

Back 13

Helping. Customer services paradigm. Obese/Normal x Casual/Business attire. No evidence of formal but interpersonal discrimination occurred in high justification condition (causual attire).

Front 14

Waugh, Plake and Rienzi (2000)

Back 14

Helping. Lost letter technique. Gay Marriage Foundation vs Blue Sky Foundation. Result: Much higher return rate for Blue Sky.

Front 15

Bushman and Bonacci (2004)

Back 15

Helping. Lost email technique. Scholarship response sent to wrong address. Arab/European name x Good vs Bad news. Result: Good news, less likely to send. Bad news, more likely. Moderated by prejudice level.

Front 16

Bryan and Test (1967)

Back 16

Helping. Motorway experiment, help woman who's broken down. If model present, greater tendency to help woman.

Front 17

Cialdini, Darby and Vincent (1973)

Back 17

Helping. Negative state relief model. Helper vs Doer, boxes fall. Then relief ($1) or no relief. Result: No relief resulted in higher rates of helping

Front 18

Sherif (1936)

Back 18

Conformity. Autokinetic effect. Ambiguous stimulus, estimates converged to a norm and persisted in private. Informational influence, internalized

Front 19

Asch (1951)

Back 19

Conformity. Line judgement task. Unambiguous stimulus. Public conformity, no internalization. Normative influence.

Front 20

Freedman and Fraser (1966)

Back 20

Compliance. Foot in the door. Agree to small request (e.g. small sign in garden) more likely to agree to big request ( e.g. billboard).

Front 21

Cialdini et al. (1975)

Back 21

Compliance. Door in the face. Refuse big request, agree to small request. E.g. Refuse to chaperone youth offenders for 2 years, agree to accompany on field trip to zoo.

Front 22

Santos et al. (1994)

Back 22

Pique technique. Atypical request e.g. can you spare 17 cents? Disrupts refusal script.

Front 23

Milgram (1964)

Back 23

Obedience.

Front 24

Bushman (1984)

Back 24

Obedience. People obey requests to feed parking meters by uniformed others on the basis that uniform=authority.

Front 25

Latane (1981)

Back 25

Social Impact Theory.
Social impact = strength x immediacy x number)
Psychosocial law
Decreases as targets increase

Front 26

Milgram et al. (1969)

Back 26

Social Impact Theory. Gawker study demonstrating Psychosocial law, diminishing marginal returns of passers by looking up on number of confederates.

Front 27

Freeman et al. (1975)

Back 27

Social Impact Theory. Decreases as targets increast, tipping study.

Front 28

Triplett (1898)

Back 28

Social Facilitation. Found cyclists faster when in competeition (in others' presence) what when alone.

Front 29

Worringham and Messick (1983)

Back 29

Social Facilitation. Joggers that knew they were bring observed ran faster.

Front 30

Zajonc (1965)

Back 30

Drive Theory. Audience or coactors strengthen the dominant response.

Front 31

Michaels et al. (1982)

Back 31

Drive Theory. Billiards study. With audience, skilled players got better, unskilled got worse.

Front 32

Latane et al. (1972)

Back 32

Social Loafing. Clapping/cheering study. As group size increases, individual effort decreases.

Front 33

Tajfel et al. (1971)

Back 33

Minimal Group Paradigm. Klee vs Kandinsky. Mere categorization leads to in-group favouritism.

Front 34

Festinger (1957)

Back 34

Cognitive Dissonance. Theory - negative feelings of tension that arise when behaviour and attitudes are in conflict, or attitudes are contradictory.

Front 35

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959)

Back 35

Cognitive Dissonance. Rotating pegs in board then receiving money to lie to another participant about how interesting the task was. $1 or $20.

Front 36

Aronson and Mills (1959)

Back 36

Cognitive Dissonance. Effort justification. When participants tolerate severe embarrassment condition, they rate a boring discussion about sex as much more intersesting.

Front 37

Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Firestone & Levy (1965) Also Zimbardo, Weisenberg, Ebbesen & Maslach (1977)

Back 37

Cognitive Dissonance. Grasshopper eating experiment. Those who encountered cold officer and ate a grasshopper reported higher liking.

Front 38

Cooper and Axsom (1982)

Back 38

Cognitive Dissonance. Women signed up to weight loss experiment. High effort group had to recite difficult tongue twisters and had higher rates of weight loss.

Front 39

Martens et al. (2007)

Back 39

Cognitive Dissonance. Slater killing experiment. 1 slater and 5 slater group. Self paced killing, 5 slater group killed more. Those who felt more similar to slaters killed more.

Front 40

Wells and Petty (1980)

Back 40

Self perception theory. Head nodders agreed head shakers disagreed.

Front 41

Bem (1967, 1972)

Back 41

Attribution. Self perception theory. Initial outline.

Front 42

Taylor (1975)

Back 42

Self perception theory. Women given false physiological feedback. They relied on this feedback for their own attitudes if not expecting to meet the men.

Front 43

Wells and Petty (1980)

Back 43

Self perception theory. Agree with editorial when nodding, disagree when shaking.

Front 44

Hoffman et al. (2005)

Back 44

Implicit Association Test. Meta-analysis, found r=.24 correlation between implicit and self-report attitudes.

Front 45

Greenwald, McGhee & Shwartz (1998) and Greenwald et al. (2005)

Back 45

Implicit Association Test. Developed the IAT.

Front 46

Heider (1958)

Back 46

Attribution. Naive psychology.

Front 47

Jones and Davis (1965)

Back 47

Attribution. Correspondent Inference.

Front 48

Kelley (1967)

Back 48

Attribution. Covariation model.

Front 49

Schachter (1967, 1972)

Back 49

Attribution. Theory of emotional lability.

Front 50

Weiner (1979, 1985)

Back 50

Attribution. Theory, locus, stability, control.

Front 51

Berglas and Jones (1978)

Back 51

Self-handicapping. Solvable/not solvable word puzzles and temp performance enhancing/degrading drugs. Result: not solvable group self-handicapped by selecting degrading drug.

Front 52

Jones and Harris (1967)

Back 52

Attribution. Fundamental attribution error. Essay for or against Castro. Result: Audience rater pro essay reader pro Castro even though they knew reader had no choice in matter.

Front 53

Ross and Harris (1977)

Back 53

Attribution. FAE Bias. Game show experiment. Quiz master rated as more knowledgeable by audience and players even though they selected the questions based on their own knowledge.

Front 54

Hewstone and Ward (1985)

Back 54

Attribution. Malays and Chinese. Malays tend to make internal attributions to positive acts by Malays. More so in Malaysia vs Singapore.

Front 55

Mass et al. (1999)

Back 55

Linguistic Intergroup Bias model. Horse race teams shown cartoons of opposing team acting.

Front 56

Allport (1954b)

Back 56

Prejudice. Tripartite model. 1) Congnitive - beliefs. 2) Affective - strong feelings. 3) Conative - behavioural intention.

Front 57

LaPiere (1934)

Back 57

Prejudice. Young Chinese couple, 250 tourist destinations. Refused service in 1 (0.4%). Later survey of 128 suggested 92% would refuse service.

Front 58

Gaertner and Dovidio (1977)

Back 58

Prejudice. Come to the aid of black/white woman who'd apparently had chairs fall on them. Bystander effect magnified with black victim.

Front 59

Dixon, Durheim et al. (2003)

Back 59

Discrimination. Explored ways in which anti racist policies in South Africa failed to bring and end to segregation. Local beaches being re-segregated.

Front 60

Leach (2005)

Back 60

Racisim. Argued that emphaisis on "new racism" detracts from understanding of historical continuity of racism in society.

Front 61

Estacio (2009)

Back 61

Racism. Considered the link between media depictions of SE Asian migrant workers in the UK.

Front 62

Fiske, Cuddy, Glick and Xu (2002)

Back 62

Stereotypes. Proposed a structural account that focuses on material relationships between the groups.

Front 63

Lee & Owens, (2002) - on men's health.

Back 63

Gender-based research in the psychology of men's health needs to move beyond the traditional individualism/objectivism and subjectivism of psychological theory, and consider sociocultural issues.

Front 64

Moscovici (1980)

Back 64

Social Influence. Conversion effect whereby minority can influence majority, e.g. consistency. From blue/green perception studies.

Front 65

Pe-Pua (2006)

Back 65

Research in the Philippines using ethnographic approach. Shared identity, dropping in, asking questions. Pe-Pua draws on both emic [insider] and etic [outsider] approaches to knowledge production

Front 66

Martinez (1995).

Back 66

1) Indigenous peoples, their territories, environments, ways of life & worldviews have been impacted by invading groups. 2) Struggle, survival, adaption, resilience & self-determination. 2) Continuity of a connection to land & sustaining ways of life remain important & are often critical to survival

Front 67

James (1890)

Back 67

I & Me. Where I is distinct from others [identity] and me is self-as-known or seen by others.

Front 68

Tajfel & Turner (1979)

Back 68

Social identity theory

Front 69

Festinger (1954)

Back 69

Social Comparison Theory

Front 70

Baumeister and Leary (1995)

Back 70

The need to belong - a fundamental motive

Front 71

Levin and Arluke (1982)

Back 71

Embarrassment. Confederate student asks for volunteers. If preceeded by dropping papers on floor, more volunteers. Co-operation in reducing embarassment.

Front 72

Leary et al. (1995)

Back 72

Self Esteem as a sociometer. False feedback given - not selected. Result: Lower self esteem and derogation of other participants.

Front 73

Williams et al. (2000)

Back 73

Cyberostracism. Ball tossing game, excluded. Tended to confirm more in followup Asch paradigm task.

Front 74

Maner et al. (2007)

Back 74

Social exclusion. Personal video, judged favourable/poorly. After exclusion, new task lead to reward of other new partner or punishment of original partner.

Front 75

Ford and Collins (2010)

Back 75

Self Esteem. Dating experiment, rejection lead to stress phase cortisol and partner derogation.

Front 76

Cooley (1902/1964)

Back 76

"Looking glass self" - self concept derived through social interaction and others' reflected appraisals

Front 77

Cialdini et al. (1976)

Back 77

BIRGing. Football colour studies. Use "we" when describing success if following poor survey performance.

Front 78

Knowles and Gardner (2008)

Back 78

Group belonging. Write about group acceptance/rejection. More likely to list group m'ship as "who you are". Positive mood after group prime.

Front 79

Spencer, Steele and Quinn (1999)

Back 79

Stereotype threat. Does stereotype threat reduce women's math performance?

Front 80

Davies, Spence & Steele (2005)

Back 80

Stereotype threat. Gender s/type activated by tv commercial. Women had increased tendence to choose "problem solver" role, i.e. reduced aspirations.

Front 81

Schlenker et al. (1994)

Back 81

Self presentation. Participants recruited into positive self-presentation (e.g. outgoing) and later rates selves as more outgoing.