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;
18 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Asch (1951) |
Aim: to investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform Method: 50M students from Swarthmore College participated in 'vision test', using line judgment task. Naive part's put in room w/ 7 confederates (had previously agreed on responses while real participants didn't; led to believe others also real). had to state aloud which line (A/B/C) most like target line (always obvious). real participants gave answer last. Results: 1/3 of participants placed in it went along, conformed /w incorrect majority; 75% conformed at least once in 12 critical trials; control group-- 1% gave wrong answer Conclusion: normative influence; desire to be accepted by rest of group dictates decisions; fear of social disapproval/rejection affects behavior |
|
|
Bandura (1961) |
Aim: to demonstrate that learning can occur through observation of role models (SLT) Method: 36G/36B (ages 3-6) divided into groups based on aggression evaluation from parents/teachers; G1 exposed to adult models showing aggression by beating up Bobo doll (both genders); G2 models w/out aggression; G3 saw no model (control); children then placed in room w/ Bobo doll after 10 minutes of watching model Results: children who observed aggression model showed significantly more aggression both physically/verbally; boys more likely physical vs. girls more likely verbal Conclusion: SLT was demonstrated because children showed signs of observational learning |
|
|
Zimbardo et al. (1971) |
Aim: to prove that situational factors can affect behavior Method: 22M subjects selected through personality assessment based on mental stability/maturity/social ability; randomly assigned role of prisoner/warden. Prisoners-- signed informed consent document abandoning some human rights during 2 wk period, all to receive $15/day, arrested by real police from house, taken to station for standard procedures, driven blindfolded to prison (basement @ Stanford), stripped naked/dressed in prison uniform, stayed in prison 24 hrs/day with strict schedule; Wardens-- warden costumes w/ props, worked 8 hrs/day, no specific instructions, asked to keep reasonable degree of order/prohibited from physical violence Results: terminated after 6 days (of 2 wk span) due to abnormal rxns by both groups. Prisoners-- displayed passivity/dependence, half showed signs of DP, crying, rage, acute anxiety, released early, all but 2 would forfeit $ if released, proposed behaviors due to loss of personal identity, dependency, learned helplessness; wardens-- huge enjoyment of power at disposal, abusive use of power, dehumanization of prisoners, some worked extra w/ no pay, disappointed when over, punished prisoners w/out justification (abuse of power), not all displayed aggression but none opposed others' use of it Conclusion: situation (prison environment) affected all participant's behaviors; arguable that prison environment caused prisoners to act violently, supports SIT (categorization/ID in both groups) |
|
|
Ross et al. (1977) |
Aim: to see if student participants would make the FAE even when they knew that all actors were playing a role Method: participants randomly assigned 1/3 roles-- game show host/contestants/audience members (observers); hosts asked to design own questions, audience watched show through the series of Q's; when over, audience asked to rank intelligence of people performing Results: even when dispositional factors taken (random), observers still attributed intelligence to disposition of host more than the (random) situation Conclusion: demonstrated FAE! |
|
|
Sheriff (1935) |
Aim: to demonstrate that people conform to group norms when they're in an ambiguous situation Method: autokinetic effect-- small spot of light projected into screen in dark room will appear to move even when still; participants tested individually, estimated how far light moved, then tested in groups of 3; manipulated by putting 2 similar estimates w/ one very different, said aloud Results: group converged to similar estimates over many trials, showed that people always tend to conform (informational influence-- rely on others for valid evidence) |
|
|
Milgram (1974) |
Aim: to investigate the effect of authority on compliance/obedience Method: 40M (20-50 yrs old) found through newspaper ads led to believe experiment investigating effect of punishment on learning; given role of 'teacher' through fixed lottery, saw learner (actor) in real life strapped to chair w/ electrode; subject taken into another room with experimenter, told to apply shock by pressing button whenever wrong answers given; experimenter wore grey lab coat; teacher given test shock (45V), at different voltages, vocal feedback given through recordings (after 315V, no response) Results: 65% to max. 450V; no one stopped before 300V; subjects observed to show sign of distress Conclusion: subjects displayed compliance because authority figure present; compliance NOT conformity (didn't internalize idea of punishment); when asked to electrocute puppy, obedience levels increased |
|
|
Jones & Harris (1967) |
Aim: to investigate whether people would attribute behavior in which people had a choice to disposition and behaviors due to chance, situational factors Method: university students read political science student essays, either pro/anti-Fidel Castro, told some chose freely to be pro/anti, others assigned via coin toss; asked to rate how pro/anti-FC attitudes were Results: showed FAE-- when believed freely chose, naturally rated in favor as having more positive attitude toward FC (dispositional); when told of coin toss, still dispositional Conclusion: unable to see influence of situational factors |
|
|
Lau & Russell (1980) |
Aim: to compare type/frequency of attributions made by sports writers as opposed to coaches & players Method: articles in 8 daily newspapers during fall 1977 analyzed (articles of home team used); worked in pairs, attributions coded for stability/locus of causality Results: clear evidence of tendency to attribute success internally=74.9% winning team internal vs. 54.9% of losing; players/coaches more internal than sportswriters; expectancy in stability Conclusion: support for SSB/ego-involvement significance |
|
|
Kashima & Triandis (1986) |
Aim: to investigate cultural factors affecting attribution (SSB vs. modesty bias) Method: students from US/JP given pictures of unfamiliar countries, asked to remember details then performed recall of details Results: US students tended to attribute success to dispositional factors; JP students tended to attribute failure to dispositional factors (MB) Conclusion: biases in attribution can be affected by our cultural background |
|
|
Abrams et al. (1990) |
Aim: to investigate whether in-group's case more conformity than out-groups Method: psychology students place din group w/ 3 confederates; genuine participants led to believe that confederates were psychology students from neighboring university or ancient history students from other university; 18 sequence trial w/ 9C/9IC responses by confederates in random order; publicly responded Results: 100% conformed at least once! Conclusion: referent informational influence-- adhere w/ in-group norms, sense of belonging |
|
|
Tajfel (1970) |
Aim: to demonstrate the minimal group paradigm in creating group bias (SIT) Method: 48B from Bristol randomly assigned into groups (preference of certain artwork), told participating in decision-making experiment; individually assigned points, allowed no communication/face to face contact; asked to rate IG/OG on traits (likability, etc.) Results: tended to favor in-group members>out-group members (IG favoritism); maximized differences b/n groups even if potentially disadvantageous to own group Conclusion: seems to be preference of IG>OG, idea of being in group is enough to induce own group bias |
|
|
Aronson & Steele (1995) |
Aim: to demonstrate the effect of stereotype threat Method: AA/EUA participants given 30 minute verbal test of difficult multiple choice questions; G1 told "genuine test on verbal abilities"; G2 told "lab task used to study how certain problems generally solved" Results: AA's scored lower than EUA's in G1; scored equally in G2 Conclusion: ST threat can affect any social/cultural group, provided the members believe it; believing in negative ST's can harm performances of group members |
|
|
Herbert & Stipek (2005) |
Aim: to look for possible gender differences that might emerge in formation of math-related self-concept Method: longitudinal study on economically disadvantaged M/F between K/1 and 5th grade from 48 school districts; children rated verbal/math abilities during K/1, 3rd, 5th grade using Feelings About School questionnaire (5 point scale); parents/teachers also asked Results: Boys rated math ability higher than girls starting in 3rd grade, even though performance similar; G>B on verbal tests but rated performance lower; teachers (not parents) rated girls verbal skills higher; parents (not teachers) rated boys math abilities higher; teacher ratings more consistent with actual test scores than parents |
|
|
Huesmann & Eron (1968) |
Method: carried out longitudinal study (15 years) of children's behavior Results: found positive correlation between number of hours of violence watched on TV by elementary school kids and level of aggression demonstrated by teens; more likely to be arrested/prosecuted for criminal acts as adults |
|
|
Cialdini et al. (1975) |
Aim: to investigate the effect of compliance (reciprocity) on behavior Method: Experimenters pretended from "County Youth Counseling Program", stopped at different university campuses recruiting students to look after juvenile group for day trip (83% refused); on another day, asked if willing to be part of counseling program for 2 hrs/wk for 2 yrs (everyone refused), but then asked to look after group day trip (50% agreed) Conclusion: students felt need to accept/comply with second offer as a form of returning a favor because declined first offer |
|
|
Dickerson et al. (1992) |
Aim: to investigate the effect of compliance (commitment) on behavior Method: students from university asked to sign poster ("Take shorter showers, if I can do it so can you!"); then asked to do survey designed to make think about water wastage; shower times then monitored Results: those who signed were forced to think about wastage, averaged shorter length of shower (3.5 min); significantly lower than average time of dorms (committed to cause?) Conclusion: students felt they were committed to a cause, complied |
|
|
Bond & Smith (1996) |
Aim: to study whether conformity differs between cultures using Asch paradigm Method: meta-analysis using 153 students in 17 different countries (+females); asked 2 questions-- has tendency to conform changed over time? & is conformity modified by culture? used Asch's format (line test) designed so participants responded to group members when present Results: conformity higher in participants when size of majority large, included more females, when ambiguity is high, or consists of more IG members |
|
|
Tahassum et al. (2000) |
Aim: to understand emic/etic aspects of depression Method: interviews-- compared emic definitions of DN symptoms from Pakistanis living in UK with existing predominant etic descriptions by Western psychiatrists treating them; 1st/2nd generation Pakistani M/W, living in poor UK urban settings; asked 21 questions Results: showed etic description of mental disorder on physical symptoms, fairly knowledgable of Western mental health explanations; 63% viewed aggression as main symptom of abnormality; attributed to supernatural/faith healer, families should cope with before medication Conclusion: identifies that women face barriers in getting mental health services |
