conformity studies Flashcards

1
Q

Shock trials from 15 to 450v. 40 ordinary men gave ‘shocks’ to a confederate. 65% went to 450v. 30% if using a shock-plate. 48% in a run-down building. 20.5% if done over phone. If with other complying teachers, 90%. If with refusing teachers, 10%.

A

Milgram 1963

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Autokinetic effect. Participants estimated how far light moved on many trials. Then were asked to do it again in groups of 2 or 3 and then again alone.

A

Sherif 1935

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

11 occasions, confederates unanimously gave a clearly wrong answer to see who would conform. 75% conformed at least once. 36% of responses were incorrect. 12.5% conformed when written down

A

Asch 1951

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Varied the Asch paradigm. Participants gave responses face to face, in the presence of a group goal to be accurate, or anonymously. Original stimuli was present or absent. People always conformed more with absent stimuli but conformed when anonymous.

A

Deutsch and Gerard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Role of group membership in Asch paradigm. Higher number of conforming responses in a public area. The lowest is a public area with an outgroup as results are polarised.

A

Abrams et al 1990

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Correlations between key personality traits and leadership. Weak correlations. Strongest was with intelligence

A

Mann 1959

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Examined effects of leader behaviour on group work with young boys. Autocratic, democratic and laissez-faire.

A

Lippitt and White 1943

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Contingency theory. Co-worker liking scale. Socio-emotional leadership is associated with higher performance

A

Fiedler 1965

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Participants received info about a male and female employee and worked as a team on a highly male gender-typed task. Were informed the work was successful. Had to rate the competence, degree of influence and presumed leadership. Women always rated less than men

A

Hellman and Haynes 2005

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

When asked ‘who are you’ in English, people spoke about themselves but in Chinese their relation to other people

A

Ross, Xun & Wilson 2002

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Participants reported emotions for 10 days and reported what language they spoke for the last two hours. There is a dialecticism difference. Eastern cultures can be contradictory (happy and sad).

A

Perunovic, Heller & Rafaeli 2007

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Participants chose one of 4 identical stockings and had to explain why they liked it best. They used introspection to reflect on why they chose it even though they don’t know.

A

Wilson & Nisbett 1978

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Participants were given an aesthetic score and were told they were 20% better or 20% worse than the average. Those who got told they were better said their artistic ability was high. Were then asked if they want to do another artistic test or spin a 50/50 wheel to get money. Those who got 40% did the artistic test even though they didn’t get 50% last time. Relative feedback.

A

Klein 1977

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Do a personality test that predicts life feedback and can talk to one other person about theirs. If did well, they want to meet the one person that did better. If did bad, they want to meet the one person that did worse.

A

Gibbons 2002

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Researchers gave a ‘test’ back with either an above or below average score. Those who got a below average were more likely to refer to a team as ‘we’ if they won.

A

Cialdini et al 1976

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Participants interacted with three people about attributed. One said something nice about their worst attribute. One said something nice about their best. One said something bad about their worst. Participants chose to interact with the latter for self-verification.
Also want a partner that thinks negatively of them.

A

Swann et al 1989

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Uni students make friends with neighbours. Proximity.

A

Festinger et al 1950

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Familiarity. 3 women sat in some lectures over the term. The one that went in more often was seen as more attractive.

A

Moreland & Beach 1992

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Effect of aversive conditions on interpersonal relationships. Women sat in pairs in aversive conditions liked the other woman more than if not in aversive.

A

Kenrick and Johnson 1979

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Exposed 276 healthy adults to a cold. Those with more friends were less ill on the objective, self-reported and Jackson.

A

Cohen et al 1997

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Cyberball to test ostracism. Participants felt an increase in negative mood and threatened needs if excluded from the game.

A

Williams, Cheung & Choi 2000

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Political affiliates mixed with cyberball. People played with an ingroup, outgroup or despised group. All excluded people felt bad.

A

Gonsalkorale & Williams 2007

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Given test feedback that predicts future. One group did good, one happy but accident prone, one excluded. Then took an IQ test. Those excluded scored less.

A

Baumeister et al 2002

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

Men more likely to seek attractiveness and women advertise this. Women to look for resources and men advertise this.

A

Weiderman 1993

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Ideal sexual partners mode is 1. Mean is 2-3 for women. 7 for men.

A

Buss and Schmitt 1993

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Speed dating. No gender differences in want in a partner at the end of the night (was at start). Whoever is approached is more choosey and seen as more attractive.

A

Eastwick & Finkel 2008,2009

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Refused service from 1/251 restaurants with a Chinese couple. Called up afterwards and 92% said they wouldn’t serve a Chinese

A

LaPiere 1930

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Assessed political poling. Strong attitude was answering quick and slow was weak. Those with strong are more likely to act on the attitude.

A

Fazio & Williams 1986

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Theory of planned behaviour (w/ perceived behavioural control)

A

Ajzen 1985

30
Q

Implicit and explicit attitudes to food. Asked how much people like chocolate. Did an IAT with fruit and chocolate. Choice task- told to remember either a 1 or 8 digit number. Then pick up 5 items from under a hat. Those with a bigger number went for implicit attitude food.

A

Friese, Hoffman & Wanke 2008

31
Q

Cognitive dissonance theory

A

Festinger 1957

32
Q

Military officers asked cadets to eat a plate of fried grasshopers. Those who had a cold leader said to like the grasshoppers more.

A

Zimbardo et al 1965

33
Q

Participants reported enjoyment when being in an fMRI scanner doing boring tasks. Told to act happy either for money or for the person going in after them

A

Van Veen, Krug, Schooler & Carter 2009

34
Q

Surveyed 100 people. Jews and African Americans most stereotyped. Americans and Italians least.

A

Katz & Braly 1933

35
Q

Redid Katz & Braly and found stereotype content changed- more favourable.

A

Madon et al 2001

36
Q

Stereotype content model. Warmth and competence.

A

Fiske 2002

37
Q

Examined complementary stereotypes. Read a paragraph on Mark who was with happy or sad and rich or poor. World seemed fairer with one negative and one positive.

A

Kay & Jost 2003

38
Q

Serial reproduction task. Stereotype inconsistent stuff was forgotten faster.

A

Lyons & Kashima 2001

39
Q

(1) Rival group doing a desirable or non-desirable behaviour and had to pick a caption. When outgroup does bad stuff, described abstractly. When good, concrete. Opposite for ingroup.
(2) Abstract more informative.

A

Maass et al 1989

40
Q

Examined intelligence. Asked some people for their race beforehand. Makes them aware and they performed worse.

A

Steele & Aronson 1995

41
Q

Multiple processes model

A

Schmader, Johns & Forbes 2008

42
Q

Cant be prejudice to blind, deaf. Sometimes to gay people with children, feminists. Always okay to child abusers, rapists.

A

Crandall, Eshleman, O’Brien 2002

43
Q

Participants were told negative traits and had to say if they were true for either white or black people. In control, they gave the socially correct answer but in the lie detector, they gave negative traits to black people.

A

Sigall & Page 1971

44
Q

50% of studies showed more help given to someone of the same ethnicity.
Face to face 1/3 pro-white bias
No face to face ¾ pro-white bias

A

Crosby et al 1980

45
Q

Meta-analysis of racial discrimination in hiring over time. Always white bias.

A

Quillian, Pager, Hexel & Midtboen 2017

46
Q

Told liberal white male that they will record instructions to be given to a partner and are told the race of them. Negative correlation between how much they like the person and the measures of voice warmth.

A

Weitz 1972

47
Q

Electromyography to measure muscle groups. They had to rate a stimulus person. Direct self-report showed a pro-black bias. Indirect measure showed more frowning to black people

A

Vanman et al 1990

48
Q

Participant sat in a chair and had IAT taken. Cameras recording them. A confederate talks about dating with them. They then rate a questionnaire. Implicit attitudes correlated with nonverbal friendliness. Explicit prejudice predicts friendliness to the participant.

A

Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner 2002

49
Q

Helped the person of either race when alone but showed prejudice when with others

A

Gaertner & Dovidio 1977

50
Q

(1) Women hypothetically would confront prejudice more than offense
(2) Women called out sexism significantly less in a high than low cost situation

A

Shelton & Stewart 2004

51
Q

Thanatos- death instinct

A

Freud 1930

52
Q

Fighting instict

A

Lorenz 1966

53
Q

Women more gossipy about other women. Men dominate aggression over a weaker man.

A

Buss & Dedden 1990

54
Q

SLT. Bobo doll study. Indirectly learnt aggression.

A

Bandura 1977

55
Q

Kids watched 3 minutes of ‘The Untouchables’ or a race. Then could either help or harm a kid turning a wheel. Those who watched violent show harmed more- especially the boys.

A

Liebert & Baron 1972

56
Q

Violent video game caused people to pour more hot sauce into a glass for someone else to drink especially if they designed an avatar.

A

Fischer et al 2010

57
Q

Men and women played battlefield either individuated or anonymous. When dropping bombs on another player, women were more aggressive in the anonymous category.

A

Lightdale & Prentice 1994

58
Q

Correlation between temperature and likelihood of a riot

A

Carlsmith & Anderson 1979

59
Q

Weapon effect. Participants gave more shocks to the other person if there were associated weapons in the environment.

A

Berkowitz & LePage 1967

60
Q

Examined how cultural institutions responded to honour violence. Found that north and south and west were equal for normal manslaughter but more forgiving of honour manslaughter in south and west.

A

Cohen & Nisbett 1997

61
Q

Hypothetical situation of whether to help close or distant kin.

A

Burnstein et al 1994

62
Q

Repeated Burnstein’s experiment with real kin. Emotional closeness had a stronger relation to tendancy to help than genetic closeness

A

Korchmaros & Kenny 2001

63
Q

Manipulated experience of empathy and cost of not helping. Low empathy condition shows the decision to help follows the cost.

A

Toi & Batson 1982

64
Q

Participants heard about Cady and were asked to help her and they may or may not get feedback back. It was the empathy and not the feedback that chose their answer.

A

Batson et al 1991

65
Q

Bystander effect. Participants told the experimenter about smoke in another room 75% of time if they were alone, 38% of time with strangers, 10% of time with strangers who ignored

A

Latane & Darley 1970

66
Q

Bystander effects by thinking about others. If they imagined more people, they were less likely to be helpful

A

Garcia et al 2002

67
Q

Lexical decision task. When in a crowd, people are quicker at recognising the concept of unaccountability.

A

Garcia et al

68
Q

Repeated Garcia’s but varied identity of crowd. There is a difference between imagining strangers and imagining other women. Faster reaction times when the gender identitiy salient.

A

Levine et al 2010

69
Q

Reviewed truth about Kitty Genovese

A

Manning, Levine & Collins, 2007

70
Q

Football fans and running falling man. Man united fans are more likely to help those who fall if they support man united. If they talk about football as a whole beforehand, they’ll help any football fan.

A

Levine et al 2005

71
Q

Decision model of byster intervention

A

Latane & Darley 1970