Exam 2- Studies

Question 1

Fredrickson’s broaden-and-build theory

Answer 1

Positive emotions set you up to thrive

• open you up to opportunities (build resources, etc.)
• broaden thinking (creative)

Question 2

Suspension bridge study (Dutton & Aron)

Answer 2

Schachter & Singer
Two-factor theory

Higher bridge, more likely to call
-> mistaken for love/attraction

Question 3

Universality of emotions- Ekman

Answer 3

80-90% agreement on facial expressions, even in a remote tribal group

Question 4

Universality of emotions- Tracy’s pride studies

Answer 4

posture of pride recognized across cultures, expressed by the blind, similar to animals

Question 5

How satisfied are you with your life?

Answer 5

Feelings-as-info

• sunny days; more
• gloomy days; less

-> when asked about weather, no correlation

Question 6

Haidt- Sibling scenario

Answer 6

Moral judgement
“gut feelings” as guide for moral judgements
Sibling scenario
-> disgust, know it is wrong, but cannot justify

Question 7

Tenure study, break up study

Answer 7

Affective forecasting

Tenure- not given; bounce back within few months to year

Break up

• single; feel like it would be amazing-> not really
• relationship; feel would be devastated-> not really

Question 8

Lyubomirsky, 2006

Answer 8

Happiness

Count your blessings, literally

Question 9

Quote source study

Answer 9

Speaker effects: credibility

To what extent do you agree (told quote either by Thomas Jefferson or Lennon) agreed/ disagreed based upon speaker

Question 10

Speaking speed

Answer 10

Speaker effects: credibility

Faster, more expert and smart as long as can still understand

Question 11

Prison study

Answer 11

Message effects: message quality

Essays for more lenient or harsher sentences, told written either by convicted felon to prosecuting attorney- stronger by convicted was more persuasive/convincing (and opposite was true)

Question 12

Janis et al. (1965)- Pepsi and peanuts study

Answer 12

Audience effects: mood

• > reviewed essays and their attitudes
• > those who had snacks rater better

Question 13

Sherif (1936) auto kinetic effect

Answer 13

Conformity: informational influence

• > unmoving dot of light in dark space appears to have motion
• > in a group, participant’s estimates have converged

Question 14

Asche (1955) line judging studies

Answer 14

Conformity: normative influence

• > conform to confederates and give the wrong answer!
• > 37% on average gave the wrong and conforming answer

Conformity: unanimity

-> If even one person dissented, conformity dropped to 5%

Question 15

Milgram’s “looking up at nothing” study

Answer 15

Conformity: group size

1 person; 40% looked up/conformed
2 people; 60%
3 people; 65%
4 people 80%

Question 16

Jaywalking study

Answer 16

Conformity: group member status

Decreased from 25% to 17% when well-dressed non jaywalker was present

Question 17

Drive safely sticker -> sign

Answer 17

Compliance: foot-in-the-door

-more than twice as likely big sign when did small before

Question 18

Blood donor study

Answer 18

Compliance: door-in-the-face

• -“long term? tomorrow?” 50% agree
• “tomorrow?” 32% agree

Question 19

Charitable donation

Answer 19

Compliance: reciprocity

• request with gift 35% donate
• without gift 18% donate

Question 20

Milgram (1974)

Answer 20

Participants: 40 men as “teachers”
Cover story: effects of punishment on learning
Machine: 15 to 450 volts
Psychiatrists guessed: 1 in 1000 would go to 450 volts
Finding: 63% went to 450 volts

Question 21

Milgram (1974)

What characteristics of the requester led to obedience?

Answer 21

Strength

• status or prestige of the person giving commands
• > experimenter replaced by clerk, 20 % obey

Immediacy

• more influential when close
• > experimenter called by phone, only 21% obey

Number
-more influential when more people giving commands

Question 22

Milgram (1974)

What characteristics of the situation led to obedience?

Answer 22

Emotional distance of the victim

• shock by remote and can’t hear the learner, 100% obey
• -> learned hold hand to shock plate, only 30% obey

Institutional authority
-office in Bridgeport, CT instead of Yale, only 48% obey

Presence of resisters
-two defiant teachers added, 90% of participants left

Question 23

Triplett (1898)- String in fishing reel study

Answer 23

Concluded: mere presence of others can ENHANCE performance

• also occurred when others NOT COMPETING
• universal (animals)

Social facilitation
-enhanced performance in the presence of others

Question 24

Dashiell (1930)

Answer 24

Mere presence of others DISRUPTS or HINDERS performance (completing maze, complex math, etc.)

Social inhibition
-hindered performance in presence of others

Question 25

Zajonc (1965)

Answer 25

Presence of others -> arousal (physiological state)

Arousal -> increase likelihood of dominant response (easy or well-learned task)

Social facilitation
-effect, POSITIVE or NEGATIVE, of presence of others on performance

Question 26

Jogger and woman on grass study

Answer 26

Facing path- joggers ran faster

Away- no effect

Question 27

Ringelmann- Tug of war study

Answer 27

Group performance: Social loafing

• asses amount of pull
• 1:1 exert more individual force then when in group

Question 28

Latane et al. (1979)- Shouting and clapping study

Answer 28

Group performance: Social loafing

-when believed group- less load than believed alone

Question 29

Janis (1971, 1982)- Case studies

Answer 29

Group think

Historical event in which groups made poor decisions