Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psyc 140- Social > Exam 3- Studies > Flashcards

Exam 3- Studies Flashcards

1
Q

Cartoon study

A

Cause of prejudice
Socialization

Study: 1989
42 yrs cartoons, only ONE with black in it when topic not race

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

Klee & Kandinsky study

A

Cause of prejudice
Minimal group paradigm

  • students asked which abstract painting they preferred
  • asled to allocate money to other participants (only info given was painting preference)
  • showed in-group boas and gave more money to those who liked the same painting they did
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Stanford prison study

A

Cause of prejudice
Minimal group paradigm

  • randomly assigned participants to be either prisoners or guards
  • intended to run row 2 weeks, reality 6 days
  • “guards” -> sadistic
  • “prisoners” -> depressed, extreme stress
  • implications:
  • > everyone chosen randomly
  • > split into groups
  • > given labels (cause by situation)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Line-up studies

A

Cause of prejudice
Outgroup Homogeneity Effect

  • own race bias
  • identify their race first when out-group
  • focus more on features when in-group
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Date scenario study

Carli and colleagues (1989, 1999)

A

Cause of prejudice
Just-World Beliefs

-description changes of date after wine (happy ending- proposal; bad ending)
-say both are predictable and believable (blamed woman for her behavior in bad ending)
[Derogating the victim]

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

Word, Zanna, & Cooper (1974) Interview study

A

Effects of prejudice
Self-fulfilling prophecies

Part 1

  • white Ps interviewed RAs posing as White and Black job applicants
  • > black applicant: sat further away, ended interview sooner, more speech errors by interviewer

Part 2

  • trained RAs conducted interview in “White style” (good interviewer) or “Black style” (bad interviewer)
  • > all White applicants; other people rated performance on video
  • > “Black” interview style = applicants performed objectively worse
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Spencer & Steele (1995)- Women and math tests

A

Effects of prejudice
Stereotype threat

When in room with men, performed worse when labeled as “math test” (reminded of stereotype)
(objectively equally good)

Study with Asian women (positive stereotype)

  • working self-concept: reminded by questions (either ethnicity or gender)
  • did worse when reminded women as opposed to control
  • when reminded Asian, did better than control
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study (1961)

A

Reducing Prejudice
Cooperation
-summer camp; create then resolve conflicts
-create separate teams (conflict) brought together for non competitive things, then shared goals, by end all friends

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

Media Violence

A

Situational Causes of Aggression

Correlational research shows

  • violence is on TV
  • violent children watch violent TV
  • children who watch violent TV grow up to be violent adults (opposite is not as strong)

Experimental studies

  • show kids violent TV or not
  • watching violence DOES have an effect on behavior
  • HOWEVER the effect is small and short-lived

-people overestimate the frequency of violence

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

Dunn’s research on selfish vs. prosocial spending

A

Happiness motive

-feel better when spend on other than spend on self

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

Quarters in payphones study

A

Happiness motive

-found money or not, those who found were more likely to help when someone dropped papers

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

“Smoke in the test room” study (Latane & Darley, 1968)

A

Decision-making model for helping behavior
1. Notice the event

-participants fill out fake questionnaire
-emergency staged (smoke)
Results:
-participant alone: notice under 5s
-with others: notice in 20s (really focus on questionnaire)

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

Married vs. stranger study

A

Decision-making model for helping behavior
2. Interpret event as emergency

  • staged physical fight (pushing/shoving)
  • “I don’t know you” (65% of time, stranger helped) or “don’t know why married you” (19% of time, stranger intervened)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Seizure study (Darley & Latane)

A

Decision-making model for helping behavior
3. Take responsibility for helping

-participant on phone with another
Conditions
-just one other (85%; 52s to alert)
-two other ppl (62%; 93s)
-six total (31%: 166s)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Good Samaritan Study (Darley & Batson, 1973)

A

Cost-benefit

Seminary students asked to give a lecture on Good Samaritan OR on some other topic

Half told late and to hurry

Who helped?

  • if early, 65% helped
  • if on time, 40% helped
  • if late, only 10% helped

Topic of lecture made NO difference

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

Apt study (Festinger et al., 1950)

A

Attraction
1. Proximity

randomly assigned apt (6 months later)
65% said closest friend lived in same building
Of that 65%
-41% lived next door
-22% two doors away
-10% other end of hall

ppl live near staircase, most friends

17
Q

Nonsense syllables (Zajonc, 1968, 1970)

A

Attraction

  1. Proximity
    - ->Mere exposure effect
  • exposed to set of novel syllables
  • rate big rotation of syll.
  • even when subliminal, rested heard better than never heard before
18
Q

Photographs vs. mirror images (Mita et al., 1977)

A

Attraction

  1. Proximity
    - ->Mere exposure effect
  • one pic and more mirror image (flipped), asked which one liked better and asked friends
  • self: liked mirror better
  • friends: liked regular better
19
Q

Welcome week dance study (Hatfield et al., 1966)

A

Attraction
2. Physical attractiveness

  • hundreds of freshman, made up dating service and randomly assigned with partner to attend with
  • 2.5 hours, told matched based on something, what aspects might make them want to seem them again
  • only thing that mattered was physical attractiveness
20
Q

Effects of plastic surgery (Kalick, 1977)

A

Attraction

  1. Physical attractiveness
    - -> Halo effect
  • ->rate impressions either before or after
  • ->after- more attractive rating; more kind, sensitive, likable
21
Q

Attractive students (Clifford & Walster, 1973)

A

Attraction

  1. Physical attractiveness
    - -> Halo effect
  • fifth graders rated on attractiveness (take extremes)
  • teachers rate and only pictures differ
  • > cute kids better (smarter, socially skilled, fewer behavioral problems)
22
Q

Evolutionary preferences (Buss, 1989)

A

Attraction
2. Physical attractiveness

  • gender preferences
  • > indicators of good health
  • ->women: baby face (youth, nondominace)
  • ->men: height, muscular, distinguished (older)
23
Q

Charlie’s Angels study (Kendrick & Gutierres, 1980)

A

Attraction

  1. Physical attractiveness
    - -> Contrast effects
  • male college dorm; opinion about avg looking woman
  • > if watching, rated her as less attractive than those who were not watching at the time
24
Q

Centerfold study (Kendrick, 1989)

A

Attraction

  1. Physical attractiveness
    - -> Contrast effects
  • men in lab; view centerfold models or pics not of women
  • > when viewed avg pics (centerfold- less attractive)
  • > when rate wives (centerfold- less attractive)
25
Q

UCLA Dating study

A

Attraction

  1. Physical attractiveness
    - -> Matching hypothesis

study 1:

  • attractiveness of participants and women’s photos have been rated
  • picked women who was closet to them in attractiveness

study 2:

  • all want to date you
  • all went for hottest person (no fear of rejection)
26
Q

Housing study (Newcomb, 1961)

A

Attraction
3. Similarity

  • 3 months later
  • most similar- most likely to become friends
27
Q

The “I overheard you” study (Aronson & Linder, 1965)

A

Attraction
4. Reciprocal liking

Participant overhears other talking about them after interacting each time
Conditions
1. Smack talk from start to finish
2. Positive whole time (they are ok)
3. Positive -> worse (felt worst and liked least)
4. unsure -> positive (like them the most)

28
Q

Speed dating studies (Finkel & Eastwick’s, 2008)

A

Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love (3 parts)
1. Passion

  • chemistry is mutual (specific and unique)
  • if felt chemistry with everyone, others did not feel the same

Psyc 140- Social (16 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions