HL - Sociocultural factor on personal relationships Flashcards
Zajonc (1968)
Aim ->
To consider the relationship between the frequency of seeing a face and attitude towards it.
Method ->
Ppts, individually, were asked to look at a series of photographs of men in different exposure conditions: ppts got to see the faces either very few times (low frequency) or a significant number of times (high frequency). Ppts were asked to rate, on a seven-point scale, how much they might like the man in each photograph.
Results ->
Faces that were seen at a high frequency were rated as more attractive than faces that were seen at a low frequency
Conclusion ->
Zajonc offers a biological explanation, based on the idea that we have evolved a wariness of new things, because they might be dangerous. Organisms that don’t approach new things with caution are more likely to get attacked by dangerous new things. Therefore, until we are familiar with something, we will feel - unconsciously - a bit negative (fearful) towards it. Repeated exposure without experiencing harm makes us feel more comfortable.
Evaluation ->
✔ No demand characteristics -> since ppts were unaware of the aim they were more likely to give natural responses so we can be sure that the results are valid. Validity further increased from the high levels of control in the study. We can have high trust in the results.
✔ Supported by Kenrick and Gutierres (1980)
❌Ethical concerns arising from deception
❌ Biological explanation (Buss (1989), Singh (1993) and/or Wedekind(1995)) and Cognitive explanation (Walster et al (1973), Byrne and Nelson (1965) and/or Aronson and Linder (1965))
Kenirck and Gutierres (1980)
Aim ->
To investigate whether social comparison affects perceived attractiveness.
Method ->
First part of the study had male confederates went into university dorm rooms, where the male ‘ppts’ (they didn’t know they were part of a study) were either watching ‘Charlie’s Angels’ or they weren’t. In the second part of the study, male ppts were invited to take part in research to determine “how much we can tell about a person from only a brief encounter or glance.” Half were shown an example of a magazine advert with an attractive woman in it, while others merely had such an advert described to them. The ‘ppts’ were asked to rate the attractiveness of a woman.
Results ->
Women rated by ppts who had seen ‘Charlie’s Angels’ seen the magazine were rated lower than ppts who had not had the social comparison.
Conclusion -> The social setting an individual is in leads to social comparison which can affect perceived attractiveness
Evaluation ->
✔ High validity -> The use of different methods (field study and lab experiment) looking at the same phenomenon (methodological triangulation) strengthens the conclusions. In addition, the use of both a field study and a lab study means there is high control and ecological validity so this combination leads to very high validity.
✔ Supported by Zajonc (1968)
❌ High ethical concerns -> first part of the whole study has a lack of informed consent as the ppts were unaware that they were taking part in the study. This is worsened by the deception that occurs in the second study as ppts were lied to about what they were about to do which once again highlights issues of informed consent as without knowledge of what they were going to do it is impossible to truly give informed consent.
❌ Biological explanation (Buss (1989), Singh (1993) and/or Wedekind(1995)) and Cognitive explanation (Walster et al (1973), Byrne and Nelson (1965) and/or Aronson and Linder (1965))
