Social Psychology Unit 3

Question 1

What matters for liking?

Answer 1

Rewards, proximity, attractiveness

Question 2

Welcome week dance study

Answer 2

• students randomly paired with another student for a dance
  *various attitudes and objective attractiveness were measured
  *when polled on how much they liked their partner, attractiveness was the only predictive measure
  *however, what predicted them getting back together was similarity in attractiveness
  this demonstrates how equality in “rewards” is important in relationships

Question 3

Dorm proximity study

Answer 3

Among students randomly assigned to live in a new dorm:

• 41% of the time, they identified the person living next door as a friend
• They identified the person living 4 doors down as a friend only 10% of the time

Question 4

Why does proximity matter in liking?

Answer 4

• mere exposure
• costs vs rewards
• similarity

Question 5

Mere exposure and liking

Answer 5

Exposure makes someone more familiar, which breeds liking. Zajonc posits that if you see someone repeatedly without them harming you, you know they are safe.

Question 6

costs/rewards and liking

Answer 6

It costs less to interact with people who we are in close proximity with

Question 7

Proximity and similarity and liking

Answer 7

People close to us tend to be more similar to us, which breeds liking

Question 8

When can proximity have bad outcomes?

Answer 8

People were asked what 3 people they liked and disliked the most. 63% of their favorite people lived in close proximity, but 73% of disliked people lived in close proximity

Question 9

halo effect

Answer 9

things are judged more positively if they are believed to have come from an attractiveness person

Question 10

self-fulfilling prophecy and attractiveness

Answer 10

Physically attractive people may have better social skills because they have more opportunities to interact with others

Question 11

Attractiveness/college yearbook study

Answer 11

Students’ college yearbook photos were rated on attractiveness and they were followed up until middle age. Attractive people were more likely to be married, but no more likely to be satisfied with life. What did predict happiness was the presence of a genuine Duchenne smile.

Question 12

Scary bridge study

Answer 12

Male subjects were asked questions by a female research assistant either before the scary bridge, in the middle of the bridge, or on a safe bridge. The female research assistant would then give the subjects her phone number. Subjects were more likely to call if they were given the number in the middle of the bridge, where physiological arousal was higher.

Question 13

What are the exceptions to the similarity/liking rules?

Answer 13

In a homogenous group, people like the person who is different more.
If a person has a negative characteristics, we dislike those who are more like us because we find it threatening to think we might be similar to them.

Question 14

Effect of weapons on aggression study

Answer 14

People are brought into the laboratory, sometimes there are guns, sometimes there are badminton rackets on the wall. People are given a chance to aggress when frustrated. They are more likely to aggress when guns are around. Conclusion: guns signal that aggression is acceptable.

Question 15

Absolute vs relative deprivation

Answer 15

Frustration has more to do with frustration relative to our goals, based on what we already have, rather than based on the absolute amount of things we have.

Question 16

evidence for relative deprivation

Answer 16

Riots happen in cities the most not when people are the most poor, but when incomes have been rising for a while and level out. Because at that point, there is a gap between the goals they have and what they actually have. They feel worse off even though they are objectively better off.

Question 17

Modeling aggression study

Answer 17

Kids who watch an adult pounding on a Bobo doll with a hammer end up pounding on the doll, unless they see that person being punished. models can indicate what is not acceptable as well as what is acceptable.

Question 18

Violent television/frustration study

Answer 18

When frustrated in the lab, people who are shown violent television are more likely to aggress.

Question 19

Criticisms of lab violent television/aggression studies

Answer 19

Giving someone a shock or playing a loud noise at them in a lab is not the same as a violent assault. Also, this is looking at undiluted aggression with the violent television cue occurring right before frustration.

Question 20

Communal vs exchange relationships

Answer 20

Communal relationships are based on principles of need as opposed to exchange and reward.

Question 21

Exchange vs reward oriented in relationships

Answer 21

People who are exchange-oriented are less satisfied in marriages, and people in communal relationships give more credit to their partner.

Question 22

Reflected worth

Answer 22

Our relationship with others demonstrates to us that we are worthy

Question 23

Self-esteem in relationships

Answer 23

Low self-esteem people underestimate what their partner thinks of them. Over time, people who start out high self-esteem in a relationship have their self-esteem improve over time. Low self-esteem people have their self-esteem drop, and their partner’s esteem of them drops.

Question 24

Self-esteem threats in experiments

Answer 24

After having their self-esteem threatened, people who are high self-esteem are more likely to think their partner will forgive them, have more optimism about their partner, and put more importance on their relationship. Low self-esteem people, when their self esteem is threatened, have all the opposite effects- they are less likely to think their partner will forgive them, have less optimism about their partner, and put less importance on their relationships.

Question 25

Rejection sensitivity effects

Answer 25

If rejection is likely but not certain, people who are high in rejection sensitivity are more likely to engage in ingratiation, are more likely to self-silence, and are more likely to do things they believe are wrong to avoid rejection. If rejection is CERTAIN, high rejection sensitivity people have more hostility or depression.

Question 26

Michelangelo effect

Answer 26

Our partners can help us become our best selves by offering constructive, active responses (rather than passive or destructive) to enhance the importance of our positive events.

Question 27

Michelangelo effect studies

Answer 27

People assigned to tell someone about a good event who responded in a constructive, active way rated it as more important than people who simply wrote an essay about it.

Question 28

Smoking room study

Answer 28

When smoke comes into a room from a vent, when someone is alone in the room, 75% of the time they will go and find the experimenter. 2 other participants: 38% of the time, someone gets help. 2 confederates in the room who don’t help; 10% of the time the subject seeks help. Example of PLURALISTIC IGNORANCE.

Question 29

What is pluralistic ignorance?

Answer 29

Pluralistic ignorance is when the inaction of others leads people to think there is no need to seek help.

Question 30

Lady in distress study

Answer 30

People hear the experimenter fall and supposedly hurt herself in the next room. 1 person: 70% help. 2 people: 40% help. However, if the 2 participants are facing each other and can see the other person react, they help at the same rate as if they were alone.

Question 31

Epilepsy study

Answer 31

EXAMPLE OF TAKING RESPONSIBILITY STEP
Subjects were placed in a solo cubicle, speaking with other people over the phone. one person who introduces themselves as having epilepsy is heard having a seizure. When people believe they are alone, 85% help, but when there are others in the experiment, 31% help. This is not due to interpretation because people cannot hear whether others are helping. This is about the taking responsibility step.

Question 32

Beach study

Answer 32

Participants are approached by someone who either asks “do you have a match” or “can you watch my stuff”. When someone comes along to take that person’s stuff. In the match condition, 4/20 help, in the watch my stuff condition, 19/20 help.

Question 33

Spending money on others study

Answer 33

People given money in the morning, 1/2 were told to spend it on themselves and 1/2 on someone else. People who spent money on other people were more happy at the end of the day.

Question 34

Why does helping people make us more happy?

Answer 34

Find trustworthy partners
Bind us to those trustworthy partners
Remind us of people we trust
Helping is part of this gratitude process.

Question 35

Study about how we give to escape distress:

Answer 35

Participants assigned to high or low empathy conditions, and given the opportunity to take electric shocks for someone else who is afraid. They were given either an easy or difficult escape from helping. For the low-empathy group with an easy escape, 18% help; and a difficult escape, 64% help. In the high empathy group, ease of escape doesn’t matter. In the difficult escape condition, people help because otherwise they would have to sit and be distressed by someone who was in pain.

Question 36

Guilt/bump study

Answer 36

Participants were set up to bump a table containing someone’s stack of research for their dissertation, in one condition the cards fell and in the other they did not. They were then asked to sign a petition to save the redwoods. In the low guilt situation, 45% sign the petition- in the high-guilt condition, 80% do.

Question 37

Reciprocal concession study

Answer 37

When asked to chaperone kids for a day, 17% of students said yes. When they were first asked to be a big sibling for an at-risk child (to which they said no), 50% agree to the smaller ask.

Question 38

Low-balling study

Answer 38

(Using a promise to get a commitment, then withdrawing the promise)
People were promised their names in the paper if they reduced their natural gas usage, and they saved more gas than people who did not give that promise. When the promise was retracted, people in the promise group still saved 15% more gas.

Question 39

Modeling helpign study

Answer 39

People passed a car by the side of the road and either did or did not see another person helping. The next car they passed, more of the people who saw someone else helping stopped to help.

Question 40

Effect of jury size

Answer 40

If someone has an ally, they are more able to resist the majority, so in a larger jury, it is more likely the minority opinion will have an ally. re-enactment studies show that larger juries spend more time in deliberation, consider more evidence, and their decisions are more consistent between juries.

Question 41

How can eyewitness testimony be improved?

Answer 41

1. unprompted recollection
2. taking testimony soon after the event
3. unbiased lineups (everyone similar to description)
4. double-blidn lineups, where neither the witness or officer knows which is the suspect.

Question 42

Prisoner’s dilemma

Answer 42

Because each person does not know whether their partner will confess, it is in their best interest to confess. However, if people do not act in their own interest, both people will do better.

Question 43

How can the Prisoner’s dilemma be gamed?

Answer 43

Tit-for-tat strategy, doing whatever the other person did in the last round, results in the partner confessing only 30% of the time. If you confess every round, 80% of the time the other will do the same. If you do not confess and take a pacifiist stance, the other partner will confess 50% of the time.

Question 44

Group norms and cooperation

Answer 44

Participants, whom RAs had identified as either cooperative or competitive, were brought in to play a game which was either labeled the “community game” or the “wall street game”. The individual’s cahracteristics did not make a difference to their cooperation, what effected it was the situation: 2/3 cooperated in the community game, 1/3 cooperated in the wall street game.