Experiments (post-midterm)

Question 1

Ringelmann’s research on pulling power

Answer 1

• had farmers pull loads on their own vs in group
• found that farmers pulled less weight in group than they should given their individual scores
• hypothesized that it was due to coordination and motivation loss

Question 2

Ingham et al. (rope pull)

Answer 2

• had people pull on taught rope and measure force with: lone person, person + confederates, multiple people
• psuedo group: person was placed at back, confederates pretended to pull (prevents coordination loss)
• pulling power decreases with # of confederates (shows motivation loss)
• in real groups, even further decrease than pseudo (shows coordination loss)

Question 3

social loafing by williams & karau

Answer 3

• effects of teammates effort level on individual performance
• # uses for butter knife (told they’d be evaluated together): alone, hard working partner, loafing partner
• compared to alone: worked harder with loafing partner, loafed with hard working partner

Question 4

dawkins theories about pro social behavior

Answer 4

selection: help others to preserve copies of our genes
reciprocation: help others with the knowledge that they will help us back

Question 5

Burnstein, Crandall & Kitayama (inclusive fitness and helping) scenario study

Answer 5

• compare perceived kinship to actual kinship
• showed that we feel more related to actual relatives, showed that we feel more related to step-kin than aquaintances
  scenario study: said who they would help in an everyday vs life/death situation
• showed higher kinship = more help (especially in life/death)
• showed very young/old = more help for everyday situations
• showed younger = more help for life/death situations
• tend to help women more in both situations

Question 6

Burnstein, Crandall & Kitayama (inclusive fitness and helping) hypothesized famine

Answer 6

• who would you save during hypothesized famine
• tend to help people between 10-20 the most
• help younger more than older

Question 7

Woman in distress by Latane & Rodin’s

Answer 7

• woman walked by into other room and recording or crash + screaming was played
  helped within 2 minutes:
• 70% of trials alone or with a friend
• 30% of trials with stranger
• 10% of trials with calm confederate
• demonstrates pluralistic ignorance (has ambiguity and communication)

Question 8

diffusion of responsibility by latane & darlkey (epilepsy experiment)

Answer 8

• participants placed in individual rooms, told they would be discussing pressures felt as a student
• experimenter said they would not be listening (therefore cannot help)
• only one microphone on at a time
• confederate (victim) had their microphone on during seizure, explicitly stated having a seizure & asked for help
  % trials where p. helped within 2 minutes decreases with # of perceived participants
• demonstrates diffusion of responsibility (since no ambiguity, pluralistic ignorance or communication)

Question 9

50 years of bystander effect research by Fischer et al.

Answer 9

• meta-analysis
• demonstrates that the bystander effect is robust
• found that there was a decrease/reversal in the bystander effect in dangerous emergencies
  proposed that dangerous e. have lowered ambiguity, less pluralistic ignorance, we get heightened arousal, more people increase our safety/ability to help

Question 10

eisenberg & miller review article (empathy altruism…)

Answer 10

• -

Question 11

Sibicky et al. on quality of help given

Answer 11

• observer can give hints to learner to help them avoid shock for a wrong answer
• observer with high or low empathy
• observer told hints will help or too many hints will hurt learner
• observer can give 0-5 hints per request
  average hints per request:
• only lower in high empathy + potential negative
• suggests that empathy effects how much thought we put into helping, increases the quality of help

Question 12

negative state relief model testing by Regan et al.

Answer 12

• man with camera asks woman to help him take picture of himself with camera, camera does not work
• man either: moves on or increases her guilt
• later on, woman walks by with candies spilling from bag
  % of women who helped with the candies:
• guilty group almost 2x as likely to help
• suggests mild negative state increases helping

Question 13

when negative state relief model works by cialdini et al.

Answer 13

• participant listens to negative news story, injured girl needs help with class notes
• told they will listen to: comedy, nothing (but then get asked for easy help) or another negative story
  asked how many hours they would help girl:
• another negative story group helped more
• suggests we help only when there is no easier way to relieve negative state

Question 14

positive state empathy vs negative state empathy by Cialdini et al.

Answer 14

• person takes questionnaire, observe learner who gets shocked when wrong, given high or low empathy
• learner expresses pain and needs break
• either: praised for questionnaire, or given nothing
• survey check if mood + empathy was altered correctly
• asked to replace learner for # of trials
  # of trials offered to replace:
• no change in low empathy vs happy empathy
• significantly more in sad empathy

Question 15

positive state and helping by Isen et al.

Answer 15

• mood: went to door + free sample, went to door, no contact
• another confederate called person in the house + asked them to call the correct number
• changed time between door and call
  free sample (good mood): more helpful if called within 20 minutes
• proposed that when in a good mood, you want to maintain your good mood

- if helping reduces +ive state, helping still unlikely

Question 16

the pratfall effect by Aronson

Answer 16

• participants listen to radio station where one contestant is highly successful at a quiz, the other is below average
• in some cases, the contestant will spill coffee (pratfall)
  asked about the attractiveness of the contestant:
• high competence with pratfall: more attractive than no pratfall
• low competence: always below competence, disliked with pratfall
  demonstrates that when a highly competent person makes a minor mistake, it humanizes them + reduces our upwards social comparison

Question 17

does arousal increase attraction by Dutton & Aron

Answer 17

• arousal levels heightened when people cross high rope bridge, attractive M or F researcher on the other side
• men asked to tell stories, stories rated for sexual imagery
• given card and asked to call researcher
  sexual imagery:
• before rope bridge: higher for F researcher
• after rope bridge: significantly higher than before for F researcher
  % called:
• much higher in high arousal with F researcher
  implies that arousal increases attraction to someone

Question 18

does arousal always increase attraction by white et al.

Answer 18

• changed arousal levels of men and attractiveness of women in video (same woman, different aesthetic manipulations)
  attractiveness:
• increased with arousal for attractive video
• decreased with arousal for unattractive video
  demonstrates that arousal amplifies our initial assessment

Question 19

dissociation hypothesis by hovland & weiss

Answer 19

• p. filled out opinion survey about controversial topics
• 5 days later guess lecturer read persuasive messages: high cred. or low cred.
• p. did memory, content + opinion test directly after message and 4 weeks later
• message was well retained, source was forgotten over time
• over time, change in agreement increased for low cred. increased for high cred
  demonstrates sleeper effect and normal decay

Question 20

news anchor nonverbal cues by mullen at al.

Answer 20

• p. rated facial expressions of news readers as they discussed presidential candidates
• one news anchor: showed more positivity for Reagan
• those watching that news anchor, more likely to vote for R.
  highly dubious causality but suggests exposure to nonverbal cues can alter opinions

Question 21

participant forced nonverbal cues by wells & petty

Answer 21

• students forced to: nod, shake head or stay still while watching proposed increase in tuition
• shaking decreased agreement, nodding increased agreement
  demonstrates that changing our body language can alter our opinions

Question 22

distraction and persuasion by festinger

Answer 22

• p. watched unpopular message with: distraction or not
• distraction: message played over fun cartoon
  distracted individuals were more persuaded

Question 23

counterarguments theory by osterhouse & brock

Answer 23

• p. watched message with: low, medium, high distraction (had to call out lit up number, # of times varied)
• tested persuasion level & # of counterarguments they could write in a short period of time directly after
• high distraction had highest persuasion and least counterarguments
  suggests that distraction inhibits our ability to critically evaluate a message which can lead to increased persuasiveness

Question 24

learning theory (and why it’s wrong) by Zimbardo

Answer 24

• did the distraction experiment with positive vs negative distraction
• no difference in persuasion effect using +ive or -ive distractions

Question 25

relevance and mindlessness by langer et al.

Answer 25

• asked people if they could use the copier before them
• either gave: no excuse, ‘good’ excuse, useless excuse
• either needed: 5 copies, 20 copies
  % granted request:
• no excuse: 5 copies > 20
• ‘good’ excuse: 5 & 20 > no excuse
• useless excuse: 5 > no excuse 20 = no excuse
  suggests that large request caused us to use central processing when evaluating the excuse, noticed that it wasn’t valid

Question 26

risky shift by stoner

Answer 26

• evaluated group opinion before and after discussion
• average opinion became risker after discussion
  can also become more cautious as shown in future reasearch

Question 27

social facilitation in cockroaches by zajonc et al.

Answer 27

• either had to run through: simple maze, complex maze
• either had: audience, no audience
• they were faster in simple maze with audience, faster in complex maze without audience
  demonstrates social facilitation

Question 28

social facilitation in humans by micheals et al.

Answer 28

• observed: professional pool players, bad pool players
• recorded shots made: alone, with audience
  % shots made (relative to with/without audience)
• audience: higher for proff. lower for bad
• alone: lower for proff. higher for bad

Question 29

cognitive dissonance by Festinger & Carlsmith

Answer 29

• p. perform extremely boring task for hours
• asked to inform next participant: honestly (control), +ive opinion (lie) for $1 or $20
• recorded if the participant found it enjoyable and would participate again
• $20 group was slightly less negative than control
• $1 said it was enjoyable and would go again
  behaviour (giving positive opinion) conflicts with attitude (experiment was boring) so $20 has excuse (large payment), $1 is not enough of an excuse so they alter their attitude

Question 30

initiation experiment by aronson & mills

Answer 30

• participant had initiation that was: highly, mildly or not embarrassing
• had to listen to extremely boring discussion afterwards
  highly embarrassing initiation led to more positive opinion of discussion, others were the same

Question 31

harm done to whom? by cooper et al.

Answer 31

• replicated festinger and carlsmith
• before experiment they watched an interview with: nice confederate, rude confederate
• perform boring task, told to: lie, be honest to next participant (confederate)
• confederate is: convinced, unconvinced
• attitude change only significant when they lie to nice confederate AND they are convinced
  demonstrates that we only care if people we like are harmed

Question 32

counter-attitudinal essay (communism) by linder et al.

Answer 32

• had participants write CA essay with: high/low compensation (provides high/low justification)
• told them it was: their choice, essay is mandatory (provides excuse or not)
• measured attitude change (about anti-communist law)
• showed that only those with low compensation AND perceived choice had significant attitude change
  demonstrates that only one self esteem restoring explanation needed between justification and excuse

Question 33

counter-attitudinal essay (marijuana) by nel et al.

Answer 33

• had participants write CA essay with: high/low compensation
• told them it would be read by: decided audience, undecided audience (to undecided could cause harm)
• measured attitude change (about legalizing marijuana)
• showed that only those with low compensation AND undecided target audience had significant attitude change
  demonstrates that only one self esteem restoring explanation needed between harm done and excuse

Question 34

CD experiment

Answer 34

• showed dissonance in canadians (individualist) caused by self-inconsistency harm to SE
• no dissonance in japanese (collectivist) suggests so harm to SE

Question 35

inducing dissonance in collectivists

Answer 35

• did CD experiment but told participants they were giving CD: to a friend, or not
• induced dissonance in collectivists only when told giving to a friend

Question 36

manipulated arousal and dissonance by cooper et al.

Answer 36

• short term memory task
• told they were taking placebo drug: actually placebo, epinephrine, tranquilizer (normal, high, low arousal)
• write counter-attitudinal essay and told: their choice or not
• measure attitude change
• another short term memory task
  change in attitude relative to placebo:
• tranquilizer: smaller change between no choice, choice
• epinephrine: greater change between no choice, choice
• E also had more +ive attitude in no choice

Question 37

drinking in college by prentice & miller

Answer 37

• students believed that the average student was more comfortable with binge drinking than they truly were
  demonstrates pluralistic ignorance, everyone believes the situation is ok because no one else is expressing that it’s not