Exam IIII Flashcards Preview

Social Psych > Exam IIII > Flashcards

Flashcards in Exam IIII Deck (77):


Ex: Is beauty in the eye of the beholder?

Took a lot of pics of people and gave them to a large sample size and asked them to rate their attractiveness

Results: .9

Conclusion: Almost everyone agrees on attractiveness


Outgroup bias:

Behavioral component

Emotional component

Cognitive component

Behavioral component- discrimination

Emotional component-prejudice

Cognitive component-stereotyping


Prejudice difficulties

-Hard to measure: want to be socially desirable or unaware of their bias


Measuring prejudice:

Prejudice Implicit Association Test

-Done sitting at a computer individually, participant is presented with "good" or "bad" matched with African American face or white face. Will get a stimulus on the bottom of the screen and have to choose left or right to indicate your choice. Then switch the it around to avoid practice effect. Then take the test

-Dv: Reaction time and # of errors

-Result: If they have a bias against African American's will have a faster reaction time for African American in the bad condition


IAT (Higher=more prejudice)

-Gave white participants IAT, scores varied in bias, brought participants in and had them pair up with a partner and got to know each other

1) White partner
2) Black partner

-When finished white participants take the stroop test, measured errors

Results: White participants who have a white partner barely make mistakes if they have been paired with a white patner

White participants who have a black partner make more mistake on the stroop test as they become more bias

Conclusion: That feeling of prejudice during the conversation with the black partner gave them discomfort and distracted them, enabling them to make mistakes (cognitive overload)


Ex: Korean and Japanese IAT tested

-Had common names that were Korean or Japanese

-Participants Korean american, Japanese

-Had them answer questions on how immersed they are in their culture (variety of levels)

-Korean american: As they are more immersed in their culture the more of the bias they show in favor of their own group

-Japanese: As they are more immersed in their culture the more bias they show in favor of their own group

Conclusion: The more "valuable" to them their heritage is the more they see it as positive


IAT vs Survey


-bad to good scale, etc. (antonym anchors)

(IV) Cons: Semantic differential
1) Pro white
2) Pro black

(DV) Cons: IAT Effect
1) Pro white
2) Pro black

-People favored pro white more than pro black on IAT
-On survey they are showing much more neutral bias

-IAT = more sensitive measure


Stereotype Threat

-When a group of people feel that other people are judging them negatively based on their group membership it makes it hard to concentrate


Stereotype threat: GRE test

-Told Stereotype threat group they can use the test to diagnose intellectual ability
-Told control group they were just pilot testing questions, didn't know if any had value

1) Stereotype African American (Diagnostic)
2) Stereotype White (Diagnostic)
3) Control African American (Non-diagnostic)
4) Control White (Non-diagnostic)

-Whites did better/scored higher in Diagnostic condition than African Americans

-Both groups were about the same, didn't have much of an effect


Stereotype threat: Specify ethnicity


-Asked ethnicity first (Priming ethnicity) or last on a test
-Dv: Test performance

1) White, race prime
2) Black, race prime
3) White, No race prime
4) Black, No race prime

-Whites scores much higher than blacks in race prime group
-No race prime conditions shows less differences

More effective to have it at the end


Taking advantage groups and creating a stereotyping effect


-Male engineering majors, perfect math SAT scores
-Gave them the math GRE

1) Control (Not told anything)
2) Stereotype threat (Asked why asian students tents to score high in math fields)

Stereotype group scored lower

Caused by inferior complex/distractions


Female college students. asian americans doing math test


1) Answered survey questions about asian identity before test
2) Answered survey questions about gender before test
3) Just took math test (Control)

Results: Asian identity group scored the highest, then control, and then the female identity

Conclusion: Asian stereotype (positive stereotype in math) scored better, Female stereotype (negative stereotype in math) scored worse


Causes of prejudice

-Economic and political competition/conflict

-Maintenance of status/self-image

-Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian personality trait



Job applicant's, Jewish and Italian


-Participants had their self esteem lowered or raised to start with then rated job applicants

1) Jewish app, Participant high self esteem
2) Jewish app, Participant low self esteem (Lowest rating)
3) Italian app, Participant high self esteem
4) Italian app, Participant low self esteem

-After participants took a self esteem measure of their own, low self esteem group (Jewish) were discriminatory in order to feel better about themselves and to feel better


Causes of prejudice:

Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian personality trait

-genetic component


Causes of prejudice:


-when people move they adopt personality of the people around them

Ex: participants hear racial slur or negative comment, when they heard the racial slur they were harsher on the lawyer


Reducing Prejudice:

Equal Status contact

Inevitability improves desegregation

Superordinate goals

Equal Status contact
-Coming from disadvantaged backgrounds doesn't make them equal
(must put them in a setting w equal status)

Inevitability improves desegregation:
-If they know it is inevitable they would want to get on board with it, bc there is nothing you can do

Superordinate goals:
-Common goals, empathy goals up in jigsaw classrooms


Weapons of influence:

Ex: Langer, Cut in line at a copy machine

1) Request only (no "because")
2) Placebic info (used "because" but didn't add a reason)
3) Real info (used "because", reason)

Results: Both conditions w the word because gave much higher Yes's than the request only group

Conclusion: When we hear the word "because" we hear a good reason (our shortcuts)


Approaches to Attraction:

Exchange relationships

Communal relationships

Exchange relationships- unimportant, acquaintances, coworkers, not friends w

Communal relationships- close relationships, family, partners, friends


Approaches to Attraction:

Ex: Liking for people depends on relationship type and repayment (returning the favor)

(Exchange-repay immediately, communal-repay when you need it)

Male participants w female (confederate) partner, do tasks w tiles he finishes earlier and can give her tiles

1) Stranger communal, no repay (thanks)
2) Stranger Exchange, no repay (thanks)
3) Stranger communal, repaid (gives half extra cred)
4) Stranger Exchange, repaid (gives half extra cred)

Results: Men in communal liked her better when she said thanks, men in exchange liked her better when they got the extra cred

Conclusion: We like people the most when they follow the rules for relationships


Misattribution of arousal

-Increased physiological arousal and a target person in front of them that they are attracted to, people will like them more, arousal gets mistaken for attraction

-Participants will be more attracted to a target if they are aroused and unaware of the source of their arousal


Ex: Men on Scary/stable bridge, then giving TAT (selection bias)

Dv: Sexual content described in TAT, did men call experimenter

1) Scary, male experimenter
2) Scary, female experimenter
3) stable, male experimenter
4) stable, female experimenter

Results: Men on the scary bridge w female experimenter interpreted the TAT w the most sexual content and the most likely to call the experimenter

Conclusion: Misattribution of arousal


Study 2

Ex: Just scary bridge Bridge, (no selection bias)

Dv: Sexual content described in TAT, did men call experimenter

1) Intercept man before scary bridge
2) Intercept man after scary bridge in the parking lot

Results: On the bridge men called female experimenter more and rated TAT w highest sexual content


Response Facilitation Model

-Competing theory w misattribution of arousal (Critics favor it)

-General arousal facilitates the dominant response, aroused will

-Whenever people are aroused their dominant response happens faster

-Participants will be more attracted to a target if they are aroused regardless of whether they are aware of the source of their arousal


Response Facilitation Model:

Ex: Male Participants and attractive female confederate

1) Low shocks, rate attraction first (unaware)
2) High shocks, rate attraction first (unaware)
3) Low shock, considered source of anxiety first and then asked attractiveness to female (aware)
4) High shock, considered source of anxiety first and then asked attractiveness to female (aware)

Results: Highest rate of attraction was both high shocks for unaware and aware conditions

Conclusion: Response Facilitation Model is supported


Consistency Theory Approach

(comes from cognitive dissonance), when we know that we are gonna be spending time w people and it is inevitable we are going to want to see the good in it


Balance Theory (cog dissonance)

-We like our relationships to be balanced

Do multiplication shortcut:
+ = balanced
- = unbalanced

-People try to downplay unbalancedness in their relationships


Self-evaluation maintenance theory

Upward social compensation

Self-evaluation maintenance theory:
-want to feel good about ourselves, maintain self confidence in areas that are important to you

Upward social compensation:
-If close relationships are similar to us on something that we want to be good at, if they are better at it than u it can make you feel bad about yourself


Self-evaluation maintenance theory


-work on a task together
-DV: helping partner, (high helping= giving best tips to partner)

1) paired w friend, low relevance
2) paired w stranger, low relevance
3) paired w friend, high relevance
4) paired w stranger, high relevance

Results: Friends gave better tips in low relevance condition, and less tips in the high relevance condition



We like people who

-Are similar to us
-Have skills
-Have admirable qualities
-Like us back
-Cooperate w us
-Are nearby
-Praise us or grant us favors
-Receive favors from us (justify that they are worthy of favor)
-Are attractive
-Matching level of attractiveness


Gain-loss Theory


-Participant and confed. target
-experimenter talks to partner about participant

-Target rates participant either..
1) consistently positive
2) consistently negative
3) positively, then negatively
4) negatively, then positively

Then ask participant what do you think about partner?

Results: 4) negative to positive (gain condition) lead to the most liking of the target
(For this to be affective it has to be gradual, has to be a change of heart on the same qualities)


Mere Exposure effect:

Ex: Apartment complex (Are nearby)

-Had college students assigned to diff apartments in same building
- 1 unit away (neighbor)

-Asked who best friends were

Results: Majority of peoples best friends were 1 unit away from each other

Conclusion: Mere exposure effect, seeing people more will increase liking


Grant us favors:

Ex: Soda

-Participant had a confed partner, took a break

1) confed sat down
2) confed gave soda to participant

Then asked to help stack paper

Results: Helped more when not given soda


Receive favors from us


-Participants in a study
-DV: How much they liked the experimenter

1) Control, keep $
2) Experimenter asks them to give back $
3) Secretary asks them to give back $

Results: When the experimenter asks for the $ back we like the experimenter more, because we are doing him the favor, like him more


Receiving favors from us

Ex: Electric shocks

1) Cant vote to end shocks, Shocks not terminated
2) Can vote to end shocks, Shocks not terminated
3) Cant vote to end shocks, shocks terminated
4) Can vote to end shocks, shocks terminated

Results: Like the person 4) Voted to end shocks, shocks terminated (because we helped someone out and were successful, they are worthy of the help that we gave)




-College students took personality inventories
-Randomly assign them on dates
-Asked them who they liked

Results: More attractive a female more likely male would ask them out on a second date (completely dependent on appearance)


Matching level of attractiveness:

-Will initially pick most attractive person
-But will be in longer relationships w people who match their level of attractiveness


Evolutionary Implications:

Paternal Uncertainty

Men's uncertainty:
-Women carry the baby so always sure it is theirs, men can never be sure
-Error to be invested in a baby that's not yours
-If men are sensitive to this loss or risk then they should be aware of infidelity

Women uncertainty:
-Man investing time and resources in another woman


Women's investment:

Men's investment

-invest physically
-Getting pregnant
-Having baby



Paternal Uncertainty:


-Consider relationships of past, present, or desired future
-What would distress you the most?

1) Deep emotional attachment to that person
2) Sex

Results: Men picked 2) more often bc it increases men uncertainty


Paternal Uncertainty:

Follow up study

-Sat in chair and imagined something neutral (baseline)
-Then imagine sexual infidelity
-Then emotional infidelity
(Half did sexual first, half did emotional first)

EDA (palm sweat)
PR (pulse rate)
EMG (forehead muscles)

Eda= men more sweaty for sexual, women more sweaty for emotional
Pr= mens pulse rate goes up more for sexual
EMG= males foreheads move more for sexual, women's foreheads move more for emotional


Differential Parental Investment:

-Men are always seeking women in her twenties

-Women are always looking for men a little bit older than them

(Similar trends across cultures, support for evolutionary perspective)


Homosexuals Differential Parental Investment

-Men are consistently seeking someone younger (mid 20's)

-Women's trends are unclear (Slightly older)


Pickiness for One night stand

-Women are more reluctant to have a one night stand, while men are more likely


College campus


-Confeds approach people on campus and ask

1) go out w me
2) to my apartment tn
3) go to bed w me

-Go out condition: 50% each gender
-Women wont accept sexual offers (2 and 3)
-Most men would accept sexual offers (2 and 3)

-These results are still present td


Min amount of intelligence % for diff types of romantic relationships

-Asked men and women

1) Date
2) Sex
3) Date steadily
4) Marry

Women: Increased in that order (as it got more serious min intelligence went up)
Men: Increased in that order, but decreased in sex the most (took a dip)


Attractiveness, child in trouble


-Attractive kid in trouble= most likely a fluke

-Unattractive kid= more permanent, likely to happen again


People consider a romantic partner as more likely by how that partner feel about themselves


-male college students
-fake IQ test lowered or raised esteem

1) Low self esteem, mod attractive
2) High self esteem, mod attractive
3) Low self esteem, highly attractive
4) High self esteem, highly attractive

-female confed comes in to be highly attractive or mod attractive and meets participant

-High self esteem men: As her attractiveness increased, romantic behavior increased.

-Low self esteem men: As her attractiveness increased, romantic behavior decreased


Sternberg's Triangular Theory of Love

-most romantic relationships have three key components

1) Passion- sexual attraction
2) Commitment- Intention to maintain relationship
3) Intimacy- Sharing things w person/helping when they are having a hard time, etc

-Not unusual to get by with two strong sides

-Romantic love= passion/intimacy, low commitment
-Companionate love= commitment/intimacy, low passion
-Fatuous love= passion/commitment, low intimacy
-Consummate love= all three solid


Attractiveness: Do we judge a book by its cover?

Height of presidents

-Since 1900 81% of taller presidential candidates have won

Conclusion: Yes we do


Attractiveness: Do we judge personality based on looks?

-Yes, the more attractive a person the higher their rating for personality


Rating of Job Applicants Qualifications


-Same exact person in two job apps and qualities

1) Well groomed
2) Poorly groomed

Results: Rated well groomed more qualified


Jurors decide amount of victim compensation criminal should make


1) Victim more attractive
2) Criminal more attractive

Results: Victim gets almost double the money when they are more attractive



Kids getting into trouble


-Pics of kids were shown to participants bc these kids got in trouble

1) Attractive kid pic
2) Unattractive kid pic

Results: When kids were less attractive participants thought this behavior would stay, but if they were attractive they though it was only a one time thing


Is beauty only skin deep?

Attractive people = attributed more desirable qualities, like higher IQ, more socially desirable traits, etc.


Liking and similarity


and follow up study

- Read scenario of person, varied name of person
-Dv: how likely to help person you are

1) Similar to participants name
2) Kerny stalin (not similar)

Results: People helped similarly named person

Conclusion: The more similar the name is the more similar you think they are to you, resulting in your increased liking and willingness to help

Follow up study: Ex repeated w similar name and popular name and similar name still got the most help


Home party (reciprocity/commitment)

-Feel we need to buy stuff at a home party bc you were invited, ate good, probably hosted in the past, etc, need to reciprocate (Reciprocity)

-RSVP= commitment
-Going around the room talking about what you want/like= commitment


hippie/preppy clothed confederate asking for change for a phone call (70's)


1) Hippie clothed
2) Preppy clothed

Results: People were more likely to donate if the confed matched their clothing style

Conclusion: We like people who are more similar to us


Percent of completed surveys (mailed out)


1) Similar name of sender
2) Control (actual name)

Results: more surveys completed when sent by similar named sender

Conclusion: We like people similar to us


How do we feel about compliments?

We like them



mirror image/straight on

-More of us prefer the mirror image of ourselves, bc it's familiar



Read poems and rate if they were written by a man or woman


-7 poems, confed 1 and confed 2 disagree, participant= tie breaker

1) Confed 1 pic primed (subliminal flash)
2) Confed 2 pic primed (subliminal flash)
3) Blank prime

Results: The one they were primed for they agreed with more (Mere exposure effect)


Mere exposure effect: Partners annoying habits

-Over time they become more annoying

-Mere exposure effect only works for things neutral or positive


Conflict of mere exposure effect

Does not create more diverse ethnic friendships, liking didn't go up


Overcoming conflict:

Contact (w/ other people)

-not enough to solve problems of discrimination/prejudice


Overcoming conflict:

Collaboration: Summer camp study


-picked boys similar to one another, formed conflict and then had to overcome it

2 Variations:
1) Put bffs in opposite groups
2) Arrived in two diff groups

-Tournament w all diff games to compete for prizes
-Brought them together for meals, didn't go well
-Rigged situations where kids would have a common goal and have to collaborate to succeed

Results: This was effective, they liked each other


Overcoming conflict:

Collaboration: Jigsaw classroom


Experimenter taught teachers how to use classroom (break course material down into pieces and kids into groups) each group member focuses on a different section and has to teach other kids in the group bc they will be tested on it

-Motivation to do well did not change
-Kids liked school more, grades increased, ethnic friendships increased


Negative and Positive Associations:

BIRG-Basking in reflective glory

Ex: school sweatshirt wearers

BIRG- We like to connect ourselves to other people's glories
-Ex: If college team won "we won" if they lost "they lost"

Experiments: more school sweatshirt wearers than non-wearers (highest # used as 100%) when team won


Evidence against African American's:

Car sales


-Use of diff negotiation strategies to make car sales

1) White male
2) White female
3) Black male
4) Black female

Results: White male- sold @ lowest price, black females-sold @ highest price


Evidence against African American's

Psych hospital


-Same # of offenses

1) Black patients
2) White patients

Results: Black patients got sig more sanctions

-As staff got to know them though discrimination went down


Evidence against African American's:

Applying for jobs, criminal record vs race


1) Criminal record, black
2) Criminal record, white
3) No criminal record, black
4) No criminal record, white

Results: 4) No criminal record, white-got most calls back, 2) Criminal record, white-got more calls than blacks w/o criminal record


Evidence against African American's:

Black/or white partner, major injury or minor


-All white participants had partners in the other room, filling out a survey, partner either completely falls of chair (major) or only a little (minor)

1) Black partner, minor injury
2) White partner, minor injury
3) Black partner, major injury
4) White partner, major injury

Results: In minor cons: Helped whites the slowest, but in major injury took longer to help blacks (bc requires more contact)

Conclusion: Discrimination


Evidence against African American's:

Job interview setting (Interviewer is the participant)


Black applicant:
-sat farther away
-made more speech errors
-ended interview faster

Homosexual applicant:
-less verbally positive
-spent less time w/ applicant
-fewer words while chatting
-made less eye contact


Two types of sexism:

Hostile sexism

Benevolent sexism

Hostile sexism: Negative feelings towards women, shown openly

Benevolent sexism: Seeing women as old fashion stereotypes, limiting w description of them/generalizations


Using life choice as justifications for discrimination:

-Overweight ppl

Easier to discriminate against if u see their "condition" as a "lifestyle choice"



Life choice/or not Overweight


Dv: Smiling, eye contact, rudeness, friendliness, rate at which they ended interaction

1) Shopper avg. weight, diet soda (dieting)
2) Shopper overweight, diet soda (dieting)
3) Shopper avg. weight, milkshake (not dieting)
4) Shopper overweight, milkshake (not dieting)- MOST DISCRIMINATION

Results: Easier to be discriminatory if target is seen as "choosing"/having a choice in the matter


Participants observed images of black or white people who were armed/or unarmed


-Given a second to push button to shoot or not shoot person
Dv: Reaction time and accuracy (given $ for accuracy)

1) White, unarmed
2) Black, unarmed
3) White armed
4) Black, armed

-Took a longer time to "not" shoot unarmed blacks than unarmed whites
-Took a longer time to shoot armed whites than armed blacks