Flashcards in Exam IIII Deck (77):
1
Attractiveness:
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
2
Outgroup bias:
Behavioral component
Emotional component
Cognitive component
Behavioral component- discrimination
Emotional component-prejudice
Cognitive component-stereotyping
3
Prejudice difficulties
-Hard to measure: want to be socially desirable or unaware of their bias
4
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
5
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
Cons:
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)
6
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)
Results:
-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
7
IAT vs Survey
Ex:
-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
Results:
-People favored pro white more than pro black on IAT
-On survey they are showing much more neutral bias
Conclusion:
-IAT = more sensitive measure
8
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
9
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
Cons:
1) Stereotype African American (Diagnostic)
2) Stereotype White (Diagnostic)
3) Control African American (Non-diagnostic)
4) Control White (Non-diagnostic)
Results:
-Whites did better/scored higher in Diagnostic condition than African Americans
-Both groups were about the same, didn't have much of an effect
10
Stereotype threat: Specify ethnicity
Ex:
-Asked ethnicity first (Priming ethnicity) or last on a test
-Dv: Test performance
Cons:
1) White, race prime
2) Black, race prime
3) White, No race prime
4) Black, No race prime
Results:
-Whites scores much higher than blacks in race prime group
-No race prime conditions shows less differences
Conclusion:
More effective to have it at the end
11
Taking advantage groups and creating a stereotyping effect
Ex:
-Male engineering majors, perfect math SAT scores
-Gave them the math GRE
Cons:
1) Control (Not told anything)
2) Stereotype threat (Asked why asian students tents to score high in math fields)
Results:
Stereotype group scored lower
Conclusion:
Caused by inferior complex/distractions
12
Female college students. asian americans doing math test
Ex:
Cons:
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
13
Causes of prejudice
-Economic and political competition/conflict
-Maintenance of status/self-image
-Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian personality trait
-Conformity
14
Job applicant's, Jewish and Italian
Ex:
-Participants had their self esteem lowered or raised to start with then rated job applicants
Cons:
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
15
Causes of prejudice:
Dispositional prejudice: Authoritarian personality trait
-genetic component
16
Causes of prejudice:
Conformity
Examples:
-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
17
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
18
Weapons of influence:
Ex: Langer, Cut in line at a copy machine
Cons:
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)
19
Approaches to Attraction:
Exchange relationships
Communal relationships
Exchange relationships- unimportant, acquaintances, coworkers, not friends w
Communal relationships- close relationships, family, partners, friends
20
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
Cons:
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
21
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
22
Ex: Men on Scary/stable bridge, then giving TAT (selection bias)
Dv: Sexual content described in TAT, did men call experimenter
Cons:
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
23
Study 2
Ex: Just scary bridge Bridge, (no selection bias)
Dv: Sexual content described in TAT, did men call experimenter
Cons:
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
24
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
25
Response Facilitation Model:
Ex: Male Participants and attractive female confederate
Cons:
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
26
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
27
Balance Theory (cog dissonance)
-We like our relationships to be balanced
Do multiplication shortcut:
+ = balanced
- = unbalanced
-People try to downplay unbalancedness in their relationships
28
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
29
Self-evaluation maintenance theory
Ex:
-work on a task together
-DV: helping partner, (high helping= giving best tips to partner)
Cons:
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
Conclusion:
30
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
31
Gain-loss Theory
Ex:
-Participant and confed. target
-experimenter talks to partner about participant
-Target rates participant either..
Cons:
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)
32
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
33
Grant us favors:
Ex: Soda
-Participant had a confed partner, took a break
Cons:
1) confed sat down
2) confed gave soda to participant
Then asked to help stack paper
Results: Helped more when not given soda
34
Receive favors from us
Ex:
-Participants in a study
-DV: How much they liked the experimenter
Cons:
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
35
Receiving favors from us
Ex: Electric shocks
Cons:
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)
36
Attractiveness
Ex:
-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)
37
Matching level of attractiveness:
-Will initially pick most attractive person
-But will be in longer relationships w people who match their level of attractiveness
38
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
39
Women's investment:
Men's investment
Women:
-invest physically
-Getting pregnant
-Having baby
Mens:
-Resources
-Time
40
Paternal Uncertainty:
Ex
-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
41
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)
Results:
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
42
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)
43
Homosexuals Differential Parental Investment
-Men are consistently seeking someone younger (mid 20's)
-Women's trends are unclear (Slightly older)
44
Pickiness for One night stand
-Women are more reluctant to have a one night stand, while men are more likely
45
College campus
Ex
-Confeds approach people on campus and ask
1) go out w me
2) to my apartment tn
3) go to bed w me
Results:
-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
46
Min amount of intelligence % for diff types of romantic relationships
-Asked men and women
Cons:
1) Date
2) Sex
3) Date steadily
4) Marry
Results:
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)
47
Attractiveness, child in trouble
Ex:
-Attractive kid in trouble= most likely a fluke
-Unattractive kid= more permanent, likely to happen again
48
People consider a romantic partner as more likely by how that partner feel about themselves
Ex
-male college students
-fake IQ test lowered or raised esteem
Cons:
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
49
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
50
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
51
Attractiveness: Do we judge personality based on looks?
-Yes, the more attractive a person the higher their rating for personality
52
Rating of Job Applicants Qualifications
Ex
-Same exact person in two job apps and qualities
Cons:
1) Well groomed
2) Poorly groomed
Results: Rated well groomed more qualified
53
Jurors decide amount of victim compensation criminal should make
Ex
Cons:
1) Victim more attractive
2) Criminal more attractive
Results: Victim gets almost double the money when they are more attractive
54
Attractiveness:
Kids getting into trouble
Ex
-Pics of kids were shown to participants bc these kids got in trouble
Cons:
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
55
Is beauty only skin deep?
Attractive people = attributed more desirable qualities, like higher IQ, more socially desirable traits, etc.
56
Liking and similarity
Ex
and follow up study
- Read scenario of person, varied name of person
-Dv: how likely to help person you are
Cons:
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
57
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
58
hippie/preppy clothed confederate asking for change for a phone call (70's)
Ex
Cons:
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
59
Percent of completed surveys (mailed out)
Ex
Cons:
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
60
How do we feel about compliments?
We like them
61
Familiarity:
mirror image/straight on
-More of us prefer the mirror image of ourselves, bc it's familiar
62
Familiarity:
Read poems and rate if they were written by a man or woman
Ex
-7 poems, confed 1 and confed 2 disagree, participant= tie breaker
Cons:
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)
63
Mere exposure effect: Partners annoying habits
-Over time they become more annoying
-Mere exposure effect only works for things neutral or positive
64
Conflict of mere exposure effect
Does not create more diverse ethnic friendships, liking didn't go up
65
Overcoming conflict:
Contact (w/ other people)
-not enough to solve problems of discrimination/prejudice
66
Overcoming conflict:
Collaboration: Summer camp study
Ex
-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
67
Overcoming conflict:
Collaboration: Jigsaw classroom
Ex
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
Results:
-Motivation to do well did not change
-Kids liked school more, grades increased, ethnic friendships increased
68
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
69
Evidence against African American's:
Car sales
Ex
-Use of diff negotiation strategies to make car sales
Cons:
1) White male
2) White female
3) Black male
4) Black female
Results: White male- sold @ lowest price, black females-sold @ highest price
70
Evidence against African American's
Psych hospital
Ex
-Same # of offenses
Cons:
1) Black patients
2) White patients
Results: Black patients got sig more sanctions
-As staff got to know them though discrimination went down
71
Evidence against African American's:
Applying for jobs, criminal record vs race
Ex
Cons:
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
72
Evidence against African American's:
Black/or white partner, major injury or minor
Ex
-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)
Cons:
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
73
Evidence against African American's:
Job interview setting (Interviewer is the participant)
Ex
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
74
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
75
Using life choice as justifications for discrimination:
-Homosexuals
-Overweight ppl
Easier to discriminate against if u see their "condition" as a "lifestyle choice"
76
Discrimination:
Life choice/or not Overweight
Ex
Dv: Smiling, eye contact, rudeness, friendliness, rate at which they ended interaction
Cons:
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
77