Experiments (post-midterm) Flashcards
1
Q
Ringelmann’s research on pulling power
A
- 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
2
Q
Ingham et al. (rope pull)
A
- 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)
3
Q
social loafing by williams & karau
A
- 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
4
Q
dawkins theories about pro social behavior
A
selection: help others to preserve copies of our genes
reciprocation: help others with the knowledge that they will help us back
5
Q
Burnstein, Crandall & Kitayama (inclusive fitness and helping) scenario study
A
- 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
6
Q
Burnstein, Crandall & Kitayama (inclusive fitness and helping) hypothesized famine
A
- who would you save during hypothesized famine
- tend to help people between 10-20 the most
- help younger more than older
7
Q
Woman in distress by Latane & Rodin’s
A
- 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)
8
Q
diffusion of responsibility by latane & darlkey (epilepsy experiment)
A
- 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)
9
Q
50 years of bystander effect research by Fischer et al.
A
- 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
10
Q
eisenberg & miller review article (empathy altruism…)
A
- -
11
Q
Sibicky et al. on quality of help given
A
- 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
12
Q
negative state relief model testing by Regan et al.
A
- 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
13
Q
when negative state relief model works by cialdini et al.
A
- 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
14
Q
positive state empathy vs negative state empathy by Cialdini et al.
A
- 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
15
Q
positive state and helping by Isen et al.
A
- 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
16
Q
the pratfall effect by Aronson
A
- 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
17
Q
does arousal increase attraction by Dutton & Aron
A
- 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
18
Q
does arousal always increase attraction by white et al.
A
- 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
19
Q
dissociation hypothesis by hovland & weiss
A
- 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
20
Q
news anchor nonverbal cues by mullen at al.
A
- 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
21
Q
participant forced nonverbal cues by wells & petty
A
- 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
22
Q
distraction and persuasion by festinger
A
- p. watched unpopular message with: distraction or not
- distraction: message played over fun cartoon
distracted individuals were more persuaded
23
Q
counterarguments theory by osterhouse & brock
A
- 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
24
Q
learning theory (and why it’s wrong) by Zimbardo
A
- did the distraction experiment with positive vs negative distraction
- no difference in persuasion effect using +ive or -ive distractions
25
relevance and mindlessness by langer et al.
- 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
26
risky shift by stoner
- evaluated group opinion before and after discussion
- average opinion became risker after discussion
*can also become more cautious as shown in future reasearch*
27
social facilitation in cockroaches by zajonc et al.
- 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*
28
social facilitation in humans by micheals et al.
- 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
29
cognitive dissonance by Festinger & Carlsmith
- 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
30
initiation experiment by aronson & mills
- 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
31
harm done to whom? by cooper et al.
- 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*
32
counter-attitudinal essay (communism) by linder et al.
- 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*
33
counter-attitudinal essay (marijuana) by nel et al.
- 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*
34
CD experiment
- showed dissonance in canadians (individualist) caused by self-inconsistency harm to SE
- no dissonance in japanese (collectivist) suggests so harm to SE
35
inducing dissonance in collectivists
- 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
36
manipulated arousal and dissonance by cooper et al.
- 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
37
drinking in college by prentice & miller
- 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
