Studies for exam Flashcards

(37 cards)

1
Q

Bryan & Test

A

social modelling

broken down car on motorway

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Sherif

A

conformity

autokinetic effect - dots on screen movement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Asch

A

conformity

line judgement task

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Freedman & Fraser (1966)

A

foot in the door

assigned to request v no request

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Cialdini et. al (1975)

A

door in the face

assigned request v no request

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Santos et. al (1994)

A

pique

asking for donation 37c or quarter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Asch

A

obedience

punishment shocking thing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Freeman et. al (1975)

A

social impact theory - decreases as targets increase

tipping of server parties of 1-6 people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Norman Triplett (1898)

A

presence of others
cycling race
faster when in competition

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Sherif et. al (1954)

A

realistic conference theory - robbers cave

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Hovard & Sears (1940)

A

intergroup violence

drop of cotton prices = more lynchings

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Adler et. al (2000)

A

relative deprivation
stress study
greater deprivation = sleep hard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Cohen et. al (2008)

A

relative deprivation
virus study
low in subjective deprivation = low in cold(20%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Walker & Maan (1987)

A

relative deprivation
unemployed australians
IBD lead to stress, GBD leas to protest

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Taifel et. al (1971)

A

minimal group paradigm
distributing money to in/out group
75% favoured in group

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Dijk, Koenig, Ketelaar & de Jong (2011)

A

blushing + trustworthiness
defects second round
blushing restores trustworthiness

17
Q

Feinberg, Willer, Keltner

A

embarrassment + prosociality

reported greater tendency to feel embarrassed = more prosocial in game

18
Q

Leary et. al (1995)

A

sociometer

rated valuableness

19
Q

Williams et. al (2000)

A

cyberball task

20
Q

Williams et. al (2000)

A

rejection conformity study
using asch line thing but geometric shapes
rejected more likely to say they had seen shapes if they hadnt

21
Q

Leary et. al (1995)

A

prosociality to excluders

spicy food thing

22
Q

Maner et. al (2007)

A

connection vs aggression
excluded participants allocated less reward to partner who chose to leave
mor reward to new partner

23
Q

Spencer, Steele & Quinn (1999)

A

stereotype threat

women do worse in maths test when told about gender differences

24
Q

Davies, Spencer & Steele (2005)

A

stereotype threat
future aspirations in leadership
gendered commercials, gendered ad condition = women chose problem solving, men not bothered

25
Woodcock et. al (2012)
domain disidenitification asked about being a scientist high threat = less identification
26
Greenwald (1998)
implicit association test (attitudes) attitude object paired with good/bad word faster reaction time showed stronger association between attitude and negative/positive feelings
27
Miller & Morrison (2009)
attitudes on alcohol | if thought others did not support alcohol, did not talk about it
28
Kunda (1987)
vested interests | women and coffee
29
Mata et. al (2015)
elaboration likelihood model | smoking and depressed table heuristic processing
30
Wolsko, Ariceaga & Seiden (2016)
jiu jitsu | climate change for americans messages
31
Bryan et. al (2016)
jiu jitsu persuasion | teenagers eating healthily through ads
32
Maddux & Rogers (1983)
fear smoking high fear + efficacy = high intention low efficacy + high fear = less intention to quit
33
Kahneman & Deaton (2010)
income and swb measured SWB and stress happiness plateaus at a point
34
Luttner (2004)
income swb | unhappier when neighbours earn more than them
35
Brickman et. al (1978)
income and swb serious life events - lotto + paralysis lottery winners not happier than control paralysed enjoyed everyday as much as controls
36
Lucas (2007)
set point theory starting points then marriage/widowhood unemplyment does set point change
37
Simmons, Nelson & Simonsohn (2011)
replication crisis