Studies Used Flashcards
Int = Results and interpretation; Px = Participant/s (19 cards)
How do you test MSR?
Wk3: The Self
Children with a dot on their forehead in front of a mirror
DV: do they try to remove the dot from their own forehead, or reach for their reflection?
Int: Reaching for their own forehead = they have identified they are the person in the mirror
How do you test the effect of self-verification?
Wk3: The Self
Px self-select into low or high self-evaluators then presented a speech to two “raters”
IV: one gave positive, and the other gave negative feedback
DV: px then chose which rater they would prefer to interact with
Int: Low SE preferred neg raters 90%; High SE preferred pos raters ~70%
The Power of Self-Verification (Robinson & Smith-Lovin, 1992)
How do you test the effect of alcohol on self-esteem?
Wk3: The Self
Female px self-select into low-/ high-SE, and then engage with attractive male confederate
IV: either given alcohol (L) , or stay sober (C)
DV: self-rated anxiety (A) and observer-rated self-disclosure (D)
Int: High-SE had no effect of L on A or D; Low-SE decreased A and increased D in L compared to C
Drunk Flirting Study (Monahan & Lannutti, 2000)
How do you test social group schemas?
Wk4: Social Cognition
Px presented with a random person
IV: person labelled as depressed (D), not depressed (N), or no info (C)
DV: px’ rating of various factors (e.g. overweight, attractive, extraverted, etc.)
Int: D rated less attractive, less extraverted, less successful, takes care of self less, and more overweight compared to N or C.
Schemas of People with Depression (Ziano & Koc, 2023)
How do you test facial appearance on prejudice
Wk4: Social Cognition
Collect database of individuals face and their score on anti-black prejudice measures
IV: prejudiced (P) vs non-prejudiced (N) images presented to px
DV: how prejudiced the px rated them
Int: px predicted racist measure above chance
Facial Structure & Racial Prejudice (Hehman et al., 2013)
How to you test the positive and negative effects of attractiveness?
Wk4: Social Cognition
Px (M and F) tasked with reading a resume
IV: same (S) or opposite (O) gender, attractive (A) or unattractive (U) job applicant
DV: selection decision (D) and desire for interaction (I)
Int: D higher for U of O, I rated higher for A of O
Positive and Negative Effects of Attractiveness (Agthe et al., 2011)
How do you test effects of clothing and accessories on perception?
Wk4: Social Cognition
Px tasked with rating job applications
IV: candidates have (F) or do not have (C) facial piercings
DV: rated suitability for the role (S), and other factors
Int: Px rated F as lower S, conscientiousness, moral character, and trustworthiness - effect greater for working adults
Facial Piercings and Perceptions of Job Applications (McElroy et al., 2014)
What are “Thin Slices”?
Wk4: Social Cognition
- Test effect of small instances of actions or behaviours on perception
- lasts from seconds to a few minutes
e.g. A live photo of a person, instead of a static image
e.g. A 1-10 second audio of a person, instead of a written quote
How do you test behaviour attribution?
Wk4: Social Cognition
Black px presented written description of a white ally
IV: says he continues with the cause (C), and that he is either criticised (P) or rewarded (R) for it
DV: rated tenacity and genuine motive
Int: both DVs P>C>R
Allyship and Attribution (Thai & Nylund, 2024)
How do you test the self-fulfilling prophecy?
Wk4: Social Cognition
Students given a test, results are given to teachers
IV: students are “bloomers” (B), where they have greater potential for intelligence or not (C)
DV: students grades after a year
Int: B was randomly assigned, yet grades were higher for B than C, showing teachers who thought those students would do better, gave them the opportunity to do better in school
“Bloomers” and the Self-Fulfilling Prophecy (Rosenthal & Jacobson,1968)
How do you test the mere exposure effect?
Wk5: Attitude
Four female confederates pose as students, not interacting with students
IV: either attend 0, 5, 10, or 15 lectures
DV: students rate likelability
Int: students rated confederate likeability on lectures attended (exposure)
Exposure and Liking (Moreland & Beach, 1992)
How do you test evaluative conditioning on attitudes
Wk5: Attitude
Present ad for root beer with country music
IV: px previously self-select into those who like (L) and dislike (D) country music
DV: rated likelability of the beer
Int: attitude towards beer correlates with attitude toward country music
Evaluative Conditioning and Country Music (Redker & Gibson, 2009)
How do you test observational learning?
Wk5: Attitudes
Mothers presented their toddlers with two toys
IV: mother modelled positive (P) or negative (N) reaction to toy
DV: toddlers reaction (R) and avoidance (A) towards toy
Int: toddler’s R and A corresponded with mother (boys exhibited no response rather than negative)
Observational Learning in Toddlers (Gerull & Rapee, 2002)
How do you test selective exposure of attitudes?
Wk6: Attitude Change
Px attitudes towards 4 AO measured
IV: presented 8 articles of 4 AO of both ACI and ANI
DV: selection of and time spent reading articles
Int: Px preferred ACI to ANI
Attitudes and Selective Exposure (Knobloch-Westerwick & Meng, 2009)
How do you test selective interpretation?
Wk6: Attitude Change
Identify proponents and opponents to the death penalty
IV: show them either a pro- or anti-death penalty article (both aligned (A) and unaligned (U) with their beliefs)
DV: rated convincingness and reliability of studies
Int: A rated DV better than U
Selective Interpretation and the Death Penalty (Lord et al., 1979)
How would you test message channel efficacy?
Wk6: Attitude Change
Present likelable (L) and dislikeable (D) arguments for a trimester system at UQ
IV: audio (A) vs. visual (V) vs. written (W)
DV: attitude towards trimester system
Int: DV sig higher for L than D in A and V; no L/D influence on W
Channel, Source, Likeability, and Attitude Change (Chaiken & Eagly, 1983)
How do you test moral reframing?
Wk6: Attitude Change
Gather px political orientation and gather response to pro-environmental argument
IV: presented with compassionate (K), patriotic (P), or neutral (C) slant
DV: pro-environmental attitudes
Int: Sig diff in K and C; no sig diff in P between conservatives and liberals; P frame sig diff from K and C for conservatives
Moral Reframing and Attitude Environments (Wolsko et al., 2016)
How do you test efficacy of cognitive dissonance towards attitude change?
Wk6: Attitude Change
Put adverts for vegetarian option at the zoo
IV: no ad (C), dissonance ad (D), alternative choice (A) and a combined D+A ad (K)
DV: vege/ total burgers sold
Int: C=A < D=K
Using Dissonance to Promote Vegetarian Choices? (Bouwman et al., 2022)
How do you test efficacy of psychological inoculation?
Wk6: Attitude Change
Px presented with 2 correct (C) , 3 incorrect (I) tweets
IV: pre-test (B), shown misinfo techniques, then post-test (A)
DV: rated reliability in B and A
Int: I rated sig lower in A than B; no sig diff for C
Inoculation vs. Misinformation (Roozenbeek & van der Linden, 2019)
