Social Psychology - Compulsory reading

What did Greenwald et al. found out about implicit racism? How does one measure that?

- 9 out of 10 White participants who expressed little or no racial prejudice on explicit measures of prejudice took longer to identify Black than White faces with 'good' on the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998). - Measuring using the Implicit Association Test (IAT).

What are some critics about the IAT?

- Construct validity: does it test personal attitudes or social stereotypes? - Predictive validity: does the scores predict actual behaviour? - Implicit measures (such as the IAT) do not rely on participants' ability to report their inner beliefs accurately (people's ability to introspect is limited), and do not rely on people's willingness to report private knowledge (people may be unwilling to say how they really feel because of social desirability concerns).

What is the relistic conflict theory, and what can one do to lower this (contact hypothesis)?

- Negative relations between social groups are based on real competition for scarce resources. Contact reduce prejudice under certain conditions: 1. Contact is frequent and prolonged. 2. Contact is with stereotypical members of the group. 3. Contact is done with a genuine aspiration for improving relations. 4. Contact occurs between individuals of equal status. 5. Contact is free from competition. 6. Contact is supported by formal structures (e.g., education, government policy). 7. Contact is organized around the achievement of superordinate goals.

a) What is prejudice? b) What are meta-stereotypes? c) What is discrimination?

- Prejudice: A preconceived negative judgement of a group and its individual members. - Meta-stereotypes: The stereotype that we believe a specific outgroup holds about our ingroup. - Discrimination: Unjustified negative behavior toward a group or its members.

What does social facilitation theory and social loafing mean?

- Social facilitation: (1) original meaning: the tendency of people to perform simple or well-learned tasks better when others are present (2) current meaning: the strengthening of dominant (prevalent, likely) responses in the presence of others - Social loafing: the tendency for people to exert less effort when they pool their efforts towards a common goal than when they are individually accountable. free-riders: people benefiting from the group but giving little in return.

What is the ABC model of attitudes? What are 3 common attitude scales used in social psychology?

- a multidimensional perspective stating that attitudes are jointly defined by affect (e.g., I dislike immigrants) , behavior (e.g., I will vote for X political party), and cognition (e.g., Immigrants take our jobs!) . 1. Thurstone Scale: having 22 intependant statements, making participants rate their feelings each of the items on a scale from 1-11. 2. Likert Scale: same as thurstone, but by using only 5 statements, visualising the scale more (for ex. 1 = strongly disagree, 5 = highly agree). 3. Osgood's semantic differentiate scale: not using statements, but feelings on a topic on a bipolar scale.

What is the authoritarian personality? What are som findings conserning this personality type?

- a personality that is disposed to favour obedience to authority and intolerance for outgroups and those of lower status. 1. Prejudice toward Jewish people coincided with hostility toward other minorities. 2. Ethnocentric people share a submissive respect for their ingroup's authorities. 3. Being raised by parents with a strict and harsh parenting style has been linked with the authoritarian personality.

What are the main characteristics of quantitative research?

- approach to research aimed at studying the relationship between variables. Variables are expressed numerically, and their relationships are explored via statistical analyses. - Pursue the systematic measurement of phenomena, often in controlled laboratory settings. - Make predictions about the outcome of research. - Aim at establishing general laws and principles about types of phenomena.

What is groupthink? Under what conditions is groupthink most likely to occur? How can it be prevented?

- the mode of thinking that persons engage in when concurrence-seeking becomes so dominant in a cohesive in-group that it tends to override realistic appraisal of alternative courses of action. - groupthink is most likely to occur in an amiable, cohesive group, in relative isolation to opposite viewpoints, including a directive leader. How to prevent groupthink: - be impartial - encourage critical evaluation - occasionally subdivide the group - welcome critiques from experts

What are Caldianis 6 principles of persuasion?

1. Authority: People defer to credible experts (Establish your expertise; identify problems you have solved and people you have served) 2. Liking: People respond more affirmatively to those they like (Win friends and influence people. Create bonds based on similar interests, praise freely) 3. Social proof: People allow the examples of others to validate how to think, feel, and act (Use 'peer power' - have respected others lead the way) 4. Reciprocity: People feel obliged to repay in kind what they've received (Be generous with your time and resources. What goes around comes around) 5. Consistency: People tend to honour their public commitments (Have others write or voice their intentions. Don't say: «Please do this by...» Instead, elicit a YES by asking) 6. Scarcity: People prize what's scarce (Highligth genuinly exclusive information or opportunities).

What are 5 critical issues in psychological research?

1. Statistical vs. Practical significance 2. Spurious relationships 3. Causality 4. Third factor 5. Validity: are the measures valid indicators of the construct they are meant to assess

What are the factors that determine obedience?

1. The victims distance. Can you see them or not? 2. The authoritys`s legitimacy and closeness. With the experimenter in the same room, or on the tlf? 3. wheter or not the authority was part of a respected institution. 4. the liberating effects of a disobedient fellow pericipant.

The three crucial points in Darley and Latané's decision tree are:

1. notice the event 2. interpret it as a/an emergency 3. assume responsibility

Tell me about Nosek et als. "Open Science collaboration" (2015), and what can cause the results found in this study?

A colloborate effort to obtain an initial estimate of reproducibility of psychological science. By using Effect size, Meta-analysis, Subjective assessments, Analysis of moderators and Significance P-values. Result: No data sufficiently describes replication rates, considering the use of the five indicators - only 1/3 of effects where replicated, contributing to the so-called "replication crisis". But: there are some historical values to the experiments, because it helps us to understand environmental and cultural effects. Publication bias by the researchers may be a result of this, confirmation bias and some information left out by the original study (spurius relations).

What is the ASI? What does it look like?

A template of questions, which taps 2 positively corre-lated components of sexism that nevertheless represent opposite evaluative orientations toward women: Hostile Sexism (HS) and a subjectively positive (for sexist men) orientation toward women, Benevolent Sexism (BS). HS and BS are hypothesized to encompass 3 sources of male ambivalence: Paternalism (dominance + care), Gender Differentiation, and Heterosexuality. Protective Paternalism: 1. A good woman should be set on a pedestal 2. Women should be cherished and protected by men 3. Men should sacrifice to provide for women 4. In a disaster, women need not be rescued first* Complementary Gender Differentiation 1. Women have a superior moral sensibility 2. Women have a quality of purity few men possess 3. Women have a more refined sense of culture, taste Heterosexual Intimacy 1. Every man ought to have a woman he adores 2.Despite accomplishment, men are incomplete without women

Tell me about Drurys "The Nature of Collective Resilience: Survivor Reactions to the 2005 London Bombings" (2009), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

Accounts from over 90 survivors and 56 witnesses of the 2005 London bombings were analysed to determine the relative prevalence of mass behaviors associated with either psychosocial vulnerability (e.g. 'selfishness', mass panic) or collective resilience (e.g. help, unity). Three main orders of data: contemporaneous newspaper material, archive personal accounts, and primary data. Results: (a) a perceived continued danger of death after the explosions; (b) a sense of unity amongst at least some survivors, arising from this perceived danger; (c) a link between this sense of unity and helping; and (d) risk-taking to help strangers. Collective resilience', based on self-categorization theory, according to which common fate entails a redefinition of self (from 'me' to 'us') and hence enhanced concern for others in the crowd. Concepts: social achievemnt, emergent norm theory, social identity, normative influence Critics and replications: not all witnesses were analyzed, there are still more people out there sitting with information that could change these results. Another is the pressure and bias made by media, which may have made the voices narrowed down to heroism or pure voulnerability. Maybe "panic" is not a suited word?

Tell me about Latanè and Darly's "Bystander" study.

As a result of a woman getting stabbed, followed, raped and killed in New York, having 38 people seeing this and reporting it in to the Police (1964), Martin Gansberg (journalist) was shocked. This came in the newspaper. How could this be? Latanè and Darly wanted to find evidence to what they claimed to be the reason for this: diffusion and a definition problem. 1. The Seizure experiment. 72 New York students were told to discuss personal problems at the university's corridor. Having a headset and directed to each room, sitting alone, they were to say their problems (hearing each other) for two minutes (others could then not talk) and made to believe that the expperimenter were going to listen to the discussion later (to not make him in charge if something happens). After some discussion, one student (confederate) had a seizure while saying that in the microphone. Results: no bystander - 85% chance of helping, one bystander - 65% chance of helping, 4 bystanders - 31% chance of helping. Same results found in the "White smoke" experiment: - 75% chance of repporting when alone. - 38% chance of repporting when with others. - Summary: introduction of the "diffusion of responsibility" and "pluralistic ignorance", as well as the five-step model of the cognitive-desicion making. Critics: bystander effect may dizzolve when the social-identity is bigger, and social norms vary.

Tell me about Aronson et al.'s "Jigsaw Classroom" (1978) study.

As a result of seemingly more limited academic acheievement of African American and White students in newly disegregated schools, Aronson and collegues were hired to see if they could do something about it. Since the 4 conditions highlighted by allport wasn't applicable to these cicumstances, Aronson had to come up with something else, inspired by Sherif's study on realistic conflict theory and Festingers cognitive dissonance. Method: dividing the class into groups of 6, each group names a leader. The lesson contains 6 segments (e. g. famous person), where each student is responsible for getting as much info on their given segment, having the ability to listen to other students of the same segment. After minutes of extracting information, the group gathers to share each segment given. Results of different experiments using this idea: - Nancy Blaney et al., concluded showing increased liking towards one another and higher self-esteem. - Lucher et al., concluded showing increased academical performance. Critics: the long-term impact of this technique is limited, and it focused too much on the immidiate outcome more than the process.

Tell me about Hamilton and Gifford's "Stereotypoe formation: illusory correlation studies" (1976), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

As a result of the cognitive revolution in psychology, socialogists tried to find reasons behind racism and the formation of social stereotypes. For amilton and Gifford, using illusory correlation might explain this. Attention is bigger towards minorities, and with that associated with abnormal behaviour - discimination stores easier in our memory. Would people tend to favor majority over minority? By conducting 2 experimets, emerging the illusory correlation model: - Participants were presentet with 39 statements (described either positive or negative) about behaviour towards two groups (A or B). Ex. "John, from group A, lies frequently about small sums of money". Equal amount of negative and positive statements to each group. - Being told that group B is smaller than group A, and that statements about group B occurs less frequently. - Three measures: assignment (participants reaction on each statement), frequency (participants indicating number of negative behaviour) and trait ratings of the people in the statemnts. Results: the participants remembered more negative behaviour towards the minority group (B). In the secound experiment, where the the majority group was more associated with negative behaviour, the minority was associated with positive behaviours. Model is still alive today, with few adjustments.

Tell me about Milgrams studies of obedience (1965).

By conducting an experiment with 40 men, mixed of 26-50 year olds, to participate in pairs (one of them a confederate), dividing them into a learner and teacher, to study learning amount and memorization (actually obedience). Using deception, the confederate have a 100% chance of getting the learner role, having rocorded expressed bahviour of shocks gradully increasing pain-cues. Seeing how far the participants would go, and see wheter or not some would go all the way up to a severe amount of schock (370 volts). At 330 the "learner" falls silent. Results: 65% progressed all the way up to 450 volts. Making people scared and Milgram disturbed of this, they found out factors that determined obedience. Critics: etical guidelines. Replication done by Burger and collegues found out that the use of language is crucial, since saying that "If this was Russia, maybe, but not in America", made all the participants refuse to continue.

Tell me about Bigler and Libens "Developmental Intergroup Theory: Explaining and Reducing Children's Social Stereotyping and Prejudice" (2006), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

By conducting experiments using the DIT factors (perceptual discriminability, proportional group size, explicit labelling and use, implicit use, explicit attributions and implicit) on children to see what makes development of social stereotypes and prejudice. Results: Higher bias when groups where perceptually marked, unequal in size, labeled by teachers, segregated and that behaviour linked to positive traits. Resulting in discovering the developmental intergroup theory. Critics and replications: ethical implications.

Tell me about Tajfel's minimal group studies (1971), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

By conducting studies that had 6 features: 1. No face-to-face interaction, 2. Anonymity, 3. No link between categorization into groups and response requests, 4. no utilitarian value from responsens, 5. if one group receives, it must be more than the other, 6. responsens are made real and important - to observe minimal conditions for conflict to emerge. Social categorization was established in two different ways, on complete arbitrary basis, to form the groups. Then having them complete reward metrices, choosing how much pints they would give to the outgroup and the ingroup. Differences in matrixes used for points between experiment 1 and 2, making matrix 1 with grater differences than matrix 2. Results: Experiment 1 showed more fairness, and can be explained to be caused by the bigger differences in points given. The boys in this study seemed to favour their ingroup, at the expanse of the outgroup, even though the groups themselves had minimal context. - The beginning of social identity theory. Critics: Tajfel and coworkers considered a) demand characteristics, b) idea of reciprocity and c) anticipation of future interaction. Later studies suggested results of greater discrimination towards a similar outgroup, and stronger feeling of reciprocity when given rewards by the ingroup.

Tell me about Branscombes "Perceiving Pervasive Discrimination among African American" (1999) study, and what can cause the results found in this study?

By having 139 African Americans (64 men, 72 women, 3 unspecified interviwed, researcher read 10 statements (e.g., suppose that you go to look at an apartment for rent. The manager of the building refuses to show it to you, saying that it has already been rented) and they rated the extent to which they would attribute to prejudice. Then answered to amount of felt minority group identification: "I feel a strong attachment to my own ethnic group" 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Lastly to how much personal self-esteem: "helplessness, lifeless, depression, sadness, and unhappy" 1 (experience very infrequently) to 7 (experience very frequently). - Results: in-group identification may buffer the negative effects of prejudice on well-being, making the identification-rejection model. Later study suggested that when group identity is less "visible", group members may "deal" with discrimination by "leaving" their group. - Concept: collective self-esteem, social identity theory and health. Critics: this identification-rejection model may not be applicable to all. Rather than showing results of social identity, maybe just showing results of cultural beliefs? Can one generalize these findings?

Tell me about Savitskys "People notice us less than we think!" (2001) study, and what can cause the results found in this study?

By having 260 psychology students randomly allocated to be an Actor vs. Observer, where actors were asked to imagine themselves in a scenario, and observers were asked to imagine someone in a scenario. After each scenario, they were asked a question where they are to give a number between 0 (not at all) to 10 (a great deal) of how much bothered attention they'd get (likert scale and interview). - Result: what we agonize over, others may hardly notice or forgets easily. Spotlight-effect suggest these result. - Critics: maybe the questions were answered because of spotlight-effect? Self-serving bias? Overconfidence phenomenon?

Tell me about Festinger and Carlsmiths "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance" (1959), and what can cause the results found in this study?

By having 71 male students from Stanford University, dividing them into 3 groups, making them individually walk in and for an experiment, giving them either no money, 1 dollar or 20 dollars to lie to the next person waiting outside the room, and record how many who would do it. Results: those paid 1 dollar were more likely to lie, 20 dollars secound and no money earned last. Concepts: cognitive dissonance, insuffiecient justification (those who got paid 1 dollar). Attitudes and behaviour. Critics: are we to generalize findings from a study which only used males? Maybe the environment inflicted? - The phenomena cognitive dissonance has been replicated many times over the years, but not always across cultures. Cognitive dissonance only occurs when behavior is voluntary, and the need for consistency also influence our self-concept

Tell me about Hyde et als. "The gender similarities hypothesis" (2005) study, and what can cause the results found in this study?

By looking at males and females, finding out how much they differ in psychological characteristics (aggression) using meta-analysis, locating all 46 studies using databases, such as PsycINFO. Statistics are extracted from each report, and an effect size is computed for each study. A weighted average of the effect sizes is computed. Then a Homogeneity analyses is made. - Results: very few differences between genders, not including throwing axe and agression. - Critics: Practical significance (p-value) vs statistical significance (effects size) suggests that even though we find little difference in these findings, it doesn't mean we can generalize this to the world. Ecological validity is in question, as well as spurious relations.

Tell me about Henrich et als. "Most people are not WEIRD" (2010) study, and what can cause the results found in this study?

By looking at the origin of the journals of Psychological findings, trying to find out how many of the participants that are from WEIRD contries. - Results: 96% of those completing the surveys were WEIRD, although only housing 12% of the world. How can one generalize such findings? They need to provide evidence of generalization, give credit for comparing diverse and inconvenient subject pools, cross-cultural and cross-disciplinary findings and give population-distribution and understanding. - Critics: people who are to read and who can afford these studies, are mostly of the same GNI and are therefore relavant. Practical vs statistical significance are in question here.

Tell me about Zimbardos "Stanford Prison Experiment" (1971), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

By simulating a prison in the basement of Stanford university in 1971. Recruited N = 21 healthy, middle class male college students to play the role of either prison guard or prisoner in exchange for $15 per day. No difference in level of authoritarianism (e.g., "people should leave important decisions to those in charge") between prison guards and prisoners. Zimbardo's instructions to guards: "Maintain law and order, do not let the prisoners escape". 3 meals, 3 supervised toilet visits, 2 hours for reading/writing, and exercise periods. Results: about 1/3 [of guards] became tyrannical in their arbitrary use of power... becoming quite inventive in their techniques of breaking the prisoners and making them feel worthles.. Many people, perhaps the majority, can be made to do almost anything when put in psychologically compelling situations - regardless of their morals, ethics, values, attitudes, beliefs, or personal convictions... The mere act of assigning labels to people, such as 'prisoners' and 'guards' and putting them in situations where these labels acquire validity and meaning, is sufficient to elicit pathological behavior... Concepts: Deindividuation, role conformity, role schema, normative influence Critics and replications: Long-term harmful effects - Unethical: participants felt they could not leave. Zimbardo did not intervene when guards became increasingly abusive toward prisoners. - Implications for ethical approval: making direct replications of the study impossible.

Tell me about Shutts "Early preschool environments and gender: Effects of gender pedagogy in Sweden" (2017), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

By testing 80 3-6 years old Swedish children gender category salience, playmate preferences, and gender stereotyping, with one group from a gender-neutral kindergarden and one normal. - Salience phase included showing them pictures of 16 animals, and they where to answer which person (among 4 people, 2 boys, 2 girls) saw which animal. - Preferance phase showed 14 pairs of pictures (unfamiliar boys og girls), and they were to answer which one they would play with. They also included a photograph of the class and they were asked «Are there any children here you usually play with?». - Streoetyping phase showed a picture of a toy or outfit (e.g., «this is a toy car») and a picture of a girl and boy «Which child you think most likely want to play with the car -Him, Her, or Both equally?» Results: salience: p-value=0,06 - preferance: same-gender choice = 1; Other-gender score = 0; Both = 0.5. Photograph= p-value=0,7. - Stereotyping: Stereotypical responses p=0,009. Conclusion: Attending a gender-neutral kindergarten seems to reduce children's gender stereotypes, but... Concept: Development of Stereotypes in Early Childhood Critics: What are driving these effects? Hypothetical effects? What are the long-term implications? Replications: "Norwegian action plan for gender equality in Kindergarten, 2008-2010"

Tell me about Fuwas "Macro-level Gender Inequality and the division of Household labor in 22 countries" (2004), and what can cause the results found in this study?

By using a Likert Scale, people from approximately 30 countries were asked questions wheter gender attitudes predict couples' division of housework in different countries, deviding the findings between GEM amount = entrepreneurial level, and Egalitarian = equality. - Attitude question: "A man's job is to earn money; a woman's job is to look after the home and family" 0 (strongly agree) to 4 (strongly disagree). - Behaviour question: "Who usually does the housework (e.g., laundry)? 1 (the husband does all) to 5 (the wife does all). Results: where we live, and our culture, accords our attitude. Ironically, wives who live in a more traditional country—who are more likely to be burdened with a traditional division of housework—benefit less from their individual-level assets in the negotiation over housework. This suggests that changes in individual-level factors may not be enough to achieve an equal division of house-work, without the reduction of macro-level gender inequality in economic and political power. Concepts: cultural effects, role schamas. Critics: who answers, may show more equal amount of data. Maybe people practice self-serving bias? Spotlight effect makes them say it is more equal? Biderectional relationships?

How did Asch conduct his "Line judgement study" (1955), what were the results, are there any concepts linked to this, and are there some critics about this?

By using deception, grouping 8 people (7 actors + 1 naive participant), making them look at 1 line and saying outloud which other line has the same size as that one (3 lines they can choose from). Seeing wheter or not the participant would confirm with the rest, even though it was the wrong answer. Result: - Control group: error rate < 1%. - Experimental group: error rate = 37% (75% of participants gave ≥1 incorrect answer). Critics: can this relly be done in other countries as well? Difference in collectivistic and individualistic countries? Confirmation bias? Concept: conformity, compliance. Replications - Meta-analysis by Bond & Smith, 1996: - Milgram replicated Asch line-judgement study in France and Norway in 1957. Experimenter asks: «Skal du stikke deg ut?». Norway error rate increased from 62% to 80% Explanation «If you go around opposing you might be looked upon as bad». - Over time- levels of conformity in the US has declined since the 1950s. - Across cultures- Conformity is higher in collectivist countries (such as Hong Kong) than in individualistic countries (such as US) - Across genders- Women are more likely to conform than men Across age groups. - Younger children are more likely to conform.

Tell me about Cocking and Drurys "Talking about Hillsborough: 'Panic'as Discourse in Survivors'Accounts of the 1989 Football StadiumDisaster" (2014), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

By using discourse analysis - interviewed individually four survivors (three male and one female) of the Hillsborough disaster. Participants were asked to describe their experiences. The interview was organised around the following issues: (i) behaviour: for example, 'what did you and others do during the disaster? Did people help each other out, or behave selfishly'? and (ii) thoughts/feelings: for example,'what were you thinking/feeling? Do you think that anyone 'panicked'? Each interview lasted between 45 and 90 min. The interviews were recorded and transcribed verbatim. Results: Inconsistencies exist in the language used by survivors of disasters. They also attempt to resist the constraints imposed by a pervasive discourse of crowd vulnerability to 'panic'. This resistance could be part of a process that creates a new counter-discourse suggesting the existence of more resilient approaches to crowd emergency behaviour and is consistent with McPhail's (1991) assertion that the term itself is neither a useful description or explanation; the concept should be expunged from thelanguage of social and behavioural science. Concepts: discourse analysis, deindividuation Critics and replications: culture-dependent use of words.

Tell me about Ajzens "The theory of planned behaviour" (1991) , and what can cause the results found in this study?

By using mean within-subjects, discovering correlations between evaluative and affective measures of attitude towards leasure behaviour, correlations between global and belief-based measures of subjective norm and perceived behaviour control. Results: theory of planned behaviour developed - Implying that behaviour is most influenced by: 1. strong and specific attitudes. 2. subjective norms/social pressure. 3. situations perceived to be within our control. Concepts: theory of planned behaviour, attitudes and behaviour. Critics: scale limits, the theory includes very little falsification as its explanation is circular.

Tell me about LaPiere's (1934) "hospitality study", and what can cause the results found in this study?

By visiting 251 establishments with a young Chinese couple, in 1930, across the US. To see wheter they would take them in, by showing up or calling an order. Result: only 1 refused to take them in. But, when asking establishments with a survey 6 months later, 81-94% said no to take them in. Concepts: theory of reasoned action (Fishbein and Ajzen, 1975), and later - theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991). Attitudes and behaviour. Critics: It may not have been the same people answering the survey who welcomed the Chinese couple, the Chinese couple travelled with LaPiere (who was a 'white gentleman') may have caused a social-desirability, the Chinese couple was well-spoken, well-dressed, and charming (contrary to stereotypes of Chinese people at the time).

Prejudice toward women can take the form of ambivalence: hostile and benevolent sexism. What do they mean?

Hostile: A set of attitudes that regards women as inferior to men, assigns women to traditional and subordinate roles, and considers women as sexual objects. Benevolent: A set of paternalistic and positive attitudes toward women that regards women as refined objects to be protected and cared for.

What did the replication of the Stanford Prison Experiment find? BBC prison study.

In BBC replication study: - No evidence that the guards succumbed to their role - Prisoners revolted (on Day 6) - Prisoners and guards temporarily ran the prison along collaborative lines - A group of prisoners and guards proposed a coup to become the 'new guards' and run the prison along authoritarian lines (on Day 7) Conclusion: Tyrannic behavior is a consequence of both individual dispositions and the context in which she or he find themself.

Tell me about Steele and Aronsons "Stereotype threat experiments" (1995), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

In order to find out the impact and possible threats of discimination, Steele and Aronson conducted 3 studies: 1. 117 black and white students (both genders) spent 30 minutes completing a verbal test. Before the test, the group was divided to hear 3 different frames for the task. The group which heard the frame which gave the participants an underpinning of ability, showed results of that black participants performance went down, but white students performance were not changed. However, the results of this was not significant. 2. 20 black and 20 white female participants were devided into the same 3 different frames, but with only 25 minutes, reporting anxiety levels. Here, anxiety levels went up in the underpinning frame for black people, and showed less completed items in the test, but for white students. 3. 35 black and 35 white students randomly assigned to a diagnostic test frame, a non diagnostic test frame or a control condition, then completing a word-completion task to measure wheter thoughts about racial stereotypes, self-doubt and self-handicapping were automatically activated by the test instructions. - Steretoype avoidance: rating a series of activities and personality traits. "How much do you enjoy rap". - Self-handicapping: having participants rate items tthat could offer plausible attributions for poor performance on the test. Results: More negative results from black students. Results of the 3 studies: compelling evidence that subtle situational reminders of negative stereotypes, can impair the intelectual performance of African American university students. Critiques: - Tiring effects may have caused the differencees in scores? - By the use of the small sample size (study 2), can one generalize? - can one find ecological validity in these results? Overhyping these results, and not considering the low rate of replicabillity.

Tell me about Sherifs "Autokinetic illusion study" (1935), and what can cause the results found in this study?

Instructions: When the room is completely dark, I shall give you the signal READY, and then show you a point of light. After a short time, the light will start to move. A few seconds later the light will disappear. Then tell me the distance it moved. First day individually answering, 2nd to fourth day = next to 2 others participating. Method: hearing their answers and seeing how much they differ from the start, and how they differ by the fourth day. Starting as a group vs individully. Results: they were agreeing on the same answer by the fourth day. Those started as a group showed greater difference by the fourth day. Concept: conformity, norm fromation, Replications: Norms induced by a 'confederate' still present after 28 days (Bovard, 1948), or 1 year (Rohrer et al., 1954) - Perceptions converge in other domains (e.g., stereotypes of other groups; Goldberg, 1954) - Convergence (using the original experimental paradigm) only occurs if participants believe there is a "true" answer (Alexander et al., 1970) - People converge more to those they share a group membership with (Abrams et al., 1990)

Tell me about Moscovici's "Blue-green afterimage studies" (1980), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

Moscovicis original study on minority influence showed indeed minority influence, but since these studies were unable to examine the impact of the minority on a more latent/private level of influence, he and his collegue Bernard Personnaz conducted a new study, applying afterimage principles (where the color used allways was blue) to experimental conditions on participants. Randomized control trial, dividing them into majority, minority and control condition. Having them being alone in the first 2 phases, where they: 1. Phase (pre-influence): doing 5 trials, saying what color there is. 2. Phase (influence): being informed about previous participants answers. Majority condition: "green" answer rate = 81,2% and blue answer rate = 18,2 % (reversed in the minority condition). Then doing 15 trials hearing the other participants' answer (afterimage is blue, but the confederate says green). Then being with another participants sitting next to each other (the other a confederate) in following 2 phases: 3. Phase (Post influence: confederate present): 15 trials here, but then suddenly the confederate leaves. 4. Phase (Post-influence: alone): 5 trials on your own. Results: Changes in the perceptual afterimage-answers was greater in the minority influence condition. Critics (Moscovici and Personnanz awareness): questionable about how convincing the participants that the majority condition that over 80% people see the slides being green (lack of source manipulation check, asking participants agreebleness of source). - Sorrentino et al. found out that when participants where to choose color that best matched what they saw, little minority influence where present.

What did the "Norwegian action plan for gender equality in Kindergarten, 2008-2010"-study find?

N = 84 Norwegian 4.5-6 years old boys (20 kindergartens; 0-50% male teachers) - Between-subjects design. Kindergartens with only female teachers vs. Kindergartens with both male and female teachers. - Outcome measures: "Who can [be a] ...?" Roles: Kindergarten teacher, Stay-at-home parent. Behaviors: Hug; Be near other people; Help; Comfort Results: Who can be a kindergarten teacher? In kindergardens where both males and females were teachers, the children aswered "both" can be. Summary: Stereotypes are widespread beliefs about the attributes of social groups. Stereotype development is a function of children's cognition and immediate environment. Once manifested, it is difficult (but not impossible) to change stereotypes.

Tell me about Latanè "Many Hands Make Light the Work: The Causes and Consequences of Social Loafing" (1979), and what can cause the results found in this study?

On eight separate occasions, groups of six under-graduate males were seated in a semicircle, 1 m apart, in a large soundproofed laboratory and told, (1) Make noises, and (2) judge noises." They were told that on each trial "the experimenter will tell you the trial number, who is to perform and whether youare to cheer ( R a h ! ) or clap. Next - without having the opportunity to see or hear the other participants. Result: The average sound pressure generated per person decreased with increasing group size. There was no effect due to blocks of trials, indicating that the subjects needed little or no practice and that their performance was not deleteriously affected by fatigue. In addition, there were no interactions among the variables. The impact that the experimenters have on an individual seems to decrease as the number of coper-formers increases, leading to an apparentdrop in individual performance, a phenome-non we call social loafing. BUT, when the participants couldn't hear or see the others, they made more noice on an individual measure. - Concept: small group processes, social loafing. Critics: despite their inefficiency, groups make possible achievement of many goals that individuals alone could not. Robert Zajonc found out that the presence of others increased the work efficiency on easy tasks rather than hard.

How did Sherif et al. conduct their "SHERIF'S BOYCAMP STUDIES" study, what were the results, are there any concepts linked to this, and are there some critics about this?

Research question: "How are prejudice and discrimination affected by the nature of intergroup relations?" - Method: Having a group of white christian males exposed to: 1. Ingroup formation (2 days of forming friendships. Friends were separated into 2 different groups (Eagles vs. Rattlers), forming social groups). 2. Intergroup conflict (The 2 groups were brought together to compete in a tournament of baseball, tug-of-war, song competitions etc.. Rating of positive traits showed clearly favoritism towards their ingroup). 3. Reduction of intergroup conflict. Results: 2 days of inter-group contact (eating, watching movies etc.) - Contact did not reduce intergroup conflict. Instead, it afforded new opportunities for acts of intergroup hostility. - Co-operative tasks: Repair the water supply, set up a camp etc. Co-operation corresponded with a gradual decrease in name-calling, the use of derogatory terms and so on. - Summary: Contact in itself is not sufficient to reduce intergroup conflict. Successful cooperation is necessary in order to reduce intergroup conflict. With isolation and competition, Sherif made strangers into bitter enemies. With superordinate goals, he made enemies into friends. - Concept: realistic conflict therory, contact hypothesis.

How did and Bian et al. conduct their "Gender stereotypes about intellectualability emerge early and influence children's interests" (2017) study, what were the results, are there any concepts linked to this, and are there some critics about this?

Research question: When do "brilliance" stereotypes emerge in childhood? How: N = 400; 5-7-year-old children were presented with images of a male vs. a female and games for people who are really really smart vs. try really really hard. Outcome measures: 1. Stereotypical beliefs: «Who is really, really smart? Who is really, really nice? He or She?». 2. Stereotypical preferences: «You want to play the Zarkyor Impok game?» - Results: 1. the males said more frequently that males are smarter, and females said more frequently that girls are nicer. 2. boys were more likely to try a game for smart people than girls, but girls were more likely to want to try out a hard game than the boys. Significantly showing difference between 5 and 6 years olds, that boys are way less likely to try a game for smart people when 5 years old than 6 years olds. 6-year-old girls are less likely than boys to believe that members of their gender are "really, really smart.

Tell me about Glick and Fiskes "The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating Hostile and Benevolent Sexism" (1996) study, and what can cause the results found in these studies?

Six ASI studies on 2,250 respondents established convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity. Result: Prejudice can take the form of ambivalence: hostile and benevolent sexism. Women are classified into good vs. bad subcategories. - Benevolent sexism predict positive feelings toward women in traditional roles. - Hostile sexism predict negative feelings toward women in nontraditional roles. - Sexism has changed over time from old-fashion sexism to modern sexism (e.g., discrimination against women is no longer a problem). Critics: but can one find same findings across countries and cultures? Glick et als. study in 2000 (next flashcard)

Tell me about Tripletts "Competition studies" (starting in 1898), and what can cause the results found in this study?

Started off by using archival study, trying to find out wheter athletes would show better results when competing (a) agoinst others, (b) against time and hearing of others records, (c) against time only to see self-records. Finding out they did better when others where competing against them, conducting an experiment to see this more clearer (avvoiding many laws of physiscs that may the a counfounding variable). Method of experiment: using a competive machine (fishing reel), making participants compete agianst each other or alone. N=225, article exclusively on the data from 49 children ranging from 8 to 17 years. Six trials around 30-40 secounds each. RCT. Results: most (20) were stimulated by others presence, and 10 were overstimulated, 10 were little affected. So, with the presence of others seemed to have en energizing and motivating effect on individuals. - Concept: social facilitation theory. Critics: by focusing on the 40 children, are there statistically significance overall in his study? Michael Strobe found (2005) little significance competition effects withing Triplett's data. Carry-over effects may be present in the numbers, since some may belive they are still in a competition when going from competition to individual testing. Nevertheless, it presents compelling information and rationale support that others increases our performance.

Tell me about Glick et als. "Beyond Prejudice as Simple Antipathy: Hostile and Benevolent Sexism Across Cultures" (2000) study.

The ASI was filled out by over 15,000 respondents (both men and women) in 19 nations: - HS and BS correlate positively - HS predicts the ascription of negative traits to women - BS predicts the ascription of positive traits to women - Relative to men, women are more likely to reject HS than BS - HS and BS predict inequality across nations Critics: The cross-cultural comparisons we present are limited. Clearly, future research that replicates these findings with more representative samples from a wider array of nations is desirable.

Tell me about Dufner et al.'s "Are Narcissists Sexy? Zeroing in on the Effect of Narcissism on Short-Term Mate Appeal" (2013) study.

This research was aimed to provide a comprehensive test of the classic notion that narcissistic individuals are appealing as short-term romantic or sexual partners. In three studies, they tested the hypotheses that narcissism exerts a positive effect on an individual's mate appeal and that this effect is mediated by high physical attractiveness and high social boldness. They implemented a multimethod approach and used ratings of opposite sex persons (Study 1), ratings of friends (Study 2), and records of courtship outcomes in naturalistic interactions (Study 3) as indicators of mate appeal. In all cases, narcissism had a positive effect on mate appeal, which was mainly due to the agentic self-enhancement aspects of narcissism (rather than narcissists' lacking communion). As predicted, physical attractiveness and social boldness mediated the positive effect of narcissism on mate appeal. Critics: Study 1 tested the effects of narcissism in a contrived setting; in Study 2, they could not rule out the possibility that narcissists bragged about their mate appeal to their friends who provided the peer-reports, and in Study 3, they used an exclusively male sample (and therefore the findings cannot be generalized to females). Furthermore, it is possible that the attraction mea-sure of Study 3 captured not exclusively mate appeal but also likeability. Future research would certainly do well to use crystal clear operationalizations of mate appeal and to rule out any alternative explanations. Finally, when interpreting the current research, one should keep in mind that it focused on the effect of narcissism on mate appeal in short acquaintances. It does not inform about narcissists' appeal in long-term relationships. Further findings: indicated that narcissism was more strongly linked to mate appeal than to friend appeal.

Tell me about Moscovici and Zavollinis "The group as a polarizer of attitudes" (1969), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

Three experiments were carried out, each differing either with respect to the topics selected for group discussion or to the modalities of the task. Experiments I and II were designed to discover whether group interaction may produce an eventual polari-zation of opinions, while Experiment III dealt with judgments. The total sample comprised 140 subjects. All were volunteers, male french students, ages 18-19. Using likert scale before and after the discussion. Results: (a) group discussion to consensus results in apolarization of responses (b) the polarization effect will be greater when the group must commit itself to a given position (c) the opinions and judgments expressed by the group consensus will often be adopted by the individuals as their personal opinions. (d) the stability of postconsensus responses is greater when the scale expresses group opinions than when it expresses group judgments; (e) the polarization effect, as aresult of group interaction, is not a functionof a majority influence; (/) the polarization of opinions and judgments linked to groupinteraction is more marked when the difference between the initial opinions and judgments of individuals in the group is greater. Concepts: norm formation, group polarization, small group processing, informational influence Critics and replications: The stability of opinions, shown in the postconsensus situation, is inline with Sherif's (193S) observations on norm formation and Lewin's (1952) on groupdecisions.

Tell me about Janis's "Groupthink studies" (1971, 1982), and what can cause the results found in these studies?

To find out how groups of highly intelliegent people fail to make good decisions, Janis dived and analyzed different types of group processes in documents using archical study, providing him with rich and real-life material to explore his ideas. Forming the Groupthink-Model (1971, 1982). Results: even though the groupthink-model was so stricly formed, empirical evidence have prooved little support of the form. But, clear evidence that group dynamics contribute to the quality of collective decision making, have made the model survive. Researchers have proposed multiple reformulations the original model, but the essential still remains: group-decision making is not simply the sum of individuals' decisions, but a result of complex social dynamics. Critiques: Kramer (1998), with wider sets of documents with information than Janis, suggested that some the decisions made was made after careful appraisal of choices. Sally Fuller and Aldag (1998) suggested that the vast majority of the documents used as basis for the model where publicationally bias-framed.

Tell me about Festinger's (1957) "End of the world study", and what can cause the results found in this study?

When attention was high towards the headline in a local newspaper that the world would end in December 21, 1955, Festinger et al. began to hypothesis about the people (Seekers) who were really believing the message that was "sent" from planet Clarion: the people will develop cognitive dissonance, becoming evangelical proselytized in attempt to justify their belief system. "If everyone believed, then it must be so". Using participant observation, pretending to be a Seeker, before, during and after the "Prophecy". Results: when prophecy didn't come true, they blamed it on the mercy of God of the Earth. What made dissonance unique among balance theories was the concept of energy model and its magnitude. This led to a new experiment: low vs high pay to change attitudes (1959). Concept: cognitive dissonance, attitude and behviour Critics: only under certain conditions were this seen, not all. Cooper and Worchel (1970) showed that making a counter attitudinal did not produce dissonance unless it led to consequential event, threatening their person. Replications: "Cognitive consequences of forced compliance".

a) What is social role theory? b) What is the developmental intergroup theory? c) What is social categorization? d) what is social encoding?

a) Social role theory proposes that differences between the genders is due to social conditioning and cultural values, rather than biological sex. b) Developmental intergroup theory suggest that children form stereotypes of certain social groups because they can perceptually discriminate between them and because these groups are frequently labelled. c) social categorization suggest the cognitive partitioning of the social world into relatively discrete categories of individuals d) the process of getting social information into memory. It comprises initially attending to and perceiving social information, understanding it and making connections with information already in memory. Our previous social experiences are a very important part of the process.

What is: a) conformity, b) norm formation, c) compliance, d) obedience

a) a change in behaviour or belief as the result of real or imagined group pressure. b) the making of a new norm c) conformity that involves publicly acting in accord with an implied or explicit request even if privately disagreeing d) acting in accord with a direct order or command

a) What is group polarization? b) what is informational influence?

a) group-produced enhancement of members' pre-existing tendencies. When a rather homogenous group discusses a topic, the opinion of the group members often merges into a more extreme one, strengthening the members' average tendency. b) conformity occurring when people accept evidence about reality provided by other people.

a) What does deindividuation mean? b) What is emergent norms? c) what is normative influence?

a) loss of self-awareness and evaluation apprehension; occurs in group situations where responsiveness to positive or negative group norms is fostered, or where anonymity is increased b) those norms that 'emerge' within a group or crowd that influence the behaviour of those involved c) conformity based on a person's desire to fulfil others' expectations, often to gain acceptance.

a) What is the theory of reasoned action? b) What is social desirability?

a) that a person's intended behaviour is contingent upon their attitude about that behaviour and subjective norms. b) refers to the tendency of participants to respond in a way that will be viewed favourably by others, including the researcher.

What is the a) "diffusion of responsibility" and b) "pluralistic ignorance"?

a) the more people present, the less likely you are to help. b) when other people show little attention to emergencies, you copy their behaviour.

a) What is discrimination? b) What is the social identity theory?

a) unjustified negative behaviour towards a group or its members. b) suggest that individuals are morally motivated to identify themselves with groups they feel they belong to, and see the whole as positive.

The ______ effect explained by concepts of disseminated responsibility and social comparison, states that the presence of onlookers is likely to reduce the chances of help being given.

bystander

What makes a minority persuasive?

consistency, self-confidence, defections from the majority

What is the insufficient justification effect?

reduction of dissonance by internally justifying one's behaviour when external justification is 'insufficient'

What is cognitive dissonance?

tension that arises when one is simultaneously aware of two inconsistent cognitions. For example, dissonance may occur when we realize that we have, with little justification, acted contrary to our attitudes. This inconsistency is unpleasant, and people use different methods to combat the dissonance.

What is the theory of planned behaviour?

that a person's intended behaviour is contingent upon their 1. attitude about that behaviour and 2. subjective norms and is shaped by their 3. confidence in being able to perform it, or having it under their control.