Research Studies

1. Hutchinson et al. (2011)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Hutchinson et al. (2011)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Students primed to see their university as homogeneous or heterogeneous evaluated a student with a common or uncommon war view. Atypical members were evaluated more favorably in the heterogeneous condition; perceived diversity increases tolerance of norm deviance.

2. Norman Triplett (1898)

Goal/Hyp: Does another child working nearby improve performance? Method/IV: 40 children completed fishing-reel trials alone and alongside another child. IV: other child present vs absent. DV: Fishing-reel turning speed. Result: Children generally turned reels faster alongside another child. Why: The presence of another person can facilitate performance.

3. Latane et al. (1979)

Goal/Hyp: Do people reduce individual effort when working in groups? Method/IV: Participants clapped or cheered alone versus in groups. IV: individual versus pooled group performance. DV: Individual effort/output. Result: Individual output decreased as group size increased. Why: When contributions are pooled, social loafing can occur.

4. Diener et al. (1976)

Goal/Hyp: Does anonymity increase rule-breaking? Method/IV: Halloween trick-or-treaters encountered candy with conditions varying identifiability and group context. DV: Taking extra candy or other rule-breaking. Result: Anonymous children, especially in groups, were more likely to break the rules. Why: Anonymity and reduced accountability can encourage deindividuation.

5. Biased Sampling / Shared vs. Unshared Information Study

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Biased Sampling / Shared vs. Unshared Information? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Groups discussing a hiring decision focused on information known to most members rather than unique facts. This biased sampling can lead to poor choices; training improved information sharing.

6. Levine & Simone, 1991

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Levine & Simone, 1991? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Gender differences in pain reporting study.

7. Page & Bennesch, 1993

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Page & Bennesch, 1993? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Effect of labels on self-reported depression study.

8. Yang et al., 2014

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Yang et al., 2014? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Effects of avatars on aggressive behavior study.

9. Muzzati & Agnoli, 2007

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Muzzati & Agnoli, 2007? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Gender stereotypes about math impact confidence study.

10. Sharps et al., 1993

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Sharps et al., 1993? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Impact of gender specific instruction on spatial performance study.

11. Koch et al., 2014

Goal/Hyp: Can sexist treatment affect women’s performance? Method/IV: Male interviewer behaved in a sexist or nonsexist way before men and women completed math and verbal problems. DV: Test performance. Result: Sexist behavior lowered women’s math performance; the same difference was not observed for men. Why: Stereotyped treatment can help create the performance differences it assumes.

12. Shih, Pittinsky, & Ambady, 1999

Goal/Hyp: Does activating different identities change math performance? Method/IV: Asian American women were reminded of Asian identity, female identity, or neither before a math test. DV: Math test score. Result: Asian-identity salience produced higher scores than female-identity salience. Why: Which group identity is salient can change stereotype-related performance.

13. Bian, Leslie, & Caimpian, 2017

Goal/Hyp: When does the stereotype that brilliance is male emerge? Method/IV: Children aged 5–7 heard about a very smart person and identified who they thought the person was. DV: Gender attributed to the brilliant person. Result: By around age six, girls were less likely to associate brilliance with their own gender. Why: Gender stereotypes about intelligence develop early.

14. Rudman, Moss-Racusin, Phelan, & Nauts, 2012

Goal/Hyp: Are agentic women penalized in hiring judgments? Method/IV: Students evaluated male or female professor candidates using agentic or communal feedback styles. DV: Hireability ratings. Result: Agentic women were rated less hireable than agentic men. Why: Violating gender-role expectations can produce backlash.

15. Broockman & Kalla, 2016

Goal/Hyp: Can perspective-taking reduce prejudice toward transgender people? Method/IV: Voters were assigned to a transgender-rights perspective-taking conversation or recycling comparison. DV: Attitudes toward transgender people and legal protections. Result: Perspective-taking reduced prejudice and increased support for protections. Why: Connecting another group’s experiences to one’s own can change attitudes.

16. Miller et al., 2015

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Miller et al., 2015? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Science stereotypes and women in STEM study.

17. Dunn, Wilson & Gilbert (2003)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Dunn, Wilson & Gilbert (2003)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Misprediction of satisfaction in housing lotteries study.

18. Lepper, Greene & Nisbett (1973)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Lepper, Greene & Nisbett (1973)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Children’s intrinsic interests with extrinsic reward study.

19. Tesser & Smith (1980)

Goal/Hyp: Does a friend’s success threaten self-esteem when the task matters? Method/IV: Participants gave clues to a friend or stranger in a word game framed as important verbal skill or just a game. DV: Helpful versus difficult clues. Result: When relevant, participants helped strangers more; when irrelevant, friends more. Why: Closeness and self-relevance shape social comparison and helping.

20. Heine, Lehman, Markus & Kitayama (1999)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Heine, Lehman, Markus & Kitayama (1999)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Self-Esteem and Exposure to North American Culture study.

21. Floyd Allport (1920)

Goal/Hyp: Does another person always help performance? Method/IV: Students refuted philosophical arguments for five minutes alone or near another student. IV: social presence. DV: Quality of arguments. Result: Students produced better arguments alone. Why: Others can inhibit performance on difficult tasks.

22. Robert Zanjoc (1969)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Robert Zanjoc (1969)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Cockroaches ran simple versus difficult mazes alone or with other cockroaches present. Others improved simple-task performance and impaired difficult-task performance, supporting arousal and dominant-response theory.

23. Michaels et al. (1982)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Michaels et al. (1982)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: College students playing recreational pool study.

24. Cottrell et al. (1968)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Cottrell et al. (1968)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Participants learned nonsense syllables under conditions varying whether observers could evaluate them. Evaluation concern affected dominant responses, supporting evaluation apprehension.

25. Hazel Markus (1978)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Hazel Markus (1978)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Clothing on study.

26. Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Moscovici & Zavalloni (1969)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: French students discussed opinions about the French president and Americans. Group discussion strengthened their initial leanings, demonstrating group polarization.

27. Schkade, Sunstein, & Hastie (2007)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Schkade, Sunstein, & Hastie (2007)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Polarization on hot button issues study.

28. Ten Brinke et al. (2016), Ten Brinke, Kish, Keltner (2018)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Ten Brinke et al. (2016), Ten Brinke, Kish, Keltner (2018)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Power gaining study.

29. Adam Galinsky et al. (2006)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Adam Galinsky et al. (2006)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Power and perspective study.

30. Pamela Smith et al. (2008)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Pamela Smith et al. (2008)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Power and recall study.

31. Piff et al. (2012)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Piff et al. (2012)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Cars and pedestrians study.

32. Diener et al. (1976)

Goal/Hyp: Does anonymity increase rule-breaking? Method/IV: Halloween trick-or-treaters encountered candy with conditions varying identifiability and group context. DV: Taking extra candy or other rule-breaking. Result: Anonymous children, especially in groups, were more likely to break the rules. Why: Anonymity and reduced accountability can encourage deindividuation.

33. Diener & Wallbom (1976)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Diener & Wallbom (1976)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: College students and anagrams study.

34. Bateson, Nettle, & Roberts (2006)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Bateson, Nettle, & Roberts (2006)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Self-awareness in the work setting study.

35. Gilovich et al. (2000)

Goal/Hyp: Do people overestimate how much others notice them? Method/IV: Students wore an embarrassing T-shirt and estimated how many observers would remember it. DV: Predicted versus actual recognition. Result: Students substantially overestimated recognition. Why: The spotlight effect exaggerates our perceived visibility.

36. David & Filovich (2018)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about David & Filovich (2018)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Land of opportunity study.

37. L. T. Harris & Frisk (2006)

Goal/Hyp: Do people show reduced social-cognition responses to stigmatized groups? Method/IV: Participants viewed photographs of social groups while undergoing fMRI. DV: Medial prefrontal cortex activation. Result: Responses were reduced for images of people experiencing homelessness or addiction. Why: Certain groups may be dehumanized in social perception.

38. Waytz & Epley (2012)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Waytz & Epley (2012)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Social connection to ingroup effects on dehumanization study.

39. Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske (2009)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Caprariello, Cuddy, & Fiske (2009)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Stereotype Content Model immigration study.

40. Gilliam et al. (2016)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Gilliam et al. (2016)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: The ‘anticipated behavior’preschool study.

41. Eberhardt et al. (2004)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Eberhardt et al. (2004)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: The race and crime-related objects bias study.

42. Betrand & Mullainathan (2005)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Betrand & Mullainathan (2005)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Bias in hiring based on names study.

43. Sesko & Biernat (2010)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Sesko & Biernat (2010)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Invisibility of intersectional people study.

44. Livingston, Rosette, & Washington (2012)

Goal/Hyp: Does race intersect with gender in judgments of dominant leaders? Method/IV: Participants rated leaders varying in race, gender, and dominant/communal behavior. DV: Leadership effectiveness ratings. Result: Black women were less penalized for dominance than White women. Why: Intersectional identities can change which stereotypes are applied.

45. Bailey, Dovidio, & LaFrance (2022)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Bailey, Dovidio, & LaFrance (2022)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Language influencing who comes to mind study.

46. Crocker et al. (1991)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Crocker et al. (1991)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Attributional ambiguity study.

47. Spencer, Steele, & Quinn (1999)

Goal/Hyp: Does stereotype threat help explain gender differences in math performance? Method/IV: Women and men took difficult math tests under descriptions emphasizing or minimizing gender differences. DV: Math performance. Result: Reducing stereotype relevance reduced the gender gap. Why: Threat of confirming a stereotype can affect performance.

48. Steele & Aronson (1995)

Goal/Hyp: Can a racial stereotype undermine verbal test performance? Method/IV: Black and White students completed a difficult verbal test described as diagnostic of ability or not. DV: Test performance. Result: Diagnostic framing reduced Black students’ performance relative to the non-diagnostic framing. Why: Stereotype threat can impair performance.

49. Stone et. al. (1999)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Stone et. al. (1999)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Race stereotype threat to physical ability study.

50. Cricher and Ferguson (2013)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Cricher and Ferguson (2013)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Concealment of sexuality study.

51. Trawalter et. al. (2012)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Trawalter et. al. (2012)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Interracial interaction impacting stress/physiology study.

52. Dupree & Friske (2019)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Dupree & Friske (2019)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Self-presentation in interracial settings study.

53. Dupree (2021)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Dupree (2021)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Online profile study.

54. Goff, Steele, & Davies (2008)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Goff, Steele, & Davies (2008)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Distance of chair study.

55. Apfelbaum et al. (2008)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Apfelbaum et al. (2008)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Guess Who, children seeing race study.

56. Craig & Richeson (2014)

Goal/Hyp: Does anticipated demographic change produce status threat? Method/IV: White American participants received information about changing racial demographics. DV: Racial attitudes and political preferences. Result: Demographic-change information increased defensive outgroup-related responses. Why: Perceived threat to dominant-group status can affect attitudes.

57. Nelson, Adams, & Salter

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Nelson, Adams, & Salter? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Perception of contemporary racism study.

58. Kraus et al. (2019)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Kraus et al. (2019)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Estimates of the white/black wealth gap study.

59. Vazire & Mehl (2008)

Goal/Hyp: Can acquaintances predict behavior as accurately as the self? Method/IV: Participants and close others predicted everyday behaviors; researchers sampled real behavior. DV: Accuracy of behavioral predictions. Result: Close others predicted behavior about as accurately as participants did. Why: Self-knowledge is not always superior to knowledge from others.

60. Markus (1977)

Goal/Hyp: Do self-schemas shape self-relevant judgments? Method/IV: Participants with different dependent/independent self-schemas evaluated trait-related information. DV: Speed and pattern of trait judgments. Result: People processed schema-consistent information more readily. Why: Self-schemas organize self-knowledge and guide interpretation.

61. McGuire & Padawer-Singer (1976)

Goal/Hyp: Do distinctive traits become more central to identity? Method/IV: Sixth-graders described themselves; researchers compared self-descriptions with traits distinctive in their classrooms. DV: Frequency of mentioning distinctive traits. Result: Children more often mentioned characteristics that set them apart. Why: Social context influences which parts of identity become salient.

62. Cohen & Gunz (2002)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Cohen & Gunz (2002)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Western vs. Eastern difference in attention to the social context study.

63. Masuda et al. (2008)

Goal/Hyp: Does culture influence attention to emotional context? Method/IV: American and Japanese participants judged a central cartoon figure surrounded by others showing different emotions. DV: Judgments of central figure’s emotion. Result: Japanese judgments were more influenced by surrounding expressions. Why: Interdependent cultural contexts encourage attention to social surroundings.

64. Ma & Schoeneman (1997)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Ma & Schoeneman (1997)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Who am I and impacts of Westernization study.

65. Zhu et al. (2007)

Goal/Hyp: Does cultural self-construal appear in brain responses? Method/IV: Chinese and Western participants judged traits about self, mother, and others during fMRI. DV: Medial prefrontal activation. Result: Self and mother judgments overlapped more for Chinese participants. Why: Culture can shape neural representations of the self and close others.

66. Cross & Madson (1997)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Cross & Madson (1997)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Gender impacting self-construals study.

67. Blanton et al. (1999)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Blanton et al. (1999)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Choice of comparison study.

68. Philippe Verduyn et al. (2015)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Philippe Verduyn et al. (2015)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Facebook impacting well-being study.

69. Crocker, Sommers, & Luhtanen (2002)

Goal/Hyp: Does academic success affect self-esteem more when academics define self-worth? Method/IV: Graduate-school applicants reported self-esteem around admission decisions. DV: Changes in self-esteem. Result: Acceptance/rejection had larger effects when academic competence was a contingency of self-worth. Why: Outcomes in identity-important domains affect self-esteem most.

70. Heine & Lehman (2003)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Heine & Lehman (2003)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Culture impact on self-esteem study.

71. S. E. Taylor et al. (2003)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about S. E. Taylor et al. (2003)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Positive illusions impacting stress response study.

72. Robins and Beer (2001)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Robins and Beer (2001)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Self-enhancing beliefs impact on self-esteem study.

73. Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon (1994)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Swann, De La Ronde, & Hixon (1994)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Intimate bonds study.

74. Kwang & Swann (2010)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Kwang & Swann (2010)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Self-enhancement vs. self-verification motives study.

75. Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss (1972)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Mischel, Ebbesen, & Zeiss (1972)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Children could take a smaller immediate reward or wait for a larger one. Attentional strategies and less tempting representations helped delay gratification.

76. Gollwitzer & Oettingen (2016)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Gollwitzer & Oettingen (2016)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Implementation intention study.

77. Back et al. (2010)

Goal/Hyp: Do social-network profiles reflect real or ideal personalities? Method/IV: Observers rated profiles and researchers compared those ratings with actual and ideal personality ratings. DV: Agreement of observer ratings with actual versus ideal personality. Result: Profile judgments matched actual personalities more closely. Why: Online self-presentation is often fairly accurate.

78. Orehek & Human (2017)

Goal/Hyp: What did this study test about Orehek & Human (2017)? Method/IV: Consult the assigned lecture/textbook for exact manipulation and procedure. DV: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Result: Not verified from the available study-list entry. Why: Study topic: Self-expression via Twitter tweets study.