#2 Social Psych Exam #1

Correlational Study

A research method that examines the relationship between two variables by objectively measuring them to see how they are related, without manipulating either one. Example: Tracking time points and adolescent depression scores.

Operational Definition

Turning an abstract construct or variable into a specific, objective, measurable metric for a study. Examples: Depression = 4-question survey scale (1 to 5); Independence = times per week adolescents go out without parents.

Pearson Correlation Coefficient (r)

Measurement of relationship direction (+ and -) and strength (closer to 1 or -1 is strong; 0 is null). Effect sizes: Small = +and -.10, Medium = + and -.30, Large = +and-.50. Does not prove causation.

p-value and Significance

Probability of finding an effect if none exists. Statistically significant if p < .05 (alpha level), meaning there is less than a 5% chance the result is a false positive error.

Time and Depression Trend (Keyes et al., 2019)

Results: Mean depression scores for US boys and girls were stable

Independence Trend (Twenge & Park, 2020)

Results: Broad negative correlation showing a massive, steep downward plunge from 1976 to 2014 in the number of times per week U.S. 8th, 10th, and 12th graders go out without parents.

Third Variable Explanation (Social Media)

A correlation between two variables actually caused by an unmeasured factor. Results: Twenge & Campbell (2019) proved a direct positive correlation between daily hours of social media use and adolescent depression.

Global School Loneliness (Twenge et al., 2021)

A cross-national study examining adolescent well-being across 36 countries, revealing a severe worldwide spike in school loneliness after 2012. This trend was strongly predicted by widespread smartphone adoption and internet access, rather than macro-level economic shifts such as Gross Domestic Product (GDP) or national employment rates.

Adult Activities Decline (Twenge & Park, 2019)

Results: Long-term steady negative correlations from 1976 to 2016 for four U.S. 12th grade milestones: holding a driver's license, trying alcohol, dating, and working for pay.

Independent Variable (IV) vs Dependent Variable (DV)

IV = The hypothesized 'cause' actively manipulated into conditions by researchers. DV = The hypothesized 'effect' or outcome metric objectively measured at the end.

Experimental Design Controls

Unique setups allowing causal claims. Requires procedural control, establishing temporal precedence (IV happens before DV), random assignment to groups, and holding outside variables constant to eliminate confounds.

Between-Subjects vs Within-Subjects

Between: Participants are exposed to only ONE level

Social Media Restriction (Hunt et al., 2018)

Results: 4-week experiment restricting social media to 10 min

Baseline Depression Interaction (Hunt et al., 2018)

Results: Restricting social media strictly improved mental health outcomes by week 4, but this causal benefit occurred ONLY for participants who started the study with high baseline depression.

Demand Characteristics

Unintentional environmental cues or hints in a research study that tip off participants about its true purpose, causing them to alter their natural behavior.

Confederate

An actor who poses as a normal participant in a study but secretly works for the experimenter to actively manipulate the social environment or situation.

Replication

The scientific practice of repeating a research study using entirely different participants and settings to verify if the original findings are reliable and consistent.

Priming and Narcissism (Giacomin & Jordan, 2014)

Results: 3-condition experiment showed that reading stories loaded with Independent words directly caused significantly higher scores on a narcissism scale compared to Impersonal or Interdependent words.

Cyberball Paradigm

A virtual, programmable ball-tossing computer game developed by Dr. Kipling Williams to study the immediate psychological and emotional impacts of social rejection and ostracism.

Interpersonal Consequences of Rejection

Social exclusion triggers negative behavioral shifts. Example: Columbine High School shooting speculation highlighted severe bullying and rejection as major potential causes over media violence.

Rejection and Aggression (DeWall et al., 2010)

Results: Cyberball exclusion (ball tosses from 0 or 1 player) caused participants to act highly aggressive, pouring significantly more grams of painful hot sauce for a stranger who hated spicy food.

Need to Belong Theory (Baumeister & Leary, 1995)

The evolutionary concept that forming stable social bonds is an innate survival mechanism. Interdependent groups successfully pooled resources, while isolated individuals faced life-threatening conditions.

Buffering Against Rejection (Twenge et al., 2007)

Results: Writing about a real relationship (family) or a parasocial relationship (favorite celebrity) completely neutralized and blocked the noise-blasting aggression normally triggered by 'ending up alone' feedback.

Social Reconnection Windows (Maner et al., 2007)

Results: Rejected participants became exceptionally nice and handed out higher cash rewards to a new partner, but ONLY when they anticipated a future interaction with them.

Prevention Focus vs Promotion Focus (Lucas et al., 2010)

Prevention: Protective, avoidance mindset triggered by rejection to stop bad things from happening, causing social isolation. Promotion: Growth mindset focused on potential gains, which overrides anxiety and avoidance.

Social Dilemma

Structural conflict where short-term personal self-interest clashes with long-term collective interest. If everyone acts selfishly, everyone suffers a worse outcome (e.g., roommates neglecting chores).

Rational Actor Theory vs Evolution

Rational Actor Economics says humans are entirely self-interested wealth maximizers ($$). Evolutionary theory counters this, showing our Need to Belong drives us to cooperate because relationships aid group survival.

Direct Reciprocity & Tit-for-Tat

Transactional cooperation ('I scratch your back, you scratch mine') requiring repeated interactions. Strict Tit-for-Tat mirrors the partner: if they cooperate, you cooperate; if they cheat, you cheat back.

Investment Game Experiment (Cochard et al., 2004)

Results: In repeated cash investment games, strong direct reciprocity emerged—the more money Player 1 initially trusted and gave to Player 2, the more cash Player 2 reciprocated and returned.

Generous Tit-for-Tat Strategy

Advanced strategy to counter communication 'noise' (failed or unnoticed help). Functions as strict Tit-for-Tat plus 1 extra step of spontaneous unearned cooperation to stop cycles of mutual punishment.

Generous Tit-for-Tat (Van Lange et al., 2002)

Results: Under 'noise' conditions where investment gifts were randomly slashed, computers running Generous Tit-for-Tat were vastly more successful at maintaining long-term cooperation than Strict Tit-for-Tat.

Marital Forgiveness Tendencies (McNulty & Russell, 2016)

Results: For spouses low in agreeableness (who defy social norms), having a highly forgiving partner backfired, causing a significant, steady increase in their total number of marital transgressions over time.

Earning Forgiveness (Zechmeister et al., 2004)

Results: Actual forgiveness for a major mistake required explicit relational signals—both a direct apology AND active compensation (taking the blame with the boss) to prove the offender won't exploit them again.

Downstream Reciprocity

Indirect cooperation system based strictly on public reputation ('what goes around comes around'). Individuals choose to help a stranger because that stranger has a documented history of being helpful.

Reputation-Driven Helping (Sommerfeld et al., 2007)

Results: Investment game players handed over significantly more money to partners publicly labeled as 'helpful' compared to partners tagged as 'non-helpful' or 'no reputation info'.

Reputation Building (Hardy & van Vugt, 2006)

Results: Publicly broadcasting group fund donations caused individuals to donate significantly more cash, proving that humans aggressively help strangers to actively buy a high-status public reputation.

Upstream Reciprocity

An indirect cooperative pay-it-forward chain. Receiving help from a benefactor induces a powerful state of gratitude, which internally motivates the individual to turn around and help a completely random stranger.

Upstream Reciprocity (Bartlett & DeSteno, 2006)

Results: Participants whose broken computer screens were secretly fixed by a confederate felt intense gratitude and spent significantly more time (minutes) filling out a boring survey for a brand-new stranger.

Tragedy of the Commons (Hardin, 1968)

Large-scale social dilemma where unchecked personal self-interest drives multiple independent actors to over-harvest a shared, finite public resource (like water during drought), depleting it to absolute zero for everyone.

Group Identity Buffer (Kramer & Brewer, 1984)

Results: When shared water simulator pools were dangerously depleted, activating a collective superordinate 'In-Group' identity successfully restrained personal greed, causing participants to harvest less to save the pool.

Empathy-Altruism Hypothesis

Theory stating that true, unselfish altruism exists. Taking a victim's perspective (empathy) makes you directly feel their emotional suffering, motivating you to help purely for their relief regardless of personal costs.

Empathy vs Escape Altruism (Toi & Batson, 1982)

Results: Low-empathy participants helped only when social costs were high (forced to see the injured student in class). High-empathy participants volunteered at massive, equal rates regardless of whether physical escape was easy or hard.