Psychology Test Unit 5

why one day to study mr bowen ts evil

Byrne et al. 1970 Aim

Test if attitude similarity predicts interpersonal attraction via reinforcement

Byrne et al. 1970 Methods

observational, 88 undergrads tested for attitudes/likings, paired w/ similar or dissimilar confederates for discussion. Measured action via liking scales.

Byrne et al. 1970 Findings

High similarity → higher attraction. Proportions of similar attitudes strongly correlated w/ liking.

Byrne et al. 1970 Strengths

High ecological validity

Byrne et al. 1970 Limitations

short term attraction only and lack on internal validity

Sherif et al 1961 Aim

Investigate realistic conflict theory: how competition creates intergroup conflict , resolved by common goals

Sherif et al 1961 Methods

Field experiment. 22 boys at Robbers Cave camp divided into rival teams. Competitions → conflict. Shared tasks → resolution. Observed hostility/helping

Sherif et al 1961 Findings

Competition created an environment for hostility. Common tasks/goals (like fixing things) pulled them together.

Sherif et al 1961 Strengths

Naturalistic → high mundane realism. Clear cause and effect

Sherif et al 1961 Limitations

Low generalizability (boys only + specific culture). Demand characteristics.

Zimbardo 1971 Aim

Examined situational forces in prison environment

Zimbardo 1971 Method

Role-play simulation. 24 male students as guards/prisoners in mock prison, observed over 6 days

Zimbardo 1971 Findings

Guards became abusive, prisoners passive/rebellious, terminated after 6 days

Zimbardo 1971 Strengths

Rich qualitative data on deindividualization

Zimbardo 1971 Limitations

Low internal validity (volunteers self selected), LOTS of ethics violations

Tajfel et al. 1971 Aim

Test if minimal group categorization alone creates in group discrimination

Tajfel et al. 1971 Methods

Lab. 14-15 y/o boys assigned to meaningless groups based on “art preference”. Asked to allocate real money via matrices favoring ingroup/outgroup

Tajfel et al. 1971 Findings

Strong ingroup favoritism/ max harm to outgroup

Tajfel et al. 1971 Strengths

High control isolates the categorization effect

Tajfel et al. 1971 Limitations

Abstract task → low mundane realism. Adolescents only.

Darley & Latane 1968 Aim

Investigate bystander intervention in emergencies with diffusion of responsibility

Darley & Latane 1968 Methods

Lab. Female students heard “seizure” over intercom believing 1-5 others were present. Measured help/amount of time.

Darley & Latane 1968 Findings

Alone → 85% helped quickly, 5 others → 31% helped

Darley & Latane 1968 Strengths

Standardized procedure, ethical deception

Darley & Latane 1968 Limitations

Lab lacked real danger. All college females.

Darley and Batson 1973 Aim

Test situational factors (hurry) vs personality on helping

Darley and Batson 1973 methods

Field. Seminary students to record talk, passed victim. Half hurried.

Darley and Batson 1973 Findings

Hurried→ 10% helped. Not hurried→ 63%. Good Samaritan irrelevant.

Darley and Batson 1973 Strengths

Ecological validity in natural setting

Darley and Batson 1973 Limitations

Small sample. No female participants.

Burnstien et al. 1994 Aim

Test if inclusive fitness cues (kinship) affect helping decisions under time pressure

Burnstien et al. 1994 Method

Lab. Scenarios where they had to chose who to help first based on traits/ kin ties.

Burnstien et al. 1994 Findings

Kinship trumped over other traits

Burnstien et al. 1994 Strengths

Cross-cultural replication

Burnstien et al. 1994 Limitations

Hypothetical situations lack real stakes

Toi & Batson 1994 Aim

Test if empathy increases helping vs egoism

Toi & Batson 1994 Method

Lab. Students watched “carol” in pain, some took perspective. Easy escape offered.

Toi & Batson 1994 Findings

High empathy → 88% helped. Low empathy → 33% helped

Toi & Batson 1994 Strengths

Controlled manipulation of empathy

Toi & Batson 1994 Limitations

Self-report empathy bias. Demand characteristics

Sharif 1972

Aim: Test if positive mood promotes prosocial behavior

Method: Field. Some “found dime” in booth, all asked dropped papers

Findings: Dime group→ 90% helped. Control → 10%

Strengths: Controlled manipulation of behavior

Limitations: Small sample. Chance dime finding.

Rusbult 1983

Aim: Develop/test Investment Model for relationship commitment

Method: Longitudinal survey. 3 waves over 2 years with dating couples. Measured satisfaction, alternatives, investments, commitment, stability.

Findings: High satisfaction + Low alternatives + High investments -→ commitment → fewer breakups

Strengths: Predictive validity over time

Limitations: Self-report bias. Correlational.

Steele and Aronson 1995

Aim: Test the stereotype threats’ impact on performance

Methods: Lab. White/Black participants took a GRE-style verbal test. Black “diagnostic” condition framed as an ability measure.

Findings: Black diagnostic → large performance drop vs nondiagnostic

Strengths: Clean manipulation, replicated often

Limitations: Specific to academics, short-term

Buss (1989)

Aim: Test evolutionary mate preferences cross-culturally

Method: Survey 10,047 from 37 cultures ranked 18 mate traits

Findings: Universals kindness. Men → chasity/looks, Women→ resources/status

Strengths: Huge diverse sample

Limitations: Self-reported ideals not behaviours.

What are Attachment styles?

Patterns of relating from infancy that shape adult relationship.

Types: Secure, anxious-ambient, avoidant, disorganized.

Social exchange theory

Relationships as cost-benefit analysis. Stay if rewards>cost + better than alternatives.

Principles: Minimax (minimize cost and maximize benefits)

Investment Model

Rusbults extension of SET. Commitment from satisfaction + investments + poor alternatives. Adds sunk costs (kids/time).

Proximity

Physical nearness increases liking via exposure

Similarity

Shared attitudes/values boost attraction

Physical attractiveness

Halo effect: Attractive people seem kinder or smarter

Evolutionary: signals health and fertility

Reciprocity

Liking someone who likes you back

Social Norms

guide conformity and behaviour

Descriptive Norms

Perceptions of typical behavior

injunctive norms

perceptions of moral approval like “helping is good”

Competition

Creates hostility/ingroup bias

Prejudice

Negative attitude toward out group caused by categorization and realistic conflict

Discrimination

Negative behavior towards outgroup

Social categorization

Dividing into in/out group creating automatic bias

Ingroup Bias

Favoring “us” over “them”

Stereotype threat

Fear of confirming negative stereotype impairs performance

Empathy

Taking another persons perspective. This increases altruistic behavior

Prosocial Behavior

Voluntary helping benefiting others

Diffusion of responsabilities

Responsibility dilutes in crowds

Pluralistic Ignorance

Mistakenly thinking others don’t see emergency

Bystander effect

less helping with more witnesses

5 steps: Notice→interpret→responsability→skills→decide

Superordinate Goals

Shared goals requiring cooperation

Realistic Conflict Theory

Competition for resources causes prejudice

Self-Disclosure

Gradually sharing personal information builds intimacy

Kin selection

Helping genetic relatives to pass genes

Inclusive fitness

personal reproduction + aiding kins reproduction