Social psychology

1. Ambady & Rosenthal (1993) 

• Aim: To study accuracy in forming impressions based on nonverbal behaviour. 

• Procedure: Observers viewed short silent video clips of people (e.g. teachers) and judged them. 

• Results: Quick impressions based on nonverbal cues were often accurate. 

2. Bond & DePaulo (2006) – Meta-analysis 

• Aim: To assess people’s ability to detect lies. 

• Procedure: Analysed over 200 studies on deception detection. 

• Results: Average lie detection accuracy was 54%; people relied on incorrect cues (e.g. face), while accurate cues were voice and limb movement. 

3. Robert Zajonc (1965) – Mere Exposure Effect 

• Aim: To examine the relationship between exposure and liking. 

• Procedure: Repeated exposure to a neutral stimulus without reinforcement. 

• Results: Familiarity increased liking. 

4. Moreland & Beach (1992) 

• Aim: To test the mere exposure effect in a classroom setting. 

• Procedure: Female students (confederates) attended a course varying number of times; classmates rated them. 

• Results: More frequent presence led to higher ratings of attractiveness and likability. 

5. Schneider (1973) – Implicit Personality Theories 

• Aim: To explore how traits are mentally grouped. 

• Procedure: Theorized that people assume certain traits go together (e.g. warm = generous). 

• Results: People use mental schemas to interpret others' traits based on initial impressions. 

6. Hamilton et al. (1980) 

• Aim: To examine trait clustering in impression formation. 

• Procedure: Observers evaluated behaviors that implied traits. 

• Results: People grouped trait-related behaviors into clusters, forming unified impressions. 

7. Neuberg & Fiske (1987) 

• Aim: To study motivation for accurate impressions. 

• Procedure: Participants formed impressions when expecting dependency on targets. 

• Results: Greater motivation for accuracy led to more thoughtful impressions. 

8. Asch (1946) 

• Aim: To study how people form unified impressions from traits. 

• Procedure: Presented lists of traits with varying positive/negative order. 

• Results: Primacy effect – early traits shaped interpretation of later ones; showed how a single item can change overall meaning. 

Chapter 4: Attributions  

1. Heider (1958) 

• Aim: To define the foundation of causal attribution. 

• Procedure: Theoretical work introducing internal vs. external attributions. 

• Results: People tend to explain behavior by attributing it to either personal dispositions or situational factors. 

2. Kelley (1950) 

• Aim: To study how expectations influence interpretation. 

• Procedure: Participants received different descriptions of a guest lecturer (e.g., "warm" vs. "cold") before the lecture. 

• Results: Expectations shaped perception of the lecturer's behavior. 

3. Higgins et al. (1977) 

• Aim: To investigate priming effects on impression formation. 

• Procedure: Participants were primed with trait-related words before reading a description of a person. 

• Results: Primed traits influenced interpretation of ambiguous information. 

4. Jones & Davis (1965) – Correspondent Inference Theory 

• Aim: To explain when people make trait inferences from behaviour. 

• Procedure: Focused on whether the behaviour is freely chosen, socially undesirable, and has non-common effects. 

• Results: People infer traits when behaviour appears intentional and informative. 

5. Jones & Davis (1967) – Correspondence Bias 

• Aim: To explore bias in trait attribution. 

• Procedure: Theorized that people over-attribute behavior to personal traits. 

• Results: People tend to make dispositional inferences even when situational explanations are available. 

6. Ross et al. (1977) – Fundamental Attribution Error 

• Aim: To test people’s tendency to underestimate situational factors. 

• Procedure: Quizmaster experiment showing role-based behavior. 

• Results: Observers attributed quizmasters’ knowledge to ability, ignoring the role’s context. 

7. Taylor & Fiske (1975) – Salience in Attribution 

• Aim: To study how visual focus affects attribution. 

• Procedure: Participants watched a conversation and rated influence based on viewing angle. 

• Results: More visually salient individuals were seen as more influential. 

8. Rholes & Prior (1982) 

• Aim: To examine primed accessibility in attribution. 

• Procedure: Primed participants with trait-related concepts before evaluating behaviour. 

• Results: Primed concepts guided attribution decisions. 

9. Kelley (1967) – Covariation Model 

• Aim: To outline how people use multiple sources of information to make causal attributions. 

• Procedure: Introduced consensus, distinctiveness, and consistency cues. 

• Results: Patterns of these cues guide attributions to actor, target, or situation. 

10. Weiner (1979) 

• Aim: To study how attributions affect achievement motivation. 

• Procedure: Theoretical model including locus, stability, and controllability. 

• Results: Different attributions lead to different emotions and motivation levels. 

11. Dweck (2006) 

• Aim: To explain mindset’s effect on attribution and learning. 

• Procedure: Described fixed vs. growth mindsets. 

• Results: Growth mindset leads to adaptive attributions and greater motivation. 

12. Trope & Gaunt (2000) 

• Aim: To test whether external attribution can be automatic. 

• Procedure: Participants viewed behaviors with salient external causes. 

• Results: When external causes are made salient, people may automatically attribute behaviour externally. 

13. Gilbert et al. (1988)  

• Aim: To explore effortful correction of automatic internal attributions. 

• Procedure: Studied cognitive load effects on attribution. 

• Results: Discounting situational factors requires motivation and mental resources. 

14. Morris & Peng (1994); Chiu et al. (2000) 

• Aim: To investigate cultural differences in attribution. 

• Procedure: Compared U.S. and Chinese participants’ explanations for behaviours. 

• Results: Individualists favoured internal attributions; collectivists incorporated situational factors more.