PS2027 - Ulrich

Lecture 12

Lecture 7

Maranon, 1924: injected pp's with adrenaline, less than 1/3 reported emotionalreaction

Schachter, 1959: those who were anxious preffered to be in the company of others

Stack, Martin and Stepper, 1988: Cartoons judged funnier in teeth condition than in lips condition

Schachter and Singer, 1962: Manipulation of explanation for arousal state generally worked

Erdmann and Janke, 1978: depending on the type of situation, ephedrine-induced arousal either decreased or increased positive descriptions of mood

Lecture 8

Speisman et al., 1964: Interpretation of situation was affected by the soundtrack; supports Lazarus and Folkman's theory that there are many factors involved in emotional reaction, like interpretation.

click to edit

Sten et al., 1997: higher proportion of positive appraisals = higher no. of plans and well-being at berievement

Smith and Ellsworth, 1985: 5 emotions were correctly predicted over 40%. If individual sees environment, it is easier to identify that individual's emotional state and how that individual is interpreting circumstance.

Moreland and Zajonc, 1979: Stimulus exposure has a correlation with subjective affect and subjective recognition but SA and SR are independent of each other

Ditto et al, 2006: Participants are sensitive to risk only in non-visceral condition where cookies are only described

click to edit

Finucane et al. 2000: people perceive a negative correlation between risks and benefits, less risks with things they like

click to edit

PP's rate activites under time pressure, under time pressure relying more on immediate emotion rather than having time to think it over

Alhakami and Slovic, 1994: low risk/high pattern for activities liked and vice versa

click to edit

providing information designed to alter the favorability of one's overall affective evaluation of an item (say nuclear power) would systematically change the risk and benefit judgments for that item.

click to edit

Lecture 9

Petty, Caciappo and Goldman, 1981: Low involvment = source expertise affected attitudes and vice versa for high involvement

Chartrand and Bargh, 1999: Participants more likely to imitte confederate in either shake food or hand over face but shake foot = higher mimickery

click to edit

Sherif, 1936: When presented with ambiguous situation people looked for guidance from others

Asch, 1956: 76% of pps conformed to answer to wrong size, less than 1% made errors in control group

Moscovici et al., 1969: 36 squares somewhat blue or green, when confederates varied answers = 1% conformed but when consistent = 8% conformed

Deutsch and Gerald, 1955: pp's witnessed inccorent answers but gave their answers privately, confirmity plumitted but some still conformed

Lecture 10

Freedman and Fraser, 1966: People more likely to comply to small request and then big request, 76% agreed to large billboard in garden after small sign in window

Paluck et al., 2016: Disciplinary reports dropped 30% in treatment schools

Princeton and Miller, 1993: Students believed other students were more comfortable drinking than they themselves were

click to edit

Cialdini et al., 2006: Adverts about how few ppl take wood is more effective than ad about how many ppl take it

Sparkmsn and Watson, 2019: Males more inclined t equity policies when told number of men aggreeing is increasing vs actual %

Regan, 1971: pariticipant is more likely to help afer experiment if confederate got pp a drink vs no drink

Cialdini et al., 1975: PP more likely to take delinquent to zoo after declining counselling deliquent condition

Isen, Clark and Schwartz, 1976: PP's more likely to comply with helping stranger over phone after receiving gift, lessens less with increase in time

Milgram experiment: 62.5% PP's completed experiment

Burger: Replicated, 70% PP's continue after learner beagn to protest

click to edit

Lecture 11

Kunda and Sherman-Williams, 1993: Ambiguous behaviour reveals stereotypes, PP's think construction worker most liekly to hit someone than housewife

Gaertner and Dovidio, 1977: YT pp's interacted with either white or black person alone or in group, more likely to help when alone than in group

La Pierre, 1934: 92% of establishments say they would reject a Chinese coupls but when they went it they welcomed the couple

Tajfel and Wilkes, 1963: categorical accentuation was higher when the lines were systematically categorized than when they were not, and was stronger when participants reported their estimates in an unfamiliar measurement unit

Hamilton and Gifford, 1976: Two groups A and B, equal proportion of psoitve behaviour but A = bigger group so 2X as many behaviours. Overestimated negative behaviours in group B

Macrae et al., 1994: Participants who used stereotypes to remember information about a person performed better at cognitive task

Bodenhaussen, 1990: Moning ppl more likely to convict guilty at night and Night people more likely to convict guilty in morning

Maas et al., 1989: people encode and communicate desirable in-group and undesirable out-group behaviors more abstractly than undesirable in-group and desirable out-group behaviours

click to edit

Lecture 12

De Fleur and Westie, 1958: Measured pp's attitudes and willingness to be photographed with black person, correlation was 0.40

Payne et al., 2001/2: Faster to detect a handgun when preceded by black face and handtool when preceeded by white face

Potential link to Funicane? Both display system I process

Correll et al., 2002: PP's more likely to shoot unarmed black person in game and more likley to miss armed yt person

Judd et al., 2004: replicated. Faster recognition of stereotypical item, positive or negative stereotype

Dovidio, Kawakami, Gaertner (2002): self-reported racial attitudes significantly predicted bias in their verbal behavior to Black relative to White confederates. Furthermore, these explicit attitudes predicted how much friendlier Whites felt that they behaved toward White than Black partners.

Devine 3 studies

Study 2: PP's who saw high proportion of of stereotype words rated person as more hostile in both high and low prejudice. Automatic activation

Study 3: PP's high in prej reported more negative traits vs low prej PP reported more positive beliefs

Study 1: Few difference in individuals with high and low prejudice for knowledge of stereotypes. Knowledge is culturally shared

Sherif, Harvey et al.,1961: Formed two groups, competition against outsiders increased ingroup cohesion

Levine and Campbell., 1972: Prejudice and discrimination arise from competition over limited resources

Hepworth and West, 1988: Correlation between price of ctoon and lynching in south of U.S.

Tajfel et al., 1971: More maximum differentiation than maximum ingroup profit, many adopt fairness strategy