PSY220 Study List Test 1

.docx

School

University of Toronto *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

220

Subject

Psychology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

18

Uploaded by ProfCat8153

Report
Tables of Contents I. Chapter 1: Introduction to Social Psychology 1. MacInnis & Hodson (2015) II. Chapter 2: The Self 1. Suddendorf & Collier-Baker (2009) 2. Latané & Darley (1968) 3. Sanitioso, Kunda, & Fong (1990): Biases in self-concept 4. Usborne & Taylor (2010): Self-concept clarity 5. Schwinger et al. (2004): Self-handicapping 6. Nisbett & Wilson (1977): Introspection 7. Moskalenko & Heine (2003): Self-awareness theory 8. Chaiken & Baldwin (1981): Self-perception theory 9. Peetz & Buehler (2009): Planning fallacy 10. Baldwin, Carrell, & Lopez (1990): Looking-glass self 11. Lockwood & Kunda (2007): Upward social comparison – BUT can feel better sometimes 12. Klein & Epley (2017): Better-than-average effect III. Chapter 3: Social Cognition 1. Higgins et al. (1977): Priming 2. Holland, Hendriks, & Aarts (2005) 3. Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968): Self-fulfilling prophecy
4. Snyder et al. (1977): Behavioural confirmation 5. Tversky & Kahneman (1973): Availability heuristic 6. Hamilton & Gifford (1976): Illusory Correlation 7. Macrae (1992): Counterfactual thinking 8. Anderson, Lepper, & Ross (1980): Belief perseverance 9. Ekman & Friesen (1971): Facial expression of emotions 10. Carroll & Russell (1996): Context matters in terms of facial expression of emotions 11. Williams, Kimble, et al. (1992) 12. Bradbury & Fincham (1990) 13. Jones & Harris (1967) 14. Crandall et al. (2001) 15. Taylor & Fiske (1975) 16. Ross & Sicoly (1979) IV. Chapter 4: Attitudes 1. Phelan, Moss-Racusin, & Rudman (2008) 2. LaPiere (1934) 3. Diener & Wallborn (1976) 4. Haney, Banks, & Zimbardo (1973) : Stanford Prison Experiment 5. Freedman & Fraser (1966) 6. Cialdini et al. (1975) 7. Zanna & Cooper (1964) 8. Brehm (1956) 9. Aronson & Mills (1959)
10. Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) 11. Aronson & Mettee (1968) MacInnis & Hodson (2015): Correlation Coefficient Aim - Examined the relationship between religiosity levels within various U.S. states and the volume that individuals within those states looked up the word “sex” in google Results - Found correlation coefficient (r) of 0.25 in 2011 - Found correlation coefficient (r) of 0.24 in 2012 - Suggests that more religious U.S. states were associated with an increase in searching “sex” on google
Suddendorf & Collier-Baker (2009): other species of animals have a rudimentary sense of self- concept Method/Design - the “rouge” test Procedure - A mirror placed in the animals’ cage to establish familiarity - Animals put under anesthesia - A red dye is painted on their brow or ear - Animal wakes up, researchers record whether animals touch the body part which is painted red Results - Members of the greater apes (chimpanzees and orangutans) touch the painted immediately => recognized that some part of them has changed => demonstration of self-concept - Members of the lesser apes (gibbons) do not Latané & Darley (1968): Bystander effect and diffusion of responsibilities Procedure - Participants in different conditions with different numbers of bystanders put in a situation with someone falling down Results - Participants put in the situation with more bystanders were less likely to help the person to get up
Sanitioso, Kunda, & Fong (1990): self-schemas are prone to bias Method/Design - 76 undergraduate students, random assignment Procedure - Condition 1: read about a study that showed extroverts do better than introverts in academic or professional settings after graduating from college - Condition 2: read about a study that showed introverts do better than extroverts in same settings - Both conditions were instructed to write explanations of why the two relative findings were true - Participated in a second study in which participants were to list behaviors in their past that reflect given personality traits (shy vs. outgoing) - Researches looked at the first incidence participants recalled Results - Participants in condition 1 were more likely to recall incidences where they were extroverted - Participants in condition 2 were more likely to recall incidences where they were introverted When participants are motivated that having a target trait is deemed desirable, they engaged in selective memory search of examples of having such trait in their past behavior, and are prompted to include this trait in their self-schema Usborne & Taylor (2010): Self-concept clarity Method/Design - 5 Canadian samples (2 samples of Montreal undergrads, Chinese North Americans, First nations) Results
- Found a strong positive correlation (r = 0.55+) for self-concept clarity with self- esteem and self-concept clarity with positive affect across multiple samples Schwinger et al. (2004): Self-handicapping Method/Design - Meta-analysis on the relationship between self-handicapping and academic performance - Across 36 studies with 49 independent samples (~25000 participants) Results - Mean correlation coefficient of -.23 - Greater self-handicapping can be associated with worse academic performance Nisbett & Wilson (1977): introspection doesn’t result in correct explanation of individual behaviour Method/Design - Independent samples design Procedure - Control condition: instructed to watch a film - Condition 1: instructed to watch a film, a power cell was turned on for distraction - Condition 2: instructed to watch a film, projector was not in focus for distraction Results - All conditions had similar preference ratings for the film - But the 2 experiment conditions explained that the distractions lowered their ratings of the film, despite that in reality their ratings were not affected Introspection doesn’t always result in the correct answer about why individuals feel or behave the way they do Highlights the idea it is difficult to explain individuals’ behavior Moskalenko & Heine (2003): the impact of distraction on introspection Method/Design - Study 1: TV exposure condition vs. control condition - Study 3: success feedback vs. no feedback vs. failure feedback for a given task, then instructed to watch TV Procedure - Participants instructed to rate their actual-self and their idea-self two times Results - Study 1: TV exposure condition participants had smaller discrepancy between the two ratings compared to control condition Watching TV disengaged the participants from being self-aware - Study 2: before vs. after watching TV - Study 3: success feedback had less total time spent watching TV, failure feedback had most total time spent on TV
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
  • Access to all documents
  • Unlimited textbook solutions
  • 24/7 expert homework help