Study Guides (400,000)
CA (160,000)
UTSG (10,000)
PSY (800)
Midterm

PSY220H1 Study Guide - Midterm Guide: Deindividuation, Pluralistic Ignorance, Social Capital


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSY220H1
Professor
Jason Plaks
Study Guide
Midterm

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 10 pages of the document.
PSY220H1 Midterm (January 22nd): Experiments, Theories & Definitions
Experiments
Experimenter(s)
Procedure
Results
Implications
Sherif !
!
NORM FORMATION
-Participants had to
estimate distance a
point of light travelled
(point of light wasn’t
actually moving b/c
of autokinetic
phenomenon)
-Participants changed
their answers
according to what
other two
participants said !
-Answers typically
converged as
experiment was
repeated over several
days !
-Participants
continued to support
group norm even a
year later
-Observed emergence
of social norm in the
lab !
-Observed
suggestibility !
-Were participants
conforming to social
pressure, or were
their perceptions
altered?
Jacobs & Campbell !
TRANSMISSION OF
FALSE BELIEFS
-Also used autokinetic
phenomenon !
-Had confederate
give inflated estimate
of how far light
moved, then replaced
confederate w/ real
participant, then
replaced that
participant w/
another & so on
-Inflated illusion of
how far the light
moved persisted for
5 generations of
participants, although
it diminished !
-Observed
suggestibility our
views of reality aren’t
ours alone !
-Were participants
conforming to social
pressure, or were
their perceptions
altered?
Asch
GROUP PRESSURE
-Showed lines &
asked participants to
identify which ones
were identical !
-Had 3 trials, everyone
agreed during the
first 2, all the
confederates said
wrong answer during
third trial
-Most people didn’t
conform (didn’t agree
w/ everyone else !
-Most people tell the
truth even if others
won’t!!
-Keep in mind: no
obvious pressure to
conform
Experiments
Experimenter(s)

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

Milgram
OBEDIENCE
-Had stern
experimenter tell
participants this was
a study of the eect
of punishment on
learning !
-Leader was a
confederate,
participant was
teacher !
-Teacher was told by
experimenter to
deliver a shock for
every wrong/absent
response (learner
was strapped into
electric chair in next
room)
-Most people went all
the way to XXX
(highest degree of
shock, where the
learner had stopped
screaming & had
fallen silent) !
-Even when
experimenter
mentioned learner’s
heart condition, most
participants still
obeyed to XXX
-Most people will
obey an authority
figure w/out threat
(experimenter had
only a few verbal
prods)!
-For most people, the
demands of authority
outweigh the
demands of our
conscience !
-Most people didn’t
obey when the victim
was made less
emotionally distant
(e.g. learner put in
same room, teacher
had to force learner’s
hand onto shock
plate) !
-Obedience dropped
when experimenter
wasn’t physically
present, or wasn’t
perceived as
legitimate !
-Obedience dropped
when institutional
authority dropped
(Yale less
prestigious setting) !
-Most people
conformed w/ defiant
confederates who
stood up against
experimenter
Experiments
Procedure
Results
Implications
Experiments
Experimenter(s)

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

McMillen & Austin
REDUCING PRIVATE
GUILT & RESTORING
SELF-IMAGE
-Participant arrives for
experiment !
-Confederate enters &
portrays himself as a
previous subject
looking for a lost
book !
-Confederate
mentions multiple-
choice test in
experiment where
most of the answers
are a certain letter !
-When confederate
leaves, participant is
asked by
experimenter if
they’ve heard
anything about the
experiment before
-100% of participants
lie !
-When asked by
experimenter if he
could use their help
marking tests
afterwards, those
who were induced to
lie volunteered more
time !
- Our eagerness to do
good after doing bad
reflects (1) our need to
reduce private guilt (2)
our need to restore a
shaken self-image & (3)
a desire to reclaim a
positive public image
Thompson, Cowan &
Rosenhan
EXCEPTIONS TO THE
“FEEL BAD-DO
GOOD” SCENARIO
-Participants privately
listened to taped
descriptions of a
person dying of
cancer !
-Some tapes focused
subjects’ attention on
their own worry &
grief, while other
tapes focused on
cancer patient
-When asked to
volunteer afterwards,
most self-focused
participants said no,
while most other-
focused participants
said yes !
-The “feel bad-do
good” eect occurs
w/ people whose
attention is focused
on others !
Batson
SEPARATED
EGOISTIC DISTRESS
FROM ALTRUISTIC
EMPATHY
-Aroused feelings of
empathy in
participants!
-Observed
participants go out of
their way to aid
person in need,
rather than reduce
their own distress by
escaping !
-Batson believed that
in addition to helpful
acts that are
obviously egoistic or
subtly egoistic,
there’s a third type of
altruism that aims
simply to increase
another’s welfare
Experiments
Procedure
Results
Implications
Experiments
Experimenter(s)
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version