New Semester
Started
Get
50% OFF
Study Help!
--h --m --s
Claim Now
Question Answers
Textbooks
Find textbooks, questions and answers
Oops, something went wrong!
Change your search query and then try again
S
Books
FREE
Study Help
Expert Questions
Accounting
General Management
Mathematics
Finance
Organizational Behaviour
Law
Physics
Operating System
Management Leadership
Sociology
Programming
Marketing
Database
Computer Network
Economics
Textbooks Solutions
Accounting
Managerial Accounting
Management Leadership
Cost Accounting
Statistics
Business Law
Corporate Finance
Finance
Economics
Auditing
Tutors
Online Tutors
Find a Tutor
Hire a Tutor
Become a Tutor
AI Tutor
AI Study Planner
NEW
Sell Books
Search
Search
Sign In
Register
study help
social science
psychology 2e
Social Psychology 2nd Edition Robbie Sutton, Karen Douglas - Solutions
=+. Can you think of real-life examples where groups have engaged in conflicts in which huge sacrifices appear to have been made by each group in a quest to secure a trivial outcome?
=+2. Sacrificing resources for merely relative superiority –getting less overall to ensure that one gets more than an outgroup – would, on the face of it, seem to be counterproductive. However, is there a possibility that
=+participants are playing ‘a long game’ – being prepared to pay a short-term price in order to accrue later rewards?
=+What benefits might flow from ensuring the group gets more resources than the outgroup, even if it gets less resources in absolute terms?
=+. Yamagishi et al. (2005) wrote that: ‘The existence of the group heuristic ... cannot be directly tested’ (p. 175).Is this true?
=+ Can you briefly outline a way in which it could be tested?
=+4. Insofar as effects observed from the minimal group paradigm are a product of self-enhancement motives, Falk, Heine and Takemura (2014) questioned the extent to which the effects would be robust across cultures. Specifically, Westerners generally show a tendency to self-enhance more than East
=+Heine, Lehman, Markus & Kitayama, 1999) and may therefore show less of the effects associated with the minimal group paradigm. In their study, Japanese participants displayed less ingroup bias than North Americans across a variety of measures. Can you think of other ways in which culture might
=+5. Think of two reasons why you might expect (a) men to be less biased than women, and (b) women to be less biased than men, in allocating more resources to the ingroup. Ideally, think of reasons that are rooted either
=+in nature (evolved differences between men and women) or in nurture (socialization of men and women into different gender roles). Then, make a bet – do you
=+think it is men or women who are more biased? When you’ve done that, you may wish to consult Balliet, Wu, and De Dreu’s (2014) meta-analysis which examined whether over many studies, groups including men are more or less biased. How did the different positions stack up?
=+Once you know the answer, do you think it would have been harder to come up with reasons to expect the ‘wrong’ answer?
=+1. Anti-gay prejudice is associated with strong Christian attitudes (e.g., Batson, Schoenrade & Ventis, 1993) and active participation in organized religion (Hoffarth, Hodson & Molnar, 2018). What other variables do you think anti-gay prejudice would be correlated with?
=+2. What impact do you think the AIDS virus has had on attitudes towards gay men?
=+3. Take some time to search the literature on homophobia.Is anti-gay prejudice against same-sex male couples
=+the same as against same-sex female couples? What are the similarities and differences?
=+4. List some of the consequences of anti-gay prejudice. How are they similar or different to racism, ageism and sexism?
=+1. What psychological factors affect whether people eat meat?
=+2. Review the theory of ambivalent sexism and, referring to research evidence, describe some of the consequences of hostile and benevolent sexism.
=+3. With reference to social psychological theory and research, explain how racism is resistant to eradication.
=+What do we know about prejudice reduction from social psychology?
=+4. Review the research to date on stereotype threat and stereotype lift phenomena. What are the consequences of each and when are each more likely to occur?
=+1. Using Google Scholar, look up how many times the studies of Lynott et al. (2014) and Wortman et al.(2014) have been cited. Then look up how often the studies they failed to replicate – respectively, Wililams
=+and Bargh (2008), and Bargh and Shalev (2012) – have been cited, both overall, and since 2014 (to provide a fair comparison of how much attention the papers have received, year on year). What does the number of citations suggest to you about the potential for unreliable findings to have undue
=+2. What social psychological processes – of the sort you are reading about in this chapter – might help to explain why unreliable findings can receive more attention than subsequent failures to replicate them?
=+You may wish to return to this particular question after you have finished reading the chapter.
=+1. A wealth of research evidence suggests that people make reasonably accurate judgements about people based on very little information. Can you find an example of a research study that found the opposite (e.g., by using Google Scholar)? What was different about this study from those you have
=+1. The article by Doyen et al. (2012) is published in PLOS ONE, an online, open access journal. Use an Internet search engine to find and read it (it’s brief). If you have access to the original article by Bargh et al. (1996), also read it.
=+ What differences in method do you see? How exact is the replication?
=+2. In Chapter 5 (Communication), when discussing nonverbal communication (e.g., the intended or unintended use of body language and intonation to convey information), we consider a similar case.Gilder and Heerey (2018) found that participants were affected by experimenters’ beliefs about
=+the primes they had been exposed to, and not by the primes themselves. You might want to read about that study, and the section on nonverbal communication. What nonverbal cues do you think experimenters might be giving to participants in order to influence their responses? Bear in mind that
=+in the Doyen et al. (2012) and the Gilder and Heerey(2018) studies, experimenters had no particular motivation to ‘cheat’ – they probably were not deliberately influencing participants. How would you test for these effects? Understanding these effects is important not only to understand how
=+1. Describe and evaluate two different approaches to person perception.
=+2. How do people form first impressions and how accurate are they?
=+3. What is the hindsight bias, what causes it and what are some of its consequences?
=+1. One of your clients is in the property business and relies heavily on the ability to negotiate excellent prices for the properties it buys. Find three findings in this chapter and explain to the client how they could be used to help them negotiate good prices (write no more than 600 words in
=+2. Another client is a charity which, unfortunately, lost a lot of money when it invested in a fund that subsequently collapsed. A major media outlet has published an exposé blaming the loss on the management of the charity, arguing that the charity could, and should, have avoided the loss. This
=+publicity is potentially damaging to the charity, as it is likely to deter donors from giving their money. It wants you to help it in preparing a response to the story. In particular, it is interested in the psychological biases that may lead people to assign blame incorrectly. What errors and
=+3. An investment bank finds that its traders are particularly prone to the confirmation bias – once they decide a trade is a good one, they tend to ignore evidence to the contrary. Using Internet search engines or databases, can you find how the confirmation bias can be counteracted, helping
=+1. Can science tell us about the rights and wrongs of different political positions?
=+2. Most social psychologists, like most social scientists(Cardiff & Klein, 2005; Klein & Stern, 2005), identify as liberal/left wing. Few identify as conservative/right wing. A show of hands in a room full of roughly 1,000 researchers at the 2011 meeting of the society for Personality and Social
=+you think the tendency for research to be unflattering about political conservatism might stem from the biased representation of left-wingers/liberals in social psychology?
=+For an extended and controversial review of this topic, see a feature article published in the journal Behavioral and Brain Sciences by Duarte et al. (2015), and the many open peer commentaries published below it.
=+3. The research on the relationship between political conservatism and happiness is correlational. Can you find any experimental evidence that political conservatism affects mood or wellbeing? If not, do you think it is possible to design such an experiment?
=+1. Research on implicit prejudice inevitably has political repercussions. For example, some scholars have argued that the ubiquity of implicit prejudice uncovered by the IAT and similar measures highlights the need for affirmative action programmes in
=+employment. Since unconscious bias against minority groups is everywhere, the argument goes, a deliberate bias towards them needs to be introduced to counteract it (Jolls & Sunstein, 2006; Kang & Banaji, 2006). It has also been seriously argued that as part of recruitment and hiring processes,
=+(e.g., Ayres, 2001). What are the arguments for and against the use of the IAT in hiring decisions – is it legitimate not to hire someone because they come out as prejudiced on the IAT? Consider the ethical, scientific and logistical arguments for and against the use of this technology.
=+2. Use Google Scholar to find the article by Greenwald, McGhee and Schwartz (1998). How many times has it been cited now?
=+3. Read the article by Nosek and Banaji (2001) on the GNAT. Then find some summaries of the GNAT and arguments for and against its use (as opposed to, say, the IAT). For example, one paper by Znanewitz, Braun, Hensel, Altobelli, and Hattke (2018) reviews different measures of implicit attitudes;
=+4. Yen, Durrheim, and Tafarodi (2018) published a fascinating discourse analysis of what happens when people are confronted with the IAT, and discover that they do (or do not) show implicit prejudice. Access
=+this paper, and compare the critical reactions to the IAT to the kinds of criticisms that academic researchers have levelled at it (see especially Jost, 2018, for a review of these criticisms and defences of the IAT).
=+This highlights the skills that laypeople can have in criticizing scientific research methods – when they
=+are sufficiently motivated (Lord, Ross & Lepper, 1979;Rutjens, Heine, Sutton & van Harreveld, 2018).
=+1. As you revise this chapter, think about the concept of embodied social cognition. How many of the findings you have been reading about can be explained in terms of basic bodily and perceptual processes? How many seem to require abstract mental thought?
=+2. What other criticisms of the concept of embodiment can you find, using Google Scholar or another academic database? Using your critical thinking skills, what critiques of this approach can you come up with yourself?
=+3. Several studies in this area have been the subject of replication attempts. What can you find out about these? For a start, see the coverage on ‘power posing’in Chapter 5. Take a look at this article in the New Yorker about power posing (Dominus, 2017) and an example of a replication
=+Can you think up an experiment into embodied social cognition, along the lines of those you have read about in this chapter? Think of a gesture or posture, for example, that corresponds to a certain attitude or mindset. Can you covertly induce this posture, and test whether the bodily gesture can
=+1. Describe and evaluate the different methods that social psychologists use to measure attitudes.
=+2. Describe the concept of cognitive dissonance and, with reference to social psychological research, highlight the ways in which people reduce dissonance.
=+3. Discuss the role of emotions in making moral judgements.
=+1. Turn the following goal intentions into implementation intentions that might be applicable in your life:
=+» ‘I want to revise effectively for an upcoming assignment or exam.’
=+» ‘I want to break an undesirable habit.’
=+» ‘I want to get in contact with someone I feel I’ve been neglecting.’
=+2. Imagine you are working for one of the following:
=+» A health agency that wants to promote healthy eating among patients at risk of cardiovascular problems.
=+» An environmental agency that wants to promote changes to low-carbon behaviours, such as taking shorter showers and using public transport.
=+» A charity that wants to increase self-examination behaviour for breast or testicular cancer.Using Google Scholar or another academic database, find papers that review the literature on implementation intentions, and also one or more papers that report applications of implementation intentions
=+implementation intentions, how they can be useful to the goals of the organization, and suggest
=+how they could be specifically applied.
=+3. Can you find any papers that suggest that implementation intentions are sometimes no better, or may even backfire, relative to goal intentions?
=+4. Can you find papers that suggest how the benefits of implementation intentions can be increased?
=+1. Imagine you were working for a market research company commissioned to do a customer satisfaction survey by a cosmetics company. These companies regularly provide results of such surveys in their advertisements (e.g., ‘80 per cent
=+of women were satisfied with this product’).Imagine, also, that you had no moral scruples. How would you design questions to lead customers to provide apparently positive evaluations of the product?
=+2. Using an Internet search engine or academic database, can you find a paper that criticizes a scale in social or personality psychology on the basis of Schwarz’s(2014) analysis of survey design?
=+1. If facial expressions provide information about communicators’ internal states, why do you think people still use them when they are communicating on the phone? You might want to relate this to the section on embodied social cognition in Chapter 4.
=+2. How do you think the Darwinian argument might apply to other nonverbal behaviours? A special issue of the Journal of Nonverbal Behaviour (Patterson, 2003) explores the evolutionary bases of nonverbal behaviours such as mimicry, expressivity and laughter.
=+3. How easy is it to design an experiment to test the prediction that facial expressions are evolved? What variables might you manipulate, how would you do this and what would you measure?
=+4. Evolutionary psychologist Michael Corballis (2014, 2017) argues that hand gestures preceded our spoken language. He argues that as hominids evolved from the other apes, some of the early bipedal hominids began to use hand gestures, syntax was added to these gestures, and that speech now
=+1. LIWC is a powerful package with many applications.It has also been applied to understand the communication style of prominent politicians including Donald Trump (Ahmadian, Azarshahi & Paulhus, 2017). What other applications can you find if you search ‘LIWC’ and‘social psychology’ on
=+2. The research we have reviewed here follows the mainstream, ‘cues-based’ approach to the detection of deception. But lies are often detected through the process of interactive communication, for example by
=+persuading a liar to confess or asking them challenging questions in order to expose a lie (Masip, BlandónGitlin, Martínez, Herrero & Ibabe, 2016). Levine (2015)meta-analysed several studies and found that people are indeed much better at detecting lies when they
=+engage with liars in conversation. Levine (2018) is a champion of ecologically valid lie detection research where people get to interact naturalistically. What are the pitfalls, as well as the merits, of this approach?
=+1. Critically overview Brown and Levinson’s (1978, 1987) theory of politeness phenomena.
=+2. How good are people at being able to detect deception?
=+3. Critically discuss the advantages and disadvantages of face-to-face and computer-mediated communication.
=+1. What techniques might you suggest to make people aware of their use of language abstraction and its consequences?
=+What are the merits and pitfalls of each and how easy would they be to introduce?
=+2. If you are able to make people aware of their linguistic choices and their consequences, how might you‘train’ people to monitor the language they use when they talk about others?
=+3. How would you test the effectiveness of your intervention(s)?
=+» When does persuasion work?
=+» How does persuasion work?
=+» What can people do to persuade others?
=+» When persuasion does not work?
=+1. Can you think of reasons why the death-related warnings do not work for the smokers who derive a self-esteem ‘boost’ from smoking? (Hint: check out terror management theory by using the Index of this
=+textbook or by looking online. The theory states that self-esteem is a vital buffer against the fundamental fear of death.)
=+2. What kinds of messages might be more effective on these people?
=+3. What are the potential implications of these findings for anti-smoking campaigns? After all, many people
=+who smoke genuinely enjoy it and are happy to be smokers.
=+1. In this study, Douglas et al. (2010) only tested people’s responses to glossy advertisements. What do you think might have happened if they had focused on advertisements containing strong arguments?
Showing 2700 - 2800
of 5790
First
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Last
Step by Step Answers
Get 50% OFF
Claim Now
