×
Log in to StudySoup
Get Full Access to UMB - PHIL 209 - Study Guide - Midterm
Join StudySoup for FREE
Get Full Access to UMB - PHIL 209 - Study Guide - Midterm

Already have an account? Login here
×
Reset your password

UMB / Philosophy / PHIL 209 / What are the requisites in conducting the pantyhose study?

What are the requisites in conducting the pantyhose study?

What are the requisites in conducting the pantyhose study?

Description

School: University of Maryland
Department: Philosophy
Course: Know Thyself: Wisdom Through Cognitive Science
Professor: Peter carruthers
Term: Spring 2017
Tags:
Cost: 50
Name: Midterm Study Materials
Description: Description of all of the studies discussed in class - in their respective class topic
Uploaded: 02/23/2017
3 Pages 41 Views 2 Unlocks
Reviews


∙ Self-knowledge vs other knowledge


What are the requisites in conducting the pantyhose study?



o Pantyhose study: 4 of the exact same product placed on a table, subjects told to choose  which is the best – tendency to choose the most-right one. When asked why, gave a  reason (softer, better color…) which shows self-directed mind reading and confabulation (why did they actually take it? Making up reasons after the fact)

o Self-perception studies:  

▪ Head nodding increases belief in a message, shaking decreases – if you look at  someone nodding their head, you assume they are agreeing, people project that  observation onto themselves We also discuss several other topics like Why did humans start to write?

▪ People expressed greater confidence in statements written with their dominant  hand over non-dominant – shaky writing leads to shaky belief, & third parties  make the same conclusions


Is confabulation the same as mere-familiarity effect?



o Joint-control study: 2 people “in control” of computer mouse (1 experimenter 1  subject), told to move mouse then stop and decide whether they decided the stop  point/time or the other person. When subject actually had full control – avg score 56% in control. When subject actually had no control – avg score 45% in control. When  subject had no control but a word was mentioned and the mouse was stopped on that  object – avg score 62% in control = predicted by self-directed mind reading

∙ Affective misdirection

o Nickel in phone booth/generosity study: Nickel left in phone booth, then planned “need  help” event right after person exits – those who had the nickel were more likely to help  = one happiness affected their “happy” actions

o Sunny day/life satisfaction study: asked “overall how is your life going?” on sunny or  dark days – influenced by the weather, yet when asked how the weather is before  asking other question, not affected by the weather in giving response.  


Which types of study can be facilitated to observe unconscious bias?



We also discuss several other topics like What are cellular membranes made of?

o Induced emotion/risk judgment: told to write something happy or sad, then told to  judge the likelihood of a certain risk happening – affected by whichever type of  comment they wrote, yet when asked about current stressors their judgment was not  affected by the writing  

o Subliminal smell study: sniff, detect?, rate likeability of a face – pleasant smell ???? higher  likeability. Yet when smell was consciously noted, ratings were not affected by it o Subliminal face study: shown either happy/angry face for less than a second, then pour  and drink a drink – people who saw the happy face poured and drank more and would  be more willing to pay for more of the drink

∙ Affective misdirection – disgust

o Hypnotized morality study: hypnotized subjects read vingettes, told to “feel disgusted” when reading certain words (often, take) – hypnotized subjects gave higher overall disgust and immorality ratings. Later given a completely normal story, hypnotized still  felt disgust, yet confabulated reasons why

o Induced disgust & moral judgment: asked moral questions (half while in normal  surroundings, half while in an induced disgusting surrounding (bad smell, messy…)) – those in disgusting surroundings gave higher immorality ratings

∙ Ignorance of the causes of affect

o Mere-familiarity effect: words/tones/shapes/objects seen or heard before are more  likeable, yet subjects never cite familiarity in reasoning why (confabulation) If you want to learn more check out How many were the civilian deaths during wwii?

o Symmetry & averageness effect: body/face symmetry is an indicator of genetic quality – “average” faces more likeable than distinctive ones, yet subjects never cite that in  reasoning why  

o Choice blindness: Shown two photos of somewhat similar people and asked to choose  which is better. Then after a short time shown the picture they chose and asked to  explain why they chose it. Sometimes the pictures were switched (shown the one they  didn’t chose) but subjects usually did not realize and gave an explanation = readiness to  confabulate/little access to factors that determine liking

∙ Reasoning can reduce decision quality

o The poster-choosing study: 2 groups got to choose a poster 1 had to report pros and  cons then decide 1 had a filler task then chose. Reasoning subjects rated “funny” posters higher because easier to find a reason why, control subjects went with gut  feelings. Weeks later asked about happiness with the poster – reasoning subjects less  happy = people lack access to liking-determining properties ???? reasoning about the  properties can lead to worse estimates of desirability (and worse choices) If you want to learn more check out What is the difference between speed and average speed?

o The couples study: steady couples rate goodness of relationship after (or not) listing  reasons why, months later asked if they were still together – reasoning caused lower  consistency between rating & outcome

o Distraction vs reasoning study: subjects select between types of an item (car,  apartment..) given varying amounts of information (4 or 12 pieces), with a clear best  and worst. Then given time to reason and then choose or solve a puzzle and then  choose – in simple case not much difference, in complex case reasoning lead to worse  decisions We also discuss several other topics like Before the darwinian theory, what were the prevailing beliefs about the diversity of organisms?

∙ Expectation influences affect

o The smells study: gave smells with misleading labels, subjects asked to rate pleasantness  – the change in label changed activity in brain chemicals (expectation of what they were  about to smell) and when given a worse label, subjects rated it less pleasant

o The wine study: given 5 wines to taste & rate pleasantness when only told price (2 wines  given twice with different price labels) – higher price got higher rating = expecting it to  be better based on price, actually made it taste better in their mind

o Blind choice studies: rating vacation destinations, forced to make decision between  equally rated pairs. When asked to rate initial list again later, the one chosen to be  slightly better from the pair, re-rated higher = “someone who choses A over B, prefers A  to B” “having chosen A, I prefer A… if I prefer A, then A must be better”

∙ Placebo effects on pain

o Brain imaging study: used “analgesic cream” (the placebo) and an “ineffective” control  cream before being subjected to a small amount of pain – the placebo caused reduced  reported pain, correlated with lower activity in affective pain network

o Acupuncture test: patients with pain went to acupuncturists, who gave incorrectly  placed acupuncture – reported decreased pain = acupuncture doesn’t work as a  medicine but works as a strong placebo over standard care If you want to learn more check out What are the 4 plant tissues?

∙ Unconscious bias

o Implicit Attitude Test (IAT): reaction time measures degree of association (many  different types of associations) ex: white/good black/bad & vice versa, subjects press  left if white face or good word shown and press right if black face or bad word shown vs  other way around (faster at clicking when the two you associate are together) – dissociates from explicit (what you say about yourself) race prejudice

o The employment study: exactly similar resumes given to different companies with only  first name different (“white” name vs “black” name) – resumes with white names more  likely to be called back

o The trust study: shown faces and told to report how trustworthy they are (people make  swift trustworthiness ratings) – feminine face shapes are more trustworthy (male faces  rated more competent)

o Shooter studies: shown situation with white or black person with or without gun, need  to decide whether or not to shoot – quicker to decide not to shoot equal between races,  more errors with shooting black. Police don’t show bias in errors but reaction-time  difference shows = suppression of bias through training

▪ When non-trained subjects “primed” beforehand, if story read about a white  criminal ???? stereotype is equalized, if story read about a black criminal ????

stereotype against black “shooters” is magnified

Page Expired
5off
It looks like your free minutes have expired! Lucky for you we have all the content you need, just sign up here