Mod 23 and Mod 26
Mod 23 and Mod 26 SOP 3004
University of Central Florida
Popular in Social Psychology
Popular in Department
This 3 page Class Notes was uploaded by Gaby on Sunday October 16, 2016. The Class Notes belongs to SOP 3004 at University of Central Florida taught by Chin in Fall 2016. Since its upload, it has received 7 views.
Reviews for Mod 23 and Mod 26
Report this Material
What is Karma?
Karma is the currency of StudySoup.
You can buy or earn more Karma at anytime and redeem it for class notes, study guides, flashcards, and more!
Date Created: 10/16/16
Cri▯cism of Authoritarian Personality Theory -li▯le evidence exists that a harsh childhood upbringing and a rigid superego, primi▯ve id, and weak ego actually make a person more likely to become authoritarian -Theory does not predict which groups will become the targets of prejudice and discrimina▯on -theory does not predict when something like the holocaust will occur Research using the f- scale -scores on the f-scale and e-scale are highly correlated -the more the USSR threatened the US, the higher the F-scale scores (in the US) -authoritarian white are more prejudiced against blacks -authoritarian Arabs are more prejudiced against Jews -Authoritarian Israelis are more prejudiced against Arabs -In a study of US undergrads, those who were more authoritarian were more likely to: have a puni▯ve a▯tude toward those with AIDS, support very harsh treatment of drug dealers, hos▯le toward environment measures, oppose abor▯on rights, and believe that the homeless are homeless because they are lazy. Minimal Groups Experiments -recall what happened at the end of stage 1 in Sherif's Robbers Cave Experiment -Tajfel (1971) argued that actual compe▯▯on over scare resources is not necessary for prejudice and discrimina▯on to form -Tajfel used "minimal groups" to demonstrate how li▯le it takes to trigger prejudice and discrimina▯on Tajifel Experiment (1971) -par▯cipants were Bri▯sh school boys (14-15 year old) -asked to look at slide and see how many dots are on the slide -slide available short period of ▯me so boys didn't have ▯me to count dots -par▯cipants ﬁrst completed "dot es▯ma▯on" task so they could be assigned to groups for the purposes of experimenta▯on -The two groups used were "over-es▯mators" and "under-es▯mators" - par▯cipants were told both were equally inaccurate -Results: -on average more points were given to the in-group members as opposed to the outgroup members -other researchers have used other methods of making "minimal groups" assignments such as a "preference" for the pain▯ngs of Klee or Kandinsky or random assignment to group A or group B with the same results -other researchers have also used evalua▯ve ra▯ng to make in- group bias -s▯ll other researchers have shown a posi▯ve correla▯on between in-group bias, posi▯ve aﬀect and self-esteem during minimal groups experiments -concluded that mere categoriza▯on into groups is suﬃcient to produce in-group bias (favori▯sm toward in-group members) Notes for Lecture: Module 26 Five factors that inﬂuence liking -Proximity (propinquity) -Fes▯nger (1950 Westgate study -"Which three people do you see socially most o▯en?" -41%-men▯on next door neighbor -22.5% men▯on a neighbor two doors down -10.3% men▯on a neighbor at the end of the hall -emphasized func▯onal distance - found those in apartments 3 and 8 had more friends that lived on the same ﬂoor and those in 1 and 5 were more likely to make friends with those living directly above them -Segal 1974 asked trainees at the Maryland state police academy to name their best friend at the academy - last name began with a nearby la▯er (on average, only 4.5 le▯ers away alphabe▯cally) -Mere exposure -Zajonc exposed students to nonsense words a varying number of ▯mes -Students rated goodness of meaning of these "Turkish" words -Saegart, Swap, and Zajonc had students taste beverages that were located in diﬀerent rooms -students saw each other brieﬂy a varying number of ▯mes but no talking is allowed -amount of exposure was correlated with liking -Moreland and Beach (1992): four female "students" came to class either 0,5,10,or 15 ▯mes over the semester -they didn't interact with other students, just walked down the center aisle and took a seat up at the front -students were shown photographs of the women at the end of the semester -they were asked to rate their familiarity, similarity, and a▯rac▯veness -Number of exposures was correlates with a▯rac▯veness and similarity ra▯ng but not familiarity ra▯ngs -Mita (1977) :showed female students photographs of themselves and the mirror image of that photograph -they preferred the mirror image over the actual picture, but their close friends chose the real picture -Similarity -Competence -Physical a▯rac▯veness
Are you sure you want to buy this material for
You're already Subscribed!
Looks like you've already subscribed to StudySoup, you won't need to purchase another subscription to get this material. To access this material simply click 'View Full Document'