Create your own awesome maps

Even on the go

with our free apps for iPhone, iPad and Android

Get Started

Already have an account?
Log In

Social Psychology: Exam 2 by Mind Map: Social Psychology: Exam 2
5.0 stars - 1 reviews range from 0 to 5

Social Psychology: Exam 2



Claude Steele (1995), Stereotype Vulnerability, What does it feel like to be a target of prejudice?, IV, i. Stereotype threat- Test of Intelligence, ii. Non-threat- Test of Problem Solving, IV, iii. Black participants, iv. White participants, DV, Test Performance (score), Results, i. Black participants performed significantly worse when exposed to intelligence test than when exposed to the non-threat variable., Conclusion, i. Fear of fulfilling the stereotype causing decreased performance, ii. When people who are target have a stereotype activated, performance is undermined due to anxiety.

Dasgupta & Greenwald, Implicit Attitudes, Can you manipulate IAT by exposing to pro-black or pro-white information?, IV, learned about…, i. Pro-black- admired black/disliked white, ii. Pro-white-admired white/disliked black, iii. Control- flowers/insects, DV, i. IAT score after the priming, ii. IAT score after 24 hours, Results, i. Exposure to positive role models reduces amount of racial prejudice, ii. Being exposed to pro-white/ant-black information raised prejudice, iii. After 24 hours, pro-black group remained low in prejudice. While, pro-white group decreased their prejudice to a comparable amount to the control group., Conclusion, i. Since admired black men is shown less often than admired white men, maybe that’s why their results remained after 24 hours

Spencer & Steele (2002), Women in Math, IV, i. Geometry M=F and Algebra M>F, ii. Geometry M>F and Algebra M=F, DV, Scores, Results

Key Concepts

Stereotype- Cognitive belief (not necessarily True) based on group membership, Ex: in-group: variety to out-group: homogeneous

Prejudice- Attitude (lasting evaluation) usually negative based on group membership

Discrimination- Action/Behavior based on group membership

Implicit Association, Unaware implicit attitudes – implicit measures of prejudice, Unconscious attitude- but not subliminal, not below level of perception – therefore, these are super-bliminal


Race: Helping Behavior, Hypothesis, Method, Results, Conclusion

Gender: Door Holding Behavior, Hypothesis, Method, Results, Conclusion


Glass Ceiling

Sexism, Benevolent, New node, Hostile

Shifting Standards


Realistic Conflict Theory

Social Identity Theory, Us Vs. Them

Ways to reduce prejudice, Contact hypothesis- Increased contact between members of various social groups can be effective in reducing prejudice among them, Recategorization- shifts in the boundaries between an individual's in-group and some out-group., Common in-group identity model- A theory suggesting that to the extent to which individuals in different groups view themselves as members of a single social entity, ingroup bias will be reduced, Saying "no" to sterotypes, Kawakami et al. (2002)


De Angelis, Microaggressions

Strate, Beer Commercials


Social Influence


Milgram (1963), Obedience, IV, New node, Method, Each participant became a "teacher", They were instructed to give increasing amounts of electric shock to the "learner" whenever he answered incorrectly (15 volts- 450 volts), The "learner" answered many questions incorrectly, If the participant hesitated, the experimenter asked them to continue., Results, 65% showed total obedience, Conclusion, This experiment showed that average people could be pressured to fo inhumane things if asked to do so by an authority figure.

Asch (1951), Conformity

Sherif (1935), Suggestibility: Dot on the wall, IV, DV, Results, Conclusion

Williams (2000), Cyber Obstracism, Being ignored, or excluded, in a video game, Hypotheses, Accordingly, in Experiment 1, we hypothesize that targets of cyberostracism will report lower levels of belonging, self-esteem, control, and meaningful existence. As a consequence, they will report psychological discomfort., In Experiment 2, we hypothesize that when targets of cyberostracism have the opportunity to cope with their psychological discomfort, they will be more likely to conform to others as a means to refortify their sense of belonging., IV, i. Exclusion/Ostracism, ii. Inclusion, DV, Survey on Needs, Belonging, Control, Meaningful Existence, Self-esteem, Results, Study 1, Decreased feelings of belonging and socially based self-esteem, Study 2, Ostracism increased conformity regardless

Key Concepts

Conformity, Normative, change behavior to fit in, Social influence based on the desire to be liked or accepted by other persons, Informational, A behavior assuming new information, Social Influence based on the desire to be correct



Conformity in Flag Quiz


Baron, Vandello and Brunsman (1996) p. 253

Lowball- Burger and Cornelius (2003), IV, Lowball, Asked to donate $5 w/ incentive, then took away incentive after commitment, Control, Asked to donate $5 without offering incentive, Interrupt, Asked to donate $5 w/ incentive, then interrupted before commitment was made, DV, Whether the participant donated, Results, More persons in the lowball condition agreed to make a donation than in either of the other two conditions, Conclusion, Once people make a initial commitment, they feel compelled to stick with it, even though the conditions that led them to say "yes" in the first place, no longer exist.

Tactics to gain compliance, Foot-in-door technique, Lowball Procedure, Door-in-Face tech., That's not all tech., Playing hard to get, Deadline tech.


Zimbardo, Stanford Prison Experiment, Based on Stanley Milgram (1963), Question, Would good men overcome or succumb to a bad situation?, IV, i. Prisoner, ii. Guard, DV, i. Behavior (Qualitative), Results, The prisoners rebelled on the second day, The guards used progressively worst psychological tactics to display dominance over the prisoners, On Day 5, five students were released early for extreme stress, On Day 6, Zimbardo ended the experiment prematurely, Zimbardo realized he had become a pawn to the situation as well and was damaging the well-being of his subjects, Conclusion, Ordinary, or good, people are capable of committed inhumane and violent behavior towards others in certain scenarios. Under the right conditions, the environment caused the participants to act out of character, horrendously., Reccomendation, Be aware of our vulnerability to situational forces, in order to be able to overcome them, The criminal justice system may be unproductive by holding prisoners in confinement for a long period of time.

Pro-social Behavior


Bystander Effect: Latané & Darley, Diffusion of Responsibility, The idea that the amount of responsibility assumed by bystanders in an emergency is shared among them, Response to Seizure Emergency, Diffusion of Responsibility, IV, Subject and Victim, Subject, Victim, and Stranger, Subject, Victim, and 4 Strangers, DV, Time from beginning of Seizure (Response time), Results, Participants sought out help quicker when it was only the victim and subject. They also sought help 100% of the time, while participants in the other conditions helped less frequently.

Key Concepts


Modeling Pro-social Behavior: Picking up Litter, Hypothesis, Method, Results, Conclusion

Influence of Group Size on Pro-social Behavior, Hypothesis, Method, Results, Conclusion