The flashcards below were created by user
kassie.saunders8
on FreezingBlue Flashcards.
-
What are the 3 reasons for Bystander Apathy?
- 1. Diffusion of Responsibility
- 2. Time Pressure
- 3. Perceiving that an emergency exists
- a. Social Comparison
- b. Social Convention
-
What are the 4 reasons you are more likely to help?
- 1. Feel Competent
- 2. Perceive few costs
- 3. With a group of friends
- 4. Consumed alcohol.
-
What were the results of Darley and Latane (1968) Diffusion of Responsibility experiment. (When they measured percentage and looking response.)
The more people were believed to be around the person the less people looked and the longer it took for them to. so 1 person 85% and 52 seconds and 5 people were 31% and 166 seconds.
-
What were the results of P.M. Markey's (2000) internet version of Darley and Latanes diffusion of responsibility study?
same results EXCEPT when called by name Ss had a quick response.
-
What were the results of Garcia et al (2002) diffusion of responsibility study? (where Ss imagined having dinner with a large group or 1 or 2 people)
Ss who imagined having dinner with a large group volunteered less time. "unaccountable "exempt" cognitively accessible.
-
What were the results of Darley & Batsons (1973) study where seminary Ss had to give a talk about the good samaritan or jobs and then were told they were early, on time, or late?
- Ahead - 63% stopped and helped
- On Time - 45% stopped and helped
- Late - 10% stopped and helped.
-
What did Wilson and Petruska (1984) find about information indicating nothing is wrong?
Ss are more attentitive to information indcating nothing is wrong.
-
What were the results of Latane and Darley (1968) Social Comparison study (smoke pumped into room).
If Ss were alone 75% reported smoke when alone, 38% with 3 "naive" people, and 10% with 2 "silent" confederate.
-
What were the results of Shotland & Straw's (1976) Social convention study. (Ss believed fight was between a mand and wife or a woman and a stranger).
When Ss believed the couple was married 19% intervened and when they believed it was a woman and a stranger 65% intervened.
-
Why are you more likely to help when you are with a group of friends? (2 reasons)
- 1. You communicate and get accurate information about what is going on and what to do
- 2. Being with friends triggers feelings of compssion towards people in general.
-
Why are you more likely to help when you have consumed alcohol? (Steele et. al. (1985)) 2 reasons
- 1. Steele's study says alcohol causes "cognitive myopia" so they attend to fewer cues.
- 2. attend to victims needs. relatively unaware of situational ambiguities and neative consequences.
-
What were the results of Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) first experiment where Ss were randomly assigned to play prosocial, antisocial, or neutral video games?
- prosocial - 67%
- antisocial - 28%
- neutral - 33%
- Helped when experimenter dropped a cup of pens/pencils.
-
What were the results of Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) 2nd experiment where Ss were randomly assigned to play either a prosocial video game or a neutral video game and then asked to volunteer for another study?
- Prosocial - 100% agreed to volunteer and volunteered 33.06 min.
- Neutral - 68% agreed to volunteer and volunteered 14.74 min.
- So prosocial were more likely to volunteer and volunteered more time than those that played neutral.
-
What were the results of Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) 3rd experiment where Ss were randomly assigned to play either a prosocial video game or a neutral video game with a female experimenter whose boyfriend came in and started yelling at her?
- Prosocial - 56% intervened
- Neutral - 22% intervened.
-
What were the results of Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) 4th experiment where Ss were randomly assigned to play either a prosocial video game or a neutral video game asked to write an essay and then the experimenter dropped the cup of pens.
- Prosocial: 1.26 prosocial thoughts, 63% helped
- Neutral: 0.06 prosocial thoughts, 22% helped
-
What is the definition of altruism?
Helping soley for benefit of person in need
-
What is the definition of egoism:
Helping for personal motive.
-
What was the results of Batson et al (1981) say about helping and reducing distress?
If the helper feels empathy for a person in need, helping altruistically motivated to reduce other's distress BUT if helper oes not feel empathy, helping egotistically motivated to reduce own other's distress.
-
Cialdini et al's Negative-State Relief model (1987): Elaine receives shocks, Ss learned she is really fearful of shocks. Seeing "Elaine" in pain did what?
Seeing "elaine" in pain made Ss sad and depressed, especially if they felt similar to her.
-
It Batson et al (1981) experiment of Elaine Ss were given a chance to trade places with Elaine. What were the results?
- High "empathy"/Difficult Escape: 91%
- High "empathy"/Easy Escape: 82%
- Low "empathy"/Difficult Escape: 64%
- Low "empathy"/Easy Escape. 18%
- Empathy led Ss to trade placed with other even when an egoistic means to avoid distress was available. If no empathy, got the hell out of there when could.
-
What were the results of Cialdini et al's Negative-State Relief Model (1987): when given a chance to help "carol"?
If Ss believed the helping could not relieve sadness, feeling empathy for carol did not increase helping but if they believed they could alter their mood empathy did increase helping.
-
Singer et al. (2004): fMRI study found what about empathy?
there was a large overlap between cortical areas activated by receiving and observing loved one receiving shock. Individual empathy scores also correlated with neural activity while observing shock.
-
What is the Baumeister-Bushman Resolution?
For loved ones, egoistic, and altruistic motivations completely overlap. All things equal, egoistic motivations figure prominently for those more emotionally distant to the helper.
-
Levine et al. (1994) looked at various types of helping in 36 US cities. what were the most/least helpful cities?
- Most: Rochester, NY
- Houston, TX
- Nashville, TN
- Memphis, TN
- Knoxville, TN
- Louisville, KY
- Least:
- Shreveport, LA
- Philadelphia, PA
- Fresno, CA
- LA, CA
- NY, NY
- Patterson, NJ
-
What were the results of Seligman, Fazio, & Zanna (1980) (intrinsic, extrinsic reasons & love scale)
"extrinsic-reasons" Ss expressed less love and saw marriage as lessl ikely than did "intrinsic-reasons" Ss.
-
______________ begets attraction.
Similarity begets attraction
-
What did Newcome (1961) find with Ss and people they agreed with?
Ss were more likely to become friends iwth those they agreed with.
-
Does the degree of similarity between people seem to change with time?
No
-
Attraction begets sperceived similarity: What did Gold et al (1984) find in his study about males and the females they are attracted to?
Males falsely assume that females are similar to them if they are attracted to them.
-
What did Murray et al. (2002) find about partners in satisfying, stable relationships?
Partners in satisfying, stable relationships falsely perceive similarities with mates... think partner is a kindred spirit.
-
What is Swanns's self-concept say?
self concept helps us to know what to expect, and provides a sense of control and security. Therefore, people self-verify - they seek information that confirms existin self-concept.
-
What did Swann et al (1994) find about partners?
- Married: preferred self-verifying partners - precipitate shift to authenticity strivings, If mate sees us for who wer are, allowed to develop unique potentials.
- Dating: preferred self-enhancing partners - highly evaluative relationships - judge suitability as potential mates.
-
What did Bernichon et al. (2003) find in his study with high self-esteem and low self-esteem Ss?
Ss with high self-esteem self-verified specific negative self-views. Low self-esteem Ss hurt too much by negative self information.
-
What did Twenge (2002) find about Ss receiving feedback (negative, or positive) and self defeating behaviors?
Those receiving negative feedback (end up alone) picked the "lottery B" self-defeating behavior. Also found that excluded Ss chose to engage in fewer healthy behaviors and procrastinated more.
-
What did Twenge et al. (2003): manipulations of social exclusion led to "deconstructed state" characterized by a(n):
- 1. increased present orientation
- 2. disordered time perception (seemed to drag)
- 3. tendency to experience life as meaningless
- 4. state of lethargy
- 5. lack of emotion
- 6. escape from self-awareness.
-
What did Baumeister (1990): find about the deconstructed state?
Deconstructed state also often characterized presuicidal people.
-
What is rejection sensitivity:
Anxious expectations of rejection in situations that afford the possibility of rejection by significant others.
-
What did Downey et al. (1998) find in his study about rejection sensitivity?
- During a conflict with partner, rejection sensitive women tended to become angry and insulting, thus angering partner.
- After conflict, rejection sesitive women's partners likely to both be dissatisfied with relationship and consider ending it.
- Self-Fulfilling prophesy: Expectations of rejection tend to produce behaviors that elicit rejection.
-
Romero-Canya et al. (2010): Predicted that among the rejection sensitive, harsh rejection in self-defining domain would lead to a little butt kissing. What did he find?
- 1. especially harsh rejection by novel group caused rejetion sensitive MEN to contribute MOREmoney to it.
- 2. harsh rejection by potential dating partners (average evaluation among several) caused rejection-sesitive MEN to be willing to spend MORE money on both rejecting and non-rejecting dating partner
- 3. harsh rejection by potential dating partner (single evaluation from one) caused rejection-sensitive WOMEN to choose expensive gift for rejecter.
-
Why are shunned rejection-sensitive folks suprisingly ready to kiss up?
Harsh rejection in personally threatening situations triggers well learned self-protective pattern of responding among those for whom rejection is salient concern.
-
Evolution and gender differences in mate preferences: What did Buss (1994) find about evolution and mating strategies?
- Mating strategies today reflect successful reproductive strategies of ancestors.
- Female Strategy: Find mate who is willing and able to invest resources in kids
- Male Strategy: Find many young, attractive females.
-
What did Buss (1989( find when we surveyed 10,000 people from 37 different cultures about what women and men value in a mate?
- Men: value physical attractiveness and chastity
- Women: value economic success.
-
What is the Lipstick Effect (Nelson, 2001):
Observation that women spend more money on cosmetics and other attractiveness-enhancing products when the economy's weak.
-
What did Hill et al (2012) find... Economic downturn is signal to women that:
- 1. financially stable men are getting scarce
- 2. because men's mating choices are highly influenced by physical attractiveness
- 3. They must increase their efforst to become more physically appealing.
-
What did Eagly & Wood (1999) find when they reanalyzed Buss (1989) about mate preference differences?
Where sexes were more economically equal,mate preference differences were smaller.
-
What did Feingold (1990) find about sex differences being pronounced?
Sex differences more pronounced in self-report than actual behavior.
-
Why might red enhance female sexual attractiveness (to men)?
- a. Societal conditioning: passion, lust etc.
- b. biological evolution: red flush - sexual excitation.
|
|