University of Maryland Eastern Shore Psychology Questions

User Generated



University of Maryland - Eastern Shore


1 Describe the methods and results of  Sherif’s study and Asch’s study (both of which investigated conformity).  For each of these two types of situations, give an example from your  own life that is consistent with these findings. Be sure that you do not  give an example that was mentioned in the text.

2 Explain  stimulus-value-role (S-V-R) theory. Do you think it captures how  relationships develop? Give examples from your own life to support your  answer.

In your responses, be sure to use complete sentences and proper grammar, spelling, sentence structure, etc.      

* addition material attached below

* Remember to save your work in a Microsoft Word file.

* Let me know by email if you have any questions for me as you work on this assignment.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Chapter 7 Conformity Figure 7.1: Continuum of Social Influence Figure 7.2: The Chameleon Effect Conformity • Tendency to change perceptions, opinions, or behavior in ways that are consistent with group norms. Putting Common Sense to the Test… The Early Classics • Sherif’s study (1936) – Figure 7.3: Classic Case of Suggestibility • Asch’s study (1951) – Figure 7.4: Line Judgment Task What Did Asch’s Participants Do? • Participants went along with the clearly incorrect majority 37% of the time. • However, 25% of the participants NEVER conformed. • Still, 50% conformed for at least half of the critical presentations. – The rest conformed on an occasional basis. Sherif’s vs. Asch’s Studies • Sherif: Because of ambiguity, participants turned to each other for guidance. • Asch: Found self in awkward position. – Obvious that group was wrong Why Do People Conform? • Informational Influence: People conform because they believe others are correct in their judgments. • Normative Influence: People conform because they fear the consequences of appearing deviant. • Figure 7.5 – Conformity Effects on Perception Types of Conformity • Private Conformity: Changes in both overt behavior and beliefs. • Public Conformity: Superficial change in overt behavior only. Figure 7.6: Distinguishing Types of Conformity Table 7.1: Two Types of Conformity Majority Influence: Group Size • Conformity increases with group size -- but only up to a point. • Why? – Law of “diminishing returns”? – Perception that others are either in “collusion” or “spineless sheep”? Majority Influence: Awareness of Norms • Conform only when know about and focus on social norms. • Often misperceive what is normative. – Pluralistic ignorance Majority Influence: Having an Ally in Dissent • When there was an ally in Asch’s study, conformity dropped by almost 80%. • Why does having an ally reduce majority influence on our behavior? – Substantially more difficult to stand alone for one’s convictions than when one is part of even a tiny minority. – Any dissent can reduce the normative pressures to conform. • Table 7.2 – On Being a Lone Dissenter Majority Influence and Gender Differences • Sex differences appear to depend on: – How comfortable people are with the experimental task – Type of social pressure people face Minority Influence: The Power of Style • Moscovici: Nonconformists derive power from the style of their behavior. – “Consistent dissent” approach • Hollander: Minorities influence by first accumulating idiosyncrasy credits. – “First conform, then dissent” strategy How Does Minority Influence Work? • Does minority influence work just like the process of conformity? • Do majorities and minorities exert influence in different ways? – Because of their power and control, majorities elicit public conformity through normative pressures. – Because seen as seriously committed to their views, minorities produce private conformity, or conversion. Majority vs. Minority Influence • Relative impact of each depends on whether the judgment that is being made is objective or subjective. • The relative effects of majority and minority viewpoints depend on how conformity is measured. – Direct, public measures vs. more indirect, private measures of conformity Culture and Conformity • Cultures differ in the extent to which people adhere to social norms. • What determines whether a culture becomes individualistic or collectivistic? – The complexity of the society – The affluence of the society – The heterogeneity of the society Compliance • Changes in behavior that are elicited by direct requests. Mindlessness and Compliance • Talking fast and catching people off guard can improve compliance rates. • People can be disarmed by the simple phrasing of the request. – How you ask for something can be more important than what you ask for. – Langer: We often respond mindlessly to words without fully processing the information they are supposed to convey. Mindlessness and Compliance (cont’d) • Mindlessness can make us more vulnerable to compliance, but can also have opposite effect Norm of Reciprocity • The powerful norm of reciprocity dictates that we treat others as they have treated us. – This norm leads us to feel obligated to repay for acts of kindness, even when unsolicited. • Norm of reciprocity is relatively short-lived. Sequential Request Strategies: Foot-in-the-Door Technique • Person begins with a very small request; secures agreement; then makes a separate larger request. • Why is it effective? – Self-perception theory revisited Freedman and Fraser Sequential Request Strategies: Low-Balling • Person secures agreement with a request and then increases the size of that request by revealing hidden costs. • Why is it effective? – Psychology of commitment Cialdini et al Putting Common Sense to the Test… Sequential Request Strategies: Door-in-the-Face Technique • Person begins with a very large request that will be rejected; then follows that up with a more moderate request. • Why is it effective? – Perceptual contrast? – Reciprocal concessions? Cialdini et al Sequential Request Strategies: That’s Not All, Folks! • Person begins with a somewhat inflated request; then immediately decreases the apparent size of the request by offering a discount or bonus. Burger et al Table 7.3: Sequential Request Strategies Assertiveness: When People Say No • To be able to resist the trap of compliance techniques, one must: – Be vigilant – Not feel indebted by the norm of reciprocity • Compliance techniques work smoothly only if they are hidden from view. Obedience • Behavior change produced by the commands of authority Putting Common Sense to the Test… Milgram’s Research: Forces of Destructive Obedience • Conducted his experiments during the time that Adolph Eichmann was being tried for Nazi war crimes. • His unorthodox methods have been the subject of much ethical debate. • Description of Milgram’s obedience experiments. Table 7.4: The Learner's Protests in the Milgram Experiment The Prods Used in Milgram’s Experiment • “Please continue (or please go on).” • “The experiment requires that you continue.” • “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” • “You have no other choice; you must go on.” The Obedient Participant • Milgram’s participants were tormented by experience. • No gender differences observed in level of obedience. • Milgram’s basic findings have been replicated in several different countries and among different age groups. Are We All Nazis? • No, an individual’s character can make a difference. • Authoritarian Personality: Submissive toward figures of authority but aggressive toward subordinates. Figure 7.7: Factors That Influence Obedience Important Factors That Influence Obedience • Physical presence and apparent legitimacy of the authority figure • The victim’s proximity • The experimental procedure – Participants were led to feel relieved of personal responsibility for the victim’s welfare. – Gradual escalation was used. Defiance: When People Rebel • Social influence can also breed rebellion and defiance. • Having allies gives individuals the courage to disobey. The Continuum of Social Influence Putting Common Sense to the Test… Social Impact Theory • Social influence depends on three factors: – The strength of the source – The immediacy of the source to the target in time and space – The number of sources Figure 7.9: Social Impact: Source Factors and Target Factors Putting Common Sense to the Test… Perspectives on Human Nature • Are people generally malleable or unyielding? • Cultural differences – Some cultures value autonomy and independence whereas others place more emphasis on conformity to one’s group. – Within a given culture, these values can change over time. Figure 7.3: A Classic Case of Suggestibility Figure 7.4: Line Judgment Task Used in Asch's Conformity Studies Figure 7.5: Conformity Effects on Perception Table 7.2: On Being a Lone Dissenter: Voting Patterns of U.S. Supreme Court Discussion Questions: Conformity • While it’s difficult to overcome conformity pressures, people can do so. What personality characteristics might make one more or less likely to conform? What situational factors? Discussion Questions: Conformity (cont’d) • Facing forward is a social norm. To what other social norms do we all often unthinkingly conform? • Have you ever knowingly or unknowingly violated a social norm? What resulted from the violation? Discussion Questions: Behavior Lab Conformity • How does the Social Impact Theory inform some of the participants’ conformity? • What do you think was a more likely reason for those who conformed to the other respondents’ answers: the need to belong or a true distortion of their perception of reality? Discussion Questions: Behavior Lab Conformity (cont’d) • What’s the difference between conforming and being polite? • Do you think you would conform under the same conditions? Discussion Questions: Stockholm Syndrome • How does what we’ve learned in this chapter help us explain the case of Shawn Hornbeck? • Do you think individuals from collectivist or individualist cultures might be more susceptible to Stockholm Syndrome? • Think of circumstances or situations in which you might find yourself behaving as Shawn Hornbeck did. Chapter 9 Attraction and Close Relationships Being with Others A Fundamental Human Motive Putting Common Sense to the Test… The Need to Belong • The need to belong is a basic human motive. • We care deeply about what others think of us. • Those with a network of close social ties tend to be happier, healthier, and more satisfied with life than those who are more isolated. The Thrill of Affiliation • Need for Affiliation: The desire to establish social contact with others. – We are motivated to establish and maintain an optimum balance of social contact. • Stress arouses our need for affiliation. – “Fearful misery loves company.” – But, “embarrassed misery seeks solitude.” – “Misery loves the company of those in the same miserable situation.” Shyness • Sources – Inborn personality trait – Learned reaction to failed interactions with others • Painful consequences – Negative self-evaluations – Expectations of failure in social encounters – Self-blame for social failures – Self-imposed isolation The Agony of Loneliness • A feeling of deprivation about social relations. • Most likely to occur during times of transition or disruption. • Loneliest group in American society are those 18 to 30 years old. • We employ various strategies to combat loneliness. The Initial Attraction Perspectives on Attraction • We are attracted to others with whom a relationship is directly or indirectly rewarding. • All humans exhibit patterns of attraction and mate selection that favor the conception, birth, and survival of their offspring. – Evolutionary perspective Familiarity: Being There • Who are we most likely to become attracted to? • Two basic and necessary factors in the attraction process: – Proximity effect – Mere exposure effect The Proximity Effect • The single best predictor of attraction is physical proximity, or nearness. • Where we live influences the friends we make. – College students tend to date those who live either nearby or in the same type of housing as they do. The Mere Exposure Effect • Contrary to folk wisdom, familiarity does not breed contempt. • The more often we are exposed to a stimulus, the more we come to like that stimulus. • Familiarity can influence our self-evaluations. Physical Attractiveness: Getting Drawn In • We react more favorably to others who are physically attractive than to those who are not. • Bias for beauty is pervasive. • Is physical beauty an objective or subjective quality? Putting Common Sense to the Test… Is Beauty an Objective Quality? • Some argue that certain faces are inherently more attractive than others. – High levels of agreement for facial ratings across ages and cultures. – Physical features of the face are reliably associated with judgments of attractiveness. – Babies prefer faces considered attractive by adults. Is Beauty a Subjective Quality? • People from different cultures enhance their beauty in very different ways. • Ideal body shapes vary across cultures, as well as among racial groups within a culture. • Standards of beauty change over time. • Situational factors can influence judgments of beauty. Figure 9.1: Romantic Red: The Color of Attraction? Why Are We Blinded by Beauty? • Inherently rewarding to be in the company of people who are aesthetically appealing. – Possible intrinsic and extrinsic rewards • Tendency to associate physical attractiveness with other desirable qualities. – What-is-beautiful-is-good stereotype Figure 9.2: Media Influences on the Bias for Beauty Is the Physical Attractiveness Stereotype Accurate? • Good-looking people do have more friends, better social skills, and a more active sex life. • But beauty is not related to objective measures of intelligence, personality, adjustment, or self-esteem. • The specific nature of the stereotype also depends on cultural conceptions of what is “good.” Putting Common Sense to the Test… The Benefits and Costs of Beauty • Being good-looking does not guarantee health, happiness, or high self-esteem. • Attributional problems with being good-looking: – Is the attention and praise one receives due to one’s talents or just one’s good looks? • Figure 9.3 Other Costs of Beauty • Pressure to maintain one’s appearance. – In American society, pressures are particularly strong when it comes to the body. – Women are more likely than men to suffer from the “modern mania for slenderness.” • Overall, being beautiful is a mixed blessing. – Little relationship between appearance in youth and later happiness. Putting Common Sense to the Test… First Encounters: Getting Acquainted • We tend to associate with others who are similar to ourselves. • Four types of similarity are most relevant – Demographic – Attitude – Attractiveness – Subjective Experience Figure 9.4: A Two-Stage Model of the Attraction Process Matching Hypothesis • People tend to become involved romantically with others who are equivalent in their physical attractiveness. • Matching is predictive of progress in a relationship. Why Don’t Opposites Attract? • Is there support for the complementarity hypothesis, which holds that people seek others whose needs “oppose” their own? • Research shows that complementarity does not influence attraction. First Encounters: Liking Others Who Like Us • Heider (1958): People prefer relationships that are psychologically balanced. • A state of balance exists when the relationship is characterized by reciprocity. – Mutual exchange between what one gives and what one receives • Liking is mutual, which is why we tend to like others who indicate that they like us. First Encounters: Pursuing Those Who Are Hard to Get • Does the hard-to-get effect exist? – We prefer people who are moderately selective to those who are nonselective or too selective. – We are turned off by those who reject us. • Psychological reactance can increase or decrease attraction. Mate Selection: The Evolution of Desire • Men and women by nature must differ in their optimal mating behaviors. – Women must be highly selective because they are biologically limited in the number of children they can bear and raise in a lifetime. – Men can father an unlimited number of children and ensure their reproductive success by inseminating many women. Figure 9.5: Sex Differences in Mate Preference: Evolutionary Necessities Supporting Evidence for the Evolutionary Perspective • Universal tendency in desired age for potential mate. – Men tend to seek younger women. – Women tend to desire older men. • Men and women become jealous for different reasons. – Men become most upset by sexual infidelity. – Women feel more threatened by emotional infidelity. Mate Selection: Sociocultural Perspectives • Women trade youth and beauty for money because they often lack direct access to economic power. • Men are fearful of sexual infidelity because it represents a threat to the relationship, not fatherhood issues. • The differences typically found between the sexes are small compared to the similarities. Figure 9.6: Evolutionary Mate Preferences: Theory and Practice Close Relationships Intimate Relationships • Often involve three basic components: – Feelings of attachment, affection, and love – The fulfillment of psychological needs – Interdependence between partners, each of whom has a meaningful influence on the other • How do first encounters evolve into intimate relationships? – By stages or by leaps and bounds? Murstein’s (1986) Stimulus-Value-Role Theory • Stimulus Stage: Attraction is sparked by external attributes such as physical appearance. • Value Stage: Attachment is based on similarity of values and beliefs. • Role Stage: Commitment is based on the performance of such roles as husband and wife. How Do Intimate Relationships Change? • Most researchers reject idea that intimate relationships progress through a fixed sequence of stages. • For reward theories of love, quantity counts. • There are qualitative differences between liking and loving, as well as different forms of love. The Intimate Marketplace: Social Exchange Theory • People are motivated to maximize benefits and minimize costs in their relationships with others. • Relationships that provide more rewards and fewer costs will be more satisfying and endure longer. • The development of an intimate relationship is associated with the overall level of rewards. Relationship Expectations • Comparison Level (CL): Average expected outcome in relationships. • Comparison Level for Alternatives (CLalt): Expectations of what would receive in an alternative situation. • Investments in relationship increase commitment. Figure 9.7: Relational Building Blocks The Intimate Marketplace: Equity Theory • Most content with a relationship when the ratio between the benefits and contributions is similar for both partners. Types of Relationships • Exchange Relationships: Participants expect and desire strict reciprocity in their interactions. • Communal Relationships: Participants expect and desire mutual responsiveness to each other’s needs. Secure and Insecure Attachment Styles • Attachment Style: The way a person typically interacts with significant others. • Is the attachment style we had with our parents related to the attachment style we exhibit in our romantic relationships? • Does attachment style you endorse today forecast potential outcomes tomorrow? How Do I Love Thee? Lee’s Love Styles • Primary Love Styles – Eros (erotic love) – Ludus (game-playing, uncommitted love) – Storge (friendship love) • Secondary Love Styles – Mania (demanding and possessive love) – Pragma (pragmatic love) – Agape (other-oriented, altruistic love) Figure 9.8: Sternberg’s Triangular Theory of Love Types of Love (cont.) • Rubin (1973) – Liking: The type of feeling one has for a platonic friend. – Loving: The kind of feeling one has for a romantic partner. • Hatfield et al. (1988) – Passionate Love: Romantic love characterized by high arousal, intense attraction, and fear of rejection. – Companionate Love: A secure, trusting, stable partnership. Passionate Love: The Thrill of It • Passionate love requires: – A heightened state of physiological arousal; and – The belief that this arousal was triggered by the beloved person • Sometimes can misattribute physiological arousal to passionate love. – Process known as excitation transfer • Is the diminishment of passionate love inevitable? Would You Marry Someone if you were not in love? Companionate Love: The Self-Disclosure in It • Form of affection found between close friends as well as lovers. • Less intense than passionate love. – But in some respects it is deeper and more enduring. • Characterized by high levels of self-disclosure. • The more emotionally involved, the more self- disclosure Figure 9.9: From a Sliver to a Wedge Culture, Attraction, and Close Relationships • Are people the same all over the world? • Passionate love is a widespread and universal emotion • Yet passionate loves does not necessarily equate to marriage around the world • Cultural influence on love is complex Putting Common Sense to the Test… Relationship Issues: Sexuality • Kinsey’s groundbreaking research during 1940s. • Problems with studying sexual activities: – Limitations of self-reports – What does it mean to “have sex”? • Men view the world in more “sexualized” terms. • Gender differences in selfreport surveys about sexual attitudes and behaviors. Relationship Issues: Sexual Orientation • Sexual orientation is one’s sexual preference for members of the same sex, opposite sex, or both sexes. • Large scale surveys suggest that – 3-4% of men are exclusively homosexual. – 1-2% of women are exclusively homosexual. • Incidence of homosexual behavior varies with generations and among cultures. Origins of Sexual Orientation • Little evidence to support many early theories. • Scientific evidence of a biological disposition. • Complex issue – Are roots for sexual orientation the same for men and women? – May be a psychobiological process. Putting Common Sense to the Test… Figure 9.10: Marital Satisfaction Over Time Relationship Issues: Communication and Conflict • Communication patterns in troubled relationships: – Negative affect reciprocity – Demand/withdrawal interaction pattern • Basic approaches to reducing the negative effects of conflict: – Increase rewarding behavior in other aspects of a relationship – Try to understand the other’s point of view Attributions and Quality of Relationship • Happy couples tend to make relationship-enhancing attributions. • Unhappy couples tend to make distress-maintaining attributions. Relationship Issues: Breaking Up • A relationship is likely to be long-lasting when the couple: – Has incorporated each other into one’s self – Has become interdependent and have invested much into the relationship • But these factors also intensify stress and make coping more difficult after the relationship ends. Figure 9.11: Change in Life Satisfaction Before and After Divorce Figure 9.12: How Close Is Your Relationship? Figure 9.3: When Being Seen Leads to Disbelief Discussion Questions: The Beauty Bonus • The clip seems to suggest that gains do not come from “beauty,” per se, but rather the confidence and self-esteem of those with “beauty.” Can you offer other explanations for such findings? Do you even agree? Discussion Questions: The Beauty Bonus (cont’d) • There seems to be distinctions based on gender here with regard to beauty (e.g., height for men, blond for women). How can we try to understand such distinctions?
Purchase answer to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Explanation & Answer



Psychology Questions
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation



Psychology Questions

Methods and Results of Sherif’s Study and Asch’s Study
Both Sherif and Asch in their studies of conformity they employed a lab experiment
method. For sheriff’s study employed an autokinetic effect as a small beam of light in a night room.
Even it is still it will appear moving. The study indicated that participants who were tested
individually show on how the movement ...

I was having a hard time with this subject, and this was a great help.


Similar Content

Related Tags