-
What was the Implicit Association Task we did in class and what is it proof of?
- slapping rt vs lft knee
- 1) good vs bad words = easy
- 2) black vs white names = easy
- 3) white+good vs bad+black = harder
- 4) black+good vs white+bad = hardest
We are conditioned to associate certain things.
-
Nation changes in racial attitudes show that there has become more ___ of interracial schools, relationships, and neighborhoods, while ____&____ have stayed the same. (ex.________)
Acceptance
Privilege&advantage
income, school, infant mortality
-
In the Employment Discrimination study what variables were manipulated on resumes?
What were the results of the study?
variables manipulated: race & prison record
- results in likelyhood of getting job:
- whites w/no record -> whites w/record -> blacks w/no record -> blacks w/record
-
What was the set up of the Bogus Pipeline Study by Jones and Sigall (1971)?
- Participants filled out self-report questionnaire.
- In different lab, participants were connected to a machine that they were told "detects implicit muscle movement" and can tell if you're lying or not.
- Participants indicate how well 22 traits described "Americans" vs "Blacks"
- - some were connected to machine, some were not
- Participants reported more positive attitudes towards Americans and negative towards Blacks.
- A 1993 similar study showed the same pattern.
-
In a experiment to test aversive racism Gaertner and Dovidio (1977) wanted to test when whites will and will not discriminate. What was the set up and results?
- Intercom between lab rooms. White participant passes room with another participants in it (variable = white or black) with tons of boxes stacked up. Then participant is taken to another room (variable = alone or with people).
- Then they hear boxes fall on the other participant.
Results: When alone, helping is pretty even. When in group, helping goes down - severely for black victims.
-
In a second experiment on aversive racism in 2000, Gaertner and Dovidio let participants play an HR role and go over job applications. Applications were either great, moderate, or poor. In each of these categories applications were split between being white applicants or black applicants. What were the results?
Strong and weak applications showed no significant difference between races. However, in the ambiguous condition (neither strong nor poor) many more white applicants are hired than back. More attention is paid to the positive qualities of a white applicants, and to the negative qualities of a black applicant.
-
In the Shoving Study by Sagar and Schofield...
who were the participants?
What was the task?
What were the results?
What do the results mean?
What is a real-life example of these attitudes/actions?
- Children were shown a video of a Black or White child pushing another chid. Then they were asked whether the push was fighting or playing. Results showed that when it was a White -> Black push children called in playing, but when it was a Black -> White push children called it fighting.
- This study was replicated in adults to find the same results. -> Because people can blame ambiguity (instead of discrimination) for their answers.
- A real-life example: New Orleans - scavanging vs. looting
-
Who is Amadoi Diallo?
- In 2/4/99 in Bronx, NY 4 policemen were patrolling for a possible rape suspect (description = dark male). They approached Amadoi Diallo on his stoop. As Diallo reached for his wallet, the policemen unloaded their guns, killing him.
- The question is whether this would've happened if Diallo had been white.
-
What was the task in the Gun vs. Tool Experiment? Changing what factor effected results?
- Participants were shown almost subliminal images of either a white or black individual, followed by an image of a tool or a gun.
- Then participants were asked to identify which they had seen.
- There were very few mess-ups when no time limit, but a speeded response session was added.
- In this, people mistake guns for tools evenly between races, but people mistakes tools for guns much more frequently with black images.
- Black and White participants answered the same way -- this means that this may not reflect innate prejudices, but rather societal stereotypes.
-
Implementation intentions help to automate goal pursuit. Example?
Saying WHEN I get out of class I will go to the gym makes it much more likely to actually happen than saying LATER I will go to the gym
-
What is the think Safe, Quick, Accurate Experiment?
- 3 different groups - in the experimental group they were told to think of the words "safe" every time they saw a black face. In the control groups they were told to think ''accurate'' or ''quick'' when they saw a black face.
- A lot more stereotyping went on in the control groups.
-
In Conway&Ross's 1984 study "Getting what you want by revising what you had" students who were interested in study skills programs were recruited and randomly assigned to be waitlisted or to go through a 3 week course - all had to report current study skills. After 3 weeks all students had to predict end of term grades, report on present study skills and past study skills when recruited. What were the results?
- Participants in the course underestimated the skill they had before the course; no such bias for waiting list
- Participants in course also predicted they would get better grades, but final grades showed no such effect.
-
In The Busing Study (1973) by Goethals and Reckman, high school students rated own opinions on various current events (including busing of students to achieve racially balanced schools). 1-2 weeks later they participated in discussion groups - secretly set up so that al students had the same attitude in their group except for one student (who was a confederate) that worked to change their attitudes. Then they had to report their feelings on busing, in the most accurate way they had to the 1-2 weeks before. What were the results?
Discussion changed students' attitudes. They misremembered their pre-discussion attitude as being more consistent with their present attitudes than was actually the case.
-
In Vaire & Mehl's 2008 experiment about "who knows you best?" an EAR (elecronicaly activated recorder) was programmed to record randomly for 30 seconds out of every 12.5 minutes, without participant knowing when it was recording. Participants had already reported how frequently they did certain things, and their close friends had reported on them as well. What were friends more accurate on?
- Time spent with others, time going to class.
- Both were innacurate with how much crying went on, etc.
-
Controlling the self takes effort - Draws on a limited resource, akin to “strength or energy”
Thus, one act of volition or self-control will have a
detrimental effect on a subsequent act of volition or self-control (even if the two acts are in unrelated domains), due to
“ego depletion”
-
In an experiment on how moods affect physical performance experimenters took a baseline measure of how long people could squeeze a handgrip. Everyone was shown a film on environmental disaster but three different groups were told three different things:
1) get into your emotions as much as possibe
2) avoid your emotions, don't let it affect you
3) no instructions
What were the results?
Group 1 and 2 held the handgrip for much less time than Group 3. Trying to manipulate your emotions has consequences. The more people reported trying to control emotions, the less time they held the handgrip afterwards.
-
In an experiment on ego depletion manipulation in terms of taste perception, participants were welcomed into a lab where cookies were baking. Then participants were presented with a plates of radishes and a plate of cookies. Some were assigned to taste only radishes or only cookies for 5 minutes. Then they were engaged in a test of willpower - asked to draw an image without lifting the pencil (but its impossible) What are the results?
- Those who were told to only eat radishes lasted the least amount of time.
- If you try to self-regulate in one condition, then you will not have enough energy for another task.
|
|
