Test Bank for Social Psychology, The Science of Everyday Life, 3e

Test Bank for Social Psychology, The Science of Everyday Life, 3e Jeff Greenberg, Toni Schmader, Jamie Arndt, Mark Landau (All Chapters Answers download link is at the end of this file)

Chapter 01: Essay

• Describe the three classical perspectives in psychology that influenced modern social psychology. How did

these explanations play a role in the formation of modern social psychology?ANSWER: The three broad perspectives influencing modern social psychology include (1) an instinct-based view, (2) psychoanalytic theory, and (3) behaviorism. McDougall strongly believed in the instinct- based view of human behavior. Extrapolating from Spencer's evolutionary view of human behavior, McDougall proposed that instincts determine the vast majority of human behavior. The psychoanalytic school led by Freud, however, believed that unconscious forces are what determine social behavior. Freud believed that these forces were sexual and aggressive in nature. Watson and other behaviorists, however, disagreed. The behaviorists believed that the unconscious forces and instincts could not be measured. They strongly believed that behaviors were learned through experiences, and that the proper study of psychology was that of outward behavior and reinforcement, not the internal life of the mind.Student answers will vary on the rest of the question.

• Briefly define the five major perspectives that have emerged in social psychology in the past few decades to

form an integrative perspective on social thought and behavior. Do you believe that any one of these perspectives is more valuable or accurate than the others? What are some ways they complement one another?ANSWER: The major perspectives of modern social psychology are (1) cognitive, (2) evolutionary, (3) cultural, (4) neuroscience, and (5) existential. The cognitive perspective focuses on how people remember, perceive, and interpret social stimuli, including events and other individuals, as well as themselves.The evolutionary perspective views people and their social behaviors as a result of evolved adaptations. The cultural perspective focuses on the influence of culture on people's thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The neuroscience perspective focuses on the biological basis of social thought and behavior, examining how the brain and other parts of the body respond to social stimuli.Finally, the existential perspective focuses on how people come to terms with the big questions about their existence, such as the meaning and value of life, and how those efforts to make sense of the world influence how they think and act in their everyday lives.Opinions on these perspectives will vary. Still, students should be encouraged to appreciate that, although unique, all five perspectives fit together at a broad level. Brains (neuroscience) evolved (evolutionary) to process information from the social world (social cognition), but that entailed a built-in responsiveness to local cultural conditions (culture) and a uniquely human awareness of the self in the grand scheme of things (existential). All five perspectives build on one another, despite pointing to competing answers on specific questions about the mechanisms behind social behavior.

• What are the four core assumptions of social psychology? Apply at least three of these assumptions to

illuminate a recent social event, such as a conflict between two groups, a famous individual's achievement, or a popular television show.ANSWER: There are four core assumptions in modern social psychology. The first assumption is basically an interactionist view, according to which social thought and behavior are the joint product of both the person and the situation. The second assumption is that an individual's view of reality is influenced by other people, and, thus, behavior depends on a socially constructed view of reality. The third assumption is that our behavior is strongly influenced by social cognition, the set of mental processes by which people make sense of the social world and themselves. The final assumption is 1 / 4

Test Bank for Social Psychology, The Science of Everyday Life, 3e Jeff Greenberg, Toni Schmader, Jamie Arndt, Mark Landau (All Chapters Answers download link is at the end of this file)

Chapter 01: Essay

that the best way to understand social behavior is to investigate it using the scientific method.Applications of these assumptions will vary. Still, students should be encouraged to use this as an opportunity to appreciate how social psychology approaches social thought and behavior from a different angle than closely related fields, such as personality psychology. Perhaps the most important point in this regard is that, in our efforts to explain human behavior, it helps to interpret a person's actions as influenced by what is happening in his or her situation, past or present, while also appreciating that different people respond differently to the same kinds of situations. It is important that students learn to appreciate how aspects of the person (such as personality traits) interact with aspects of the situation to produce a pattern in thought or behavior. The reason is that many students, especially those who have taken classes in clinical, personality, or abnormal psychology, will be familiar with analyzing a person's behavior as a sole function of that person's stable, dispositional attributes (or what the students presume these attributes to be). Students should be encouraged to appreciate that although those views have merit, a major advantage of social psychology is that it gives us a unique window into how the person interacts with the situation at hand, and how changing situations can make a major difference in how a person thinks and acts in everyday life.

• Discuss some of the reasons why people are not very accurate when it comes to explaining their own

behavior, and the behaviors of others, in their day-to-day lives. Inform your answer with your understanding of confirmation bias, mental effort, and the shaping influence of motives on the way people think. What are some examples from your own life that support the idea that people often don't understand the true causes of their behavior?ANSWER: Individuals assume they would be aware of the reasons for their behaviors. Individuals, however, are sometimes not the best judges of their own motivations. There are several reasons for the inaccuracy. For one thing, people may not be honest about why they engaged in certain behaviors.This may especially be true where people believe they are being judged by others (e.g., regarding their weight). Also, individuals might be sincerely mistaken about why they feel a particular way or why they do certain things. People may latch onto explanations that protect their self-esteem. They may accept preexisting causal explanations provided by their culture. In short, people may not be very good at introspection.In addition to being mistake-prone when explaining their own behavior, some people may not be very good at explaining the behavior of others. One broad lesson of social psychology is that we are all, to varying extents, cognitive misers who tend to conserve our mental energy. This means that, all things being equal, we prefer familiar and simple interpretations of social stimuli, such as familiar stereotypes about social groups, over complex or ambiguous interpretations. It is sometimes easier to accept things at face value. People's perspectives may also be limited when making judgments of others. In other words, people may not see the entire picture of what is going on and just see a slice of behavior. People are sometimes prone to confirmation bias, the tendency to view events and people in ways that fit expectations. Confirmation bias can guide the thinking process at several stages. It can focus attention on certain aspects of a person or situation, it can bias the interpretation of ambiguous stimuli, and it can make it easier to remember social events in ways that fit with one's preferred interpretation.Motivational factors also play a big role in accounting for why people are not normally perfectly 2 / 4

Test Bank for Social Psychology, The Science of Everyday Life, 3e Jeff Greenberg, Toni Schmader, Jamie Arndt, Mark Landau (All Chapters Answers download link is at the end of this file)

Chapter 01: Essay

accurate when making sense of other people and themselves. People often have motives to reach certain conclusions (e.g., that their romantic partner is a good person) or broad beliefs about how the world works (e.g., good people do not suffer unnecessarily). These motives can significantly alter how information is attended to, processed, remembered, and acted on.Student examples will vary.

• Summarize two studies from the literature on stereotype threat that employed different methodologies (e.g.,

correlational, experimental, field research). What were the findings of these studies, and how did they support stereotype threat theory?ANSWER: Pinel et al. (2005) used a correlational method to test the hypothesis that the more a person is conscious of a negative stereotype of his or her group, the worse their performance will be in areas related to that stereotype. First the researchers measured stigma consciousness, the tendency to be highly conscious of one's stereotyped status. This was measured in academically stigmatized students (e.g., Hispanic Americans) and non-stigmatized students (e.g., Asian Americans). Data were obtained about their GPAs. Correlation coefficients calculated between stigma consciousness and GPA indicated a moderate negative correlation. In other words, the more concerned individuals were about being stigmatized by their stereotype, the lower their GPA. This finding fits with the idea that awareness of a negative stereotype that applies to one's own group negatively impacts performance.An experiment was conducted by Steele and Aronson (1995) to test the hypothesis that situations that make a negative group stereotype prominent in the person's mind will lead to worse performance compared with situations that do not. White and Black college students were given a test of verbal ability using items from the GRE. Stereotype threat was manipulated by having half the participants indicate their race on an information sheet, while the other half took the test without first indicating their race. Mentioning race or not was the independent variable, and performance on the test was the dependent variable. Among Black participants, those who were reminded of their race tended to have worse performances on the test of verbal ability than those who were not. The same pattern was not detected among White students. This finding is consistent with stereotype threat theory, because it suggests that even subtle reminders of a negative group-based expectancy can interfere with performance.

• Define and discuss the concepts of internal and external validity. How are we best able to determine if a study

has either or both of these two types of validity? Is there a trade-off in studies between internal and external validity, or can a study achieve equal levels of both? Which form of validity do you think is most important?ANSWER: In the context of an experiment, internal validity is the extent to which the independent variable or variables caused the observed change in the dependent variable. Internal validity cannot be directly assessed; rather, it is inferred based on how well-designed the experiment is. It depends on the strength of the manipulation, the validity and reliability of the dependent variable assessment, and control over extraneous variables (which includes, most importantly, random assignment to conditions). For example, internal validity is not guaranteed simply because one observed the predicted difference between two groups on the dependent variable. Rather, the difference may be due to a confound, or alternative cause, that was inadvertently introduced when manipulating the independent variable. Internal validity is also suspect if the dependent variable assessment is 3 / 4

Test Bank for Social Psychology, The Science of Everyday Life, 3e Jeff Greenberg, Toni Schmader, Jamie Arndt, Mark Landau (All Chapters Answers download link is at the end of this file)

Chapter 01: Essay

capturing change in another variable that is related to, but distinct from, the dependent variable under investigation. For example, if one measures hope for the future with a five-item self-report measure, but responses to the items reflect respondents' general feelings of self-esteem rather than hope per se, then one can observe a difference and yet still have low internal validity. External validity applies when the research result can be generalized in a variety of ways, such as to other people, other settings, and other times. If a study has high internal validity, the criterion of a good experiment has been met. If a study has good external validity, then the results of that study can be generalized to other people or settings. In other words, external validity means generalizability in an experiment. If a study has good external validity, then the research can be replicated under a variety of other situations and with different groups.Opinions will vary.

• Consider the abstract conceptual variable of happiness. Discuss two ways in which this conceptual variable

could be operationally defined in a study. Then, for one of the two ways described, indicate a possible confound that might problematize that particular operational definition.ANSWER: One way to operationalize happiness is to ask people to fill out questionnaires about their levels of happiness. This could include their mood at the moment or their overall happiness with their life as a whole. A second way to operationalize happiness is to look at physical behaviors such as smiling. If we think that happy people smile more than unhappy people, then researchers could count the number of times that someone smiles in order to measure their level of happiness. A confound may be other reasons for smiling instead of happiness. People sometimes smile when they feel uncomfortable or awkward. Students should also be encouraged to appreciate two important points about operational definitions. The first is that there is no absolute right way to operationally define a conceptual variable. Some operational definitions may provide a more valid or reliable window into the conceptual variable, but the choice of which operational definition to employ in a given experiment will depend on several other factors, including practical and ethical constraints. The second point is that a benefit of conducting several studies using different operational definitions of the same conceptual variable is that researchers can see whether the results converge on a common pattern. For example, if two studies test whether similarity increases romantic love, and one study operationalizes love in terms of self-report while the other does so in terms of heart rate, researchers can test their hypotheses with more confidence than if they had relied on one operational definition alone.

• Discuss at least two of the four limitations of science. Do you agree that science truly has these limits? What

is an example of an important phenomenon that science and social psychology in particular may not be able to address? Why is science important in spite of these limits?ANSWER: While science serves an incredibly important purpose, it does have some limitations. One limitation of science is that there are some aspects of reality that we just can't know. For example, we get our information via our sense organs, but our sense organs are limited (e.g., hearing is limited to a certain range of sound frequencies). Another limitation is that humans are not always objective. In other words, experimenter bias can skew results. A third limitation is that not all questions can be answered scientifically. Often these questions involve value judgments, or judgments about what is good or bad, or right or wrong in a moral sense. For example, research can shed light on how people

• / 4