{[ promptMessage ]}

Bookmark it

{[ promptMessage ]}



Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
PSY 99 Fall 2009 EXAM REVIEW #3 (complete!) Chapter 6: Self-Justification This chapter covers a lot of material but if you have a conceptual understanding of how cognitive dissonance, external justification, and internal justification interplay in influencing whether people will self-justify, then the rest of the details will fall into place. Similarly, as in all of the Social Psychology chapters, if you understand the point that each of the studies we discussed is trying to make, then you won’t have to rely solely on memorization of results – your conceptual understanding followed by some logic will help you recall. You will NOT be asked to describe the procedures of studies or to link a researcher’s name to a particular study – any exam question asking for particular findings or interpretation of those findings will include plenty of identifying information about the study. 1. Studies whose findings you should be able to recognize and interpret (or apply the implications to some hypothetical scenario I provide) – what’s their point?: a. Jones & Kohler (1959) study of pro- and anti-segregationist people i. 3 groups (pro, anti, moderate) were presented w/ series of statements (pro or anti, plausible or ridiculous arguments), combos were pro-plausible, anti-plausible, etc. ii. Later memory was tested (recall as many statements as possible), found that memory was not rational iii. People remembered plausible arguments that agreed w/ their views and implausible ones that disagreed w/ their views (to reduce dissonance) b. Mills’ (1958) study of 6 th -graders’ cheating attitudes & behavior i. Made it easy for them to cheat by letting kids score their own test or made it hard to cheat ii. Day before had asked kids to answer qs about cheating iii. Redid survey after contest, those who had cheated were more lenient toward cheating than on previous survey, those who resisted were harsher c. Aronson & Mills (1959) study – screening for membership in discussion groups about the psychology of sex i. Female students invited to participate in series of discussions about sex ii. Those told they had to be screened were subject to severe screening (had to read excerpt from pornographic novel to group of men) iii. Those exposed to mild screening had to read pornographic words to group of men, then they heard tape of discussion (extremely boring) and asked to rate how interesting it was iv. Group subject to severe screening rated most favorably d. Festinger & Carlsmith (1959) $1 vs. $20 study i. Students participated in really boring task for 1 hr ii. A third of group left, other 2 groups were debriefed iii. 2 groups either asked to tell truth about how enjoyable task was or paid $1/$20 to lie (those paid $20 had enough external justification while those paid $1 had less external justification) e. Aronson & Carlsmith (1963) study of preschoolers toy preferences and harsh vs. mild threat i. Young children were asked to rate series of toys ii.
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

{[ snackBarMessage ]}