during examination:
Department of Psychology
Examination paper for PSY2014/PSYPRO4314 Social psychology II Academic contact during examination: Ute Gabriel Phone: 73 59 19 60 Examination date: 20.05.2015 Examination time (from-to): 09.00-13.00 Permitted examination support material: None Other information:
Language: English Number of pages: 3 Number of pages enclosed: 1
Checked by:
__________________________
Date Signature
Instructions: There are four questions in Part A. Answer all four (1/2-1 page per answer). There are three questions in Part B. Answer one of them in an essay-like format. Each part (Part A, Part B) has to be marked as “passed” (grade of E or better) for the exam to be passed. Each part (Part A, Part B) counts 50% of your final mark. PART A There are four questions in Part A. Answer all four (1/2-1 page per answer). Question 1. Briefly explain how cognitive biases may have evolved. Describe how cognitive biases may influence behaviour in two domains of social psychology. Question 2. Gawronski, LeBel og Peters (2007) challenge three common assumptions in research using implicit measures. a) What are these assumptions? b) Choose one of them and sketch Gawronski et al.’s argument. Ref:
Gawronski, B., LeBel, E. P., & Peters, K. R. (2007). What Do Implicit Measures Tell Us?: Scrutinizing the Validity of Three Common Assumptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2(2), 181–193.
Question 3. at is the “cultural accommodation hypothesis”? Question 4. Describe how meta-analyses can provide a better understanding of sex-differences in aggression.
PART B There are three questions in Part B. Answer one of them in an essay-like format. Question 5. Social influence Based on Cialdini and Griskevicius (2014) describe reasons for social conformity and social compliance. Discuss how individuals can become aware of and cope with various forms of negative social influence. Question 6. Attitudes Based on readings from Social Psychology II: If we succeeded in changing attitudes toward a specific behaviour in a group of subjects, would this attitudinal change also produce behavioural change? Question 7. Begging in Norway There is an on-going debate in Norway on how to handle begging (see Appendix for some background information). Take a social psychological perspective and describe how social psychological concepts/theories can be used to explain why begging could be an issue for individuals and/or communities (groups). Elaborate on one concept/theory to make a suggestion for what could be done to mitigate the issue.
Appendix: Excerpt from: Mixed feelings about beggars in Norway (2 pages) (http://sciencenordic.com/mixed-feelings-about-beggars-norway)
Researcher Ada I. Engebrigtsen has worked with the Church City Mission in Norway and a resource centre in Romania to survey the situation of foreigners in Norway who beg, as well as the beggars’ situa- tion in Romania.
She says the amount of help offered by individuals and NGOs to help beggars in need is “impressive.” But she notes that feelings among Norwegians about beggars remain mixed. “On the one hand, very negative perceptions exist, both in the public and private sectors. On the other hand, we’ve found many positive people who are working to improve the situation,” says Engebrigtsen.
Engebrigtsen is a researcher at NOVA, a research institute at the Oslo and Akershus University Col- lege of Applied Science. […]
Between 700 and 1500 beggars Foreign begging in Norway has been on the rise since EU expansion in 2007 opened the way for citi-
zens from the new EU countries to have travel access to Norway as part of the EEA Agreement. Researchers used their own assessments, information from public and private field research to esti-
mate that 500-1000 foreigners beg in Oslo at any given time. Norway as a whole is estimated to have 700-1500 beggars, depending on the season.
Huge gap in attitudes Two aspects of the foreign begging situation emerge strongly, according to the researchers. The first is
the material poverty under which this demographic lives. The conflicting attitudes that the majority popula- tion has to them, make up the second aspect.[…]
History as migrant workers Somewhat surprisingly, Engebrigtsen finds that most women and men who beg have a history as mi-
grant workers in different types of unskilled labour. Begging tends to be a last resort. “The vast majority of people we interviewed say that their greatest desire is to get a job, but it’s hard
when they don’t know the language or have the necessary qualifications,” she explains. Mother, child and grandmother Most foreigners who beg in Norway, and in most European countries, are from Romania. They are
forced to seek their luck abroad when they can’t find work in their own country. Researchers find that mainly women, especially grandmothers, are found begging on Norwegian streets. A large proportion of these belong to the Roma people, while others are from similar minorities or ethnic Romanians.
“These groups are among the most vulnerable populations in Europe, and they are being banned and stigmatized in their homeland,” says Engebrigtsen. […]
Human trafficking a growing problem The survey shows that foreign people who beg in Norway have little contact with public agencies. The
exceptions are the police and occasionally child protection services. Police find crime is a major problem primarily in Oslo, where many foreigners beg.
Both Norway and Romania have convicted people and groups with human trafficking in association with begging. However, the extent of this trafficking is unclear, in part because the grey areas between exploitation and cooperation make suspicions difficult to investigate.
“However, recent reports from Romania indicate that trafficking for begging is a growing problem, and something we need to focus more research on in the future,” says Engebrigtsen.
Instructions:
There are four questions in Part A. Answer all four (1/2-1 page per answer).
There are three questions in Part B. Answer one of them in an essay-like format.
Each part (Part A, Part B) has to be marked as “passed” (grade of E or better) for the
exam to be passed.
Each part (Part A, Part B) counts 50% of your final mark.
General remarks: Students are expected to explicitly address all sub‐questions; student may ‐ but do not have to ‐ break their answers into sub‐answers (i.e., a) b) c) …). Students may – but do not have to – use sub‐headers when answering the PART B question.
PART A
There are four questions in Part A. Answer all four (1/2-1 page per answer).
Question 1.
Briefly explain how cognitive biases may have evolved. Describe how cognitive
biases may influence behaviour in two domains of social psychology. Pensum: Haselton, M. & Nettle. D. (2006) The paranoid optimist: An integrative evolutionary model of cognitive
biases. Personality and Social Psychogical Review, 10, 47‐66.
Post‐exam note: Several students were concerned that their answer exceeds one page. Response given: Your grade will not be affected automatically if a response exceeds one page. (However, grade will be affected if answers exceed one page because of – for example – wordiness, redundancy, or “eclectic answering”). Human cognition has often been shown to be biased, and Haselton & Nettle’s paper provides an overview of the domains in which false positives, false negatives and their costs are studied. Error management theory (EMT) applies the principles of signal detection theory (Swets, Dawes & Monaham, 2000) to understand how natural selection engineers psychological adaptations for judgment under uncertainty. Natural selection follows the “eat dung and die” principle. Organisms that more often made judgemental mistakes (errors) paid the cost of premature death or leaving few if any offsprings.
A belief can be adopted when it is in fact true (true positive), or can’t be adopted and not be true (true negative). The two possible belief errors are false positives and false negatives. Asymmetry of costs: When the costs of one type of error is consistently higher than the other over deep (evolutionary) time, a psychological adaptation for a bias may evolve. Hazard detection systems (adaptations) are often biased toward false alarms (many small costs, but designed to avoid fatal mistakes). Dispositional inference (assuming negative, enduring traits) is one example within the social perception; men’s sexual overperception of women’s intentions another. Assuming control or efficacy when there is none is another example within the self‐perception domain. Question 2.
Gawronski, LeBel og Peters (2007) challenge three common assumptions in research
using implicit measures.
a) What are these assumptions?
b) Choose one of them and sketch Gawronski et al.’s argument.
Ref:
Gawronski, B., LeBel, E. P., & Peters, K. R. (2007). What Do Implicit Measures Tell Us?:
Scrutinizing the Validity of Three Common Assumptions. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 2(2), 181–193.
The three assumptions Gawronski et al. discuss are: (1) Implicit measures reflect unconscious or introspectively inaccessible representations (Argumentation: A: Implicit measures do not require introspection for the assessment of mental representations. but ”does not require” is not equal to ”does not have”. The latter is an empirical claim. An empirical finding often referred to as supporting the notion of implicit measures reflecting unconscious or introspectively inaccessible representations is the low correlation between self‐reports and implicit measures. Alternative explanations for this low correlation are measurement error; lack of conceptual correspondence/overlap. Evidence suggests that correlations between self‐reports and implicit measures are substantial when these factors are taken into account.) (2) Implicit measures are resistant/less susceptible to social desirability (Argumentation: B: Social‐desirability argument implies that correlations between self‐reports and implicit measures are moderated by social desirability. Empirical evidence for general social desirability measures is ambiguous, but there is evidence that more specific motivations (motivation to control prejudiced reactions) moderate the relationship. There is however also evidence that non‐motivational, cognitive factors (focus of introspection) can be sufficient to moderate the relationship, suggesting that motivational factors are not necessary. There is also some evidence that motivational factors are not even sufficient. C: Social‐desirability argument implies that deliberate attempts to influence responses on
implicit measures are less effective than attempts to influence responses on self‐report measures. Assumption of lack of proactive control (i.e. activation of unwanted response tendencies is uncontrollable) has been challenged for example by research using mental imagery (“think of a stereotypical (vs. counterstereotypical) woman” before completing implicit measure). Assumption of lack of retroactive control (i.e. once activated, unwanted response tendencies cannot be suppressed) has been challenged by research showing that –under conditions of sufficient cognitive capacity ‐ retroactive attempts to control for the impact of unwanted responses are effective. With reference to question 2b): If the student chooses assumption (2), the correct description of one of the argumentations (B or C) will be sufficient. (3) Implicit measures are highly stable, older representations that have their roots in long‐term socialisation experiences. (Argumentation: D: Matching of implicit measures with “old” versus self‐report measures with “new” attitudes implies that implicitly measured attitudes should be more robust against (experimental) attempts to change attitudes. Empirical findings that are in line with this assumption are: (1) attempts leading to change in self‐reported attitude but not in implicitly measured attitude and (2) attempts leading to change in self‐reported and implicitly measured attitude. There is however also empirical evidence (e.g. evaluative conditioning; category‐valence pairings; exemplar‐exposure admired Blacks/disliked Whites) prior to implicit measure) that is not in line with this assumption, namely: (3) attempts leading to change in implicitly measure attitude but not in self‐reported attitude. Furthermore, there is research demonstrating that implicit measures are sensitive to context effects (e.g. background context, relative salience of social categories, social roles, mood states). Question 3.
What is the “cultural accommodation hypothesis”?
Post exam note: The first two letters were missing in the printed version of the exam (“at” instead of “What”).
Cultural accommodation hypothesis suggests that language creates a “response bias” in the direction of what is valued/desired by the culture the language is associated with.
For example: If there are differences in how bilingual individuals describe themselves in the different languages, this might be explained by individuals providing responses deemed desirable in the respective culture in which the language is used. Put differently, an individual responds in a manner that accommodates (adjusts) the corresponding culture.
This can be a conscious self‐presentation or the result of unconscious and automatic associations.
A necessary presumption is that an individual not only acquires the language but also cultural values, knowledge, beliefs and attitudes associated with the language.
(This approach can be contrasted with a socio‐cognitive approach that explains language‐based differences in bilinguals’ responses by differences in the accessibility of self‐relevant information.)
Relevant course material: Wang, Q., Shao, Y., & Li, Y. J. (2010). “My way or mom’s way?” The bilingual and bicultural self in Hong Kong Chinese children and adolescents. Child Development, 81(2), 555–567. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467‐8624.2009.01415.x ((Holtgraves, T. M., & Kashima, Y. (2008). Language, Meaning, and Social Cognition. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 12(1), 73 –94. doi:10.1177/1088868307309605))
Question 4.
Describe how meta-analyses can provide a better understanding of sex-differences
in aggression. Post exam note: Few students were in doubt on whether the focus of the question is on sex‐ differences in aggression. Response given: Primary focus is on meta‐analyses (secondary focus: sex‐differences in aggression).
Pensum:
Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real‐world settings: a meta‐analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291‐322.
Meta‐analysis attempts to apply to a collection of studies the same methodological rigor and statistical precision ordinarily found in primary research. In a meta‐analysis, the collection of studies test the same conceptual hypothesis, but may do so using a wide variety of methods, measures, sample, and settings. The challenge that meta‐analysis answers is to provide a way to combine the seemingly disparate studies to provide a convincing overall test of the hypothesis and to explore its moderators. An equally common problem is that hundreds of studies accumulate in a research area. Here too there are likely to be many weak studies and considerable inconsistency in study outcomes. A precise method for combining the studies would be desirable. An additional problem is that the studies may be different in a variety of ways. How can several studies, testing the same hypothesis, but using different methods, measures, samples, and settings be combined? In a meta‐analysis, each study outcome is “standardized” to allow their combination and comparison. The seemingly troublesome differences (e.g., settings, measures) are coded and become moderators that are incorporated into the analysis. In a meta‐ analysis, the unit of analysis is the individual study, akin to an individual participant in primary research. By itself, the study is not very informative. If many such studies exist, however, they can be aggregated in a meta‐analysis, and their combined results used to make a stronger
inference about the hypothesis. Aggregation simply requires that we convert each study outcome to a standard metric (effect size). Archer’s meta‐analysis made comparison across a number of variables (characteristics) such as source of data (self, observational, peer, teacher), source of publication, type of measurement, type of behaviour, country/culture, respondent age, type of sample (community, school, patients, etc.), level of measurement, sex of first author, and more. PART B
There are three questions in Part B. Answer one of them in an essay-like format.
Students have been provided with the following evaluation scheme by the course coordinator via NTNU’s web-based learning platform (itslearning): The essay exam question will be used to evaluate the learning outcome (Study Handbook): The student is able to present and use central ideas and theories within the area as well as able to independently reflect on individual’s and group’s behaviors and the behaviors’ developments and origins. In the Part B question you are expected to present material, to formulate a thesis that answers the question and to argue for your thesis. Depending on the specific question there might be no right answers, but more or less persuasive answers. The persuasiveness of your argument depends on the clarity of the thesis, the evidence provided and the clarity in presentation. Your answer should be made up of an introduction, a main part and a conclusion. The Part B answer will be evaluated on four dimensions, namely content, argument, organization and style/format. The questions below are given as a guideline. As a general rule, more emphasis will be put on content (ca. 40%) and argument (ca. 30%) than on organization (ca. 25%) and style/format (ca. 5%) when assigning the grade. 1. CONTENT Does the student present relevant material selected from the course literature? Is the material presented correctly? In general, students are expected to identify central theories, concepts, methodological approaches, results and authors. Does the student integrate the material? Does the student critically evaluate the material? Does the student demonstrate an understanding of the topic area? 2. ARGUMENT Was an argument developed and critically analyzed?
Is the argument logically consistent? Are major counter arguments taken into account? 3. ORGANIZATION Is there a systematic exposition of ideas, not straying from the topic and leading to a conclusion? Is the answer well structured and understandable? 4. STYLE/FORMAT (Intelligibility of expression, literacy and grammar) Evaluation of style/format should mainly focus on intelligibility of expression.
Question 5. Social influence
Based on Cialdini and Griskevicius (2014) describe reasons for social conformity and
social compliance. Discuss how individuals can become aware of and cope with
various forms of negative social influence.
For CONTENT:
Students are expected to present and describe (in line with Cialdini and Griskevicius,
2010) (a) human behaviour as goal-directed, (b) their six principles of influence
(reciprocity, consistency, social validation, liking, authority, scarcity) and (c) their
argument of how these principles help achieve the human goals of affiliation,
accuracy and consistency.
For the discussion part, students are expected to specify what “negative” social
influence is and to provide examples as basis for their discussion of how individuals
can become aware of and cope with forms of negative social influence.
Relevant from course material:
Cialdini, R.B. & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Social influence. In: Baumeister, Roy F., and Finkel,
Eli J.. Advanced Social Psychology : The State of the Science. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford
University Press, USA, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 7 October 2014. 394-426
Cialdini and Griskevicius (2010) do not explicitly cover a discussion of how to cope
with social influence. However, the question of “how to resist social influence” was
taken up in the lecture and a summary-slide has been provided on NTNU’s web-
based learning platform (its learning),
Question 6. Attitudes
Based on readings from Social Psychology II: If we succeeded in changing attitudes
toward a specific behaviour in a group of subjects, would this attitudinal change also
produce behavioural change?
For CONTENT:
Students are expected to present the attitude-behaviour link as conceptualised in
the Theory of planned behaviour (Ajzen, 2012) and the Associative-Propositional
Evaluation Model (APE, Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2007).
Students are expected to specify – for each theoretical approach – the conditions
under which attitudinal change would be considered sufficient to produce a
behavioural change.
A very good answer also includes a comparison of these two theoretical approaches
based on the attitude-behavior link (APE – dual process modell –
automatic/deliberate behavior; ToPB – behavioural intentions/deliberate (planned)
behavior).
Relevant from course material:
Ajzen, I. (2012). The Theory of Planned Behavior, in : Lange, Paul, A.M. Van, and
Kruglanski, Arie W.. Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, Volume 1. London,
GBR: SAGE, 2011. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 7 October 2014. Pp. 438-459
Armitage, C. J., & Conner, M. (2001). Efficacy of the Theory of Planned Behaviour: A
meta-analytic review. British Journal of Social Psychology, 40(4), 471–499.
doi:10.1348/014466601164939
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2007). Unraveling the Processes Underlying
Evaluation: Attitudes from the Perspective of the Ape Model. Social Cognition,
25(5), 687–717.
Question 7. Begging in Norway
There is an on-going debate in Norway on how to handle begging (see Appendix
for some background information).
Take a social psychological perspective and describe how social psychological
concepts/theories can be used to explain why begging could be an issue for
individuals and/or communities (groups).
Elaborate on one concept/theory to make a suggestion for what could be done to
mitigate the issue.
For CONTENT:
Students are expected to present the issue of begging within a social psychological
framework. Students may choose an inter-group approach (e.g. the social identity
approach), but might as well choose to conceptualize the issue of begging as inter-
individual behaviour and rely on readings on attitudes and/or social influence.
Students are expected to name the central concepts and assumptions within the
theoretical framework chosen and to link them to the issue of begging. The focus
should be on why people consider begging as being problematic, and students may
take the perspective of beggars and/or the perspective of people who are being
begged.
Based on the approach chosen, students are expected to present a concrete measure
and to explain why they expect this measure to be successful.
Relevant from course material:
Hornsey, M. J. (2008). Social identity theory and self‐categorization theory: A historical
review. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2, 204-222
Also:
Al Ramiah, A., & Hewstone, M. (2013). Intergroup contact as a tool for reducing,
resolving, and preventing intergroup conflict: Evidence, limitations, and potential.
American Psychologist, 68(7), 527–542. doi:10.1037/a0032603
Cialdini, R.B. & Griskevicius, V. (2010). Social influence. In: Baumeister, Roy F., and Finkel,
Eli J. Advanced Social Psychology : The State of the Science. Cary, NC, USA: Oxford
University Press, USA, 2010. ProQuest ebrary. Web. 7 October 2014. 394-426
Pyszczynski, T., Motyl, M., & Abdollahi, A. (2009). Righteous violence: killing for God,
country, freedom and justice. Behavioral Sciences of Terrorism and Political
Aggression, 1(1), 12–39. doi:10.1080/19434470802482118
Swart, H., Hewstone, M., Christ, O., & Voci, A. (2010). The Impact of Crossgroup
Friendships in South Africa: Affective Mediators and Multigroup Comparisons.
Journal of Social Issues, 66(2), 309–333. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01647.x
Vaes, J., Leyens, J.-P., Paola Paladino, M., & Pires Miranda, M. (2012). We are human, they
are not: Driving forces behind outgroup dehumanisation and the humanisation of
the ingroup. European Review of Social Psychology, 23(1), 64–106.
doi:10.1080/10463283.2012.665250
Appendix:
Excerpt from: Mixed feelings about beggars in Norway (2 pages)
(http://sciencenordic.com/mixed-feelings-about-beggars-norway)
Researcher Ada I. Engebrigtsen has worked with the Church City Mission in Norway and a
resource centre in Romania to survey the situation of foreigners in Norway who beg, as well as the beggars’ situation in Romania.
She says the amount of help offered by individuals and NGOs to help beggars in need is “impressive.” But she notes that feelings among Norwegians about beggars remain mixed. “On the one hand, very negative perceptions exist, both in the public and private sectors. On the other hand, we’ve found many positive people who are working to improve the situation,” says Engebrigtsen.
Engebrigtsen is a researcher at NOVA, a research institute at the Oslo and Akershus University College of Applied Science. […]
Between 700 and 1500 beggars Foreign begging in Norway has been on the rise since EU expansion in 2007 opened the
way for citizens from the new EU countries to have travel access to Norway as part of the EEA Agreement.
Researchers used their own assessments, information from public and private field research to estimate that 500-1000 foreigners beg in Oslo at any given time. Norway as a whole is estimated to have 700-1500 beggars, depending on the season.
Huge gap in attitudes Two aspects of the foreign begging situation emerge strongly, according to the researchers.
The first is the material poverty under which this demographic lives. The conflicting attitudes that the majority population has to them, make up the second aspect.
[…] History as migrant workers Somewhat surprisingly, Engebrigtsen finds that most women and men who beg have a
history as migrant workers in different types of unskilled labour. Begging tends to be a last resort.
“The vast majority of people we interviewed say that their greatest desire is to get a job, but it’s hard when they don’t know the language or have the necessary qualifications,” she explains.
Mother, child and grandmother Most foreigners who beg in Norway, and in most European countries, are from Romania.
They are forced to seek their luck abroad when they can’t find work in their own country. Researchers find that mainly women, especially grandmothers, are found begging on Norwegian streets. A large proportion of these belong to the Roma people, while others are from similar minorities or ethnic Romanians.
“These groups are among the most vulnerable populations in Europe, and they are being banned and stigmatized in their homeland,” says Engebrigtsen.
[…] Human trafficking a growing problem The survey shows that foreign people who beg in Norway have little contact with public
agencies. The exceptions are the police and occasionally child protection services. Police find crime is a major problem primarily in Oslo, where many foreigners beg.
Both Norway and Romania have convicted people and groups with human trafficking in association with begging. However, the extent of this trafficking is unclear, in part because the grey areas between exploitation and cooperation make suspicions difficult to investigate.
“However, recent reports from Romania indicate that trafficking for begging is a growing problem, and something we need to focus more research on in the future,” says Engebrigtsen.