Unit 11 Chapter 14 Independent Study Packet

2020 NEW AP Psychology – Unit 11 – Social Psychology INDEPENDENT STUDY PACKET Myers’ Psychology for the AP Course 3rd
ed.
Unit 11
Chapter 14
Independent Study Packet
Social
Psychology
2020 NEW AP Psychology – Unit 11 – Social Psychology INDEPENDENT STUDY PACKET Myers’ Psychology for the AP Course 3rd
ed.
2020 NEW AP Psychology – Unit 11 – Social Psychology INDEPENDENT STUDY PACKET Myers’ Psychology for the AP Course 3rd ed.
MOD TOPIC READING PGS of LT FRQ VOCAB H/O VIDEOS
PGS NOTES
DO BEFORE READING F or F LT 74.1 – 76.1 Discovering Psychology,
Updated Edition: “The
Power of the Situation”
Video #19 Questions
&
“Constructing Social
Realities” Video #20
Questions
Module 74: Attribution, pg. 766-773 2 f/b LT 74.1-74.2 FRQ pg 774 (3) Vocab 1-9 H/O #74-2: fundamental The Lunch Date (also d
Attitudes & Attribution Error questions)
Actions
The Lunch Date questions Crash Course #37 – Social
Thinking
Module 75: Conformity pg. 775-782 2 f/b LT 75.1-75.3 FRQ pg 783 (2) Vocab 10-13 H/O #75.2 (do before reading Crash Course #38 – Social
and Milgram’s study on pg 778) Influence
Obedience
Module 76: Group pg. 784-790 1 f/b + 1 f LT 76.1-76.5 FRQ pg 791 (2) Vocab 14-19  The Lottery questions The Lottery (also d questions)
Behavior  Lyle Lanley, You’re My Hero
reading and questions
 “Understanding Terrorism”
 “Group Think”
DO BEFORE READING F or F LT 77.1 – 80.1
Module 77: Prejudice & pg. 792-798 1 f/b + 1 f LT 77.1-77.3 FRQ pg 800 (3) Vocab 20-28  H/O # 18–6 Crash Course #39 – Prejudice
Discrimination  H/O #77.1 Implicit Bias & Discrimination
Test (the link is on the
website) Take a Walk in My Shoes –
 H/O #77-3 Institutional Jane Elliot
Discrimination
 H/O #77-4 Just World Scale
(JWS)
 Crash movie questions Crash
Module 78: Aggression pg. 801-806 1 f/b + 1 f LT 78.1-78.2 FRQ pg 807 (2) Vocab 29-31  H/O #78-2 Aggressiveness Crash Course #40 –
Questionnaire (do before Aggression & Altruism
reading the section)
 H/O #78-3 Driving
Behavior
Module 79: Attraction pg. 808-814 1 f/b + 1 f LT 79.1-79.2 FRQ pg 815 (3) Vocab 32-36  H/O #18-14 Friendship
 H/O #79-2 Love Attitudes
Scale (do before reading
the section)
 Read and annotate
attached Beauty articles
 Read “What Is Beautiful Is
Good”
Module 80: Altruism, Pg. 816-823 2 f/b LT 80.1-80.4 FRQ pg 824 (2) Vocab 37-47  H/O #80-2 Volunteer
Conflict & Functions Inventory (do
Peacemaking before reading the
section)
 Read Bystander Effect
“Why Don’t We Help?” &
Complete questions
2020 NEW AP Psychology – Unit 11 – Social Psychology INDEPENDENT STUDY PACKET Myers’ Psychology for the AP
Course 3rd ed.
Fact or Falsehood? LT 74.1 – 76.1

Read each statement and circle T if you believe it is true and F if you believe it is false.
Handout 74-1
T F 1. Social psychology is the study of groups and cultures.
T F 2. If someone doesn’t say hello to you in the hall, then you are likely to believe he or she is a snob.
T F 3. If you get someone to agree to a small request, then you can likely get them to agree to a larger
request later.
T F 4. Nice people who were told to act like prison guards eventually treated “prisoners” cruelly
during
a simulated prison experiment.
T F 5. After you behave in a way that is contrary to your beliefs, you are likely to say you were only
pretending, and your beliefs will stay the same.
Handout 75-1
T F 6. People feel happier around happy people and less happy around depressed people.
T F 7. Even if you resolve not to smoke, if your friends are smokers, you are more likely to light up.
T F 8. People are likely to conform to a group only if that group has no less than 20 people in it.
T F 9. People will not conform to an authority figure’s request to shock another person.
T F 10. People are more likely to comply with the orders given from someone associated with Harvard
University than with City High School.
Handout 76-1
T F 11. People do worse on a task they are good at if they perform it in front of a large group of
people.
T F 12. People in a group tend to exert more effort than when they work alone.
T F 13. When people are in a crowd, they are more likely to do things they would not do alone.
T F 14. People who are prejudiced become less prejudiced if they discuss their feelings with others
who
are also prejudiced.
T F 15. When a group needs to make a decision, it is helpful to appoint someone to play the “devil’s
advocate” and point out possible problems.
Course 3rd ed.
Discovering Psychology, Updated Edition:

“Constructing Social Realities” Video #20 Questions
https://www.learner.org/series/discovering-psychology/
Directions: Complete the questions while watching the film
1. Discuss the tactics of cults.
2. Describe the power of beliefs in guiding behavior.
3. Describe the study of racism and prejudice in Jane Elliott’s 3 rd grade class.
4. Identify the 4 results of Robert Rosenthal’s experiment on the power of positive expectations.
5. Describe Aaronson’s cooperative group classroom.
6. Identify 5 practices of advertising.

Course 3rd ed.
Discovering Psychology, Updated Edition: “The Power of the Situation”

Video #19 Questions
https://www.learner.org/series/discovering-psychology/
Directions: Complete the questions while watching the film
1. How does social context shape our behavior?
2. Describe Kurt Lewin’s work on leadership styles.
3. Describe Solomon Ashe’s conformity experiments and their results.
4. Explain Stanley Millram’s controversial experiments with obedience.
5. Define fundamental attribution error.
6. Describe Zimbardo’s prison experiment. What happened?
7. How did Millgram’s and Zimbardo’s experiments alter psychology experimental guidelines?
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 74-2 (18–2)

Attribution Scale
For each of the following 20 pairs of traits, circle the one trait in each pair that is most characteristic of YOURSELF.
If neither of the traits in a trait pair is the most characteristic, indicate that by circling “depends on the situation.”
serious gay (merry) depends on the situation

subjective analytic depends on the situation
future oriented present oriented depends on the situation
energetic relaxed depends on the situation
unassuming self-asserting depends on the situation
lenient firm depends on the situation
reserved emotionally expressive depends on the situation
dignified casual depends on the situation
realistic idealistic depends on the situation
intense calm depends on the situation
skeptical trusting depends on the situation
quiet talkative depends on the situation
cultivated natural depends on the situation
sensitive tough-minded depends on the situation
self-sufficient sociable depends on the situation
steady flexible depends on the situation
dominant deferential depends on the situation
cautious bold depends on the situation
uninhibited self-controlled depends on the situation
conscientious happy-go-lucky depends on the situation
Source: Reprinted by permission of Richard E. Nisbett, Theodore M. Newcomb, Distinguished University Professor,
Research Professor, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI..
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 74-2 (18–2)
Attribution Scale
For each of the following 20 pairs of traits, circle the one trait in each pair that is most characteristic of
_______________________(SOME FAMOUS PERSON).
If neither of the traits in a trait pair is the most characteristic, indicate that by circling “depends on the situation.”
serious gay (merry) depends on the situation

subjective analytic depends on the situation
future oriented present oriented depends on the situation
energetic relaxed depends on the situation
unassuming self-asserting depends on the situation
lenient firm depends on the situation
reserved emotionally expressive depends on the situation
dignified casual depends on the situation
realistic idealistic depends on the situation
intense calm depends on the situation
skeptical trusting depends on the situation
quiet talkative depends on the situation
cultivated natural depends on the situation
sensitive tough-minded depends on the situation
self-sufficient sociable depends on the situation
steady flexible depends on the situation
dominant deferential depends on the situation
cautious bold depends on the situation
uninhibited self-controlled depends on the situation
conscientious happy-go-lucky depends on the situation
Source: Reprinted by permission of Richard E. Nisbett, Theodore M. Newcomb, Distinguished University Professor,
Research Professor, Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI..
Course 3rd ed.
Handout #74.2 Discussion
 Distribute two copies of Handout 74-2 (18–2) to each student. Have students complete the scale twice, once
for a former teacher (or some prominent public figure, say, Drake / Nikki Minaj / Adam Levine) and once for
themselves.
 After you have completed both forms, count the number of times you circled “depends on the situation” on
each rating sheet.
You may notice a:

 greater tendency to attribute the other person’s behavior to personal disposition , while
 attributing your own behavior to the environment.
Explain: We tend to attribute causation to the focus of our attention, which is different when we are observing
than when we are acting. When another person acts, our focus is on that person, who thus seems to cause
whatever happens. When we act, however, the environment commands our attention and thus seems to explain
our behavior.
Course 3rd ed.
Watch short film The Lunch Date (11 mins): Produced by Adam Davidson, this program won the 1990
Oscar for the best short film. It provides an introduction to:
 social perception,
 errors in social thinking (including the fundamental attribution error),
 and the power of first impressions.
The film is a simple account of a middle-aged white woman’s walk through a large urban railroad
station. As she navigates through the station to her departing train, she comes face-to-face with her
own prejudices regarding black males and homeless people.
The program powerfully illustrates principles of perception illustrated earlier in the course, including
 top-down processing and
 the effect of expectations.
As you watch, COMPLETE THE DISCUSSION QUESTIONS AND jot down the things that are going
through your mind as you watch the story. For example: what judgments were you making about the
primary characters who appear in the story?
NOTE: your judgements say more about you than they do the characters. This film provides us with
an opportunity to discuss fear of difference, race, social class and status (of characters in the film and
of our own), and the power of unexamined privilege and to what we attribute their behavior.
As the text says, “out attributions – to individual’s dispositions of to their situations- have real
consequences.” They impact our attitudes and our attitudes, in turn, impact our actions & vice versa.
Do H/O #75.2 after (do before reading Milgram’s study on pg 778) / SEE NEXT PG FOR DISCUSSION
Course 3rd ed.
The Lunch Date DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
1. What is your first impression of the woman as she walks through the train station?
2. What is your first impression of the other characters in the train station?
3. How do you think the woman would describe the other people at the train station?
4. How would you describe the woman's interaction with the African-American man who bumps into her
and causes her pursue to fall to the ground?
5. What is her reaction?
6. What do you make of the moment when the woman goes to buy the salad, is told it will cost $2, and she
says “I'm not sure I have that much”?
7. Why does the woman start eating the salad that the homeless man is eating in the booth?
8. Does the woman's interaction with the homeless man ever change? If so, when and why?
9. What does the woman think has happened to her bags when she comes back to the booth?
10. Why does she think this?
11. How do you think the woman feels upon making the second train?
12. Who do you identify with in the film and why?

Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 75-2
Shock Levels in Shock level at which Shock level at which I Shock Level at which I Number of participants
Milgram’s I believe I would believe the average US believe someone from in Milgram’s studies
Obedience disobey the citizen would disobey another country would who went to each
Study Shock experimenter the experimenter disobey the shock level
experimenter
Level
Slight Shock (15-
60 volts)
Moderate Shock
(75-120 volts)
Strong Shock
(135 to 180
volts)
Very Strong
Shock (195 to
240 volts)
Intense Shock
(255 to 300
volts)
Extreme
Intensity Shock
(315 to 360
volts)
Danger: Severe
Shock (375 to
420 volts)
XXX (435+ volts)
Course 3rd ed.
Handout #75.2 Discussion

Task: Do Before you read the module
mark what your response would be.
Note: Milgram’s actual results… Five subjects stopped at the last lever in “Intense Shock”; eight more
disobeyed in the “Extreme Intensity” category; one stopped at “Danger: Severe Shock”; and the remaining 26
obeyed to the end.
Discussion: You probably underestimated your own obedience. You will also surely find evidence for the self-
serving bias, as students will predict that they themselves would disobey earlier than would the average
college student.
Interestingly, Milgram himself described his experiment to 110 psychiatrists, college students, and middle-
class adults. He asked, “How far would you go in shocking the learner for incorrect responses?” The average
estimated response of all three groups was about 135 volts (the first lever in the “strong shock” category).
When the groups were asked to guess how other people would behave, virtually everyone responded that no
one would proceed to the end of the shock panel. In fact, the psychiatrists estimated about 1 in 1000. They
thought most would stop when the learner first indicated pain.
Course 3rd ed.
“The Lottery” & Social Psychology

Directions: While watching the film, FULLY explain how the following terms apply to
“The Lottery” by Shirley Jackson?
Term Explanation /Application in the film
Conformity
Normative Social
Influence
Obedience
Social
Facilitation
Deindividuation
Group
Interaction
Group Think
Social &
Personal Control
Course 3rd ed.
Fact or Falsehood? LT 77.1 – 80.1

Read each statement and circle T if you believe it is true and F if you believe it is false.
Handout 77-2
T F 1. Discrimination is defined as our generalized beliefs about a group of people.
T F 2. Prejudice can be expressed unconsciously.
T F 3. Economically frustrated people tend to express heightened prejudice.
T F 4. People judge their own group as more diverse and people in other groups as more
homogeneous.
T F 5. People have the tendency to estimate the frequency of an event by how readily it comes to
mind.
Handout 78-1
T F 1. The biological source of aggression can be found in the semi particulate nucleus in the parietal
lobe of the brain.
T F 2. Baseball pitchers are more likely to hit a batter with a pitch if their teammate had been hit by a
pitch in the previous half-inning.
T F 3. Societies that emphasize “manly honor” are more likely to use arms to protect their property.
T F 4. There have not been any credible studies that show a connection between playing violent video
games and aggression.
T F 5. Historical trends suggest that the world is becoming less violent over time.
Handout 79-1
T F 1. The most powerful prediction of friendship is physical attractiveness.
T F 2. Seeing the same person over and over again is a powerful predictor of whether you will like
that
person.
T F 3. People’s attractiveness is unrelated to their self-esteem and happiness.
T F 4. The more opposite people are, the more their liking endures.
T F 5. Adrenaline makes the heart grow fonder.
Handout 80-1
T F 1. People only help others when they first notice the incident taking place.
T F 2. Happy people are helpful people.
T F 3. Highly religious people, even if they are poor, are more likely to give to charity.
T F 4. Friendly contact typically encourages improved attitudes towards others.
T F 5. If people are forced to work together on a shared goal, they tend to become competitive and
hostile.
Course 3rd ed.
Fact or Falsehood Answers 74.1 – 76.1

Handout 74-1, Handout 75-1, Handout 76-1,
1. F page 768 6. T page 776 11. F page 784
2. T page 768 7. T page 777 12. F page 785
3. T page 771 8. F page 777 13. T page 786
4. T page 772 9. F page 779 14. F page 787
5. F page 773 10. T page 780 15. T page 789
Fact or Falsehood Answers 77.1 – 80.1

Hando Handout 78-1, Handout 79-1, Handout 80-1,
ut 77- 6. F page 801 11. F page 808 16. T page 817
1, 7. T page 803 12. T page 808 17. T page 818
1. F page 792 8. T page 804 13. T page 810 18. T page 819
2. T page 794 9. F page 805 14. F page 812 19. T page 821
3. T page 797 10. T page 806 15. T page 813 20. F page 821
4. T page 797
5. T page 798
Course 3rd ed.
Questions for “Lyle Lanley, You’re My Hero!”
Directions: Please answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper
1) What are two powerful sources of influence for getting people to do what you want them to do?
2) Describe the power of groups.
3) Describe the power of interpersonal influence.
4) Describe the in-group bias, and give an example from The Simpsons.
5) How are people led to conformity? Give an example from The Simpsons.
6) What are the six categories of power? Describe each.
7) What is leverage?
8) What is Influence?
9) What is reciprocity?
10) What is social validation?
11) Describe the concept of commitment and consistency.
12) How can friendship be an effective manipulation tool?
13) How does the concept of scarcity act as a manipulation tool?
14) Describe how the use of authority can elicit obedience.
15) Describe how the Movementarians apply the influence techniques discussed in this article in the episode
“The Joy of Sect.” (at least 1 paragraph)
Course 3rd ed.
Understanding
Let’s extend the text discussion of the role group polarization plays in terrorism. Fathali Moghaddam defines
“terrorism as politically motivated violence, perpetrated by individuals, groups, or state-sponsored agents,
intended to instill feelings of terror and helplessness in a population in order to influence decision-making and to
change behavior.” He conceptualizes the terrorist act as the final step on a narrowing staircase in which the
options available to frustrated perpetrators gradually decrease.
The foundational, ground floor is occupied by millions of people who experience injustice and relative deprivation.
Fraternal deprivation, the feeling that one’s group is being treated unfairly, is central. It is most likely to arise
when group members feel that their path to a desired goal, a goal that others have achieved, is blocked. Images of
affluence and democratic lifestyles enjoyed by other people have fueled such feelings of deprivation among vast
populations throughout the world.
Individuals climb to the first floor and try different doors in search of solutions to what they perceive to be unjust
treatment. A key question is whether doors will open to talented persons motivated to make progress up the
social hierarchy. If people do not see possibilities for such mobility and cannot adequately influence the
procedures through which decisions are made, they keep climbing the staircase.
Individuals who reach the second floor and still perceive grave injustices experience anger and frustration.
Leaders can readily influence them to displace their aggression onto an “enemy.” Those individuals who develop a
readiness to physically displace aggression and who actively seek opportunities to do so, eventually leave the
second floor and climb more steps in an effort to take effective action against perceived enemies.
On reaching the third floor, they are gradually engaged by the terrorist organization to adopt their morality.
Terrorism is seen as a justified strategy. The organization thus persuades recruits to become disengaged from
morality as it is defined by government authorities (and often by the majority in society) and engaged in the way
morality is constructed by the terrorist organization. What others see as “terrorism” is depicted as “martyrdom.”
Potential recruits find themselves engaged in the extremist morality of isolated, secretive organizations dedicated
to changing the world by any means.
By the time the person has reached the fourth floor, he or she has little or no opportunity to exit alive. One
category of recruits consists of those who will be long-term members. They become part of small cells, each
numbering four or five persons with access to information only about other members in their own cells. A second
category of “foot soldiers” are recruited to carry out violent acts and to become suicide bombers. Interestingly,
the entire training and implementation of the terrorist act may take no more than 24 hours. The recruited
individual is given much positive attention and treated as a kind of celebrity by the recruiter (who stays constantly
by his or her side) and by a charismatic cell leader.
On the fifth floor, recruits are trained to sidestep any inhibitory mechanism that might still prevent them from
injuring and killing both others and themselves. They now believe that all outside the group, including civilians,
are the enemy. Differences between the in-group and outgroup are exaggerated. Those carrying out the acts may
also be convinced that attacking civilian targets will spark observers to recognize the “truth” and revolt against
authorities. Because victims seldom become aware of the impending danger before the attack, they are unable to
behave in ways that might trigger inhibitory mechanisms in the perpetrator (e.g., establishing eye contact,
pleading, crying).
Moghaddam, F. M. (2005). The staircase to terrorism: A psychological explanation. American Psychologist, 60, 161–169.
Course 3rd ed.
Groupthink
To prevent groupthink, Irving Janis made the following recommendations.
1. One or more members should be assigned the role of devil’s advocate.

2. Occasionally, the group should be subdivided. Have the subgroups meet
separately and then come together to discuss differences.
3. After the group seems to have reached consensus, have a “last-chance”
meeting in which each member is encouraged to express any remaining
doubts.
4. Call in outside experts to challenge the group’s views.
5. Have each group member air the group’s deliberations with trusted
associates and report their reactions.
Janis, I. L. (1982). Groupthink. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Course 3rd ed.
Handout 18–6. Students complete 2 – one for men and the other for women. / specific items reflect
 communal (1, 4, 8, 10, 12, 15) and
 agentic (or assertive) (2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 11, 13, 14, 16) /
Carol Lynn Martin found that visitors to the University of British Columbia perceived North American males as
almost twice as likely as females to be assertive and dominant and roughly half as likely to be tender and
compassionate.
Interestingly, however, when the male visitors were asked to describe themselves, they were only slightly
more likely than the females to describe themselves as assertive and dominant and were slightly less likely to
describe themselves as tender and compassionate.
Although self-perceived differences between the sexes seem to be very small, stereotypes are strong. It is
important to point out to students that stereotypes are beliefs but not necessarily prejudices.
Stereotypes may support prejudice, but then again one may believe, without prejudice, that men and women
are “different yet equal.”
By dividing the student’s estimate of the target group by his or her estimate of the percentage of people in
general who possess the trait, one obtains a diagnostic ratio. This indicates how much the student believes
the trait distinguishes the target group from people in general.
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 77-1
Implicit Association Test (IAT)
Directions: Visit www.implicit.harvard.edu to complete the following questions:
1. Click on the “Project Implicit Social Attitudes” link. Read the agreement fully to understand that
the information you may encounter about yourself and your perceptions may be uncomfortable
for you. If you wish to proceed, choose one of the four tests to take. Report your experiences.
2. Click on the “Education” page, then click on “Frequently Asked Questions” link to answer the
following question about the IAT.”
 What is the difference between an implicit and explicit attitude?
 How does the IAT measure implicit attitudes?
 What can I do about an automatic preference that I would rather not have?
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT #77-3
Institutional Discrimination
Directions: Answer the following four questions in regard to each of the examples below.
A. Is discrimination present?
B. Against what group or groups does the practice discriminate?
C. What is the intended purpose of each practice?
D. If the intended purpose is a valid one, how else might this purpose be achieved?
1. A corporation only pays for mothers to take maternity leave after a child is born.
a.
b.
c.
d.
2. A Caucasian actress is cast to play the role of a Native American woman.

a.
b.
c.
d.
3. A business decides to promote from “within” rather than advertise the position widely in the community.
a.
b.
c.
d.
4. Children of alumni receive special scholarships and consideration for admission to a highly selective university.
a.
b.
c.
d.
5. A high school’s community service organization is only open to females.

a.
b.
c.
d.
6. A high school requires an oral presentation about a research topic in order to graduate.
a.
b.
c.
d.
Course 3rd ed.
Source: Goldstein, S. B. (1994, August). Teaching the psychology of prejudice and privilege: Opportunities for active learning. Paper
presented at the 102nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA. Reprinted by permission.
HANDOUT 77-4
Just World Scale (JWS)
Directions: Indicate your degree of agreement or disagreement with each of the following
statements in the blank space next to each item. Respond to every statement by using the following
code.
5 = strongly agree
4 = moderately agree
3 = slightly agree
2 = slightly disagree
1 = moderately disagree
0 = strongly disagree
_________1. I’ve found that a person rarely deserves the reputation he has.
_________2. Basically, the world is a just place.
_________3. People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune.
_________4. Careful drivers are just as likely to get hurt in traffic accidents as careless ones.
_________5. It is a common occurrence for a guilty person to get off free in American courts.
_________6. Students almost always deserve the grades they receive in school.
_________7. Men who keep in shape have little chance of suffering a heart attack.
_________8. The political candidate who sticks up for his principles rarely gets elected.
_________9. It is rare for an innocent man to be wrongly sent to jail.
_________10. In professional sports, many fouls and infractions never get called by the referee.
_________11. By and large, people deserve what they get.
_________12. When parents punish their children, it is almost always for good reasons.
_________13. Good deeds often go unnoticed and unrewarded.
_________14. Although evil men may hold political power for a while, in the general course of history, good wins
out.
_________15. In almost any business or profession, people who do their job well rise to the top.
_________16. American parents tend to overlook the things most to be admired in their children.
_________17. It is often impossible for a person to receive a fair trial in the USA.
_________18. People who meet with misfortune have often brought it on themselves.
_________19. Crime doesn’t pay.
_________20. Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own.
Course 3rd ed.
Source: Rubin, Z., & Peplau, L. A. (1975). Just world scale. Journal of Social Issues, 31, 65–89. Reprinted by permission of Blackwell
Publishers.
HANDOUT 18–6
For each of the following characteristics, provide your best estimate or guess of the
percentage of MEN who possess the trait.
1. kind _______%
2. not easily influenced _______%
3. competitive _______%
4. aware of others’ feelings _______%
5. dominant _______%
6. makes decisions easily _______%
7. independent _______%
8. understanding _______%
9. never gives up easily _______%
10. helpful _______%
11. aggressive _______%
12. warm _______%
13. self-confident _______%
14. stands up well under pressure _______%
15. able to devote self to others _______%
16. active _______%

Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 18–6
For each of the following characteristics, provide your best estimate or guess of the
percentage of WOMEN who possess the trait.
1. kind _______%
2. not easily influenced _______%
3. competitive _______%
4. aware of others’ feelings _______%
5. dominant _______%
6. makes decisions easily _______%
7. independent _______%
8. understanding _______%
9. never gives up easily _______%
10. helpful _______%
11. aggressive _______%
12. warm _______%
13. self-confident _______%
14. stands up well under pressure _______%
15. able to devote self to others _______%

Course 3rd ed.
16. active _______%
HANDOUT 78-2
Aggressiveness Questionnaire
Directions: Circle the number of each statement that describes aggression.
1. A spider eats a fly.

2. Two wolves fight for the leadership of the pack.
3. A soldier shoots an enemy at the front line.
4. The warden of a prison executes a convicted criminal.
5. A juvenile gang attacks members of another gang.
6. Two men fight for a piece of bread.
7. A man viciously kicks a cat.
8. A man, while cleaning a window, knocks over a flowerpot, which, in falling, injures a pedestrian.
9. A girl kicks a wastebasket.
10. Mr. X, a notorious gossip, speaks disparagingly of many people of his acquaintance.
11. A man mentally rehearses a murder he is about to commit.
12. An angry son purposely fails to write to his mother, who is expecting a letter and will be hurt if none arrives.
13. An enraged boy tries with all his might to inflict injury on his antagonist, a bigger boy, but is not successful in
doing so.
14. A man daydreams of harming his antagonist, but has no hope of doing so.
15. A senator does not protest the escalation of bombing to which he is morally opposed.
16. A farmer beheads a chicken and prepares it for supper.
17. A hunter kills an animal and mounts it as a trophy.
18. A dog snarls at a mail carrier, but does not bite.
19. A physician gives a flu shot to a screaming child.
20. A boxer gives his opponent a bloody nose.
21. A girl scout tries to assist an elderly woman, but trips her by accident.
22. A bank robber is shot in the back while trying to escape.
23. A tennis player smashes his racket after missing a volley.
Course 3rd ed.
24. A person commits suicide.
25. A cat kills a mouse, parades around with it, and then discards it.
Source: Benjamin, L. T., Jr. (1985). Defining aggression: An exercise for classroom discussion. Teaching of
Psychology, 12(1), 41. Reprinted by permission of Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., and the author.
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 78-3
Driving Behavior Directions: Circle each number that describes a behavior you (or your parent if you aren’t
driving, yet) have engaged in while driving.
1. mentally condemning other drivers

2. verbally denigrating other drivers to a passenger in your vehicle
3. closing ranks to deny someone entering your lane because you’re frustrated or upset
4. giving another driver “a dirty look” to show your disapproval
5. speeding past another car or revving the engine as a sign of protest
6. preventing another driver from passing because you’re mad
7. tailgating to pressure a driver to go faster or get out of the way
8. fantasizing physical violence against another driver
9. honking or yelling at someone through the window to indicate displeasure
10. making a visible obscene gesture at another driver
11. using your car to retaliate by making sudden, threatening maneuvers
12. pursuing another car in chase because of a provocation or insult
13. getting out of the car and engaging in a verbal dispute, on a street or in a parking lot
14. carrying a weapon in the car in case you decide to use it in a driving incident
15. deliberately bumping or ramming another car because you are angry
16. trying to run another car off the road to punish the driver
17. getting out of the car and beating or battering someone as a result of a road exchange
18. trying to run someone down whose actions angered you
19. shooting at another car
20. killing someone
Source: Dr. Leon James, Psychology Department, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822.
Course 3rd ed.
Handout 78-3 Discussion

Task: Distribute the handout to students and allow them to complete it in class.
Discussion: The 20 items are arranged along a continuum of escalating degrees of hostility experienced by drivers,
beginning with relatively milder forms of aggressiveness and ending with the ultimate act of violence: murder. He
reports that the majority of drivers he tested reach step 13. James divides the range into the following five zones
of aggressiveness:
 The Unfriendly Zone (Items 1–3) reflects mental and verbal acts of unkindness toward other drivers.
 The Hostile Zone (Items 4–7) involves visibly communicating one’s displeasure or resentment with the
desire to punish.
 The Violent Zone (Items 8–11) includes the carrying out of an act of hostility, either in fantasy or deed.
 The Lesser Mayhem Zone (Items 12–16) reflects epic road rage contained within one’s personal limits.
 The Major Mayhem Zone (Items 17–20) assesses uncontained road rage, the stuff of newspaper stories.
James’ website (drdriving.org) also includes numerous other tests for road rage, as well as strategies
for dealing with aggressive drivers and current lines of research.
Speculate on the possible causes of aggressive driving. Among the answers psychologists have suggested are that
the increasing congestion on highways is creating more frustration and stress. Relate this back to the frustration-
aggression hypothesis.
Source: Dr. Leon James, Psychology Department, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI 96822. Name
Course 3rd ed.
Crash Study Questions

You are going to view the movie Crash. This movie is about contemporary L.A. and the ways in which
different racial groups demonstrate their prejudice and racism toward each other and themselves. Crash
is a transformative film. It's about how blind we are to our own prejudices. It's about living in a world
where our lives and our assumptions about each other intersect, and yes, crash, and how we live and love
and hurt and hate each other--and ourselves.
Directions: Answer on another sheet of paper if not enough space.
1. Almost all characters were confronted with a moral dilemma. Discuss 3 examples.
2. Discuss the stereotypes of “Good Cop” and “Bad Cop” in the movie. How did the plot lead to cognitive dissonance in
the viewer?
3. Give examples of how some of the characters’ biases were changed by the end of the film.
4. In his review, Roger Ebert says, “One thing that happens, again and again [in the film], is that peoples' assumptions
prevent them from seeing the actual person standing before them” (“rogerebert.com”). Choose one scene and
point out the specific assumptions that prevent one character from “seeing” another character as an “actual person
standing before [him/her].”
5. Is there a character in this film with whom it is impossible for us to sympathize? Who? Why? Use specific examples
from the film and keep in mind each character’s “arc” as you create your argument.
6. Why is it important for the script and filmed dialogue to include so many different languages, and, more importantly,
why is it that these languages are almost always not translated for the viewer into English subtitles on the screen?
Create a clear, argumentative statement that answers both questions and offer evidence from the film to support
your claims.
7. Haggis makes sure that his film evidences various racial and ethnic stereotypes to which people ascribe. However,
the script plays with these stereotypes, twisting them to show how they are patently false and, yet, how they can
also be true. Choose one of these stereotypes presented in the film and discuss how the movie evidences this
“twisting.”
8. How does the film elicit strong emotions from the viewer and how does that impact attitude change?
9. Recall the opening lines of the film: “It's the sense of touch. In any real city, you walk, you know? You brush past
people, people bump into you. In L.A., nobody touches you. We're always behind this metal and glass. I think we
miss that touch so much, that we crash into each other, just so we can feel something.” At several points in the
movie, we witness “crashes” between people. Discuss first the connotation of the word “crash.” Then, discuss
whether or not the violence in “crashing” promotes a positive change in those who literally or figuratively slam into
one another.
Course 3rd ed.
10. Think about the very last scene in which Shaniqua Johnson gets into a car accident, thus returning us to the
beginning of the film where we have the first crash (this is “organic unity”). By this point in the film, what do we
know about “crashing?” Are crashes (literal/figurative) necessary for positive movement? How is it that a “negative”
collision might be positive, or is that impossibility?
11. How do any of the following concepts come into play in the film? Discuss the various ways.
Concept Example/Explanation
Discrimination
Social Inequalities
(haves & have not’s)
Blame the Victim

dynamic
Us & Them / Ingroup &

Outgroup
Scapegoat Theory
Categorization
Just-world
phenomenon
Frustration-aggression
principle
Social Traps
Mirror-image
perceptions
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 18–14
Intimate Friendship Scale
Thinking of your best friend, how many of these apply?
T F 1. I feel free to talk with him/her about almost anything.
T F 2. I know what kinds of books, games, and activities he/she likes.
T F 3. When he/she is not around, I miss him/her.
T F 4. The most exciting things happen when I am with him/her and

nobody else is around.
T F 5. Whenever he/she wants to tell me about a problem I stop what I

am doing and listen for as long as he/she wants.
T F 6. I can be sure he/she will help me whenever I ask for it.
T F 7. I like to do things with him/her.
T F 8. I know that whatever I tell him/her is kept secret between us.
Source: Selected items from Sharabany, R. (1994). Intimate friendship scale: Conceptual underpinnings, psychometric
properties, and construct validity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 11, 449–469. Items appear on p. 454.
Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 79-2
Love Attitudes Scale
Directions: Listed below are several statements that reflect different attitudes about love. For each statement, fill in the
response that indicates how much you agree or disagree with that statement. The items refer to a specific love relationship.
Whenever possible, answer the questions with your current partner (boyfriend or girlfriend) in mind. If you are not currently
dating anyone, answer the questions with your most recent partner in mind. If you have never been in love, answer in terms
of what you think your responses would most likely be. Indicate how strongly you agree or disagree by choosing the
appropriate number from the scale below and placing it in the space provided.
5 = strongly agree with the statement
4 = moderately agree with the statement
3 = neutral, neither agree nor disagree
2 = moderately disagree with the statement
1 = strongly disagree with the statement
_________1. My partner and I have the right physical “chemistry” between us.
_________2. I feel that my partner and I were meant for each other.
_________3. My partner and I really understand each other.
_________4. My partner fits my ideal standards of physical beauty/handsomeness.
_________5. I believe that what my partner doesn’t know about me won’t hurt him/her.
_________6. I have sometimes had to keep my partner from finding out about other partners.
_________7. My partner would get upset if he/she knew of some of the things I’ve done with other people.
_________8. I enjoy playing the “game of love” with my partner and a number of other partners.
_________9. Our love is the best kind because it grew out of a long friendship.
_________10. Our friendship merged gradually into love over time.
_________11. Our love is really a deep friendship, not a mysterious, mystical emotion.
_________12. Our love relationship is the most satisfying because it developed from a good friendship.
_________13. A main consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my family.
_________14. An important factor in choosing my partner was whether or not he/she would be a good parent.
_________15. One consideration in choosing my partner was how he/she would reflect on my career.
_________16. Before getting very involved with my partner, I tried to figure out how compatible his/her
hereditary background would be with mine in case we ever had children.
_________17. When my partner doesn’t pay attention to me, I feel sick all over.
_________18. Since I’ve been in love with my partner, I’ve had trouble concentrating on anything else.
_________19. I cannot relax if I suspect that my partner is with someone else.
_________20. If my partner ignores me for a while, I sometimes do stupid things to try to get his/her attention
back.
________21. I would rather suffer myself than let my partner suffer.
_________22. I cannot be happy unless I place my partner’s happiness before my own.
Course 3rd ed.
_________23. I am usually willing to sacrifice my own wishes to let my partner achieve his/hers.
_________24. I would endure all things for the sake of my partner.
Handout 79-2 Discussion:
Completion of the handout, which is the Short Form of the Love Attitudes Scale, will provide
students with a good introduction to this model of love. Scores are obtained for each of the
following subscales by simply totaling the numbers before the relevant items.
A. Eros (Items 1–4) represents passionate love. It focuses strongly on physical attraction and sensual satisfaction.
Erotic lovers look for rapidly developing, emotionally intense, intimate relationships. They tend to idealize
their lovers and are willing to take risks.
B. Ludus (Items 5–8) is love practiced as a game or pleasant pastime for mutual enjoyment. Love is a series of
challenges and puzzles to be solved. This type of lover dates several partners and moves in and out of love
affairs quickly and easily. He or she refuses to make long-range plans. Ludus is wary of emotional intensity
from others.
C. Storge (Items 9–12) is a caring, concerned friendship that is based on similar interests and pursuits. The love is
evolutionary and may take time to develop. Lovers desire a long-term relationship based on mutual trust. For
those who practice this love, the most appealing aspect of the relationship consists in making a home and
raising a family together.
D. Pragma (Items 13–16) is a love that goes shopping for a suitable mate. All it asks is that the relationship work
well, that the two partners be compatible and satisfy each other’s basic or practical needs. Relationships are
based on satisfactory rewards rather than romantic attraction.
E. Mania (Items 17–20) is possessive, dependent love. Lovers are insecure and are fearful of being rejected. Mania
is associated with high emotional expressiveness and disclosure, but low self-esteem. The typical manic lover
yearns for love, yet anticipates that the relationship will be painful. He or she tries to force the partner into
greater expressions of affection.
F. Agape (Items 21–24) is all-giving, selfless, nondemanding love. Lovers sacrifice their own interests in favor of
their partner’s and give without expecting a reward. They are not happy unless the partner is also happy.
Prepared to share all they have, they are vulnerable to exploitation.
Research suggests that men and women may have different love styles. Women tend toward a more caring,
practical love with an element of possessiveness. Men are more interested in the passionate, game-playing kind
of love. This may suggest that the common view of women as romantic and of men as practical is wrong. Studies
also show that in people younger than 20 years, women fall in love earlier and more often than men. After this
age, men fall in love more easily than women, whereas women fall out of love sooner than men. Women are
much tougher when it comes to ending a relationship; they can handle the break up better.
Ask students to reflect on their own scores; then bring the discussion back to romantic
Course 3rd ed.
Business Insider
Attractive People Are Simply More Successful
Melissa Stanger, Oct. 9, 2012, 2:36 PM
This is part of our series on The Sexiest CEOs Alive.
Studies have shown that attractive people are usually hired sooner, get
promotions more quickly, and are paid more than their less-attractive coworkers.
Attractive people earn an average of 3 or 4 percent more than people with below-
average looks, according to Daniel Hamermesh, professor of economics at the
University of Texas at Austin and author of the book "Beauty Pays: Why Attractive
People Are More Successful."
Researchers have studied the concept of beauty as a factor in a person’s success over and over again, and in
multiple ways. Beautiful people tend to bring in more money for their companies, and are therefore seen as
more valuable employees and harder workers, according to an article in Psychology Today by Dario Maestripieri,
a professor of comparative human development, evolutionary biology, and neurobiology at the University of
Chicago. A door-to-door insurance salesman is better able to sell to customers who find him attractive, says
Maestripieri, because the customers will be more likely to buy if they think it will increase their chances to have
sex with him. Maestripieri calls this principle “the pleasure of dealing with good-looking people.”
“Good-looking people are more appealing as potential sex partners,” Maestripieri says, “and [so] other people
choose to interact with them, to spend time near them, talk with them, buy insurance from them, and hire them
as employees.”
Hamermesh, however, believes that it's not just the sex appeal that makes attractive people more successful. He
writes that attractive people tend to have desirable personality traits, like higher self-confidence—likely a direct
result of their good looks—that appeal to employers.
“Beauty may just reflect reflect self-esteem. Perhaps people’s self-confidence manifests itself in their behavior,
so that their looks are rated more highly, and their self-esteem makes them more desirable and higher-paid
employees,” he writes. “Another possibility is that beauty and the attractiveness of one’s personality are
positively related, and that it is the general sparkle of one’s personality, not one’s beauty, that increases
earnings.”
Researchers at Rice University and the University of Houston also conducted a study on beauty’s effect on
success. They limited their study to how facial appearance affects excellence in a job interview. The study found
that people with facial blemishes and “disfigurements”—birthmarks, scars, blemishes—were more likely to be
rated poorly by their interviewers. The interviewers tended to recall less information about these candidates’,
which negatively impacted their evaluations.
“The more the interviewers attended to stigmatized features on the face, the less they remembered about the
candidate’s interview content, and the less memory they had about the content led to decreases in ratings of the
applicant,” said Juan Madera, a professor at the University of Houston and co-author of the study.
Course 3rd ed.
Even with the bias against the less fortunate-looking, Hamermesh says there are still ways to succeed despite
one’s looks. “First, don't go into an occupation where looks matter a lot,” he says in an interview with the Wall
Street Journal. "Don't be a TV broadcaster; be a radio broadcaster. Don't be a movie actor. Most important, go
into fields that you enjoy, and that you have an advantage in doing. Accentuate your strengths, and try to avoid
those things where you are relatively disadvantaged.”
Beauty and success

To those that have, shall be given
The ugly are one of the few groups against whom it is still legal to discriminate. Unfortunately for
them, there are good reasons why beauty and success go hand in hand
Dec 19th 2007 | From the print edition
IMAGINE you have two candidates for a job. They are both of the same sex—and that sex is the one
your own proclivities incline you to find attractive. Their CVs are equally good, and they both give good
interview. You cannot help noticing, though, that one is pug-ugly and the other is handsome. Are you
swayed by their appearance?
Perhaps not. But lesser, less-moral mortals might be. If appearance did not count, why would people
dress up for such interviews—even if the job they are hoping to get is dressed down? And job interviews
are turning points in life. If beauty sways interviewers, the beautiful will, by and large, have more
successful careers than the ugly—even in careers for which beauty is not a necessary qualification.
If you were swayed by someone's looks, however, would that be wrong? In a society that eschews
prejudice, favouring the beautiful seems about as shallow as you can get. But it was not always thus. In
the past, people often equated beauty with virtue and ugliness with vice.
Even now, the expression “as ugly as sin” has not quite passed from the language. There is, of course,
the equally famous expression “beauty is in the eye of the beholder”, to counter it. But the subtext of that
old saw, that beauty is arbitrary, is wrong. Most beholders agree what is beautiful—and modern biology
suggests there is a good reason for that agreement. Biology also suggests that beauty may, indeed, be a
good rule of thumb for assessing someone of either sex. Not an infallible one, and certainly no substitute
for an in-depth investigation. But, nevertheless, an instinctive one, and one that is bound to redound to
the advantage of the physically well endowed.
Fearful symmetry
The godfather of scientific study of beauty is Randy Thornhill, of the University of New Mexico. It was
Dr Thornhill who, a little over a decade ago, took an observation he originally made about insects and
dared to apply it to people.
Course 3rd ed.
The insects in question were scorpion flies, and the observation was that those flies whose wings were
most symmetrical were the ones that did best in the mating stakes. Dr Thornhill thought this preference
for symmetry might turn out to be universal in the animal kingdom (and it does indeed seem to be). In
particular, he showed it is true of people. He started with faces, manipulating pictures to make them more
and less symmetrical, and having volunteers of the opposite sex rank them for attractiveness. But he has
gone on to show that all aspects of bodily symmetry contribute, down to the lengths of corresponding
fingers, and that the assessment applies to those of the same sex, as well.
The reason seems to be that perfect symmetry is hard for a developing embryo to maintain. The embryo
that can maintain it obviously has good genes (and also a certain amount of luck). It is, therefore, more
than just coincidence that the words “health and beauty” trip so easily off the tongue as a single phrase.
Other aspects of beauty, too, are indicators of health. Skin and hair condition, in particular, are sensitive
to illness, malnutrition and so on (or, perhaps it would be better to say that people's perceptions are
exquisitely tuned to detect perfection and flaws in such things). And more recent work has demonstrated
another association. Contrary to the old jokes about dumb blondes, beautiful people seem to be cleverer,
too.
One of the most detailed studies on the link between beauty and intelligence was done by Mark
Prokosch, Ronald Yeo and Geoffrey Miller, who also work at the University of New Mexico. These
three researchers correlated people's bodily symmetry with their performance on intelligence tests. Such
tests come in many varieties, of course, and have a controversial background. But most workers in the
field agree that there is a quality, normally referred to as “general intelligence”, or “g”, that such tests
can measure objectively along with specific abilities in such areas as spatial awareness and language. Dr
Miller and his colleagues found that the more a test was designed to measure g, the more the results were
correlated with bodily symmetry—particularly in the bottom half of the beauty-ugliness spectrum.
Faces, too, seem to carry information on intelligence. A few years ago, two of the world's face experts,
Leslie Zebrowitz, of Brandeis University in Massachusetts, and Gillian Rhodes, of the University of
Western Australia, got together to review the literature and conduct some fresh experiments. They found
nine past studies (seven of them conducted before the second world war, an indication of how old
interest in this subject is), and subjected them to what is known as a meta-analysis.
The studies in question had all used more or less the same methodology, namely photograph people and
ask them to do IQ tests, then show the photographs to other people and ask the second lot to rank the
intelligence of the first lot. The results suggested that people get such judgments right—by no means all
the time, but often enough to be significant. The two researchers and their colleagues then carried out
their own experiment, with the added twist of dividing their subjects up by age.
Bright blondes
The results of that were rather surprising. They found that the faces of children and adults of middling
years did seem to give away intelligence, while those of teenagers and the elderly did not. That is
surprising because face-reading of this sort must surely be important in mate selection, and the teenage
years are the time when such selection is likely to be at its most intense—though, conversely, they are
also the time when evolution will be working hardest to cover up any deficiencies, and the hormone-
driven changes taking place during puberty might provide the material needed to do that.
Course 3rd ed.
Nevertheless, the accumulating evidence suggests that physical characteristics do give clues about
intelligence, that such clues are picked up by other people, and that these clues are also associated with
beauty. And other work also suggests that this really does matter.
One of the leading students of beauty and success is Daniel Hamermesh of the University of Texas. Dr
Hamermesh is an economist rather than a biologist, and thus brings a somewhat different perspective to
the field. He has collected evidence from more than one continent that beauty really is associated with
success—at least, with financial success. He has also shown that, if all else is equal, it might be a
perfectly legitimate business strategy to hire the more beautiful candidate.
Just over a decade ago Dr Hamermesh presided over a series of surveys in the United States and Canada
which showed that when all other things are taken into account, ugly people earn less than average
incomes, while beautiful people earn more than the average. The ugliness “penalty” for men was -9%
while the beauty premium was +5%. For women, perhaps surprisingly considering popular prejudices
about the sexes, the effect was less: the ugliness penalty was -6% while the beauty premium was +4%.
Since then, he has gone on to measure these effects in other places. In China, ugliness is penalised more
in women, but beauty is more rewarded. The figures for men in Shanghai are –25% and +3%; for women
they are –31% and +10%. In Britain, ugly men do worse than ugly women (-18% as against -11%) but
the beauty premium is the same for both (and only +1%).
The difference also applies within professions. Dr Hamermesh looked at the careers of members of a
particular (though discreetly anonymous) American law school. He found that those rated attractive on
the basis of their graduation photographs went on to earn higher salaries than their less well-favoured
colleagues. Moreover, lawyers in private practice tended to be better looking than those working in
government departments.
Illustration by Brett Ryder
Even more unfairly, Dr Hamermesh found evidence that beautiful people may
bring more revenue to their employers than the less-favoured do. His study of
Dutch advertising firms showed that those with the most beautiful executives had
the largest size-adjusted revenues—a difference that exceeded the salary
differentials of the firms in question. Finally, to add insult to injury, he found that
even in his own cerebral and, one might have thought, beauty-blind profession,
attractive candidates were more successful in elections for office in the American
Economic Association.
That last distinction also applies to elections to public office, as was neatly
demonstrated by Niclas Berggren, of the Ratio Institute in Stockholm, and his
colleagues. Dr Berggren's team looked at almost 2,000 candidates in Finnish
elections. They asked foreigners (mainly Americans and Swedes) to examine the
candidates' campaign photographs and rank them for beauty. They then compared
those rankings with the actual election results. They were able to eliminate the
effects of party preference because Finland has a system of proportional representation that pits
candidates of the same party against one another. Lo and behold, the more beautiful candidates, as
ranked by people who knew nothing of Finland's internal politics, tended to have been the more
successful—though in this case, unlike Dr Hamermesh's economic results, the effect was larger for
women than for men.
Course 3rd ed.
If looks could kill
What these results suggest is a two-fold process, sadly reminiscent of the biblical quotation to which the
title of this article refers. There is a feedback loop between biology and the social environment that gives
to those who have, and takes from those who have not.
That happens because beauty is a real marker for other, underlying characteristics such as health, good
genes and intelligence. It is what biologists call an unfakeable signal, like the deep roar of a big, rutting
stag that smaller adolescents are physically incapable of producing. It therefore makes biological sense
for people to prefer beautiful friends and lovers, since the first will make good allies, and the second,
good mates.
That brings the beautiful opportunities denied to the ugly, which allows them to learn things and make
connections that increase their value still further. If they are judged on that experience as well as their
biological fitness, it makes them even more attractive. Even a small initial difference can thus be
amplified into something that just ain't—viewed from the bottom—fair.
Given all this, it is hardly surprising that the cosmetics industry has global sales of $280 billion. But can
you really fake the unfakeable signal?
Dr Hamermesh's research suggests that you can but, sadly, that it is not cost-effective—at least, not if
your purpose is career advancement. Working in Shanghai, where the difference between the ugliness
penalty and the beauty bonus was greatest, he looked at how women's spending on their cosmetics and
clothes affected their income.
The answer was that it did, but not enough to pay for itself in a strictly financial sense. He estimates that
the beauty premium generated by such primping is worth only 15% of the money expended. Of course,
beauty pays off in spheres of life other than the workplace. But that, best beloved, would be the subject
of a rather different article.
Course 3rd ed.
Currency
December 19, 2013
Does Beauty Drive Economic Success?

By Adam Alter
During the first debate before the 1960 Presidential

election, Vice-President Richard Nixon looked so
haggard that his mother called to ask if he was ill. His
opponent, Senator John F. Kennedy, was relaxed,
confident, and authoritative, and pundits were quick to
declare Kennedy the victor. But not everyone watched
the debate on TV, and some pollsters claimed that radio
listeners preferred Nixon’s performance to Kennedy’s.
This surprising reversal implied that TV viewers had
been taken in by Kennedy’s good looks, whereas radio
listeners assessed the candidates’ arguments on their
merits, unclouded by the fog of physical appearance.
That claim persists, though some researchers argue that the absence of reliable data makes it impossible
to know whether TV viewers and radio listeners truly diverged.
Researchers today are no less interested in how physical appearance shapes political and economic
outcomes. Half a century after Kennedy debated Nixon, the economist Daniel Hamermesh, from the
University of Texas, coined the portmanteau pulchrinomics, the economic study of beauty. Hamermesh
and his colleagues have produced a large body of research that is fascinating, if disconcerting: the basic
principle of pulchrinomics is that beauty drives economic success. In a 1994 study, Hamermesh and the
economist Jeff Biddle examined the income of several thousand U.S. and Canadian workers. When the
workers were interviewed, in the late nineteen-seventies, the interviewers recorded their earnings and
surreptitiously rated the attractiveness of their faces. Workers who were judged more attractive than
average earned a five per cent premium over those of average attractiveness, who in turn earned about
ten per cent more than those who were judged less attractive than average. The effect was slightly greater
for men than for women, and the attractive members of both genders tended to pursue professions that
capitalized on their looks. (James Surowiecki wrote about Hamermesh’s research in 2012.)
Course 3rd ed.
New research shows that companies may benefit from appointing attractive C.E.O.s. Late last month,
two economists at the University of Wisconsin released a working paper showing that S. & P. 500
companies enjoy greater stock returns when they name new C.E.O.s who are relatively attractive. The
researchers ran head shots of the six hundred and seventy-seven C.E.O.s of S. & P. 500 companies
through a program that calculates the attractiveness of faces based on the position of seventeen facial
criteria. After the program assigned each C.E.O. a score between zero and ten, the researchers calculated
the effect of a new C.E.O.’s attractiveness on stock returns for the five days after the appointment was
announced. For each point of C.E.O. attractiveness on the ten-point scale, a company gained, on average,
a one-per-cent boost to its stock price. This suggests that the benefits of attractiveness radiate far beyond
a single individual. Research suggests not only that attractive people enjoy higher incomes but that the
shareholders who invest in their companies profit as well.
It’s possible, of course, that physical beauty often enhances characteristics that are genuinely useful in
the workplace, such as charisma and negotiating skills, which themselves bring about better financial
outcomes. In an Argentinean study, for example, twosomes of people negotiated over ten pesos. In each
pair, one negotiator allocated a proportion of that ten-peso sum to the second negotiator, who could
either accept that offer or reject it, so that both parties received nothing. Allocators tended to offer up to
twice as much to attractive recipients than to those who were of below-average attractiveness. The
discrepancy vanished when the negotiators communicated verbally but couldn’t see what the other
looked like. Another study examined the relationship between a C.E.O.’s attractiveness and his or her
ability to negotiate favorable corporate deals. Attractive C.E.O.’s tended to get bigger stock-price bumps
for their companies after announcing mergers and acquisitions. Despite these results, the evidence is
mixed, with some researchers failing to find a relationship between attractiveness and job performance.
Another possibility, then, is that people tend to assume that beauty comes with other desirable traits, so
they reward attractive people with the benefit of the doubt, and with a small income premium.
Researchers run statistical analyses to try to eliminate some of these alternative explanations, but the
possibility remains that other factors are responsible for the relationship between beauty and earnings.
Regardless of why beauty pays, there is a downside for recipients of this particular form of largesse. In
2004, Naomi Wolf claimed that Harold Bloom had placed his hand on her thigh when he was her
undergraduate English professor at Yale. Twenty years later, she wrote, she continued to wonder whether
she was both beautiful and talented or merely beautiful; perhaps Bloom, and others before him, had
played up her talents because they found her appealing, rather than because she was genuinely capable.
This self-destructive form of rumination, known as attributional ambiguity, afflicts people who aren’t
sure whether to attribute their successes to genuine ability or to some other cause. Wolf was concerned
that her accomplishments may have reflected her appearance rather than her talent. Affirmative-action
policies can have a similar effect, sometimes causing racial and ethnic minorities to question whether
their successes reflect genuine ability or bureaucratic tokenism. Attributional ambiguity is particularly
likely when feedback is subjective, as it was for Wolf, who relied on the idiosyncratic praise of her
professors.
The relationship between appearance and financial success is unsettling because it offends our
contemporary conception of fairness; it challenges the idea, popularized by Horatio Alger, that it’s
possible to improve a bad hand with hard work and perseverance. There is a silver lining, however, and
it’s precisely the resolution Alger might have chosen. When Hamermesh, the economist who pioneered
pulchrinomics, was asked whether any other factor could compete with attractiveness, he responded that
“each additional year of education represents a ten per cent increase in earning potential.” (This may well
be true: in their lifetime, people with a master’s degree earn, on average, four hundred thousand dollars
more than those with only a bachelor’s degree.) Pretty smiles and defined cheekbones count for
something, but education ultimately turns out to be fairer than them all.
Course 3rd ed.
Adam Alter is the author of “Drunk Tank Pink: And Other Unexpected Forces That Shape How We
Think, Feel, and Behave,” and an assistant professor of marketing at New York University’s Stern
School of Business.
Above: Jack Dorsey. Photograph by Dennis Van Tine/Geisler-Fotopres/DPA/Corbis.
What Is Beautiful Is
Good
There is fascinating research on the importance of physical attractiveness to liking.
The importance of physical attractiveness is not limited to dating relationships. For
example, college students judged an essay written by an attractive author to be of
higher quality than one by an unattractive author. Similarly, simulated juries
conferred less guilt and punishment on physically attractive defendants than on
unattractive defendants. Ralph Keyes has found that the average salary of over
17,000 middle-aged men was positively related to their height. Every inch over 5’
3” was worth an extra $370 a year in salary, so it appears that if you walk tall, you’ll
carry a fatter wallet.
The physical attractiveness stereotype (what is beautiful is

good) extends to adults’ evaluation of children. In one study,
for example, over 400 fifth-grade teachers evaluated attractive
children as having greater intelligence and scholastic potential
than unattractive children. And as early as nursery school,
children themselves are responsive to the physical
attractiveness of their peers. It has been suggested
that parents may implicitly teach the physical attractiveness stereotype
through the bedtime stories they read their children. Physical
deformities and chronic illness often symbolize inner defects. The
villain in Peter Pan, Captain Hook, wore a prosthesis. Cinderella’s
mean stepsisters were ugly. Hansel and Gretel were victims of an
arthritic witch. Pinocchio’s nose lengthened as his integrity slipped. Is
it possible that more recent heroes that students grew up with—such as
E.T., Alf, and the Cookie Monster—who are scary yet lovable, will serve
to weaken the physical attractiveness stereotype?
Myers, D. G. (2005). Social psychology (8th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Course 3rd ed.
HANDOUT 80-2
Volunteer Functions Inventory
Directions: If you have done volunteer work before or are currently doing volunteer work, please use the 7-point
scale below to indicate how important or accurate each of the following possible reasons for volunteering is for
you. If you have not been a volunteer before, please use the 7-point scale below to indicate how important or
accurate each of the following reasons for volunteering would be for you. Place a number from 1 to 7 before each
statement using the following scale:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
not at all important/ extremely important/
accurate accurate
_________1. Volunteering can help me get my foot in the door at a place where I would like to work.
_________2. My friends volunteer.
_________3. I am concerned about those less fortunate than myself.
_________4. People I’m close to want me to volunteer.
_________5. Volunteering makes me feel important.
_________6. People I know share an interest in community service.
_________7. No matter how bad I’ve been feeling, volunteering helps me to forget about it.
_________8. I am genuinely concerned about the particular group I am serving.
_________9. By volunteering, I feel less lonely.
_________10. I can make new contacts that might help my business or career.
_________11. Doing volunteer work relieves me of some of the guilt over being more fortunate than others.
_________12. I can learn more about the cause for which I am working.
_________13. Volunteering increases my self-esteem.
_________14. Volunteering allows me to gain a new perspective on things.
_________15. Volunteering allows me to explore different career options.
_________16. I feel compassion toward people in need.
_________17. Others with whom I am close place a high value on community service
_________18. Volunteering lets me learn through direct “hands on” experience.
_________19. I feel it is important to help others.
_________20. Volunteering helps me work through my own personal problems.
Course 3rd ed.
_________21. Volunteering will help me succeed in my chosen profession.
_________22. I can do something for a cause that is important to me.
_________23. Volunteering is an important activity to the people I know best.
_________24. Volunteering is a good escape from my own troubles.
_________25. I can learn how to deal with a variety of people.
_________26. Volunteering makes me feel needed.
_________27. Volunteering makes me feel better about myself.
_________28. Volunteering experience will look good on my resume.
_________29. Volunteering is a way to make new friends.
_________30. I can explore my own strengths.
Handout 80-2 Discussion

To score, students should simply find their mean for each subscale. Higher scores reflect stronger
motivation on that dimension.
Discussion: Clary and his colleagues identify the following six motives for people’s volunteer
efforts.
THESE ARE THE SUBSCALES

1. Values: to express or act on important values like humanitarianism (Items 3, 8, 16, 19, 22)
2. Understanding: to learn more about people or to acquire skills (Items 12, 14, 18, 25, 30)
3. Enhancement: to boost self-worth and confidence (Items 5, 13, 26, 27, 29)
4. Career: to gain career-related experience (1, 10, 15, 21, 28)
5. Social: to be part of a group and strengthen social relationships (2, 4, 6, 17, 23)
6. Protective: to reduce negative feelings such as guilt (Items 7, 9, 11, 20, 24)
For several hundred students at the University of Minnesota, mean scores of 5.37, 5.13, 4.64. 4.54.
2.95,and 3.25 were obtained for values, understanding, enhancement, career, social, and protective
functions, respectively.
How did your students score? Did self-interest play a role? Ask students to reflect on their own scores;
then bring the discussion back to helping behavior.
Source: Clary, E. G., et al. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A functional
approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.
Course 3rd ed.
Published on Psychology Today (http://www.psychologytoday.com)
Why Donʼt We Help? Less Is More, at

Least When It Comes to Bystanders
By Melissa Burkley, Ph.D.
Created Nov 4 2009 - 11:27am
On October 24th, 2009, as many as 20 witnesses watched as a 15 year old girl was
brutally assaulted and raped outside a homecoming dance in Richmond, CA.
The viciousness of the attack was shocking, but what was even more
shocking was the fact that so many people witnessed the attack and yet
failed to intervene or call police. As one of the police officers involved in
the case states, "what makes it even more disturbing is the presence of
others. People came by, saw what was happening and failed to report
it." Some of the bystanders reportedly even laughed and took photos
of the assault with their cell phones.
How could people just stand by and watch something this horrible
happen to a young, innocent girl? Some have suggested that the eyewitnesses' failure to report the incident likely
resulted from a concern over being labeled as a snitch. Although this is possible, social psychological research on
the bystander effect suggests a different cause – there were too many eyewitnesses present. The bystander effect
refers to the fact that people are less likely to offer help when they are in a group than
when they are alone. Research on this effect was inspired by a real-world account that
seems hauntingly similar to the recent event in Richmond.
In 1964, 28 year old Kitty Genovese was raped and stabbed to death in front of her
apartment complex. The attack lasted over 30 minutes and was witnessed by several
dozen people who failed to report the incident. Some failed to realize that an actual
crime was going on, claiming they thought it was a "lover's quarrel", whereas others
realized they were witnessing a crime, but failed to report it because they assumed that
Course 3rd ed.
someone else had already called the police. A similar incident took place in New Bedford, MA, in 1983 when
several men raped a woman on a pool table in front of several witnesses in a bar. The 1988 film "The Accused"
depicted this incident and Jodie Foster went on to earn an Academy Award for her performance as the rape
victim. More recently, a 22 year old college student died from water intoxication in 2005 when four of his fellow
fraternity brothers failed to intervene during a deadly hazing incident.
To determine the underlying reasons why these witnesses failed to help, John Darley and Bibb Latane conducted a
series of lab experiments to examine how the presence of others influences people's helping behavior in an
emergency situation. The results of these studies suggest there are two clear reasons why the eyewitnesses in the
Richmond case may have failed to help.
1. Pluralistic Ignorance
One of the first steps in anyone's decision to help another is the recognition that someone is actually in need of
help. To do this, the bystander must realize that they are witnessing an emergency situation and that a victim is in
need of assistance. Consequently, a major reason why eyewitnesses fail to intervene is that they do not even
realize they are witnessing a crime. When we are in an ambiguous situation and we are not sure whether there is
an emergency or not, we often look to others to see how they are reacting. We assume that others may know
something that we don't, so we gauge their reactions before we decide how we will respond. If those around us
are acting as if it is an emergency, then we will treat it like an emergency and act accordingly. But if those around
us are acting calm, then we may fail to recognize the immediacy of the situation and therefore fail to intervene.
For example, imagine you are at the community pool and you see a child splashing wildly in the water. Your first
instinct would probably be to look around you and see how others are responding. If others appear shocked and
are yelling for help, you may conclude that the child is drowning and dive in to help. But, if those around you are
ignoring the child or laughing, you may conclude that they child is just playing around. To avoid looking foolish,
you would probably just continue watching and would fail to dive in and help. This seems like a reasonable
approach and for the most part, it prevents us from making a fool out of ourselves. But the problem is that this
tendency to look to others in order to determine how to respond can be biased by a phenomenon known as
pluralistic ignorance. Pluralistic ignorance describes a situation where a majority of group members privately
believe one thing, but assume (incorrectly) that most others believe the opposite.
For example, pluralistic ignorance explains why my undergraduate students often fail to ask questions in class.
Let's say that one of my students is confused about the class material I just covered and wants to ask me to clarify.
Before raising her hand, she will likely look around to room to see if any of her fellow students seem confused or
have their hand up as well. If no one else looks puzzled, she will conclude that she is the only one in the room that
didn't get the material. To avoid looking stupid, she may choose to keep her hand down and not ask me her
question. But as a teacher, I have discovered that if one student is unsure about the material, odds are most of
the students are. So in this situation, my class is suffering from pluralistic ignorance because each one assumes
they are the only one confused, when in fact all the students are confused and all of them are incorrectly
concluding that they are the only one. The same process can occur when we witness an ambiguous emergency
situation. All the bystanders may look to each other to determine if they are witnessing a crime, and if no one
reacts, then everyone will wrongly conclude that this is not an emergency and no one will step up and help. The
fact that several of the eyewitnesses in the Richmond case were laughing and taking photos with their cell phones
suggests that they simply failed to realize they were witnessing a brutal rape and instead may have thought it was
a prank.
In one of Darley and Latane's classic studies, they tried to recreate this phenomenon in the lab. For their study,
they had participants complete a questionnaire and after a few minutes, smoke started to pour into the room
underneath a door in the back. Some participants were the only one in the room when this happened, but for
others, there were two other students completing questionnaires in the room as well. In actuality, these two
"students" were working for the researchers and were instructed to keep calm not matter what happens. The key
Course 3rd ed.
question in this study was would the participant notice the smoke and go get help or would they simply write it off
as nothing concerning and continue working on their questionnaire. The result showed that when the participant
was alone, 75% of them left to report the smoke. But when there were two other people in the room who
remained calm, only 10% left to get help. In some cases, the smoke got so thick the participant could barely read
the questionnaire in front of them! Yet, as long as their fellow bystanders remained in calm, they did as well.
Thus, when we are alone, we are more likely to assume an ambiguous situation represents and emergency and
act accordingly. When we are in the presence of other bystanders, we are likely to look to those others for
guidance and if they are not responding or are laughing or are taking photos of the event, we will mistakenly
conclude it is not an emergency and will fail to help.
So we now that one reason why people fail to help is because they don't realize they are witnessing a crime, but
how can we use this information to our advantage? First, if you find yourself in an ambiguous situation, resist the
urge to look to others and go with your gut instinct. If you think there is even a possibility that someone is in need,
act on it. At worst, you will embarrass yourself for a few minutes, but at best, you will save a life. Second, if you
are unfortunate enough to find yourself the victim and are in need of help, make sure you make it clear to those
around you that this is an emergency situation. For instance, self-defense instructors will often tell women that if
they are being attacked by a man, they should yell out "fire" instead of "help". This is because the word "help" is
used in many situations that are non-life-threatening so when we hear it, it does not automatically indicate that
there is an emergency. On the other hand, we only scream the word "fire" when there is an actual fire, and in
some cases it is illegal to yell this word when there is not an actual fire (e.g., in a crowded theater). So by yelling
"fire," you immediately make everyone around you aware that they are in an emergency situation.
2. Diffusion of Responsibility
Even if people recognize that they are witnessing a crime, they may still fail to intervene if they do not take
personal responsibility for helping the victim. The problem is that the more bystanders there are, the less
responsible each individual feels. When you are the only eyewitness present, 100% of the responsibility for
providing help rests on your shoulders. But if there are five eyewitnesses, only 20% of the responsibility is yours.
The responsibility becomes defused or dispersed among the group members. In these situations, people may
assume that someone else will help or that someone else is better qualified to provide assistance. But if everyone
assumes this, then no one will intervene. Darley and Latane also investigate this phenomenon in a lab study.
Specifically, they had participants take part in a group discussion over an intercom system. Some participants
talked one-on-one over the intercom with another person and some talked over the intercom with a group of 5
other people. During the discussion, one of the voices on the intercom stated they were having a seizure and
called out for help. In actuality, this was a prerecorded voice. For those who were led to believe they were the
only person who overheard the seizure, 85% sought help. But for those who thought they were one of six people
who overheard the seizure, only 31% sought help. So even when we are aware that an emergency is occurring, we
are still less likely to help if other bystanders are present. So what about these people who overheard the seizure
and didn't help? Were they just indifferent? Follow up interviews at the end of the study suggested that they were
in fact concerned. Most mentioned overhearing the seizure, many had trembling hands and were clearly shaken
from the experience and several inquired as to whether the victim finally received help. This tells us that they
were not indifferent or heartless; they were concerned but simply didn't feel responsible enough to do anything
about it. Interestingly, the researchers also asked if the participants thought that the presence of other bystanders
affected their decision to get help or not and the most said it did not. So even though the presence of others
clearly affects our helping behavior, we are unaware of this influence.
So once again, how can we use the knowledge garnered from this study to our advantage? First, if you find
yourself in an emergency situation with several fellow bystanders, realize that your first instinct (and the first
instinct of those around you) will be to deny responsibility for helping the victim. By simply being aware of the
diffusion of responsibility process, it may snap you out of the biased way of thinking and cause you to realize that
you and everyone present is each 100% responsible for helping the victim. Second, if you find yourself in need of
help, it is up to you to actively make one of your eyewitnesses feel personally responsible for your well-being.
When we are in need of help and there is a crowd watching, we often plead for help to anyone that is listening,
Course 3rd ed.
thinking that at least one person will step up to intervene. But self-defense instructors advise that you instead
pick one person out of the crowd, look them dead in the eye, and tell that one person you need help. By pleading
to a specific individual, you suddenly make that person feel completely responsible for your safety and this
increases the odds that they will help. The same technique can be used if you are trying to get several others to
help you assist a victim. Point to one person and tell them to go get help; point to another and tell them to call
911. Giving specific instructions to specific people counteracts the diffusion of
responsibility process.
Conclusion
We typically think that the more people who witness a crime, the more people there will be to help the victim,
but these classic social psychology experiments call this assumption into question. By making yourself and others
aware of the factors that lead to such bystander apathy, we can hopefully make events like those that occurred in
Richmond, CA and Bedford, MA a thing of the past.
Source URL: http://www.psychologytoday.com/node/34502
Links:
[1] http://www.psychologytoday.com/files/teaser/2009/11/helpwantedsign.jpg
[2] http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-social-thinker
Questions for “Why Don’t We Help”
Directions: Please answer the following questions on a separate sheet of paper
1) What is the “Bystander Effect”?
2) List and describe three examples of real-life cases where the bystander effect was evident.
3) Describe the concept of pluralistic ignorance.
4) Describe a real-life example of the concept of pluralistic ignorance.
5) Why do people fall prey to the idea of pluralistic ignorance?
6) Describe the concept of diffusion of responsibility.
7) Describe the study that Darley and Latane did on diffusion of responsibility. What were the results?
Course 3rd ed.
8) What would you have done if you had been witness to the attack on Kitty Genovese, or on the attack on
the girl in Richmond, CA? Why do you think you would have done so?

Unit 11 Chapter 14 Independent Study Packet

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Unit 11 Chapter 14 Independent Study Packet

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2020 NEW AP Psychology – Unit 11 – Social Psychology INDEPENDENT STUDY PACKET Myers’ Psychology for the AP Course 3rd

Fact or Falsehood? LT 74.1 – 76.1

Discovering Psychology, Updated Edition:

Directions: Complete the questions while watching the film

1. Discuss the tactics of cults.

2. Describe the power of beliefs in guiding behavior.

5. Describe Aaronson’s cooperative group classroom.

6. Identify 5 practices of advertising.

Discovering Psychology, Updated Edition: “The Power of the Situation”

Directions: Complete the questions while watching the film

1. How does social context shape our behavior?

2. Describe Kurt Lewin’s work on leadership styles.

3. Describe Solomon Ashe’s conformity experiments and their results.

4. Explain Stanley Millram’s controversial experiments with obedience.

5. Define fundamental attribution error.

6. Describe Zimbardo’s prison experiment. What happened?

HANDOUT 74-2 (18–2)

serious gay (merry) depends on the situation

HANDOUT 74-2 (18–2)

_______________________(SOME FAMOUS PERSON).

serious gay (merry) depends on the situation

Handout #74.2 Discussion

You may notice a:

The Lunch Date DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

5. What is her reaction?

10. Why does she think this?

12. Who do you identify with in the film and why?

Handout #75.2 Discussion

mark what your response would be.

“The Lottery” & Social Psychology

Fact or Falsehood? LT 77.1 – 80.1

Fact or Falsehood Answers 74.1 – 76.1

Fact or Falsehood Answers 77.1 – 80.1

2) Describe the power of groups.

3) Describe the power of interpersonal influence.

6) What are the six categories of power? Describe each.

10) What is social validation?

11) Describe the concept of commitment and consistency.

12) How can friendship be an effective manipulation tool?

13) How does the concept of scarcity act as a manipulation tool?

14) Describe how the use of authority can elicit obedience.

1. One or more members should be assigned the role of devil’s advocate.

 What is the difference between an implicit and explicit attitude?

 How does the IAT measure implicit attitudes?

2. A Caucasian actress is cast to play the role of a Native American woman.

5. A high school’s community service organization is only open to females.

2. not easily influenced _______%

4. aware of others’ feelings _______%

6. makes decisions easily _______%

9. never gives up easily _______%

10. helpful _______%

11. aggressive _______%

12. warm _______%

13. self-confident _______%

14. stands up well under pressure _______%

15. able to devote self to others _______%

16. active _______%

2. not easily influenced _______%

4. aware of others’ feelings _______%

6. makes decisions easily _______%

9. never gives up easily _______%

10. helpful _______%