Inhoud
Studies sociale psychologie....................................................................................................................4
1. Studie van Ader en Tatum..........................................................................................................4
2. studie van Allport (1920)............................................................................................................4
3. Zajonc, Heingartner & Herman (1969)........................................................................................5
4. Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore & Joseph(1986)....................................................................................5
5. Thomas, Skitka, Christen en Jurgena (2002)...............................................................................6
6. Pilootstudie ~ Asch + hoofdonderzoek.......................................................................................7
7. Kleurenperceptie ~ Moscovici.....................................................................................................8
8. Replicatie taak ~ Milgram...........................................................................................................9
9. Basisparadigma ~ Milgram..........................................................................................................9
10. Vooronderzoeken ~ Milgram..................................................................................................10
11. Schockgenerator ~ Milgram....................................................................................................10
12. De officiële Milgramstudies....................................................................................................10
13. Vriendenstudie ~ Milgram......................................................................................................13
14. Replicatie van Milgram studie ~ Meeuw en Raaijmakers (1986)............................................13
15. Sociale identiteit (Reicher en Haslam, 2011)..........................................................................13
16. Affectieve Priming Test (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton & Williams, 1995)........................................14
17. Ongunstige houding verdwijnt: Olson & Fazio (2006, Studie 2)..............................................14
18. Studie ~ Baeyens, Eelen & Van den Bergh (1990)...................................................................15
19. Experiment 1 ~ Zajonc (1968).................................................................................................15
20. Experiment 2 ~ Zajonc............................................................................................................15
21. Experiment 3 ~ Zajonc............................................................................................................16
22. Mere exposure en kunst ~ Cutting (2003)...............................................................................16
23. Mere exposure en eten ~ Pliner (1982)..................................................................................17
24. Moreland en Beach (1992).....................................................................................................17
25. Harmon-Jones & Allen (2001).................................................................................................17
26. Studie 1 ~ Begg & Armour (1991)...........................................................................................18
27. Festingen en Carlsmith (1959)................................................................................................18
28. Hein, Grumm & Fingerle (2011)..............................................................................................19
30. Duncan (1976)........................................................................................................................20
31. Dunning & Sherman (1997)....................................................................................................20
32. Feldman Barrett & Bliss-Moreau (2009, Exp. 1)......................................................................21
33. Arbuckle & Williams (2003)....................................................................................................21
34. Biernat, Manis en Nelson (1991, exp 2)..................................................................................22
,35. Hebl e.a. (2002).......................................................................................................................23
36. Gabriel & Banse (2006)...........................................................................................................23
37. Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996)...............................................................................................24
38. Robinson, Johnson & Shields (1998).......................................................................................24
39. Shih, Pittinksy & Ambady (1999).............................................................................................25
40. Castelli et al. (2009)................................................................................................................25
41. Operante conditionering en agressie? Berkowitz & Frodi (1977):..........................................26
42. Studie waar we dat zien voorkomen: Bushman (2002)..........................................................27
43. Meer agressie na succes dan na mislukking? ~ Muller, Bushman, Subra, & Ceaux (2012,
Studie 2).......................................................................................................................................28
44. studie ~ Zechmeister et al. (2004)..........................................................................................29
45. Petersen et al. (2002)..............................................................................................................29
46. Carlsmith et al. (2008, exp. 3).................................................................................................30
47. Provocatie en waargenomen ernst van de schade: Ames & Fiske (2013, Study 5).................31
48. Donnerstein & Wilson (1976, exp.2).......................................................................................31
49. Warburton et al. (2005)..........................................................................................................32
50. Weinstein et al. (2011, exp. 2)................................................................................................33
51. DAN: vervolgstudie.................................................................................................................33
52. Gewelddadige computerspellen ~ Anderson & Dill (2000, studie 2)......................................34
53. Greitemeyer (2014)................................................................................................................34
54. Hasan, Begue, Scharkow en Bushman (2013).........................................................................35
55. Newman & Cain, 2014 (exp. 1)...............................................................................................36
56. Newman & Cain, 2014 (exp. 4)...............................................................................................37
57. Dunn, Aknin, & Norton (2008):...............................................................................................38
58. Aknin, Hamlin & Dunn, 2012...................................................................................................38
59. Darley en Latané (1968)..........................................................................................................38
60. Darley en Latané (1968)..........................................................................................................40
61. Latané & Rodin (1969)............................................................................................................40
62. Blair, Thompson en Wuensch (2005)......................................................................................41
63. Chekroun & Brauer (2002)......................................................................................................41
64. Alicke, Zell & Bloom (2010).....................................................................................................42
65. Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris (1995, exp. 1).................................................................................42
66. Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris (1995, exp. 2).................................................................................43
67. Schachter & Singer (1962)......................................................................................................43
68. Marshall en Zimbardo (1979)..................................................................................................44
69. studie van Boyce, Brown en Moore (2010).............................................................................44
,70. Range et al. (2008)..................................................................................................................45
, Studies sociale psychologie
1. Studie van Ader en Tatum
Situatie:
Studenten (2 x 12) komen naar labo
Ze krijgen electrodes aan kuit
Gedurende 1u30 uur om 10 sec. shock (1/2 sec)
Binnen bereik: plankje met drukknop
Knop induwen: shock 10sec uitgesteld
A.V.: Tijd nodig voor oplossing. Criterium: tijd tot aan eerste interval van 5
min waar max. 1 shock per minuut werd doorgelaten
O.V.: Sociale situatie: Alleen vs. 2e student aanwezig
Zelfde shocks, deze student kan niet bij knop, mogen niet
praten
NOOT: 5 (van de 24) deelnemers lopen weg
2. studie van Allport (1920)
Ppn: 15 Master- en doctoraatstudenten doen vrije associatietaken
O.V.: sociale situatie: alleen vs. samen met 4 andere deelnemers
o Within subjects design: elke deelnemer 2x alleen, 2x samen
o Volgorde en tijd tussen sessies gevarieerd
A.V.: aantal woorden genoteerd binnen tijdslimiet
Resultaten:
o Alleenconditie: gemiddeld 60.3 associaties
o Sociale conditie: gemiddeld 63.6 associaties
Wat werd precies bevorderd? Bedenken van associaties of snelheid van het schrijven?
experiment 3:
Taak in gedachten doen en enkel het vierde woord waar ze aan dachten moesten noteren
(dus 4,8,12, etc..)
het aantal woorden minder beperkt door hoe snel ze schreven
Resultaten:
o Alleenconditie: gemiddeld 112.8 associaties
o Sociale conditie: gemiddeld 116 associaties
Veklaring verschillende effecten:
- niet in termen van erg complexe cognitieve processen
- in termen van cultuur en tijdsgeest
ook aangetoond bij dieren
voorbeelden:
- Sociale inhibitie bij parkieten: donker doolhof, minder snel naar naar lichte, vertrouwde
omgeving wanneer ze met 2 waren vergeleken met wanneer ze alleen zaten)
studie van Allee en Masure coactief maar ook hier trad inhibitie op
Studies sociale psychologie....................................................................................................................4
1. Studie van Ader en Tatum..........................................................................................................4
2. studie van Allport (1920)............................................................................................................4
3. Zajonc, Heingartner & Herman (1969)........................................................................................5
4. Schmitt, Gilovich, Goore & Joseph(1986)....................................................................................5
5. Thomas, Skitka, Christen en Jurgena (2002)...............................................................................6
6. Pilootstudie ~ Asch + hoofdonderzoek.......................................................................................7
7. Kleurenperceptie ~ Moscovici.....................................................................................................8
8. Replicatie taak ~ Milgram...........................................................................................................9
9. Basisparadigma ~ Milgram..........................................................................................................9
10. Vooronderzoeken ~ Milgram..................................................................................................10
11. Schockgenerator ~ Milgram....................................................................................................10
12. De officiële Milgramstudies....................................................................................................10
13. Vriendenstudie ~ Milgram......................................................................................................13
14. Replicatie van Milgram studie ~ Meeuw en Raaijmakers (1986)............................................13
15. Sociale identiteit (Reicher en Haslam, 2011)..........................................................................13
16. Affectieve Priming Test (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton & Williams, 1995)........................................14
17. Ongunstige houding verdwijnt: Olson & Fazio (2006, Studie 2)..............................................14
18. Studie ~ Baeyens, Eelen & Van den Bergh (1990)...................................................................15
19. Experiment 1 ~ Zajonc (1968).................................................................................................15
20. Experiment 2 ~ Zajonc............................................................................................................15
21. Experiment 3 ~ Zajonc............................................................................................................16
22. Mere exposure en kunst ~ Cutting (2003)...............................................................................16
23. Mere exposure en eten ~ Pliner (1982)..................................................................................17
24. Moreland en Beach (1992).....................................................................................................17
25. Harmon-Jones & Allen (2001).................................................................................................17
26. Studie 1 ~ Begg & Armour (1991)...........................................................................................18
27. Festingen en Carlsmith (1959)................................................................................................18
28. Hein, Grumm & Fingerle (2011)..............................................................................................19
30. Duncan (1976)........................................................................................................................20
31. Dunning & Sherman (1997)....................................................................................................20
32. Feldman Barrett & Bliss-Moreau (2009, Exp. 1)......................................................................21
33. Arbuckle & Williams (2003)....................................................................................................21
34. Biernat, Manis en Nelson (1991, exp 2)..................................................................................22
,35. Hebl e.a. (2002).......................................................................................................................23
36. Gabriel & Banse (2006)...........................................................................................................23
37. Bargh, Chen & Burrows (1996)...............................................................................................24
38. Robinson, Johnson & Shields (1998).......................................................................................24
39. Shih, Pittinksy & Ambady (1999).............................................................................................25
40. Castelli et al. (2009)................................................................................................................25
41. Operante conditionering en agressie? Berkowitz & Frodi (1977):..........................................26
42. Studie waar we dat zien voorkomen: Bushman (2002)..........................................................27
43. Meer agressie na succes dan na mislukking? ~ Muller, Bushman, Subra, & Ceaux (2012,
Studie 2).......................................................................................................................................28
44. studie ~ Zechmeister et al. (2004)..........................................................................................29
45. Petersen et al. (2002)..............................................................................................................29
46. Carlsmith et al. (2008, exp. 3).................................................................................................30
47. Provocatie en waargenomen ernst van de schade: Ames & Fiske (2013, Study 5).................31
48. Donnerstein & Wilson (1976, exp.2).......................................................................................31
49. Warburton et al. (2005)..........................................................................................................32
50. Weinstein et al. (2011, exp. 2)................................................................................................33
51. DAN: vervolgstudie.................................................................................................................33
52. Gewelddadige computerspellen ~ Anderson & Dill (2000, studie 2)......................................34
53. Greitemeyer (2014)................................................................................................................34
54. Hasan, Begue, Scharkow en Bushman (2013).........................................................................35
55. Newman & Cain, 2014 (exp. 1)...............................................................................................36
56. Newman & Cain, 2014 (exp. 4)...............................................................................................37
57. Dunn, Aknin, & Norton (2008):...............................................................................................38
58. Aknin, Hamlin & Dunn, 2012...................................................................................................38
59. Darley en Latané (1968)..........................................................................................................38
60. Darley en Latané (1968)..........................................................................................................40
61. Latané & Rodin (1969)............................................................................................................40
62. Blair, Thompson en Wuensch (2005)......................................................................................41
63. Chekroun & Brauer (2002)......................................................................................................41
64. Alicke, Zell & Bloom (2010).....................................................................................................42
65. Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris (1995, exp. 1).................................................................................42
66. Gilbert, Giesler, & Morris (1995, exp. 2).................................................................................43
67. Schachter & Singer (1962)......................................................................................................43
68. Marshall en Zimbardo (1979)..................................................................................................44
69. studie van Boyce, Brown en Moore (2010).............................................................................44
,70. Range et al. (2008)..................................................................................................................45
, Studies sociale psychologie
1. Studie van Ader en Tatum
Situatie:
Studenten (2 x 12) komen naar labo
Ze krijgen electrodes aan kuit
Gedurende 1u30 uur om 10 sec. shock (1/2 sec)
Binnen bereik: plankje met drukknop
Knop induwen: shock 10sec uitgesteld
A.V.: Tijd nodig voor oplossing. Criterium: tijd tot aan eerste interval van 5
min waar max. 1 shock per minuut werd doorgelaten
O.V.: Sociale situatie: Alleen vs. 2e student aanwezig
Zelfde shocks, deze student kan niet bij knop, mogen niet
praten
NOOT: 5 (van de 24) deelnemers lopen weg
2. studie van Allport (1920)
Ppn: 15 Master- en doctoraatstudenten doen vrije associatietaken
O.V.: sociale situatie: alleen vs. samen met 4 andere deelnemers
o Within subjects design: elke deelnemer 2x alleen, 2x samen
o Volgorde en tijd tussen sessies gevarieerd
A.V.: aantal woorden genoteerd binnen tijdslimiet
Resultaten:
o Alleenconditie: gemiddeld 60.3 associaties
o Sociale conditie: gemiddeld 63.6 associaties
Wat werd precies bevorderd? Bedenken van associaties of snelheid van het schrijven?
experiment 3:
Taak in gedachten doen en enkel het vierde woord waar ze aan dachten moesten noteren
(dus 4,8,12, etc..)
het aantal woorden minder beperkt door hoe snel ze schreven
Resultaten:
o Alleenconditie: gemiddeld 112.8 associaties
o Sociale conditie: gemiddeld 116 associaties
Veklaring verschillende effecten:
- niet in termen van erg complexe cognitieve processen
- in termen van cultuur en tijdsgeest
ook aangetoond bij dieren
voorbeelden:
- Sociale inhibitie bij parkieten: donker doolhof, minder snel naar naar lichte, vertrouwde
omgeving wanneer ze met 2 waren vergeleken met wanneer ze alleen zaten)
studie van Allee en Masure coactief maar ook hier trad inhibitie op
