Social Psychology & Personality unit test

Just-world hypothesis

Locus of control

Foot-in-the-door

Self-efficacy

Conformity and Asch

Self-serving bias

Fundamental attribution error

Social facilitation

Freud's structural model

Mere exposure effect

Deindividuation

Stereotype threat

EVIDENCE-BASED QUESTION (EBQ). Use the three sources provided to answer all parts of the question. For Parts B and C you must cite the source used, either parenthetically ("...(Source 1)") or embedded ("According to Source 1..."). Write in complete sentences, using appropriate psychological terminology. QUESTION: Using the sources provided, develop and justify an argument about a specific social condition that leads people to be more likely to help another person in an emergency. SOURCE 1 (Darley & Latané, 1968, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). 72 introductory psychology students (59 women, 13 men) each sat alone in a room, joining what they believed was an intercom discussion about college life, held non-face-to-face to preserve anonymity. During the discussion a confederate feigned a medical emergency, growing louder and more incoherent; participants' microphones were off, so they could not learn what others were doing. The independent variable was perceived group size: two-person (participant and victim), three-person (one other bystander), or six-person (four other bystanders). The dependent variable was the speed of leaving the room to report the emergency, cut off at six minutes, followed by full debriefing. Results: Perceived group % responding by end of emergency Mean time (s) 2 (participant, victim) 85 52 3 (+1 other) 62 93 6 (+4 others) 31 166 SOURCE 2 (Philpot et al., 2019, American Psychologist). Researchers examined 219 aggressive public incidents captured by surveillance cameras in urban entertainment districts in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom and South Africa (from 1,225 clips screened; incidents with police or paramedics present were excluded; footage was stored securely with identities protected). Four trained assistants coded every INTERVENTION — an act toward perpetrator or victim that could reduce the conflict, such as calming gestures, blocking contact, consoling the victim, or holding an aggressor back. Results: at least one person intervened in 90.9% of incidents, averaging 3.76 interveners per incident (SD 3.01), with no significant difference among the three countries. A higher number of people present was positively associated with the likelihood of intervention — each additional bystander increased the odds that someone intervened. SOURCE 3 (Fischer et al., 2011, Psychological Bulletin). A meta-analysis of 53 articles covering more than 7,700 participants examined when people help. Helping was more likely: in emergencies (perceived as dangerous) than non-emergencies; when a perpetrator was present (also perceived as dangerous); when the bystanders knew one another rather than being strangers; and when fewer people were present — the addition of even one other person lowered the likelihood of helping, and groups of three, four, or five or more were least likely to help.