Unit 4 · 15 to 25% of the exam

Unit 4 practice test: Social Psychology and Personality

twelve questions, every option explained

12 exam-style questions from the unit, free, with an explanation for every option. Most have four answer choices, as on the real exam, and a few ask for a number you can work out by hand; sets share one study summary, data table, graph or figure. Covers: Attribution Theory and Person Perception; Attitude Formation and Attitude Change; Psychology of Social Situations; Psychodynamic and Humanistic Theories of Personality; Social-Cognitive and Trait Theories of Personality; Motivation; Emotion.

Start at question 1

Study

Does holding a pen in your teeth make cartoons funnier?

Introduction

An early, well-known study reported that people rated cartoons as funnier when they held a pen in their teeth, which forces a smile-like expression, than when they held it in their lips, which prevents smiling. This replication tested the same idea in a larger sample.

Participants

400 undergraduate students (ages 18 to 24) at three universities in the Netherlands and Germany. All gave informed consent. An institutional review board at each university approved the study.

Method

Students were randomly assigned to hold a pen either in their teeth (smile condition) or in their lips (no-smile condition). Without being told the purpose, they rated four cartoons from 0 (not at all funny) to 9 (very funny). At the end, each student was told the real purpose of the pen.

Results

The mean funniness rating was 4.6 in the smile condition and 4.5 in the no-smile condition. The difference was not statistically significant.

Invented study for practice.

1. What do the results suggest about the facial feedback hypothesis in this study?

  1. They strongly support it, because the smile group rated cartoons higher
  2. They prove the hypothesis is false for people and expressions of any kind
  3. They do not support it: the small difference may be due to chance
  4. They show that holding a pen makes cartoons less funny for everyone
Show the answer

Not statistically significant: the difference could plausibly be due to chance. Large replications of this pen method mostly found no reliable effect.

  • They strongly support it, because the smile group rated cartoons higher: A 0.1-point difference that is not statistically significant does not strongly support anything.
  • They prove the hypothesis is false for people and expressions of any kind: One study cannot prove that; other methods and expressions may show small effects.
  • Correct: They do not support it: the small difference may be due to chance: Right: not statistically significant means the 4.6 versus 4.5 gap may be chance.
  • They show that holding a pen makes cartoons less funny for everyone: Ratings were similar in both conditions.

2. Which was the independent variable?

  1. Where the pen was held: in the teeth or in the lips
  2. The funniness rating each student gave, from 0 to 9
  3. The four cartoons shown to each student
  4. The three universities where students were tested
Show the answer

The independent variable is what the researchers manipulate: pen position.

  • Correct: Where the pen was held: in the teeth or in the lips: Right: the researchers manipulated pen position and randomly assigned students to it.
  • The funniness rating each student gave, from 0 to 9: The rating was measured, so it is the dependent variable.
  • The four cartoons shown to each student: Everyone saw the same cartoons, so they were held constant.
  • The three universities where students were tested: Location was part of the sample, not a manipulated condition.

3. Which ethical safeguard does the summary describe, and how was it applied?

  1. Confidentiality, by keeping ratings anonymous
  2. Random assignment, by placing students in conditions by chance
  3. The right to withdraw, by letting students stop at any time
  4. Debriefing, by revealing the pen's real purpose at the end
Show the answer

Name a safeguard the summary describes (debriefing, informed consent or IRB approval) and say how it was applied.

  • Confidentiality, by keeping ratings anonymous: The summary does not describe how data were stored.
  • Random assignment, by placing students in conditions by chance: Random assignment is a design feature, not an ethical safeguard.
  • The right to withdraw, by letting students stop at any time: The summary does not mention the right to withdraw.
  • Correct: Debriefing, by revealing the pen's real purpose at the end: Right: students were not told the purpose during the task, so they were told afterward.

4. Why did the researchers not tell students the purpose of the pen until the end?

  1. To keep the study's aim confidential from the universities taking part
  2. To reduce demand characteristics, since knowing the aim could change ratings
  3. Because informed consent is not required when a study repeats an earlier published one
  4. To turn the study into a case study rather than an experiment
Show the answer

Hiding the hypothesis keeps participants from guessing it and changing their behavior.

  • To keep the study's aim confidential from the universities taking part: The universities' review boards approved the study, so it was not hidden from them.
  • Correct: To reduce demand characteristics, since knowing the aim could change ratings: Right: knowing the hypothesis could change ratings, so the purpose was hidden until debriefing.
  • Because informed consent is not required when a study repeats an earlier published one: All students gave informed consent; hiding the hypothesis is a different matter.
  • To turn the study into a case study rather than an experiment: Hiding the purpose does not change the method.

Study

Plate size and how much people eat

Introduction

Researchers asked whether an external cue, the size of the serving bowl, changes how much pasta people eat when they are equally hungry.

Participants

64 adult volunteers (ages 18 to 45) at a university in Ohio. All gave informed consent, had not eaten for three hours, and were told they could stop at any time. At the end they were told the true purpose of the study, which had been described as a taste test.

Method

Participants were randomly assigned to serve themselves pasta from either a large bowl or a small bowl, with the same total amount of pasta in each. The researchers weighed each plate before and after the meal to find how many grams each person ate. Participants also rated their hunger from 1 to 7 before and after.

Results

Participants in the large-bowl group ate more pasta (mean 410 grams) than those in the small-bowl group (mean 320 grams). Hunger ratings before the meal did not differ between groups, and both groups rated themselves equally full afterward.

Invented study for practice.

5. Which concept does this study most directly test?

  1. Ghrelin as a hunger signal
  2. The need to belong
  3. External eating cues
  4. Drive-reduction theory
Show the answer

The manipulated variable, bowl size, is an external cue.

  • Ghrelin as a hunger signal: Hunger ratings were equal across groups, and no hormone was measured.
  • The need to belong: Participants ate alone with a bowl; belonging was not studied.
  • Correct: External eating cues: Right: the bowl size, a cue outside the body, was manipulated while hunger was held equal.
  • Drive-reduction theory: Both groups started equally hungry, yet ate different amounts, which a drive alone cannot explain.

6. What was the dependent variable in this study?

  1. Grams of pasta eaten, from weighing plates before and after
  2. The size of the serving bowl, large or small
  3. Three hours without eating before the study
  4. The age range of participants, 18 to 45
Show the answer

The dependent variable is what the researchers measured: grams eaten.

  • Correct: Grams of pasta eaten, from weighing plates before and after: Right: it was measured and expected to change with bowl size.
  • The size of the serving bowl, large or small: Bowl size was manipulated, so it is the independent variable.
  • Three hours without eating before the study: Fasting was the same for everyone, a controlled condition.
  • The age range of participants, 18 to 45: Age describes the sample; it was not measured as an outcome.

7. Which ethical safeguard did the researchers use because they had told participants it was a taste test?

  1. Confidentiality, by keeping names off the data sheets
  2. Random assignment, by placing people in bowl groups by chance
  3. Informed assent, by asking children to agree to take part
  4. Debriefing, by telling them the true purpose at the end
Show the answer

Deception (the "taste test") is followed by debriefing, which the summary describes.

  • Confidentiality, by keeping names off the data sheets: The summary does not describe how names were handled.
  • Random assignment, by placing people in bowl groups by chance: Random assignment is a design feature, not an ethical safeguard.
  • Informed assent, by asking children to agree to take part: The participants were adults, who gave informed consent.
  • Correct: Debriefing, by telling them the true purpose at the end: Right: when a study uses deception, participants are told the truth afterward.

8. Two students get the same low grade. Malik says, "If I change how I study, I can raise it." Sam says, "Grades depend on luck and on whether the teacher likes you." Which concept describes the difference between them?

  1. Locus of control: Malik internal, Sam external
  2. Locus of control: Malik external, Sam internal
  3. Self-serving bias in both students
  4. Mere exposure effect in both students
Show the answer

Internal locus of control: outcomes depend on my own effort. External locus: outcomes depend on luck, fate or other people.

  • Correct: Locus of control: Malik internal, Sam external: Right: Malik believes his actions control outcomes; Sam believes outside forces do.
  • Locus of control: Malik external, Sam internal: Reversed. Malik sees control in himself (internal); Sam sees it in outside forces (external).
  • Self-serving bias in both students: Neither is taking credit for a success; both are explaining a shared failure.
  • Mere exposure effect in both students: Mere exposure concerns liking from familiarity, not beliefs about control.

9. Members of a robotics club describe their own members as having "all kinds of different personalities" but describe the drama club as "all the same: loud and dramatic." Which concept does this show?

  1. Out-group homogeneity
  2. In-group bias
  3. Ethnocentrism
  4. Belief perseverance
Show the answer

"They are all the same; we are all different" is out-group homogeneity.

  • Correct: Out-group homogeneity: Right: people see their own group as varied and other groups as alike.
  • In-group bias: In-group bias is favoring one's own group. The key detail here is seeing the other group as all alike.
  • Ethnocentrism: Ethnocentrism judges other cultures by the standards of one's own culture; this is about variety within groups.
  • Belief perseverance: Belief perseverance is holding on to a belief despite contrary evidence.

10. A charity volunteer asks shoppers to sign a short petition. A week later, she asks those who signed to donate $20, and many more of them give than shoppers who were never asked to sign. Which technique is she using?

  1. Foot-in-the-door technique
  2. Door-in-the-face technique
  3. Peripheral route to persuasion
  4. Reciprocity norm
Show the answer

A small first commitment (signing) paves the way for a bigger one: the foot-in-the-door technique.

  • Correct: Foot-in-the-door technique: Right: agreeing to a small request makes people more likely to agree to a larger one later.
  • Door-in-the-face technique: Door-in-the-face starts with a large request that is refused, then a smaller one.
  • Peripheral route to persuasion: The peripheral route relies on surface cues, such as an attractive speaker, rather than a sequence of requests.
  • Reciprocity norm: The reciprocity norm is returning a favor. The shoppers received nothing first.

11. Maya fails her driving test. Afterward she tells friends that the examiner was unfair, the car pulled to one side, and she did not really want her license yet anyway. Which defense mechanism best explains her account?

  1. Rationalization
  2. Reaction formation
  3. Displacement
  4. Sublimation
Show the answer

Rationalization replaces the threatening real reason (she was not ready) with comfortable excuses.

  • Correct: Rationalization: Right: she builds reasonable-sounding excuses that protect her self-image from the real reason she failed.
  • Reaction formation: Reaction formation would mean acting the opposite of a hidden feeling, such as praising the examiner warmly.
  • Displacement: Displacement would mean taking her frustration out on a safer target, such as yelling at a sibling.
  • Sublimation: Sublimation channels an unacceptable urge into a useful activity; nothing here is redirected into a productive goal.

12. Dani believes she can learn to code, so she signs up for a coding club. In the club she meets students who help her debug, which makes her even more confident, and she starts a project of her own. Which concept best explains this pattern?

  1. Stable trait theory
  2. Factor analysis
  3. Reciprocal determinism
  4. Sublimation
Show the answer

Reciprocal determinism: person factors, behavior and environment each influence the other two.

  • Stable trait theory: Trait theory describes stable characteristics; it does not explain how belief, behavior and setting change one another.
  • Factor analysis: Factor analysis is a statistical method for finding clusters of related items, not an account of Dani's experience.
  • Correct: Reciprocal determinism: Right: her belief (person), joining the club (behavior) and the helpful members (environment) keep influencing each other.
  • Sublimation: Sublimation channels an unacceptable urge into a valued activity; nothing here is a hidden urge being redirected.