PSY 360 - FINAL EXAM
Short Essay Questions
1. What are minimal groups? How does group membership lead to prejudice and discrimination?
2. What is modern racism, and how is it studied?
3. What is stereotype threat, and what are the consequences of
stereotype threat? Be sure to provide an example to illustrate your point.
4. Compare and contrast procedural justice and the deterrence theory as explanations for why people obey the law.
5. Summarize the recovered memory debate and research. Should we believe a person who comes forward with a recovered memory?
6. Describe at least three ways eyewitness memory can be affected, and how we can determine the accuracy of eyewitness testimony.
7. Explain how empathy is related to helping.
8. Summarize the effects of mood on helping behaviors.
1. Write an essay in which you discuss some of the problems in the American justice system, from a social psychology perspective. Be sure to address the following areas: What are some of the problems with the court system’s reliance on eyewitness
testimony, according to memory researchers? Discuss jury deliberations, and the criticisms which have been raised with respect to jury trials. Apply current knowledge of social psychology with regards to persuasion tactics to the strategies of trial lawyers. Apply knowledge of social cognition to the process of jury decision making. Based on what you've learned in this course (the entire course), if you were going to rearrange our court system, what changes would you make, and why?
The American justice system is fraught with problems, many of which are directly related to the field of social psychology, and that can be examined and challenged using the field’s most relevant insights. From a perspective of procedural justice the current use of eyewitness testimony used throughout the United States currently should be carefully reviewed. Certainly the guidelines outlined in our text need to be carefully implemented and a periodic review of implementation and outcomes done as follow-up. I had recently heard on a radio news story that currently the standards used vary by jurisdiction as to the use of such measures. How can any confidence in our state of procedural justice be maintained without an agreed upon standard with eyewitness testimony protocols for such a crucial element of criminal prosecutions?
2. Imagine the following scenario: You are dating a person that you have fun with, and who brings new and interesting hobbies into your life. Your dating partner is funny and attractive. Your dating partner treats you well, but you often think about a colleague at your office, and wonder what it would be like to date someone other than your dating partner. The colleague at your office is more attractive than the person you are dating, and this colleague has asked you out on a date. What you do not like about the person you are currently dating is that he or she is a bit needy. At times, he or she seeks you out constantly, calls frequently wanting to do things and is almost clingy. When you ask for space, your dating partner gets upset. On the other hand, you don’t want to be that close to another person. You prefer
to keep your distance and want a relationship with less commitment. Analyze the relationship you have with this dating partner in terms of social-exchange theory (comparison level, comparison level for alternatives, rewards and costs) and attachment style.
3. Consider the social cognitive cause of prejudice, specifically the idea of the activation of stereotypes. How does the activation of stereotypes explain prejudice behavior? Summarize Devine’s research on automatic and controlled processing of stereotypes, and how it can explain prejudice behavior. How does
the justification-suppression model of prejudice explain how prejudice works? How does the illusory correlation explain prejudicial thinking? When you consider the research and meaning behind all of these theories, what conclusions can be drawn about our ability to change stereotypical beliefs?
Although many have renounced prejudice Devine’s research had demonstrated that complex issues are at work when discussing prejudicial think, especially when considering verbal reporting and less obvious actions. Have our prejudices waned or just become more shrewdly masked? To understand more clearly a close look at the intent and motive was considered. Specifically this was done by breaking down indicators of prejudice into both thoughtful and non-thoughtful criteria, and examining their origins.