Group #1

    Your task is to familiarize yourself with the following article: Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996), focusing on Study 1.  You will be asked to share with the rest of the class an overview of some aspects of the introduction section of this article, as well as the method and results of Study 1 (you may need to quickly review Studies 2 & 3 on your own when analyzing the introduction and general discussion sections of the article).  Listed below are several questions to guide you in your review of this article, along with suggested coursepack page numbers to help you with most questions.  Feel free to address and discuss other interesting questions or issues as well!

     Introduction
 
1.  How does the authors' theory differ from previous work on priming and stereotyping? (p. 5)

2.  What is the central hypothesis of the present studies? (p. 8)

     Method of Study 1

1.  Who were the participants and how were they assigned to conditions? (p. 8)

2.  What was the independent variable and how was it operationalized and manipulated? (pp. 8-9)

3.  What was the dependent variable and how was it operationalized? (p. 9)

4.  Briefly, what was the procedure used in the study, including the cover story (if any) told to participants? (pp. 8-9)

5.  Using operational definitions, what was the hypothesis of Study 1? (pp. 8-9)

6.  What type of methodology is being used in Study 1 (experimental, correlational, observational, etc.)?  How can you tell?

     Results/Discussion of Study 1

1.  What results were obtained in Study 1? (focus on bar graph on p. 10)

2.  Did the results support the authors' hypothesis?

3.  How would you critique the internal and external validity of this study?

     General Discussion

1.  Do Studies 2 & 3 increase the external validity of the entire program of research described in this paper?  If so, how?

2.  Under what conditions do the authors claim behavior will be automatic? (p. 15)

3.  How can automatic processes be controlled? (p. 16)

4.  How might these findings be relevant to the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecies? (p. 17)

5.  What other implications can you think of for these findings?
 

Group #2

     Your task is to familiarize yourself with the following article: Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996), focusing on Study 2.  You will be asked to share with the rest of the class an overview of some aspects of the introduction section of this article, as well as the method and results of Study 2 (you may need to quickly review Studies 1 & 3 on your own when analyzing the introduction and general discussion sections of the article).  Listed below are several questions to guide you in your review of this article, along with suggested coursepack page numbers to help you with most questions.  Feel free to address and discuss other interesting questions or issues as well!

     Introduction
 
1.  What are the authors' opinions on the controllability of behavior? (pp. 5-6)

2.  What is ideomotor action and why do the authors mention it? (pp. 6-7)

3.  What is the central hypothesis of the present studies? (p. 8)

     Method of Study 2

1.  Who were the participants and how were they assigned to conditions? (p. 11)

2.  What was the independent variable and how was it operationalized and manipulated? (p. 11)

3.  What was the dependent variable and how was it operationalized? (p. 11)

4.  Briefly, what was the procedure used in the study, including the cover story (if any) told to participants? (pp. 11-12)

5.  Using operational definitions, what was the hypothesis of Study 2? (p. 11)

6.  What type of methodology is being used in Study 2 (experimental, correlational, observational, etc.)?  How can you tell?

     Results/Discussion of Study 2

1.  What results were obtained in Study 2? (focus on bar graph on p. 12)

2.  Were participants aware of the manipulation?  Why is that important to know? (p. 12)

3.  Did the results support the authors' hypothesis?

4.  How would you critique the internal and external validity of this study?  What do the authors conclude regarding the influence of a third variable, mood, on participants? (pp. 12-13)

     General Discussion

1.  How does Study 2 make the results of Study 1 more generalizable (increasing the external validity of the program of research described in this article)?

2.  Under what conditions do the authors claim behavior will be automatic? (p. 15)

3.  How can automatic processes be controlled? (p. 16)

4.  How might these findings be relevant to the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecies? (p. 17)

5.  What other implications can you think of for these findings?

 

Group #3

     Your task is to familiarize yourself with the following article: Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996), focusing on Study 3.  You will be asked to share with the rest of the class an overview of the general discussion section of this article, as well as the method and results of Study 3 (you may need to quickly review Studies 2 & 3 on your own when analyzing the introduction and general discussion sections of the article).  Listed below are several questions to guide you in your review of this article, along with suggested coursepack page numbers to help you with most questions.  Feel free to address and discuss other interesting questions or issues as well!

     Introduction
 
1.  What is the central hypothesis of the present studies? (p. 8)

     Method of Study 3

1.  Who were the participants and how were they assigned to conditions? (p. 13)

2.  What was the independent variable and how was it operationalized and manipulated? (p. 13)

3.  What was the dependent variable and how was it operationalized? (pp. 13-14)

4.  Briefly, what was the procedure used in the study, including the cover story (if any) told to participants? (pp. 13-14)

5.  Using operational definitions, what was the hypothesis of Study 3? (p. 13)

6.  What type of methodology is being used in Study 3 (experimental, correlational, observational, etc.)?  How can you tell?

     Results/Discussion of Study 3

1.  What results were obtained in Study 3? (focus on bar graph on p. 14)

2.  Did the results support the authors' hypothesis?

3.  How would you critique the internal and external validity of this study?  How does Study 3 address the external validity questions related to Studies 1 & 2? (p. 13)

     General Discussion

1.  What do the authors discuss in terms of the association between behavior and the social environment? (pp. 14-15)

2.  Under what conditions do the authors claim behavior will be automatic? (p. 15)

3.  How can automatic processes be controlled? (p. 16)

4.  How might these findings be relevant to the phenomenon of self-fulfilling prophecies? (p. 17)

5.  What other implications can you think of for these findings?
 

Group #4

     Your task is to familiarize yourself with the following article: Lau & Russell.  You will be asked to share with the rest of the class an overview of the introduction, method, results, and discussion sections of this article.  Listed below are several questions to guide you in your review of this article, along with suggested coursepack page numbers to help you with most questions.  Feel free to address and discuss other interesting questions or issues as well!

     Introduction
 
1.  What is the central motivation underlying the attributional process, according to the authors, and what does it tell us about how we should empirically study attributions? (p. 22)

2.  Why did the authors choose to study attribution in the sports pages? (p. 22)

3.  To what tendency does the term "hedonic bias" refer, and what are two possible explanations for that bias? (pp. 22-23)

4.  What hypothesis do the authors put forth regarding when attributions are likely to occur (i.e., the frequency of causal attributions in general)? (p. 23)

5.  The authors also present a hypothesis regarding attribution frequency and whether or not the outcome of an event was expectedˇwhat is it? (pp. 23-24)

     Method

1.  How were articles selected for inclusion in the study? (p. 24)

2.  On what two dimensions were quotations coded?  For the second dimension listed, give a brief example of two quotations and how they were coded on that dimension. (pp. 24-25)

3.  To what extent did the two coders for the study agree on their decisions, and how were disagreements resolved? (p. 25)

4.  How was the expected outcome of the event measured? (pp. 25-26)

5.  What type of methodology is being used in this study (experimental, correlational, observational, etc.)?  How can you tell?

     Results

1.  What results were obtained regarding internal vs. external attributions and winning vs. losing?  How were these results different for players/coaches vs. sportswriters? (focus on Table 1, p. 26)

2.  Did whether or not the outcome was expected influence internal vs. external attribution tendencies? (focus on Table 2, p. 27)

3.  Did whether or not the outcome was expected influence the frequency of attributions in general? (p. 27, and Table 3, which is a bit confusing)

    Discussion

1.  Did these results support the authors' hypotheses?

2.  What is your opinion of the external validity of this study? (p. 28)

3.  What difficulties are presented by the fact that the authors could only study those attributions the sportswriters saw fit to include in their articles? (p. 28)

4.  What other difficulties did the authors encounter in using this type of methodology? (pp. 29-30)

5.  Can we draw any causal conclusions from this studyˇwhy or why not?

6.  What other implications can you think of for these findings?
 

Group #5

     Your task is to familiarize yourself with the following article: Miller (1984), focusing on Study 1.  You will be asked to share with the rest of the class an overview of the introduction section of this article, as well as the method and results of Study 1 (you may need to quickly review Study 2 and the General Discussion section on your own when analyzing your assigned sections).  Listed below are several questions to guide you in your review of this article, along with suggested coursepack page numbers to help you with most questions.  Feel free to address and discuss other interesting questions or issues as well!

     Introduction
 
1.  How have previous researchers explained cultural differences in attributions? (p. 33)

2.  Summarize the pros and cons of the two interpretations for these differences that Miller outlines (pp. 34-35)

3.  What is the author's interpretation for these cultural differences in attribution? (pp. 35-36)

4.  What are the central hypotheses of the present studies? (p. 36)

     Method of Study 1

1.  Who were the participants and were the demographics of the two samples roughly equivalent? (pp. 36-37)

2.  What was the independent variable and how was it operationalized? (pp. 36-37)

3.  What was the dependent variable and how was it operationalized? (pp. 37-38)

4.  Briefly, what was the procedure used in the study (focus on the explanation procedure, not the classification procedure)? (pp. 37-38)

5.  Why do you think the half of the participants were asked to explain the prosocial behaviors first and the other half were asked to do the deviant behaviors first? (p. 37)

6.  Using operational definitions, what was the hypothesis of Study 1 in regards to the explanation procedure? (pp. 37-38)

7.  Who coded responses and to what extent did they agree on their coding decisions? (p. 38)

8.  What type of methodology is being used in Study 1 (experimental, correlational, observational, etc.)?  How can you tell?

     Results/Discussion of Study 1

1.  What results were obtained in Study 1 regarding internal vs. external attributions? (focus on Table 1 on p. 39)

2.  Give an example of the "typical" response of each group of participants? (p. 39)

3.  Did the results support the author's hypothesis?

4.  What is your opinion of the external validity of this study?

     Conclusions

1.  What are the implications of these findings in terms of how universal the Fundamental Attribution Error is? (p. 45)  What other psychological tendencies might be similarly affected by cultural factors?
 

 Group #6

     Your task is to familiarize yourself with the following article: Miller (1984), focusing on Study 2.  You will be asked to share with the rest of the class an overview of the general discussion section of this article, as well as the method and results of Study 2 (you may need to quickly review the introduction section and Study 1 on your own when analyzing your assigned sections).  Listed below are several questions to guide you in your review of this article, along with suggested coursepack page numbers to help you with most questions.  Feel free to address and discuss other interesting questions or issues as well!

     Introduction
 
1.  What are the central hypotheses of the present studies? (p. 36)

     Method of Study 2

1.  Who were the participants in this study? (p. 43)

2.  Participants' responses were compared to the responses of Hindu participants from Study 1.  So what would be the independent variable in this comparison?

3.  What was the dependent variable and how was it operationalized? (pp. 43-44)

4.  Briefly, what was the procedure used in the study? (pp. 43-44)

5.  Using operational definitions, what was the hypothesis of Study 2? (p. 43)

6.  What type of methodology is being used in Study 2 (experimental, correlational, observational, etc.)?  How can you tell?

     Results/Discussion of Study 2

1.  What results were obtained in Study 2 regarding internal vs. external attributions made by American vs. Hindu participants ? (p. 44)

2.  Give an example of the "typical" response of each group of participants? (p. 44)

3.  Did the results support the author's hypothesis?

4.  What is your opinion of the external validity of this study?

5.  How do the results of Study 2 strengthen the author's conclusions about Study 1?  In other words, what weaknesses of Study 1 does Study 2 address? (pp. 43-44)

     General Discussion

1.  What are the implications of these findings in terms of how universal the Fundamental Attribution Error is? (p. 45)

2.  How does the author compare evolutionary vs. cultural explanations for these results? (pp. 46-47)

3.  How does the author suggest these cultural differences might be acquired over time? (pp. 47-48)

4.  What other psychological phenomena and tendencies might also be influenced by cultural differences?

5.  What do these results suggest about the external validity of a great deal of social psychological research?

6.  What other implications can you think of for these findings?
 
 
 
 
Go Back to Overheads & Activities Main Page
Go Back to 005 Main Page
Go Back to 007 Main Page