Matching Items (4)
Filtering by
- All Subjects: Impression Formation
- All Subjects: values
- Creators: Neuberg, Steven L.
- Creators: Fisher, Bobbi Paige
- Member of: Theses and Dissertations
- Resource Type: Text
- Status: Published
Description
The current research seeks to examine whether individuals display or downplay intelligence in various mating contexts. I hypothesized that both men and women should display fluid intelligence when attempting to attract a potential long-term partner, and that only men should display fluid intelligence when attempting to attract a potential short-term partner. Contrary to predictions, I find that men perform worse at a fluid intelligence test when motivated to attract a long-term partner. With respect to crystallized intelligence, I predicted that both men and women should display crystallized intelligence when attempting to attract a potential long-term partner, but women should downplay crystallized intelligence when attempting to attract a potential short-term partner. However, there were no effects of mating contexts on displays of crystallized intelligence.
ContributorsSng, Wei Sheng Oliver (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Kenrick, Douglas T. (Committee member) / Shiota, Michelle (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
The current study looked at weight stereotype presence and whether certain types of medical professionals held this bias over others. This study also investigated if there was a relation between medical professionals' self-esteem and the presence of the weight stereotype. By having a sample consisting of registered nurses, physician assistants, and medical doctors data was then collected within each group to analyze for any significant differences between the three levels of medical professionals. Eleven participants were guided through participation in the Harvard Implicit Association Test, specifically testing for weight stereotype presence, followed by responses to 50 true/false statements on the Sorensen Self-Esteem Test to measure the self-esteem of each participant. The participants within this study were 11 medical professionals, between the ages of 25 and 59, with 6 women and 5 men. The resulting sample consisted of 6 registered nurses, 3 physician assistants, and 2 medical doctors all currently practicing medicine in the state of Arizona, with the exception of 1 participant who is practicing in Colorado. This study was conducted through Qualtrics, an online database through Arizona State University. Upon completion of the study, 3 different tests were run using the data collected. The first was a between-subjects effect test to determine if there was a difference in stereotype presence among the three levels of medical professionals. The second test was a correlation between stereotype presence and the self-esteem each medical professional displayed. The third was a between-subjects effect test looking at self-esteem differences among the three levels of medical professionals. None of the tests yielded significant results, suggesting that there is no difference in weight stereotype presence or self-esteem among the three groups of medical professionals. The data also suggests that there is no correlation between a medical professionals' self-esteem and weight stereotype presence. Suggestions for future research within this paper have discussed ways to improve the current study in order to create significant results.
ContributorsFisher, Bobbi Paige (Author) / Lewis, Stephen (Thesis director) / Edwards, Alison (Committee member) / School of Social and Behavioral Sciences (Contributor) / Barrett, The Honors College (Contributor)
Created2017-05
Description
Existing work suggests that intergroup negativity is caused by dissimilarities of values between groups. In contrast, I propose that incompatible values--regardless of whether they are similar or dissimilar--cause intergroup negativities. Because values act as cues to tangible goals and interests, groups' values suggest desired outcomes that may conflict with our own (i.e., incompatible values). The current study conceptually and empirically disentangles value-dissimilarity and value-incompatibility, which were confounded in previous research. Results indicated that intergroup negativities were strongly predicted by value-incompatibility, and only weakly and inconsistently predicted by value-dissimilarity. I further predicted that groups' values cue specific threats and opportunities to perceivers and that, in reaction to these inferred affordances, people will experience threat-relevant, specific emotional reactions (e.g., anger, disgust); however, results did not support this prediction. I also predicted that, because the inferred threats that groups pose to one another are not always symmetric, the negativities between groups may sometimes be asymmetric (i.e., Group A feels negatively toward Group B, but Group B feels neutral or positively toward Group A). This prediction received strong support. In sum, reframing our understanding of values as cues to conflicts-of-interest between groups provides principles for understanding intergroup prejudices in more nuanced ways.
ContributorsVarley Lee, Allison (Author) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Thesis advisor) / Siroky, David (Committee member) / Aktipis, C Athena (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2017
Description
National surveys indicate that Americans hold greater prejudice toward atheists than many other historically stigmatized groups. The religious prosociality perspective posits that people will demonstrate prejudice toward anyone who does not believe in a monitoring and punishing god, including atheists, because of the perception that those who lack belief in a monitoring and punishing god cannot be trusted to act in a prosocial manner. The sociofunctional perspective posits that people will demonstrate distinct forms of prejudice toward individuals who present certain types of threats to the group, and previous research suggests that atheists are perceived as posing a threat to group values. In the current study, participants rated targets whose values largely matched their own values more favorably than targets whose values did not largely match their own values. Also, participants rated both targets who believed in a monitoring and punishing god and targets who believed in a god who does not monitor nor punish more favorably than atheist targets. These judgments spanned a variety of measures, including emotional reactions to the target, judgments of target traits, and preferred social distance from the target. Results were consistent with the sociofunctional perspective but did not support the religious prosociality perspective.
ContributorsVarley, Allison (Author) / Nagoshi, Craig T. (Thesis advisor) / Neuberg, Steven L. (Committee member) / Cohen, Adam B. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013