Download Research Proposal Title Competition Between Groups Investigators

Research Proposal
I.
Title
Competition Between Groups
II.
Investigators (co-investigators)
Amber Lupo, M.A.
Luke Enge, M.A.
Michael A. Zárate, Ph.D.
III.
Hypothesis, Research Questions, or Goals of the Project
The goal of this project is to test the effects of learned group information and
memory consolidation (time) on explicit group perceptions. The following
research proposes that familiarity with individual group members will work to
facilitate coherent group perceptions and that self-relevant group information
(information about one’s in-group members) will become integrated with one’s
self-concept. Further, the current study tests the prediction that participant
attitudes toward gays and lesbians will become more positive over time when
their in-group contains individuals who identify as LGBT.
IV.
Background and Significance:
There is a lack of clarity between the experimental findings on group perception
and our daily experiences with out-group members. Research on stereotyping has
shown that stereotypes are automatically activated when category membership is
made salient (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Dovidio, Kawakami,
Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Jonas & Sassenberg, 2006). The
experimental research, however, has used primarily new faces within one
experimental session. To date, no research investigates evaluations of previously
seen, familiar faces over the course of multiple days. The proposed research will
study group perceptions over the course of two days using previously seen faces.
Memory Consolidation and Time
Research in memory consolidation demonstrates that sleep promotes integration
and strengthening of episodic, procedural and declarative memories (Racsmany,
Conway, & Demeter, 2009; Rauchs, Desgranes, Foret, & Eustache, 2005; Gais &
Born, 2004; Gais, Lucas, & Born, 2006). Sleep is intrinsically connected with
memory consolidation processes (Wixted, 2004), where sleeping after encoding
new, semantically related and goal-oriented information protects against
interference from other competing memories (Scullin & McDaniel, 2010). This
research demonstrates that sleep helps in retrieving new, semantically related
items. These beneficial effects of sleep on memory appear to be stable over 48
hours (Gais & Born, 2006). It is posited that during sleep the neural processes
active during encoding are reactivated, facilitating the transfer of recent memories
to neocortical sites for long-term memory storage (Diekelmann, Wilhelm, &
Born, 2009). Therefore, sleep may help integrate recently formed person
memories into long-term memory structures. Furthermore, as they are transferred
to cortical structures, memories tend to become less specific and are replaced by a
more gist-like representation (Payne, Stickgold, Swanberg, & Kensinger, 2008).
Social Perceptions and Generalization Over Time
Research demonstrates that interpersonal contact with members of the LGBT
community is related to more positive attitudes toward gays and lesbians (Herek
& Capitanio, 1996). Furthermore, experimental research from our own lab has
shown that trait information associated with individual members of groups is
generalized to other members of the same group, but only after a time delay
containing sleep (Lupo, Enge, & Zarate, in prep). Thus, perceptions of social
groups (i.e., gays/lesbians) may change as one learns to associate positive
information with individual members of the group.
Moreover, research has consistently shown that individuals prefer an in-group
over an out-group (Hewstone, Rubin, & Willis, 2002; Turner, Brown, & Tajfel,
1979). After sleep, then, positive information learned about individuals in one’s
own group should become more accessible and more integrated with one’s selfconcept. Over time, memory for self-relevant information should strengthen and
individuals should perceive the in-group more favorably.
The proposed experiment was designed to address this important void in both
social perception and memory research. The study combines theories and extends
previous research by testing the hypothesis that familiarity and time impact
automatic group evaluations. The experiment investigates the impact of learning
personal information on subsequent (2 days later) group perception and attitudes
toward LGBT members. Specifically, it is hypothesized that after participants
learn to associate an in-group with positive behavioral information and with
individuals who identify as LGBT and that association has time to become
consolidated (after 2 days), participants will demonstrate more positive attitudes
toward the in-group and toward gays/lesbians.
References
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual process model of impression formation. In R. S. Wyer and
T K. Srull (Eds.) Advances in Social Cognition, vol. 1 (pp. 1-36). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Diekelmann, S., Wilhelm, I., & Born, J. (2009). That whats and whens of sleepdependent memory consolidation. Sleep Medicine Reviews, 13, 309-321.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. (1997). On the
nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 33, 510-540.
Drucker, D. J. (2010). Male sexuality and Alfred Kinsey’s 0–6 Scale: Toward “a sound
understanding of the realities of sex”. Journal of Homosexuality, 57(9), 1105-1123.
doi:10.1080/00918369.2010.508314
Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to
control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Psychology Bulletin, 23(3), 316-326.
Gais, S., & Born, J. (2004). Declarative memory consolidation: Mechanisms acting
during human sleep. Learning and Memory 11(6), 679-685.
Gais, S., Lucas, B., & Born, J. (2006). Sleep after learning aids memory recall. Learning
and Memory, 13, 259-262.
Herek, G. M., & Capitanio, J. P. (1996). “Some of my best friends”: Intergroup contact,
concealable stigma, and heterosexuals’ attitudes toward gay men and lesbians.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(4), 412-424.
Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Willis, H. (2002). Intergroup bias. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 575-604.
Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., & Martin, C. E. (1948). Sexual behavior in the human
male. Philadelphia: Saunders.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A. Sherman, S. J., & Uhles, A.
N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception of group entitativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 78(2), 223-246.
Lupo, A. K, Enge, L. R., & Zárate, M. A. (in prep). Guilty by association: Timedependent memory consolidation facilitates the generalization of negative – but not
positive – person memories to group judgments.
Payne, J. D., Stickgold, R., Swanberg, K., & Kensinger, E. A. (2008). Sleep
preferentially enhances memory for emotional components of scenes. Psychological
Science, 19(8), 781-788.
Racsmany, M., Conway, M. A., & Demeter, G. (2009). Consolidation of episodic
memories during sleep: Long-term effects of retrieval practice. Psychological Science,
21(1), 80-85.
Turner, J. C., Brown, R. J., & Tajfel, H. (1979). Social comparison and group interest in
ingroup favouritism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 9, 187-204.
Wixted, J. T. (2004). The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. Annual Review of
Psychology, 55, 235-269.
V.
Research Method, Design, and Proposed Statistical Analysis:
The experiment uses a 2(Target type: In-group vs Out-group) x 2(Time delay: Short
vs Long) x 2(Group type: LGBT vs non LGBT) mixed design, with time delay and
Group type as between-subjects factors.
Participants will be arbitrarily assigned to one of two groups via a computerized task.
Then, they will complete a learning session, whereby they will learn positive
behavioral information about members their group and another group. Participants
will be randomly assigned to complete the test session either the same day as (short
delay) or two days after (long delay) the learning session.
Group Assignment: Participants will complete an ostensible “dot estimation” task in
Qualtrics survey software, whereby they will be asked to estimate the number of dots
that appear on the computer screen. Participants will type their response in a textbox
and will be randomly assigned to read that they are either an “over-estimator” or
“under-estimator.” This group will serve as their in-group. They will then read the
following description of their group:
“Over-estimators (under-estimators) are very similar to each other and do not
differ in many ways from each other. Over-estimators (under-estimators) tend to
have the same opinions, similar important beliefs, and similar personalities.
Across a variety of situations, over-estimators (under-estimators) will act in a
similar manner” (adapted from McConnell, Sherman, & Hamilton, 1997).
This group description will be used to create an in-group that is perceived as highly
entitative (i.e., high on “groupness”). Previous research demonstrates that groups that
are perceived as more entitative are also perceived as more self-important (Lickel,
Hamilton, Wieczorkowska, Lewis, Sherman, & Uhles, 2000) and behaviors
performed by more entitative groups are better recalled (McConnell et al., 1997).
As a manipulation check, participants will be asked to type in their group name
before proceeding.
Learning Task: Participants will be told that they are going to learn about 6 members
of their group (in-group; 3 men and 3 women) and 6 members the other group (outgroup; 3 men and 3 women). They will be instructed that members of their group will
be competing with members of the other group on a subsequent computer task.
Participants will be told that whichever group earns the highest score will be awarded
extra research credit.
The exposure task will consist of a Microsoft PowerPoint slideshow that will present
the 12 target individuals, with one target presented per slide. All members of the in-
group will be presented first, followed by all members of the out-group (the order
counter-balanced between subjects). Each slide will include a photo of the target, the
target’s name, the target’s group membership (Over-estimator or Under-estimator),
and three self-descriptive statements. The behavioral descriptions in each slide will be
presented in a 1st person point of view and will all be positive in nature. Participants
will be randomly assigned to a condition in which the in-group either includes or does
not include two self-described LGBT members (1 male and 1 female). Participants
will view the presentation of the 12 targets three times, with the order of targets
within each group randomized for each of the three presentations. During the
presentation, participants will complete an Impression Formation Questionnaire to
indicate how much they like each target and how friendly each target is.
Test Session: Participants will complete the experimental session either the same day
or two days later, depending on random assignment. As another manipulation check,
participants will first be asked to type in their group membership.
Dependent variables will include measures of attitudes toward learned group
members, attitudes toward gays/lesbians, in-group bias, perceived group entitativity,
and self-identified sexuality.
Participants will be shown photographs of targets about whom they learned during the
Learning task. Participants will rate each target on a series of traits on a 7 point scale.
Traits will include likeable, friendly, intelligent, hard-working, trustworthy,
compassionate, kind, open-minded, loyal, and team-player.
Participants will be asked to complete a Political Ideology Questionnaire where they
will indicate the extent to which they are for or against a series of social/political
policies on a 7 point scale (1 – completely against; 7 – completely for). Participants
will also rate how positively they feel toward gays and lesbians (1 – completely
positive; 7 – completely negative).
To measure in-group bias, participants will be asked to rate on a 7 point scale how
happy they are to belong to their group, the extent to which they identify with other
members of their group, and the extent to which they would have preferred to belong
to another group (1 - not at all; 7 - very much). Participants will also be asked to rate
how positively they feel toward their group on a 7 point scale (1 – completely
positive; 7 – completely negative).
Participants will be asked to rate the extent to which the in- and out-group qualify as a
group on a 7 point scale (1 – not a group at all; 7 – very much a group) to measure
perceived group entitativity.
The above three measures will be completed in random order across subjects.
Participants will complete Kinsey’s 0-6 Sexuality Scale (Kinsey, Pomeroy, & Martin,
1948; as cited in Drucker, 2010). Participants will be asked to rate their own sexuality
on a 7 point scale (0 – exclusively heterosexual with no homosexual; 6 – exclusively
homosexual). This measure will always be completed last.
Upon completion of session 2, participants will be asked to complete a “did you know
anyone” questionnaire to assess whether participants knew any of the targets they saw
during the learning session. Participants will also be asked about their sleep patterns
during the experimental session to identify participants who slept during the interim
of the short delay and to assess the amount and quality of sleep during the delay
between sessions 1 and 2.
Participants will be asked to rate how much they enjoyed the experiment and the
extent to which the experiment was believable on a 7 point scale (1 – not at all; 7 –
very much). Participants will also be asked to indicate how positively or negatively
they feel toward the experiment on a 7 point scale (1 – completely negative; 7 –
completely positive).
Participants will then be debriefed and dismissed.
Participants will also complete a brief demographics questionnaire to indicate their
age, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious affiliation, and English
language proficiency.
VI.
Human Subject Interactions
Sources of potential participantsParticipants will be introductory psychology students at the University of Texas at El
Paso. They will be recruited via participant recruitment software, “SONA”. About
160 participants will be included in each study. The average age of participants in
these studies is typically around 20 years of age. These subjects should not be
vulnerable to undue coercion or influence. These participants are college-aged and
should all be sufficiently fluent in English to complete the study.
B. Procedures for the recruitment of the participants.
Participants will be recruited via SONA, which is the participant recruitment software
used by the University of Texas at El Paso’s Psychology department. The details of
this software can be accessed online at: https://experimentrix2.com/UTEP. This
software allows participants to sign up for the studies they are interested in, in
exchange for course credit. It provides summaries of the ongoing experiments in the
department and the available times to sign up. The summary for this experiment will
be as follows:
“This experiment involves 2 experimental sessions, where participants learn
about two groups of friends during session one and then complete a judgment task
either the same day (2-6 hours later) or 2 days later.”
C. Procedure for obtaining informed consent. Active written consent will be
obtained from each participant. The informed consent form is included.
D. Research Protocol. This experiment will be completed in the Psychology
building during normal hours. It will be completed in a computer room with 4
available computers. Each experimental session will take no longer than 1 hour.
E. Privacy and confidentiality of participants.
Privacy- Participants are aware of their rights as students and as research
participants. Their rights- including their freedom to sign up for the experiment when
it is convenient for them and the right to withdraw from participation without penalty
are explained to them in written form at the start of each session. More importantly,
before any data will be collected, participants will be given an informed consent form
outlining these rights.
Confidentiality- The second way their rights are protected concerns how the data are
collected and handled. Participant responses are collected confidentially and at no
time are any data from any individual identifiable. Informed consent forms will be
collected prior to the data collection stage, meaning individual names will not be
collected with the actual data. Data are presented in the aggregate and reported at the
group level.
F. Confidentiality of the research data: Data collected from participants will be
confidential. There will be no way to connect participant’s responses with their
personal information. Data will be handled only by experimenters and no one else
will be allowed to see it. Results will be reported as an aggregation of data and there
will be no way to connect individual responses with participants in any way. Upon
completion of the study the, informed consent and debriefing forms will be stored in a
locked file cabinet.
G. Research facilities: The Social Cognition Laboratory is in the Psychology
building. It has sufficient space to accommodate about 7 research participants at a
time. The aforementioned investigators and undergraduate research assistants will
collect data. Although there are emergency facilities close to campus, no safety
hazards are expected in this experiment. This study does not necessitate
Environmental Health & Safety (EHS) or Institutional Biosafety Committee (IBC)
oversight.
VII. Potential risks: The procedures of this study present minimal risk to the health
or welfare of subjects, research assistants, or bystanders. The experimental stimuli are
mundane self descriptions (e.g., I am humorous, I make my friends laugh and I enjoy
comedies).
VIII. Potential benefits: Participants will receive the opportunity to see how
psychological research is conducted first hand. At the end of the study, a full
explanation will be offered to the participants. The participants should gain a greater
understanding of how psychological research is conducted as well as types of
research conducted at UTEP.
IX. Sites or agencies involved in the research project: No other sites besides the
University of Texas at El Paso will be involved in this research.
X. Review by another IRB: This proposal will not be reviewed by any other IRB.