Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
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.