Priming Of Social Attitudes The WritePass Journal

Priming Of Social Attitudes Abstract Priming Of Social Attitudes Abstract IntroductionMethodParticipantsMaterialsDesign Procedure ResultsDiscussion ReferencesRelated Abstract Previous research has indicated that social behaviour can be automatically activated when primed by traits (Higgins, Rholes Jones, 1977). The present study investigated whether participants are more like to interrupt an experimenter and unseen confederate when primed by words semantically associated with rudeness, compared with positive and neutral words. It represented a replication of the Bargh, Chen and Burrows experiment (1996) with one alteration; the total number of interruptions rather than time taken to interrupt was measured. 54 undergraduate students aged between 19 and 25 participated in a between-subjects experiment, and were randomly assigned to one of three experimental levels. Participants were asked to complete a Scrambled Sentence Task containing either rude, polite or neutral words. In order to indicate their completion, participants had to interrupt the conversation of the experimenter. As hypothesised, particpants allocated to the rude condition were significantl y more likely to interrupt the experimenter than those in the neutral or polite conditions. Introduction The extent to which one has intentional control over their own thoughts and behaviours has formed the basis of much research in the field of social psychology. During the 1970’s the distinction between automatic and conscious thought processes emerged, and has became the focus of much attention (Bargh, 1989). Research concentrating on social cognition and attitude formation has documented that many phenomena are unintentional or automatic in nature. Stereotypes, for example, can be automatically elicited merely by the presense of physical features commonly associated with the stereotyped group. Similarly, the presense of an ‘attitude object’ can automatically elicit an attitude, which in turn exerts influence on behaviour (Bargh, Chen Burrows, 1996). Both are examples of priming, which refers to the effect observed when exposure to a certain stimulus influences responses to a second stimulus. In social psychology, priming can be understood in terms of the tendenc y for recent information to influence subsequent thoughts. An early example of this came from Higgins, Rholes and Jones (1977). In this research, particpants read a passage involving a man attempting certain ambitious physical feats. Prior to this, particpants were told they were particpating in a memory task, and were given a list of attributes to read. Half of the particpants were ‘positvely primed’ and given words such as ‘adventurous’ and ‘brave’. The other half were ‘negatively primed’ and given words such as ‘foolish’ and ‘reckless’. After reading the passage, particpants were asked to give their impressions of the man in the story. Those who had been positively primed formed more positive impressions of the man in the passage than those who had been negatively primed. Forgas and Bower (1987) looked at the effect of priming on how people judge information about others. Participants were assigned to one of two conditions. In the first condition, participants were given information that primed a happy mood. In the second, particpants were given information to prime a sad mood. Participants in both conditions were then given identical person descriptions to read. They found that those who had been primed to experience a happy mood formed more positive impressions of the people in the person descriptions than those primed to experience a sad mood. An experiment by Bargh, Chen and Burrows (1996; exp2) demonstrated that priming influences behaviour, investigating the behavioural consequence of automatic stereotype activation based on the premise that a typical stereotypical view of the elderly concerns slowness. Participants were presented with scrambled sentences containing words that related to elderly stereotypes, or sentences containing neutral words. Importantly, the authors ensured that none of the words in the ‘elderly’ condition were directly related to slowness. This ensured that any observed behaviour change was attributable to the stereotype of elderly being activated (and the associated assumptions of slowness) rather than focusing attention on the single trait of being slow. Following this, particpants were asked to leave the room, and were timed walking down a hallway to return to the waiting area, to test whether priming participants with the concept of elderly would automatically and unconsciously ch ange their behaviour to emulate the elderly. As predicted, participants who were primed with the stereotypical information took longer to walk down the hallway than those who received the neutral information. Carver, Ganellen, Froming and Chambers (1983) demonstrated the priming effect of aggression on particpant’s subsequent behaviour. Participants were divided into two conditions and given scrambled sentences containing either aggressive or neutral concepts, diguised as part of a seemingly unrelated study. They were then asked to participate in an experiment of human learning where particpants were able to punish another participant (actually a confederate) by administering electric shocks for incorrect responses. Those in the aggressive condition administered stronger shocks than those in the control condition. The studies discussed thus far have indicated that priming can influence both perceptions and behaviour. From this premise, Bargh et al. (1996, exp 1) investigated whether this effect overrode the typical processes one uses in everyday life, such as social judgement. In this experiment, 34 participants were informed that they were taking part in a test of language ability, and presented with a scrambled sentence test. They were randomly assigned to one of three conditions priming conditions, rude, polite and neutral. Participants were asked to complete the task individually, then notify the experimenter in another room. When the participant entered the second room, they found the experimenter in conversation with a second participant (a confederate). The critical outcome measure of the study was the length of time the participant took to interupt the conversation between the experimenter and confederate. They found that those in the rude condition did interupt significantly faster th an those in the polite and neutral conditions. However, the results suffered from significant ceiling effects; 21 of the 34 participants did not interupt at all. The present study was a replication of Bargh et al.’s(1996) experiment and borrows heavily from their methodology, but with one critical difference. In an attempt to address the methodological issues caused by the strong ceiling effects observed by Bargh et al., the current experiment measured the total number of people to interupt in each condition, rather than the time taken to interupt. Based on the findings of Bargh et al., the experimental hypothesis predicted that significantly more particpants in the ‘rude’ condition would interupt the experimenter than those in the ‘polite’ and neutral conditions. Furthermore, it was predicted that there would be no significant difference in the number of participants in the polite and neutral conditons who interupted the experimenter. Method Participants A total of 54 undergraduate psychology students, 34 females and 19 males, aged between 19-25 (mean age 20.3), volunteered to participate in the experiment. Materials Each of the participants was presented with Scrambled Sentence Test which was presented as a test of language ability. Comprising 30 items, participants had to use listed words to form a grammatically correct four-word sentence as quickly as possible. There were three versions of the scrambled-sentence test: for the rude and polite conditions, 15 of the 30 items contained words that were associated with the trait in question. In the neutral condition, these 15 were replaced with neutral words. The remaining 15 items were idetical across the three conditions. Design ÃŽ ¤he design of the experiment was between subjects, and had three experimental conditions. Participants were randomly assigned to each condition. The independent variable was the condition that the participant was assigned to and had three levels;   rude, polite and neutral. The dependent variable was the number of participants who interupted the experimenter. Procedure Participants took part in the experiment one at a time. They were informed that they were to participate in a language ability study, and their consent to participate was obtained. Each participant received an envelope that contained 30 scrambled sentences, and were told the task was concerned with grammatical construction. They were asked to form a grammatically correct four-word sentence from a list of five-word scrambled sentences. Particpants were then given one of three versions of the test (rude, polite or neutral) of the scrambled-sentence test, and asked to complete it as quickly as possible. Upon completion, participants were asked to find the experimenter in a second room and notify them of their completion, in order to move on to the next experimental task. Participants was randomly assigned to each condition, to which the experimenter was blind. When the participant entered the second room, the experimenter appeared to be engaged with another unseen particpant (actually a confederate). The experimenter and confederate continued their discussion until interupted by the participant. The confederate noted which of the participants elected to interrupt. Results Table 1: Total number of participants who did/did not interrupt in each condition (polite, neutral, rude). Word Type Polite (n) Neutral (n) Rude (n) Did not interrupt 15 10 8 Interrupted 3 6 12 The dependent variable of the experiment was the total number of participants that interrupted the experimenter in each word type condition, and as can be seen from Table 1, participants in the rude condition interrupted most frequently (n = 12). Participants in the polite condition interrupted the least (n = 3). The propensity to interrupt increased across the levels of the independent variable; a higher number of participants in the neutral condition (n = 6) interrupted than in the polite group. A higher number again interrupted in the rude group. The results of this experiment were statistically analysed used a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test. This test was selected as the data was categorical, numerical and discrete. It produced a goodness-of-fit between the observed and expected values. If priming had no effect on interrupting behaviour, distribution across the conditions would be equal. The Chi-square test demonstrated whether the observed frequencies differed significantly from the expected frequencies. The result of the Chi-square was significant; participants in the rude condition were significantly more likely to interrupt the experimenter than participants in the neutral or positive condition, x2 (2, N = 54) = 7.50, p 0.5. Discussion This study examined whether priming traits (rudeness and politeness) could have an impact on social behaviour.   It was hypothesized that participants primed with rude traits would be more likely to interrupt an experimenter ostensibly engaged in a conversation with an unseen ‘participant’ than those who were primed with positive or neutral traits, and this hypothesis was fully supported by the results of the experiment. The study confirmed that people, when influenced by a rude prime condition, would demonstrate a negative impact on social behaviour, whilst the social behaviour of those who were influenced by a polite or neutral prime condition were unaffected. This finding supported the results of Bargh et al. (1996) despite the change to the dependent variable. This provides compelling evidence for their hypothesis regarding the automatic activation of social behaviours in the face of certain environmental features (in both cases, the rude primes). Not only does the replication confirm the original study findings, but the change in the dependent variable in the study under discussion improves on the methodological design flaw of the original. Interestingly, the present study also supported the original study finding of no significant difference in interrupting behaviour between the polite and neutral groups. This indicates that it is rude behaviour that is most likely to be automatically activated. Priming a participant with polite trait information does not appear to increase an individual’s politeness, or a significant difference between the neutral and polite levels would be observed. This is somewhat at odds with previous resea rch which indicated a bias towards increased postivity via priming (Higgins et al., 1977; Forgas Bower, 1987). However, these studies looked at the effect of priming on judgement, and not on behaviour. If the result of the present study is compared with Carver et al. (1983) study of negative priming and electric shock administration, both show an increased bias towards the propensity to prime negative behaviour. Although the change in the dependent variable from time to interrupt to presence of interrupting behaviour resolved the issue of ceiling effects described by Bargh et al. (1996), whilst producing a similar result, some detail was lost. Moving from a numerical scale (time) to a categorical measurement meant that the choice of statistical analysis available was limited. A future replication might involve measuring the total number of participants that interrupted, and the time taken among those that did. A second factor that should be considered is the possibility that those in the rude condition were simply a ruder group of participants and were more likely to interrupt despite the priming effect. To control for this possibility, a future replication could incorporate a personality questionnaire to control for propensity towards rude behaviour. The current study was a replication of Baugh et al.’s (1996) experiment 2. To resolve the original study’s problem of ceiling effects, a change was made to the dependent variable; instead of measuring the time taken to interrupt, the total number of those interrupting in each condition was measured. The results supported the finding of the original study, presentation of the rudeness trait primes subsequent rude behaviour; therefore social behaviour can be automatically triggered without conscious thought. References Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social perception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman, J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended Thought (pp. 3-51). New York: Guilford Press. Bargh, J.A., Chen, M., Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244. Carver, C., Ganellen, R., Froming, W., Chambers, W. (1983). Modelling: an analysis in terms of c ategory accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 403–421. Forgas, J. P. Moylan, S. J. (1987). After the movies: The effects of transient mood states on social judgments. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 478-489. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,13, 141–154.

Pell Grant Eligibility and Requirements Do You Qualify

Pell Grant Eligibility and Requirements Do You Qualify SAT / ACT Prep Online Guides and Tips Pell Grants are awarded by the federal US government to help students pay for college or vocational school.Figuring out whether you're eligible can be confusing, but this post will guide you through all the eligibility requirements you should knowabout if you want to apply for a federal Pell Grant. If you need a basic intro to what the Pell Grant is, check out our overview guide. Students are automatically considered for the Pell Grant when they submit their Free Application for Federal Student Aid, or FAFSA. You can learn more about submission here. In this post, we'll cover the following: How to figure out whether you're eligiblefor federal student aid What the Pell Grant income limits are How to figure out whether you're eligible for the Pell Grant specifically Pell Grant award maximums What you can do to increase your chances of getting the Pell Grant What Are the Federal Student Aid Requirements? Because the Pell Grant is a federal aid program, you need to meet basic eligibility for federal student aid in order to be considered for the Pell.There are a lot of complicated-seeming requirements, so we put together two lists that describeeverything you need before applying for aid. You need to check off every item on List #1 and one item on List #2. List #1 In order to be eligible for all federal aid, including the Pell Grant, you must meet all the following eligibility criteria: Eligibility Requirement Do you meet this criterion? Have a high school diploma, GED, or approved homeschool education Be enrolled or accepted to enroll in an eligible degree/certificate program You can check with your school/program’s financial aid office if you want to confirm eligibility Be registered with Selective Service,if you are male and 18-25 years old If applicable,register on the SS website Have a valid Social Security Number (unless you’re from the Republic of the Marshall Islands, Federated States of Micronesia, or Republic of Palau) Sign statements on the FAFSA stating that (1) you’re not in default and do not owe refund money on a federal student loan, and (2) you’ll only use federal aid money to help pay for your education Access the FAFSA Maintain "satisfactory" progress in school If you’re concerned about your academic performance or have questions about what is considered "satisfactory," set up a meeting with your dean or other school administrator List #2 In addition to the items listed above, you must be able to check ONEof the following: Be a US citizen or US national Have a green card Have an Arrival-Departure Record (I-94) Have battered immigrant status Have a T-Visa These are all the requirements necessary to apply for federal financial aid.If you didn't have any issues with the items listed above, you're on the right track! Want to build the best possible college application and financial aid package? We can help. PrepScholar Admissions is the world's best admissions consulting service. We combine world-class admissions counselors with our data-driven, proprietary admissions strategies. We've overseen thousands of students get into their top choice schools, from state colleges to the Ivy League. We know what kinds of students colleges want to admit. We want to get you admitted to your dream schools. Learn more about PrepScholar Admissions to maximize your chance of getting in. Making sure you meet these requirements is a hassle, but it's worth it for free money, right? What Are the Pell Grant Requirements? There are a few eligibility requirements specific to the Pell Grant that you need to meet on top of the federal requirements we just discussed. Let's start by answering an important question: what are the Pell Grant income limits? The Pell Grant is meant primarily for low-income students who have not already received a post-secondary degree.There are some exceptions to this, but they're rare. For the purpose of this post, I'll be focusing onfuture and current college students. In a nutshell, to be considered eligible for the Pell Grant, you: Mustdemonstrate enough financial need (we'll get to the details of this shortly) Cannot already have a bachelor's or professional degree Easy enough, right? In the next section, I'll explain exactly what I mean when I say you need to demonstrate "enough financial need." What Are the Financial Need Requirements? This seems like a simple question, but the answer is actually somewhat complicated. Before I can answer this question, I need to briefly explain what financial information is considered important, and why. The Department of Education- the government department in charge of federal financial aid- takes a lot of factors into consideration when determiningwhether to award the Pell Grant. Put simply, the greater your family's financial need is, the greater the likelihood that you'll be awarded the grant. There's more to determining financial need than just looking at how much your parents make, however; your family's expenses are alsotaken into account. Lower income + more expenses = greater need. Allow me tobreak down what counts as income and what counts as an expense: Income: Your own personal income (if any) Your parents' income Assets belonging to you or your parents (e.g., savings or things they could own, such as a house) Expense: Number of people living in your household (more people = more expense) Number of family members (not including parents) who are attending college Your school's Cost of Attendance, or CoA- that is,how much you have to pay in tuition, room, board, and other expenses for one year Now that we've gotten through that information, I can better explain how your family's unique financial situation is analyzed when you're considered for a Pell Grant. All the above factors- income and expenses- are used to calculate yet another number called an Expected Family Contribution (EFC). If your EFC is at or below $5,140 for the 2019-20 academic year, you will be eligible to receive the Pell Grant. Each family's financial situation is different, and there's no one income cutoff that makes a student eligible or ineligible to receive the Pell. With that being said, here are some important facts to note: Most Pell Grants are awarded to students whose families make less than $30,000 annually Some Pell Grants are awarded to students whose families make $30,000-$60,000 annually It's possible but rare for students to be awarded the grant if their families make more than $60,000 annually What Are the Requirements After You Get Your Pell Grant? Do You Ever Need to Repay Pell Grants? After you have met the requirements for both FAFSA and the Pell Grant, and have been awarded your Pell Grant, it's pretty easy to remain eligible for the grant. All you need to do is stay in school. However, if you drop out of school while you're receiving a Pell Grant or change from full-time student status to part-time student status, you might be required to repay all or part of your Pell Grant for that year or semester. If your school determines that you need to repay your Pell Grant, they'll send you a notice informing you of how much you owe and when you'll need to pay it by. You'll typically have 45 days to either pay the amount in full or set up a payment plan. You might have to focus a little more than you'd like on the family finances. How Much Money Can You Get From a Pell Grant? For 2019-2020, the maximum Pell Grant award is $6,195.Factors such as the amount of your Expected Family Contribution and enrollment status (full-time vs part-time) will affect how much money you can get. You can learn more about calculating your EFC with our Pell Grant Calculatorguide. What If You Don't Qualify for a Pell Grant? If you're above the Pell Grant income limits, there's not much you can do to change your family's financial situation, which is the maincriterionused when you apply for a Pell Grant. There are certain factors under your control that might affect your eligibility. Here are some potential eligibility issues and solutions: If you don't have a high school diploma but would like to attend college, you can get a GED to meet federal financial aid requirements. Make sure you apply to and enroll in colleges or vocational programs that participate in the Pell Grant program. If you're unsure whether a school is involved in the program, you can check with that school's financial aid office. If you're not eligible for financial aid because you're in default on a federal student loan, focus on paying back that debt before applying for more federal aid. Summary: How Pell Grant Eligibility Works The Pell Grant is anannual award given out by the federal government to students who need help paying for college.If you apply for FAFSA, you'll be automatically considered for a Pell Grant. To meet the Pell Grant requirements, you'll need to meet all the federal eligibility requirements for financial aid and provethat your expected family contribution is at or below $5,140 for the 2019-2020 school year. Currently, the maximum Pell Grant award is $6,195. Once you receivea Pell Grant, you don't need to pay it back, unless you drop out of school or change from full-time to part-time student status, in which case you'll need to repay all or part of your Pell Grant. What's Next? If you're already looking at how to get a Pell Grant, you might already know about the program. If not, you can read about everything you need to know in our in-depthPell Grant guide. Are you still putting together your college applications? You might want to learn more about application strategy and versatility. For more information on getting into your top-choice schools, check out our step-by-step guide. Want to improve your SAT score by 160 points or your ACT score by 4 points?We've written a guide for each test about the top 5 strategies you must be using to have a shot at improving your score. Download it for free now: