Person vs situation Flashcards

1
Q

Stanley Milgram- Obedience to authority> results (3) + (3)

A
  • 65% continued to highest level of 450 V
  • all participants continued to 300V
  • situation was most important factor:
    >yale interaction lab
    >high status authority figure ordering person to inflict punishment
    >links to agency theory: most took on ‘agentic state’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Agency theory> (2)

A

1) Autonomous state: self-directed with personal responsibility
2) Agentic state: agents for other people’s will (lets another’s will become own)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Solomon Asch- Peer conformity (1951): line judgement task> results>

A

> 32% of participants conformed with clearly incorrect majority
75% conformed at least once
25% never conformed
control group (no conformity pressure)= less than 1% incorrect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Solomon Asch- Peer conformity (1951): line judgement task> two influencing factors linking to outcome> (2)

A
  1. normative influence= pressure & desire to fit with the group despite conflict with personal judgement
  2. informational influence= assumption that the group must know more and are correct
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Albert Bandura- social learning theory & Bobo Doll experiment (1961)> aims:

A

SLT= exploring if parental role model is important part of child’s learning
Aim of bobo experiment: to discover if social behaviours can be learned via observation & imitation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Albert Bandura- social learning theory & Bobo Doll experiment (1961)> outcome

A
  • aggression group children were far more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour on bobo doll
  • boys were more physically aggressive than girls- but equal verbal aggression incidents
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Albert Bandura- social learning theory & Bobo Doll experiment (1961)> method> (4)

A
  • N=72 children with a matched pair design on aggression (aggressive, non-aggressive & control group)
    >step 1: modelling=
    -aggression group exposed to m/f model playing
    aggressively with doll
    >step 2: aggression arousal=
    -all groups exposed to MILD aggression arousal (e.g.
    desirable toy taken from child & ‘reserved’ for others) to
    induce aggressive state
    >Step 3: tested for delayed imitation:
    -children relocated to room with various toys including bobo
    & explored if children played AGGRESSIVELY & mimicked
    adult behaviours
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Personality & assessment> (mischel, 1968)

A

> in real world contexts, situation “overwhelms” behaviour every time
what we call ‘personality’ is simply situational consistency

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Overall social psych conclusions> (3)

A

> correlation analysis: coefficient= between 0.30 & 0.40, therefore not very good
Regression analysis: R-squared= only 16% of variance accounted for by individual differences> suggests personality doesnt matter/ isnt real
people struggle to accept due to “Human error”
“Human error”= bias towards a belief in fundamental consistency (of personality) that doesn’t exist which obfuscates the importance of situation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Overall social psych conclusions> response from personality psych> (5)

A
  • social psych was cherry picking weak studies to analyse
  • regression analysis & 16%: much better than chance & so low due to ‘unexplainable variations’ (human behaviour studies always less than 50%)
  • 16% personality doesn’t= 84% situation> prediction from situation roughly same
  • some people are more consistent than others (self-monitoring)
  • personality psych isn’t trying to predict discrete behaviours but looking for general patterns
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Rise of interactionism>

A

argument that ‘situationism’ is appealing because it is simple & deterministic but:
>has ethical ramifications (removes personal responsibility)
>doesnt always fit the situationist’s data

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Interactionism principles> Buss (1987)

A

person vs situation interactions occur in 3 ways:
1) selection
2) manipulation
3) Evocation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Interactionism principles> Buss (1987)> (1) selection>

A

idea different personalities tend to get themselves into different situations
(e.g. thrill seekers vs risk-aversive)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Interactionism principles> Buss (1987)> (2) manipulation

A

> Inter-personal relationship creates a dynamic which can be mutually reinforcing
(e.g. certain behaviours considered to be social norms)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Interactionism principles> Buss (1987)> (3) Evocation>

A
  • a strong personality gets a strong reaction & this becomes mutually reinforcing
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Interactionist perspective> (3)

A
  • Blend of personality & social psych
  • personality methods (self-report) dominate
  • lack of research on behaviour & particularly situational determinants of behaviour
17
Q

Interactionist research> (2)

A
  • Sherman (1994): changes in age & identity
  • Kuper et al (2022): situation characteristics & Big 5- state contingencies
18
Q

Solomon Asch- peer conformity (1951)> method>

A
  • participant grouped with 7 other ‘participants’ (stooges) & asked to take part in judgement task
  • “line judgement task”: each participant had to verbalise to the rest of the group which comparison line (A,B,C) was closest to target line, (participant was always last)
  • each participant took part in 18 trials & 12 involved stooges offering false judgement
19
Q

summary of person vs situation>

A
  • either/or = false paradigm
  • interactionist perspective offers a more nuanced approach to understanding which factor is more influential: (1) selection, (2) manipulation & (3) evocation