Case Studies

Question 1

When was Drury made?

Answer 1

2009

Question 2

Aim/Hypothesis of Drury

Answer 2

See whether participants would choose to help others, both in the in-group and out-group, or push them away

Question 3

What is Drury’s relationship to theory

Answer 3

Social Identity Theory

Question 4

Drury’s sample size

Answer 4

40 students from Uni of Sussex aged between 20-25, 7 male, rest female

Question 5

Procedure of Drury

Answer 5

Create a simulation where a train station is on fire, have two groups, one group wears a vest the other doesn’t. In order to get to safety they would have to make their way out of the train by pushing. Before starting the experiment, participants were asked to close their eyes and imagine the sights, smells, and other sensations that would be associated with such scenes. Those who were asked to wear vests were part of a group and were told that this unfolded after a football match. Those who were part of the individual group were told they had spent a long day shopping.

Question 6

Results of Drury

Answer 6

Those in a group (aka the vested people) were more likely to help others and less likely to push. While those who were on their own had a higher chance of caring for themselves and worrying less about others.

Question 7

Evaluation for Drury

Answer 7

Has high internal validity because it could control extraneous variables
Was very real in the sense that this situation could occur in real time
Had low ecological validity as they knew they were safe
Study is easy to replicate
Study avoided causing undue stress on participants -> ethical

Question 8

Aim/Hypothesis of Bandura

Answer 8

If children would pick up on aggressive behaviour by watching the behaviour of adults and if gender had anything to do with it

Question 9

Bandura research method

Answer 9

Matched pairs design
Researchers controlled aggression levels in participants

Question 10

Bandura sample size

Answer 10

36 boys and girls between 37-69 months old and one female and male adult

Question 11

Procedure of Bandura

Answer 11

8 groups with three different conditions, 6 boys with aggressive male, 6 boys with aggressive female, 6 boys with non-aggressive female, 6 boys with non-aggressive male. The girls were spilt up in the exact same way.
Then they were brought into three different rooms, the first one was were they watched how the adult behaved around the toys, the next room was where they were given the best most special toys to play with, and the third had a toy and weapons.

Question 12

Results of Bandura

Answer 12

Those who witnessed violent acts done towards the teddy by an adult had higher chances of showing aggression towards the teddy too. With higher verbal violence when the children watched the aggressive female and higher physical violence when they watched the aggressive male, this was especially the case when young boys watched a violent adult male. Children who had a non-aggressive adult was less likely to show acts of violence towards the teddy.

Question 13

Bandura evaluation

Answer 13

Sample size was small and only consisted of children whose parents worked at Stanford University
Study proves that aggression can be learned but doesn’t show if it is innate.
Study is not ethical as it could create negative long-term effects on children and it may have caused undue stress
Study was under highly regulated conditions, was not natural

Question 14

When was Bandura made?

Answer 14

1976

Question 15

When was Hamilton and Gifford made?

Answer 15

1976

Question 16

Aim/Hypothesis of Hamilton and Gifford

Answer 16

Whether false associations will be formed about a group, from focusing too much on information given

Question 17

Hamilton and Gifford sample size

Answer 17

40 American undergraduates, 20 female, 20 male

Question 18

Hamilton and Gifford research method

Answer 18

Repeated measures design

Question 19

Hamilton and Gifford procedure

Answer 19

Participants were put into two groups, group A which was larger (26) and group B (13) which was smaller. They were then shown a ppt with positive and negative statements about each member. Participants were asked to rank them on a series of traits whether that be positive or negative. Then they were told what group these participants were in and asked to re-rank the members.

Question 20

Hamilton and Gifford findings

Answer 20

Those in group A were more likely to rank each other highly and those in group B were more likely to be ranked lower. Participants overestimated the number of negative traits for the minority group, but this finding was not significantly significant.
Shows that those who were in the minority group were more likely to have their negative behaviours appear as more distinct and will be the main representative for the whole group. Thus demonstrating how minority groups may be treated more harshly.

Question 21

Hamilton and Gifford evaluation

Answer 21

As they picked people who had no exisiting stereotypes it increased the level of internal validity
Because it was highly artificial it has very low ecological validity so we cannot tell if this would really happen in real life
The study was concurrent which means it eliminated the variable of participant variability as all participants took part in all aspects of the study
The findings do show a difference but it isn’t significant

Question 22

What did Park and Rothbart want to find out

Answer 22

Social identity theory and out-group homogeneity

Question 23

When was Park and Rothbart made

Answer 23

1982

Question 24

What was the aim of Park and Rothbart

Answer 24

To see whether people who are part of an in-group would view the out-group as all the same/ in a negative light

Question 25

Park and Rothbart sample size

Answer 25

90 girls from different sororities, roughly 30 from each

Question 26

Park and Rothbart procedure

Answer 26

To fill in a survey on how they ranked their sorority group and the other sorority groups based on a number if questions such as how well dressed are they, are they studious, are they physically attractive. These responses were ranked on a scale of 7.

Question 27

Park and Rothbart results

Answer 27

Girls of their own sorority viewed their group as the most dissimilar and ranked themselves highly when it came to positive traits and lower on the more negative traits. Out-group members were seen as all of the same, and were ranked poorly, with them being ranked higher for the more negative traits and lower for the positive ones. This supports the out-group homogeneity as it shows how we view those we relate to/are apart of as more diverse.

Question 28

Park and Rothbart evaluation

Answer 28

Sample only consisted of girls who were around the same age and part of sorority groups, does not really represent the rest of the population well Can be easily replicable Has a somewhat high ecological validity as it was not done under highly regulated conditions Was natural, not regulated, participants were not investigated

Question 29

When was Steele and Arson made?

Answer 29

1995

Question 30

Steele and Arson research method

Answer 30

Independent samples design

Question 31

Steele and Arson aim/hypothesis

Answer 31

To investigate effect of stereotype threats on test performance in white and black participants

Question 32

Steele and Arson sample size

Answer 32

114 males and females all students at Stanford University

Question 33

Steele and Arson procedure

Answer 33

Participants were given a 30 min verbal test made up of very difficult multiple choice questions There were two conditions Condition one: stereotype threat condition Black people were told that it was a test in their verbal abilities/ intellectual abilities , which was expected to activate the existing racial stereotypes surrounding black students who were deemed unintelligent Condition two: non-stereotype threat condition Group was presented with the same task but was told it was on problem solving

Question 34

Steele and Arson findings

Answer 34

African Americans did poorly on the intellectual test but did just as well as the white students on the problem solving test. Which shows that they performed worse when put under a stereotype threat condition vs non-stereotype threat condition

Question 35

Steele and Arson evaluation

Answer 35

Sample was only made up of Stanford students Participant variability was limited due to the fact that it was an independent samples design, would have worked better as a matched pairs design Even though there was a difference in the two average scores does not mean that the participants experienced stereotype threat. Black people were aware of the stereotypes Stereotypes can have a negative effect on performance even if the individual does not believe in the stereotype themselves

Question 36

What was Steele and Aronson trying to find?

Answer 36

Affects of stereotype threats

Question 37

When was Joy, Kimball and Zabrack made?

Answer 37

1986

Question 38

Joy, Kimball and Zabrack aim/hypothesis

Answer 38

The role which media has on affecting the development of one’s opinion on gender role

Question 39

Joy, Kimball and Zabrack research method

Answer 39

Natural experiment

Question 40

Joy, Kimball and Zabrack sample size

Answer 40

536 children in four different communities, 130 from Note who had no access to TV, 135 from Unitel who had access to one TV station and 166 and 105 from Multitel and Vancouver who had more than one TV station

Question 41

Joy, Kimball and Zabrack procedure

Answer 41

Was a two year experiment, at the beginning children were measured for the levels of gender stereotyping using the Sex Role Differentiation and asked them to rate how appropriate or frequent certain activities are for boys and girls. Two years later they were rated yet again.

Question 42

Joy, Kimball and Zabrack findings

Answer 42

Those who had no access to TV (notel) had an increase in more gender stereotypical views on the roles of men and women during the two years. Those who had access to one TV channel (Unitel) showed a decrease in gender roles for boys but it stayed relatively the same for girls. Those who had access to any channel (Vancouver and Multitel) showed a decrease in gender stereotypes for girls but a slight increase in gender roles for boys

Question 43

Joy, Kimball and Zabrack evaluation

Answer 43

Ecological validity was high as it was not controlled and done in a natural setting. The participants were not randomly allocated to conditions is the extraneous variables were not controlled. The study is dated so it is hard to determine if the results could still be used as a reflection of modern day society. However, there is modern research backing up this study. Since data is anonymous, researchers could not compare data from phase 1 and 2 , so they were not able to see the changes in each individual child.