Experiments Flashcards

1
Q

What was the aim Solomon Asch Line Judgement Task & what year was it in?

A

Asch wanted to investigate whether people would conform to the majority in situations where an answer was obvious.

In 1951

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

Q
How did the Asch test go?

A

Participants were presented with an image of lines and were asked to compare line lengths and verbally announce their opinion.

However, within the room there was only 1 real participant – the rest were stooges (confederates).

On some of the trials, the stooges were asked to answer incorrectly in order to see what the real participant would do.

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

What were the findings of the Asch experiment

A
  • On 12 of the 18 trials, the stooges answered incorrectly

Findings:
-75% of participants agreed (incorrectly) with the stooges at least once.
-50% of the participants agreed (incorrectly) on 6 or more trials.
-Only 25% of people disagreed on every incorrect trial.

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

What were the criticisms of the Asch experiment

A

-This is a very basic view of conformity – doesn’t explain the complexities of conformity in society.

-Sample only included men.

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

What was the Stanley Milgram Experiment

A

To find out how many people (& how far they would go)would obey an authority figure when directly ordered to violate their own ethical standards.

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

What was the process of the Milgram experiment

A
  • They were split into pairs where one person would be a “teacher” and the other, the “learner” – however what participants didn’t know was that all learners were stooges and were a part of the experiment.

-In separate rooms, “Teachers” would be asked to read out a list of questions that the “learner” was to answer – however if they got it wrong, the “learner” would be shocked by an electrode attached to their arm (or so the “teacher” thought).

-After each incorrect answer, the “teacher” would increase the voltage all the way up to 450 volts (a lethal voltage). However well before this, the “learner” would have fallen silent and unresponsive.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What were the results of Milgram experiment

A
  • 65% of participants continued through to 450 volts – even after hearing the “learner” shouting and asking to stop
  • All participants administered 300 volts
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What were the factors affecting Milgrams experiment

A

-Immediacy or proximity to the victim.
Further studies found that if the “teacher” could see the “learner”, obedience dropped.

-Immediacy or proximity of the experimenter.
Removing experimenter from room with “teacher” decreased obedience.

-Authority of the experimenter
How legit they look – wearing a lab coat & in a university setting vs casual & in a non-university setting

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

What were the limitation/criticisms of the Milgram experiment

A
  • Lacked validity as it was carried out in a lab under artificial conditions. This means that it might not be possible to generalise the finding to a real life setting.
  • Gender biased. Milgram only used males.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were strengths of Milgram study

A
  • For instance Milgram’s work gives an insight into why people under the Nazi reign were willing to kill Jews when given orders to do so. It also highlights how we can all be blind to obedience often doing things without question.
  • A strength of the study is that it used a standardised procedure because it was a lab experiment. This is good because it improves the reliability of the study and also helps establish a causal relationship.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What were some ethical considerations of the Milgram study

A

-Deception– the participants actually believed they were shocking a real person, and were unaware the learner was a confederate of Milgram’s.

  • Protection of participants- Participants were exposed to extremely stressful situations that may have the potential to cause psychological harm. Many of the participants were visibly distressed.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What was the smoke fillled room experiment (Latane and Darley) & in what year

A

As they filled out the forms, smoke began to enter the room through a small vent in the wall. By the end of four minutes, there was enough smoke to obscure vision and interfere with breathing. Darley and Latané examined how the students reacted to this smoke in two different conditions.

-In the first condition, the students were alone. When this was the case, they invariably investigated the smoke more closely and then went out into the hallway to tell someone about it.

  • But in the second condition, the students were not alone. There were two or three other people in the room, who were secret confederates of the researchers. They had been instructed to not react to the smoke. They would look up at it, stare briefly, shrug their shoulders, and continue working on the forms. If asked about it, they would simply say, “I dunno.”
  • 1968
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What were the results of the Smoke-Filled room

A
  • In this setting, according to Darley and Latané, “only one of the ten subjects… reported the smoke. the other nine subjects stayed in the waiting room for the full six minutes while it continued to fill up with smoke, doggedly working on their questionnaires and waving the fumes away from their faces. They coughed, rubbed their eyes, and opened the window – but they did not report the smoke.”
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was the festinger & carlsmith study & in what yr

A

Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) investigated if making people perform a dull task would create cognitive dissonance through “forced compliance” behaviour.

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

what occured in the festinger & carlsmith srudy

A

Festinger and Carlsmith had participants complete a very boring task of turning wooden pegs in a board ¼ turn at a time, for an hour.

One group was paid $1 to do this, and another group was paid $20.

Which group should enjoy the task more?

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was the result of the festinger & carlsmith study

A

Participants who were paid $1 rated the task as more enjoyable than participants paid $20.

The $20 group had consistent cognitions

“This is stupid, but it’s worth the money.”

The $1 group had inconsistent cognitions

“This is stupid, and it’s not worth it.”

17
Q

what was the conclusion for the festinger & carlsmith study

A
  • Being paid $20 provide a reason for turning pegs = no dissonance
  • Being paid $1 resolved the dissonance by changing their attitude about the task (they found it kinda fun)
18
Q

What was the social indentity theory (Tajfel & Turner)

A

Tajfel proposed that there were three mental processes that we use to determine and maintain who is part of our in-group and their out-group.

19
Q

what is social cateforisation: Tajfel & Turner

A

Social categorization is where we sort people into groups based of shared common traits they share.

20
Q

Social categorisation - Examples
list at least 1

A

A police officer in a crowd. Interaction level: Police – maintain order.

Someone from your tribe/ an enemy tribe. interaction level: is this a friend or an enemy (evolutionarily advantageous).

A police officer in a crowd.
Interaction level: Police – maintain order.

21
Q

what is social identification: Tajfel & Turner

A

Social identification is where we adopt the behaviour, attitudes and beliefs of the groups we belong to.

22
Q

what is social comparision: Tafel & Turner

A

Social comparison is where we compare our in-group with one or more out-groups to affirm our identity.

23
Q

what was the robbers cave experiment & in what yr

A

1961,
This experiment aimed to demonstrate the impacts of competition on prejudice formation, and strategies to reduce prejudice.

24
Q

what occured in the robber cave experiment

A

Sherif set up a fake summer camp and randomly assigned 22 boys to one of two groups.

11 years old

All white, Protestant backgrounds

Did not know each other prior to experiment.

25
Q

list & describe the stage: 1 stages of the robbers cave experiment

A

Stage 1: Group formation

Groups were kept separate from each other without knowing the existence of the other group.

Each group performed team building and bonding activities for 1 week.

The groups were asked to come up with a name for themselves:

The Eagles

The Rattlers

Eventually made aware of each other.

26
Q

list & describe the stage: 2 stages of the robbers cave experiment

A

Stage 2: Competition

The 2 groups were made aware that they were competing to win a medal and a pocket knife for each member of the group – those who came second would receive nothing.

A series of normal competitive camp
activities were held (Eg. Tug-of-war,
baseball etc.)

However this friendly competition quickly
turned into prejudice.

At the end of this stage there was a “cooling off” period during which they listed the features of their own group and the other group.

The boys tended to characterize their own in-group in very favourable terms, and the other out-group in very unfavourable terms.

27
Q

list & describe the stage: 3 stages of the robbers cave experiment

A

Stage 3: Cooperation

Researchers turned conflict into cooperation.

The groups were told that the water had been cut off to the camp – possibly due to vandals.

Both groups were sent to
investigate the problem and had
to work together to solve the issue
(a blocked pipe).

They also had to help a truck
carrying the food for the camp
which had become “stuck”.

These shared goals resulted in an end to the rivalry.

Reduced prejudice and hostility towards one another.

The Rattlers won a competition toward the end of the experiment and used the prize money to buy lollies for both groups

28
Q
A