Person vs situation

Question 1

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

Answer 1

• 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’

Question 2

Agency theory> (2)

Answer 2

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

Question 3

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

Answer 3

> 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

Question 4

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

Answer 4

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

Question 5

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

Answer 5

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

Question 6

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

Answer 6

• 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

Question 7

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

Answer 7

• 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

Question 8

Personality & assessment> (mischel, 1968)

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Overall social psych conclusions> (3)

Answer 9

> 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

Question 10

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

Answer 10

• 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

Question 11

Rise of interactionism>

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Interactionism principles> Buss (1987)

Answer 12

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

Question 13

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

Answer 13

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

Question 14

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

Answer 14

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

Question 15

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

Answer 15

• a strong personality gets a strong reaction & this becomes mutually reinforcing

Question 16

Interactionist perspective> (3)

Answer 16

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

Question 17

Interactionist research> (2)

Answer 17

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

Question 18

Solomon Asch- peer conformity (1951)> method>

Answer 18

• 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

Question 19

summary of person vs situation>

Answer 19

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