Social psych Flashcards
(82 cards)
1
Q
What is Sherifs (1954) study about?
A
Realistic Conflict theory
2
Q
Main beliefs of RCT?
A
- Competition for scarce resources
- Zero sum fate
- Negative interdependence
- Scapegoating
- COmpetition=matter of survival
- superordinate goals are mutually desirable goals = reduce conflict
3
Q
Supporting evidence for Sherif RCT
A
- Sherif found that competition between rattlers and eagles such as tug of war was enough to cause prejudice such as name calling. This supports RCT as competition between groups in society caused perejudice.
- RCT is reductionist as it gives a simplisitic explanantion of prejudice being caused by compeition over scarce resources like food between 2 opposing groups. This means it can be tested to find the true cause of prejudice where predictions can be made about prejudice behaviour if competition arrises in the environment
4
Q
Critical evidence for RCT?
A
- Levine found that football are more likely to help an injured stranger who tripped infront of them when theyre wearing the same colour shirt as the team they support, rather than those in a rival team shirt. THis shows competition doesnt always cause prejudice since the belonging of a group is enough.
- RCT ignores individual differences that affect prejudice such as upbringing as Rct suggests all prejduise is due to compeitition over scarce resources. This means that the idea that prejudice is due to competition over scarce resources is too simplistic.
4
Q
RCT conclusions :
A
Useful: Can lead to practical applications such as the jigsaw technique as everyone in the classroom had superordinate goals .
Less useful: Lead to social control as people may be controlled to benefit others as it gives people support in their own group
5
Q
What experiment did Sherif do?
A
Robbers Cave.
6
Q
What was the aim of Sherifs experiment?
A
See if prejudice could be caused by social groups, competition for resources and if it can be reduced
7
Q
Key features in Sherifs procedure
A
-22 boys from Okalahoma
- Aged 11-12
- Similar educational level above avg IQ
- Unaware of research
- Matched into 2 groups based on IQ + teacher rating of behaviour and sporting ability
8
Q
How was data collected in Sherif’s experiment?
A
- PPT observation (recorded derogatory terms + stereotypings)
- Socio metric analysis (measured friendship patterns)
- Experimental (measured boys performance)
- Tape recordings (analysed negative terms used)
9
Q
What was stage 1 in Sherif ex? + results
A
Ingroup formation
- 2 groups kept apart for 1 week
- Worked together to achieve common goals eg. treasure hunting
R:
Rattlers and Eagles
10
Q
Stage 2 sherif ex? +results
A
Intergroup relations (friction phase)
Exposure to other group
- completed activities like tug of war and baseball.
- Points could be earned + rewards like pocketknives for most points
R:
- Name calling
- Rattlers said ‘They better not be swimming in our swimming hole’
- Eagles said ‘we will beat them’
11
Q
Stage 3 sherif ex? + results?
A
Inter-group relations (integration)
Superordinate goals intrpduced:
- Fixing water tank
- Fix brokendown truck
- each pay to watch a film
R:
Comments such as ‘ladies first’
- Remained separate during movie
-Friendship groups changed so fricition was reduced by superordinate goals .
12
Q
What was the outgroup friendship choices at the end of stage 2 and stage 3?
Conclusion?
A
S2 : Rattlers = 6.4% Eagles = 7.5%
S3: Rattlers = 36.4% Eagles = 23.2%
Ingroup solidarity and intergoup hostility.
Contact not enough
Superordinate goals reduced friction
13
Q
Strength evaluation of Sherif robbers cave.
A
- Each boy was matched such as sporting ability to reduce the impact of invidivial differences. This is a strength because it reduces the number of extraneous variables that could affect the outcome, thus increasing the accuracy of the experiment.
- Another strength, the study used a natural setting. For example, the boys weren’t aware of the study taking place so there were no demand characteristics. this increases the ecological validity of the study, making it more accurate to the real world of how prejudice occurs.
14
Q
Weakness evaluation of Sheifs robber cave
A
- oNE WEakness is that sheifs study had a restricted sample as only 11 yo boys were used, so this study’s results may not be representative of girls or older people on how prejudice develops.
- One weakness is that the boys weren’t aware that they weren’t in a real summer camp. They did real activities such as swimming, not a psychology experiment looking at how prejudice develops. This means the study is unethical which may damage psychologys reputation as a science and deter future boys from taking part in experiments like these.
15
Q
Robber cave conlusions
A
Useful: Can be applied to society where charity events are set up so everyone works towards a superordinate goal, reducuing prejudice
nOT USEFUL: Could lead to government control such as in covid lockdown there was copeititon over scarce resources (toilet paper) which would increase pejudice.
16
Q
What is a persons social identity?
A
Their own sense of who they are based on the groups they feel they belong to
17
Q
What did tajfel and turner propose?
A
sOCIAL Idneitty theory
- We create in and outgroups in society, so the presence of another gorup can lead to prejudice,
18
Q
What are the 3 ideas of SIT?
A
- Categorisation
- Social indeitification
- Social comparison
19
Q
What is categorisation
A
The deciding of which group we belong to, dividing thr world into ‘us’ and ‘them’.
Creating ingroups and outgroups.
20
Q
What is social identification
A
Adopting the identity of the group we categorise in, conformng to the norms of that group.
This changes out behaviour and way of thinking
21
Q
What is social comparision?
A
The exaggeration of the positive qualities of ur ingroup, underestimating the qualities of the outgroup.
We show ingroup favouritism by giving resources to own groiup rather than the outgroup
22
Q
Supporiting evidcence for SIT?
A
- tHERE IS supporting evidence for SIT as Levine found that football fans are more likely to help an injured fan wearing the same colour shirt as the team they support rather than one of a rival teams colour. This suggests that groups show favourtism to the ingroup over the outgroup.]
- There is supporting evidence for SIT as Elliot found that catergorising school children into groups based on their eye colour caused conflict since there was verbal and ohysical abuse shown towards the submissive group by the dominant group. THis shows that categorising into groups is enough to cause prejudice.
23
Q
Critical evidence fOR SIT.
A
- Theres critical evidence opposing SIT as Shrif found that creating compeititon between the Ratllers and the Eagles like tug of war, was enough to cause prejudice like name calling. this shows that competition is nedeed for prejudice to arise rathe than just belonging to a group.
- Adorno found that those with an authoritarian personality were more likely to be hostile to people not in their group rthat are consdered to be of an inferiror status. This usggests that SIT is not a full explanantion of prejudice as it only focuses on group membership and not on the persons personality causing prejudice.
24
COnlcusion for SIT
Useful: Suggests that separation of groups cause prejudice so pratical applications can be applied such as charity events where everyone is working towards the same superordinate goal, reducing prejudice as there is no competition and no ingroups or outgroups.
Not useful: Groups will always naturally occur within society so we cannot always remove prejudice since those groups will always exist.
25
What is a situational factor and why is it a factor affecting prejudice?
IT is features of the physical an social environment that cld affect an individual developing prejudice attitudes.
( Both Social idetntity and RCT show factors of situationt hat lead to prejudice. )
26
What are social norms and whyre they a factor of prejudice?
Beliefs and behaviours seen as socially acceptable. For example, if a role model holds prejudice beliefs, this could lead to groups adopting the same beliefs to feel a sense of belonging.
27
Situational factors affecticting prejudice supporting evidence
(still requres critical)
1. Minard found that relationships between black and white coal miners in the usa was friendly underground but racist above ground. This shows that changes in social norms and situation can increase levels of prejudice.
2. Sherif found that creating competition between Rattlers and Eagles for scarce resources like pocketknives for winning tug of war was enough to cause prejudice. This shows tht comptition for recourses is a situational fctor that can lead to prejudice.
28
What are individual differences?
characteristics that vary from one individual to ANOTHER.
eg. personality
29
What are examples of personalities (individual difference) that can increase prejudice?
Authoritarian personality:; Those raised in a strict upbringing tend to be more discriminatory and hostile towards those seen as inferiror due to rigid belief on the world.
Right wing authoritarianism: tHEY TENd to have pejudice attitudes to certain groups like women.
RWA could develop due to being socialised to fear threatening + dangerous situations. This means it is a learnt response.
Social dominance orientation: They see the world as a hierarchy, wanting their group to come out on top.
They are likely to be prejudiced towards lower status groups.
30
Supporting evididence for individual differents relating to personality.
1. Cohrs found that RWA positively related to prejudice and negatively related to openness, showing an individuals personality is an important part of causing them to be prejudice.
2. Adorno found that those with an authoritarian personality were more likely to be hostile to an outgroup of an inferipr sttatus, suggesting prejudice is due to personality.
31
cRITICAL evidence for individual differents relating to personality.
1. Minard - Black and whire coal miners = social situation rather than personality
2. Chow looked at employee interactions and in/outgroup relationships.
He found that chinese collectivist employees were less willing to share info with outgroups compared to individualistic americans. THis shows collectivits prioritise ingroup needs over the outgroup showing prejudice.
32
What other things could be used to investigate personality?
peronsality tests
33
Cultural factors that affect prejudice
individualistic cultures: The promotion of individuals to be more autonomois and respectful of the rights of others, so theyll be more tolerant of the outgroup, so less prejudice towards others.
However, conflict between those within the same culture may occur (Interpersonal prejudce)
Collectvisit cultures: Stress importance of the group and the wellbeing + social harmony of the ingroup rather than 1 individual.
They are more likely tp be prejudice towards an outgroup to preserve harmoney in the ingroup.
Multiculturalism: Promotion of diversity and tolerance of different cultural beliefs, so is more concerned w fairness.
No group considered superior.
34
Need supporting and crit evidence for cultural factors
NA
35
Impact of different factors on prejudice conlusion
Useful: evidence for why people act the way they do, helps to undertsand and form solutions to reduce prejudice
Not useful: It could become complex and it could make u look away from practical solutions if u focus on trying to understand the diff faxtors
36
Whaty does dissent mean
wHEN A person whoes not follow the orders of an authority figure such as not sticking to speed limits.
37
What did milgram suggest?
People obey authority figures to maintain a stable society
38
What are the four aspects of agency theory
Autonomous state
Agentic Shift
Agentic State
Moral strain
39
Explain the four aspects of agency theory.
Autonomous state - free to take responsibility for our actions (free thinking - no authority figure present)
Agentic Shift - Moving between thinking autonomously and obeying an authority
Agentic State - Feeling controlled by authority figure, giving up + moving responsibility onto authority.
Moral strain - intense discomfort and stress caused by internal conflict of whether or not to obey authority to maintain A STABLE SOCIETY even if we thnk its wrong
40
Supporting evidence for Agency theory
1. theres evidence to show a presence of an authority figure causes obedience. Milgram found that ppts demonstrated moral strain as they trembled and groaned when following orders to give an electric shock. This shows people will still obey an authority figure even if they think the orders are morally wrong
2. Hofling found that 95% of nurses gave a dose of a drug that exceeded the max allowed when ordered to by a doctor over the phone. This shows people will obey an authority figure, going into agentic state
41
Critical evidence for agency theory
1. Theres evidence that authority figures aren't the only cause of obedience. Sedikides and Jackson foudn 60% of visitors complied when in groups of one or two but only 14% in groups of 5 or 6. This shows obedience may be influenced when n.o of targets is greater than n.o of sources and not just going into agentic state in presence of authority figure
2. Adorno found those with an authoritarian personality were more likely to obey those with a higher status. This suggests agency theory is a limited explanation as it doesn't account for impact of personality, only going into agentic state in the presence of an authority figure.
42
agency theory conclusion
Useful: It can explain historical events such as atrocities in WW1 and for solutions on how to prevent this.
nOT USEFUL: can be used as social control as theory explains how to achieve obedience.
43
What did mILGRAM want to understand?
how Nazi soldiers during WW2 could behave so inhumanely twowards Jews and others as a result of 'following orders'
44
What was Milgrams study's aim?
Test if 'germans are different'
45
8 Key features of Milgrams study
-40 males, aged 20-50
- took place at Yale uni
- Mr wallace = research confederate strapped to chair
- Experimenter wore labcoat and stayed stern
- Mr wallace had predetermined responses
- 15V shock encrements
- Mr wallace fell silent and stopped pounded at 300-315V
- Experimenter used prods like 'please continue'
45
Results of Milgras study of obedience
- 100% gave 300v shock
- 65% (26) gave the 450V shoc
- Signs of sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, seizures in 3 ppts.
46
Conclusion after Milgrams experiment
In the presence of an authority, people will make an agentic shift from autonomous to the agentic state (supressing values and taking no responsibility for their actions0 , causing moral strain
47
Strengths for Milgrams shosck study
1. P) One strength is that the procedure was standardised (E ) The prods were scripted and the same for each participant (C) This means that the study can be replicated to check the consistency of the findings into obedience to authority.
2. (P) The study is high in controls (E) such as all ppt saw Mr Wallace being strapped into the chair/all received the 45v shock to minimise the effect of extraneous variables such as having a different experience whilst being tested.
(C) This means the findings are higher in validity and therefore an accurate explanation of how we respond to authority.
48
Weakness for Milgrams shoc study
1. (P) The sample was restricted as it was androcentric so may not be representative of other genders and how they obey (E) as it only contained 40 males from New Haven, aged 20-50.
(C) This means the findings may not be generalisable to the wider population’s obedience to authority for example to older adults, children and females.
2. (P) One weakness is that there was qualitative data (E) such as ppt having seizures or laughing nervously, which is subjective as it needed interpreting by the researcher.
(C) This means the findings could be biased and may not be a valid and accurate explanation of obedience to authority.
49
Conclusion for Milgrams shock study
Useful: can explain historical events such as atrocities in WWII and help us understand how it can be presented
Not useful: can be used as social control as theoru explains how to schieve obedience
50
What was Milgrams experiment 7 and its aim?
Telephonic instructions
- Testing physical proximity on the lvele of obedience
51
Milgram experiment 7 Procedure and results.
40 male ppts given orders over phone after giving it face to face initially.
Results:
Obedience dropped 22.5% (9/40) were willing to deliver 450V.
52
What was Milgrams experiment 10 and its aim?
Run down office block
See if changing setting from Yale uni to run down office block would change obedience.
53
Milgram exp 10 results and procedure
Used downtown office suite sparsely furnished.
40 Males chosen through mailshot recruitment.
Results: Obedience dropped to 47.5% (19/40) compared to 65% in the original experiment.
One ppt left a note 'heartless.'
54
What was milgrams experiment 13
Ordinary man gives orders
55
Milgrams experiment 13 procedure and results
There were 2 confederates, the experienter left the room and the confederate in the room began giving orders to the teacher to increase the shock lvl by 15V each time.
Results: Obedience levels dropped to 20% (8/40) copared to 65% in original study.
56
MILgram exp 13 strength
1. One strength is that the procedure was standardised because the confederate always suggested a 15v increase, once Mr Williams had left. This means that the study can be replicated to check the consistency of the findings into responses to authority of a peer.
2. The study is high in controls such as the experimenter received a phone call, where they had to leave to minimise the effect of extraneous variables such as having a different experience whilst being tested.
This means the findings are higher in validity and therefore an accurate explanation of how obedient the ppt is to a peer.
57
milgram exp 13 weakness
1. The sample was restricted as it was androcentric so may not be representative of other genders and how they obey.
This means the findings may not be generalisable to the wider population’s obedience to authority for example females and how obedient they may be to an ordinary man.
2. One weakness is that the study lacked ecological validity as the task and situation was artificial because all ppt were asked to electrocute another person, by someone who was previously their peer.
This is a weakness as the findings about obedience towards an ordinary man
58
Milgram exp 10 strength
1. One strength is that the procedure was standardised because all ppt came to the same run-down office block. This means that the study can be replicated to check the consistency of the findings into responses to authority in a less prestigious setting.
2. One strength is that there was quantitative numerical data such as 47.5% of ppt went up to 450v, collected which is objective as can be statistically analysed without bias.
This increases the validity as more accurate conclusions about how the setting can change obedience
can be gained.
59
Milgram exp 10 weakness
1. The sample was restricted as it as androcentric so may not be representative of other genders and how they obey.
This means the findings may not be generalisable to the wider population’s obedience to authority for example to females and how they behave in a less prestigious setting
2. One weakness is that there was qualitative data such as ppt stated the research was heartless, which is subjective as it needed interpreting by the researcher.
This means the findings could be biased and may not be a valid and accurate explanation of how people respond to authority in an everyday environment.
60
Milgram exp 7 weakness
1. The sample was restricted as it was androcentric so may not be representative of other genders and how they obey.
This means the findings may not be generalisable to the wider population’s obedience to authority for example how females may react to instructions given over the phone.
2. One weakness is that the study lacked ecological validity as the task and situation was artificial because ppt were given instructions to electrocute someone over the phone.
This is a weakness as the findings about physical proximity and how that affects obedience may not be applied to natural obedience.
61
Milgram exp 7 strength
1. One strength is that the procedure was standardised because all verbal prods were given over the phone. This means that the study can be replicated to check the consistency of the findings into obedience to authority when they are not physically present.
2. The study is high in controls such as all were given instructions initially face to face and then over the phone to minimise the effect of extraneous variables such as having a different experience whilst being tested.
This means the findings are higher in validity and therefore an accurate explanation of how we respond to authority when they are not present.
62
What is social impact theory?
Changes that occur in a person due to the presence or actions of others.
63
What are the 8 factors in social impoact theory?
Sources
Tergets
Number
Strength
Immediacy
Multiplication effect
Law of diminishing return
Divisonal effect
64
What is law of diminishing return?
Less impact when a group is bigger than 3.
added 1 person to group of 2 has bigger impact than adding a person to a group of 52.
65
What is divisional effect
obedience lvls reduce if there are more ttargets than sources
66
What is multiplication effect
INcreasing the number, strength and imedicacy of the source increase the social infulence making tagrtes more obedient
67
SITOB Strength
Authority figure with status + knowledge
= more influence
68
SITOB: Immedicacy
Obedience higher if
source is known figure or in close proximity
69
Sources
person influencing others
70
Taregts
those being influenced
71
SITOB: Number
more sources saying same thing
= more influence + obedience
But if source group is bigger than 3, each one has less impact
72
What is the mathematical model of Social impact theory
(peoples tendency to shift individual attitudes towards group norms)
i = f (SIN)
SOCIAL impact ( i )
is dependent on the function (f)
, strength of source ( s )
immediacy of source ( I )
+ Number of those affected ( N )
73
Social impact theory Strength eval
1. Point: A strength of SIT is that there is evidence to show that legitimacy of the authority figure affects obedience.
Example: Sedikides and Jackson (1990) found that participants complied with the zookeeper, in the bird house more (58% above baseline) than the non-uniformed person (35% above baseline).
Comment: This supports SIT in showing that people value the legitimacy of the authority figure when obeying.
2. Point: A strength of SIT is that there is evidence to show that proximity of the authority figure affects obedience.
Example: In variation 7 of Milgram’s research only 22.5% of participants went up to 450 volts as the instructions were given over the phone.
Comment: This supports SIT in showing that when authority figures are closer in proximity, targets are more likely to obey.
74
Social impact theory weakness eval
1. Point: A weakness of SIT is that there is evidence to show that immediacy of the authority figure does not affects obedience.
Example: Hofling (1966) found that 95% of nurses gave a dose of a drug that exceeded the max allowed when ordered to by a doctor over the phone (against hospital rules).
Comment: This criticises SIT in showing that people do not need to have immediacy when following authority and obeying orders.
2. Point: A weakness of SIT is that there is evidence to show that immediacy, strength and number aren’t the only factors that affects obedience.
Example: In Milgram’s variation 10 47.5% people went to 450 volts when instructed to do so, in a run-down office block.
Comment: This shows that situational factors like surroundings also have an impact on obedience, not just strength, number and immediacy.
75
Social impact theory - conclusion
Useful : Practical application such as using a supply teacher studenys are familiar with to increae obedience and influence
nOT USEFUL: Can be used for social control, such as army in town wld increase obedience
76
Factors affected obdeince and dissent - SItuational
Situational - (legitmacy and proximity)
Eval - Milgram exp 13
- Burger model refusal condition = 63% obedienct
CRit: Adorno personality = obedience
Blass
77
Factors affecting obedience + dissent
Perosnality
Personality :
Authoritarian = high obedience bc harsh upbringing
Locus of control : high = see theselves responsible for their own behaviour (resistant to obedience)
Strength : Miller found those with external locus of control more likely to pick up live wire as apposed to those with internal locus.
Adorno found authoritarisn more liekly to obey sm1 with higher status
(debunks agency as no relation to personality)
Weakness:
Sheridan + king - 54% of males and 100% of females continued to give shocks to puppy, showing gender relates not personality/
Burher found model refusal condition 63% ppts were obedeint. (people follow behavioural norms not just presence of authority.
78
Fcators affecting obedience + dissent Gender
Gender socialisation = a child learns norms + roles of thier gender
Females = caring + nurturing (more obedient)
Males = strong + independent (less obedient)
Strength =
Sheridan + king (puppy)
Killham (replicated milgram, males =40% females=16% obedient)
Weakness -
Burger found little difference in obedience f=72.7% m=66.7%
Blass = 35% had internal locus so personality is a factor not gender.
(Milgrams study)
79
Factors affecting obedience + dissent Cultural factors
Individualistic - Less obedient as they seee their own personal success more important than wellbeing of group
Collectivist - More liekly to be obedient to maintain social order.
(value group decision)
Power distance index - whether society follow hierarchy/power whithin society.
(High PDI = more obedient)
Supporting evidence:
kILLHAm found obedience levels 28% in Aust (Low pdi score)
Dolisnki found obedicne 90% High pdi score
Critical evidence: Blass = internal locus in milgram study, so persoanlity
Blass found 60.94% in USA and 65.94% elsewhere of obedience. SO cilture may have little impact as it is a universal trait.
80
Fcators affecting obdeience and dissent conclusion
Usefuk : practical apps like teachers increasing their legitmacy
Not useful: Many factors cant be changed easily such as personality (authoritraian)
