Social Psychology Flashcards
(37 cards)
1
Q
What was the background and aim of Milgram’s study?
A
- Parents were killed in concentration camps
- Wanted to find out if obedient behaviour of German SS officers in WW2 was different than in America
- Aim: to investigate how far people will go in obeying an authority figure when the instructions given are morally wrong
Hitler could not have put plans into action without obedience of thousands: do Germans have a personality defect? – readiness to obey authority without question
2
Q
What method did Milgram use, and who was his sample?
A
-
Lab experiment - however has no IV but has DV; could be described as a controlled observational study
- DV: max. shock (quantitative) and behaviour (qualitative)
- also included a minor questionnaire and interview
-
Self-selected sample
- 40 males aged 20-50
- mixed occupations
- obtained through newspaper ad with offer of $4.50
3
Q
Describe the confederates and apparatus used in Milgram’s study
A
- Confederates:
- 31-year-old high school biology teacher wearing a grey technician’s coat, with an impassive manner and somewhat stern appearance
- 47-year-old accountant of Irish-American stock, trained for the role, generally found to be likeable
- Shock generator with switches from 15-450V
- 315V - Extreme Intensity Shock
- 375V - Danger: Severe Shock
- 435V - XXX
4
Q
Describe the procedure for Milgram’s study
A
- Subjects were told the topic of study was the effect of punishment on memory (in Yale University), and drew paper slips with the confederate to allocate parts of ‘teacher’ and ‘learner’ (rigged, subject always teacher)
- Confederate strapped into chair and electrodes connected
- Subject lead to another room with the shock generator switches
- Subject given a sample shock of 45V to convince the subject of the authenticity
- Subject read out word pairs, then read out one word and four possible pairs; learner selected correct pair using switches that lit up the number of his answer
- Subject had to shock the learner for an incorrect answer, with increasing voltage each time
- Learner complained of heart trouble and demanded to be let out, stopped giving answers after 300V
- Experimenter (in a lab coat) used a series of ‘prods’ if the subject expressed a wish to discontinue the experiment
5
Q
What were the 4 prods the experimenter used when the subject expressed a wish to discontinue the experiment? (Milgram study on obedience)
A
- Please continue or Please go on
- The experiment requires that you continue
- It is absolutely essential that you continue
- You have no other choice, you must go on
If subject said the learner did not want to go on:
- Whether the learner likes it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.
6
Q
What were the results of Milgram’s study?
A
- 26/40 (65%) went to the highest voltage
- 5 stopped after 300V
- 4 stopped after 315V
- 2 stopped after 330V
- 1 each 345-375V
- Nervous laughter - three had ‘full-blown seizures’, one so violent the experiment was halted
- High tension - subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into their flesh
7
Q
What can be concluded about obedience from Milgram’s study?
A
- Anyone can show this level of obedience (not specific to Germans)
- However, tension and stress may arise if the orders go against morals
- The prestigious location (Yale), scientific grounds and dress (lab coat) of the experimenter increased obedience (other studies were done outside of Yale and with the experiment casually dressed)
- Payment did not affect obedience as such (subjects were told payment was simply for coming to the lab and not for whatever happens in the experiment; the experiment had been run with unpaid undergraduates with similar results)
- Agentic state - the experimenter has the responsibility, the subject is the tool and just follows orders
8
Q
Evaluate Milgram’s study
A
- Generalisation: no, small sample (40), all educated, volunteering-personality males from New Haven, not representative of target population
- Reliability: high, shown by Germans and other experiments done by Milgram
- Validity: high, good way of measuring
- Ecological validity: low due to lab setting and ridiculous task, high as setting and personnel looked authentic
- Ethics: low - deception, psychological harm, subjects not screened for medical issues; however, high - debriefing, right to withdraw, follow-up questionnaire one year after
- Usefulness: high, changes attitude to authority and obedience
9
Q
What was the background and aim of Zimbardo’s study?
A
- High recidivism (reoffending) rates show prisons neither rehabilitate nor act as a deterrent for future crime, and are ‘bad’ places - but why?
- Aim: challenge the dispositional hypothesis that ‘the state of the social institution of prison is due to the “nature” of the people who administrate it, or the “nature” of the people who populate it, or both’, and instead put forward a situational hypothesis.
- This is part of the nature/nurture debate
10
Q
What method was used in Zimbardo’s prison study?
A
Lab experiment - a simulated prison in the basement of a Stanford University building
- IV: role - prisoner/guard
- DV: interactions between and within groups (recorded on audio and video tape and directly observed), reactions on questionnaires, mood inventories, personality tests, daily guard shift reports and post experimental interviews
11
Q
Who was Zimbardo’s sample?
A
Self-selected sample
- 75 males responded to a newspaper ad offering $15 per day for participation in ‘a psychological study of prison “life”’
- 24 subjects selected after extensive psychological screening
- 2 reserves were not needed, 1 person pulled out
- 10 prisoners and 11 guards used (roles were randomly assigned)
12
Q
Describe the physical aspects of Zimbardo’s simulated prison environment
A
- 35-foot section of a basement corridor in psych building at Stanford
- small cells (6x9 ft.) made from laboratory rooms with doors replaced by steel barred, black painted ones, and all furniture removed
- prisoners given a cot with mattress, sheet and pillow
- solitary confinement: small (2x2x7 ft.), unlighted closet
- several rooms in the adjacent wing of the building used as guard’s quarters, bedroom for warden and superintendent, interview-testing room
- yard was an enclosed room representing fenced prison grounds
- observation screen at one end of the yard
13
Q
Describe the uniforms of the prisoners and guards in Zimbardo’s study
A
Prisoners:
- loose fitting muslin smock with id number on front & back (deindividuating), no underwear (emasculating)
- light chain and lock around one ankle (reminder of oppressiveness)
- rubber sandals
- nylon stocking cap (removed distinctiveness, like shaving hair)
Guards:
- plain khaki shirts and trousers (military attitude)
- whistle, police night stick (symbols of control and power)
- reflecting sunglasses (eye contact impossible)
The use of uniforms was to promote feelings of anonymity, reduce individual uniqueness and enhance group identity
14
Q
Describe the induction procedure for the prisoners in Zimbardo’s study
A
- arrested by real police on Sunday morning at the subject’s home (embarrassing as neighbours looked on)
- charged for burglary or armed robbery, read their legal rights, handcuffed, searched and driven to the police station
- police avoided answering questions about the prison study
- fingerprinted, ID file, placed in detention cell, blindfolded then driven to mock prison by an experimenter and guard
- at prison, stripped, deloused, made to stand alone naked in the yard before given uniform and mug shot taken
- after all prisoners were put in cells, warden read the rules
15
Q
Describe the treatment the prisoners received during Zimbardo’s study
A
- “count” three times a day (once on each of three guard shifts) - prisoners tested on rules and ID numbers (counts increased in duration as guards became more hostile)
- after the first day, guards established “rewards” (eat, sleep, toilet, talking, smoking, eyeglasses) and “punishments” (confinement, no meals)
- prisoners were generally harassed by the guards
- rebellion on 2nd morning dealt with by using fire extinguishers, stripping the prisoners naked, taking the beds out and forcing some prisoners into confinement
16
Q
Describe the behavioural results shown by the guards in Zimbardo’s study
A
- always showed up on time for work, voluntarily working with no overtime pay
- active role assumed in interactions, with verbal agression
- not all guards resorted to hostility, but none objected to hostile behaviour of other guards
- most hostile guards spontaneously took leadership roles
- talked about prison topics in break times
- agression not only in response to perceived threats - a guard vigorously pounded his nightstick into his hand while watching over the sleeping prisoners
- pathology of power demonstrated - control was exhilarating
- most guards appeared distressed when experiment was stopped early
17
Q
Describe the behavioural results shown by the prisoners in Zimbardo’s study
A
- as experiment progressed, intentions to do harm to others were expressed more frequently
- self-evaluations were more deprecating as the experience of prison life became internalised
- zombie-like, learned helplessness due to dependency on guards
- five prisoners had to be released due to extreme depression, crying, rage and acute anxiety, and in one case a psychosomatic rash
- private conversations almost all (90%) related to prison conditions
- 3/5 prisoners willing to forfeit money for early parole after four days, and did not object when told that discussions with staff must be held before a decision was made
- prisoners deprecated each other in interviews
- some prisoners were ‘obedient’, one coped by refusing to eat, others became ‘sick’ as a passive way of demanding attention and help
- all prisoners were delighted by the experiment stopping early
18
Q
What can be concluded from Zimbardo’s simulated prison study?
A
- both groups conformed to and believed their roles, and went beyond the expectations of role-playing
- as all subjects were similar, ‘good’ people, this proves that situational factors determined the subjects’ behaviour rather than dispositional factors, though there were some individual differences
19
Q
Evaluate Zimbardo’s study
A
- Generalisation: yes, as all prisoners were similar, proving situational factors affect everyone
- Reliability: high, as other experiments support the situational hypothesis
- Validity: possibly low as Zimbardo acted as the warden and so became a subject, not objective
- Ecological validity: high, due to close resemblance to a real prison, confirmed by real ex-prisoner
- Ethics: low, extreme emotional distress, no immediate right to withdraw; however, high as consent given, explicit instructions for no physical harm, subjects informed to expect no privacy and some basic civil rights suspended, subjects were debriefed
- Usefulness: high, as demonstrates flaw in penal system and that there should be a limit to power
20
Q
What was the background and aim of Piliavin’s study?
A
- 1964 murder of Kitty Genovese and apparent apathy of 32 witnesses
- Darley and Latené
-
Aims:
- test diffusion of responsibility in the field by examining relationship between size of group and frequency and latency of helping (Darley and Latené only in lab)
- look at effect of type and race of victim on speed, frequency and race of responder(s)
- investigate impact of modelling in emergency situations
21
Q
What method did Piliavin use, and who was the sample?
A
-
Field experiment and non-participant, naturalistic observation: New York subway on trains between 59th and 125th street (weekdays 11am - 3pm) (7.5 minute ride)
- IVs: type of victim, race of victim, modelling
- DVs: frequency, speed, race, sex of helpers
-
Self-selected sample (naïve)
- 4450 men and women
- 45% black and 55% white
22
Q
Describe the procedure for Piliavin’s study
A
- 103 trials run by four different teams (65 cane, 38 drunk)
- 2 male and 2 female Columbia General Studies students
- team boarded train using different doors
- females sat outside critical area and observed, males stood, victim next to a pole in the center of the critical area
- after first station (70 seconds) victim staggered forward, collapsed and remained supine on the floor looking at the ceiling until help given by bystander or model (in model condition)
- if no help given on train’s arrival, model helped him to his feet
- team disembarked and went on train in opposite direction (all trials on a given day were in the same victim condition)
23
Q
Describe the victims used in Pilliavin’s study
A
- Gender and age: males aged 26-35
- Race: three white, one black
- Dress: Eisenhower jackets, old slacks, no tie
- Conditions:
- ‘drunk’ - on 38 trials, victims smelled of liquor and carried a liquor bottle wrapped in a brown bag
- ‘cane’ - on 65 trials, victims appeared sober and carried a black cane
24
Q
State the model conditions used in Piliavin’s study, and describe the behaviour of the models
A
- Critical area - early (4th station / 70 seconds after victim collapse)
- Critical area - late (6th station / 150 seconds after victim collapse)
- Adjacent area - early
- Adjacent area - late
- model raised victim to a sitting position and appeared to need further assistance
- stayed with victim until train’s arrival
25
List the observations made in Piliavin's study
1st observer:
* Race, sex and location of people in critical area
* Total no. of people in the car
* Total no. of helpers
* Race, sex and location of every helper
2nd observer:
* Race, sex and location of people in adjacent area
* Latency of first helper after collapse and (when appropiate) after model assistance
Both recorded:
* comments made, and tried to elicit comments from a rider sitting next to them
26
Describe the results of Piliavin's study
* Cane: spontaneous help on 62/65 (95%) trials
* mean helping time 5 seconds
* Drunk: spontaneous help on 19/38 (50%) trials
* mean helping time 109 seconds
* 90% of first helpers were male
* 64% of first helpers were white
* 68% white first helped white victim
* 50% white first helped black victim
* Less same-race helping than expected, but more prominent in drunk condition
* More than one spontaneous helper on 60% of spontaneously helped trials
* Total of 34 critical area leavers on 21 trials, more likely on drunk trials and when help was not offered before 70 seconds
* Comments included not knowing what to do; women commented they were not strong
* No diffusion of responsibility
27
What did Piliavin conclude from his subway study?
* emotional arousal state in bystanders, reduced by:
1. helping or getting help
2. leaving the scene
3. rejecting the victim as undeserving of help
* cost-reward matrix (selfish, not altruistic motives)
* costs to help (effort, time, embarassment, disgust, harm) / not (self-blame)
* rewards to help (praise, good feelings) / not (continue other activities)
* diffusion of responsibility not found as costs for helping are low and for not helping are high (more investigation needed)
* late model elicits less help as people have already reduced arousal by other methods
28
Evaluate Piliavin's study
* **Generalisation: yes**, large sample, ethnically and gender mixed
* **Reliability: high**, can be replicated
* **Validity: low**, some people may have seen trial twice due to typical travel plans, enclosed environment so forced to help
* **Ecological validity: high**, field experiment, naturalistic observation
* **Ethics: low**, no consent, emotional arousal causing stress
* **Usefulness: high**, adds to academic knowledge about helping behaviour and diffusion of responsibility, explains reasons for helping
29
What was the background and aim of Tajfel's study?
* Study by Muzafer Sherif (1956) suggested prejudice arose as a consequence of competition
* Tajfel believed that even a perception of grouping can produce discrimination
* **Aim:** Test hypothesis that 'we are likely to act in a manner that discriminates against the outgroup and favours the ingroup
* Study 1: test hypothesis on basis of categorisation into minimal groups
* Study 2: validate study 1 using different critera for categorisation
30
What is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?
* Prejudice is an attitude, and "may be socially learned or due to tendencies to conform"
* Discrimination is the act of favouring one group over another, and is "a function of the objective social situation"
31
What method did Tajfel use, and who was the sample?
* **Lab experiment:** at the University of Bristol
* IV: grouping (randomly allocated)
* DV: choice of points allocated on matrices
* Repeated measures design (as all boys are both in-group and out-group, and each judged against their relevant out-group)
* **Probably opportunity sampling (not specified):**
* Study 1: 64 boys aged 14-15 from a comprehensive school in a suburb of Bristol (from the same house in the same form, so they knew each other well)
* Study 2: 48 boys from the same school as Study 1
32
Describe the procedure for study 1 in Tajfel's *Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination*
* Boys came in separate groups of 8
* Brought to lecture room and told that the experimenters were studying visual judgements, and flashed 40 clusters of varying numbers of dots on a screen
* Two conditions told to the subjects
* Over- and under-estimators
* Better and worse accuracy
* Boys told which group they were in (actually random allocation of group)
* Boys worked in cubicles filling in booklet to allocate rewards and penalties (1 point = 0.1p)
* booklet contained 18 sets of matrices
* one matrix had 14 boxes with two rows
* never reward/penalise themselves
* unknown identity by code number
* Three possible options:
* Ingroup choices: both matrix rows referred to members of the ingroup
* Outgroup choices: both matrix rows referred to members of the outgroup
* Intergroup choices: One row referred to a boy of the ingroup, the other row referred to a boy of the outgroup.
33
Describe the results shown by study 1 in Tajfel's *Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination*
* fair allocation for ingroup and outgroup choices
* favoured ingroup member in intergroup choices
* choices were ranked from 1 to 14 (1 being maximum given on first row, 14 being maximum given on second row)
* 7.5 for ingroup and outgroup
* 9.2 for intergroup (significant difference)
34
Describe the procedure for study 2 in Tajfel's *Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination*
* Boys came in groups of 16
* Boys shown 6 slides of Klee paintings and 6 slides of Kandinsky paintings (validating Study 1 by using different group division criteria) (was actually done arbitrarily)
* Boys worked in cubicles filling in booklet to allocate rewards and penalties (1 point = 0.1p)
* never reward/penalise themselves
* unknown identity by code number
* Same as study 1: ingroup, outgroup, intergroup
* Matrices differently structured to investigate three variables:
* Maximum joint profit (MJP)
* Maximum ingroup profit (MIP)
* Maximum difference (MD)
* Two types of matrix:
1. MIP one end, MJP at other end, MD mirrored
2. MIP and MJP at same end, MD mirrored
35
Describe the results shown by study 2 in Tajfel's *Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination*
* Strong effect of MIP and MD against MJP (type A matrices)
* Strong effect of MD against MIP and MJP (type B matrices)
* MD had strongest effect overall
36
What can be concluded from Tajfel's *Experiments in Intergroup Discrimination*?
* Discriminatory behaviour can be induced by categorisation on unimportant criteria
* Discrimnation works for maximum difference between the ingroup and outgroup
* Choices made were a compromise between "groupness" and "fairness"
* However, this is a **reductionist** explanation as many other factors can affect discrimnatory behaviour
37
Evaluate Tajfel's study
* **Generalisation: no**, only boys, all same age, same school therefore similar attitudes
* **Reliability: high**, similar results for both studies
* **Validity: low**, demand characteristics
* **Ecological validity: low**, lab experiment, unusual task (could be amended by e.g. looking at discrimination in hiring for jobs)
* **Ethics: low**, deception, no debriefing; **however, high** as no harm done
* **Usefulness: high**, supports social identity theory (favouring ingroup for increaased self esteem), reveals causes for prejudice
