1: SOCIAL Flashcards

Question

Who proposed the social impact theory and when?

Answer 1

Latané in 1981

Answer 2

Increasing the strength, immediacy and/or the number of sources increases the impact of the source. Increasing the strength, immediacy and/or the number of targets decreases the impact of the source.

Answer 3

Once the group is bigger than three, each additional person has less of an influencing effect.

Answer 4

Sedikides & Jackson (1990) carried out a field experiment in the bird house at a zoo. A confederate told groups of visitors not to lean on the railings near the bird cages. The visitors were then observed to see if they obeyed. If the confederate was dressed in the uniform of a zookeeper, obedience was high, but if he was dressed casually, it was lower. This demonstrates varying Social Force, in particular S (Strength) because of the perceived authority of the confederate. As time passed, more visitors started ignoring the instruction not to lean on the railing. This also shows Social Force, especially I (Immediacy), because as the instruction gets less immediate it has less impact. Divisions of impact were also studied. Some visitors were alone but others were in groups of up to 6. The larger the group size, the more disobedience was observed.

Answer 5

Hofling et al. (1966) found that 95% of nurses obeyed to takes orders of doubling a patients medical dosage over the phone despite the source not being present.

Answer 6

There’s a growing body of research supporting Social Impact Theory. In addition, the theory also makes sense of a lot of Classic studies from the ‘60s and ‘70s that used to seem unrelated – like Latané & Darley (1968) into diffusion of responsibility, Tajfel (1970) into intergroup discrimination and Milgram (1963) into obedience. In hindsight, all of these studies can be seen as looking at different aspects of Social Impact. There have been more recent additions to Social Impact Theory. Latané et al. (1996) developed Dynamic Social Impact Theory to pay attention to how minorities and majorities influence each other, such as how people tend to change their views to match the group they are in but why they sometimes “stick to their guns”.

Answer 7

Social Impact pays a lot of attention to the characteristics of the person giving the orders but not much to the person receiving them. For example, there may be personality types that are particularly compliant (go along with anything) or rebellious. A person may be happy to go along with some sorts of orders but draw the line at others – such as orders that offend them morally or embarrass them socially. A similar problem is that Social Impact Theory treats people as passive. It proposes that anybody will do anything if the right amount of Social Force is brought to bear on them. However, people sometimes obey orders while at the same time subverting them. An example might be Oskar Schindler who handed Jewish employees over to the Nazis during WWII while secretly helping many others to escape.

Answer 8

The idea of a mathematical formula to calculate Social Impact is very useful. Latané believes that, if you know the number (N) of people involved and the immediacy (I) of the order and the strength (S) of the authority figure, you can calculate exactly how likely someone is to obey (i) using the formula i = f (SIN). This means you can predict whether laws will be followed, whether riots will break out and whether 9B will do their homework. The theory suggests if you want to get people to obey, you need to direct Social Force at them when they are in small groups and ideally stop them getting together into large groups. This is why some repressive governments try to stop people using social media and gathering for public meetings. Because orders need to be immediate it is important to repeat them often and put them on signs, TV adverts and regular announcements.

Answer 9

Social Impact Theory is credible because studies back it up. (AO1) Sedikides & Jackson who gave orders to visitors at a zoo. Large groups of visitors were more likely to disobey, which shows division of impact. The mathematical formula has a clear application. You could use it to work out exactly how likely someone is to disobey in any situation. (AO1) The formula i = f (SIN) can be used so long as you know how many people (N) are involved. Social Impact Theory is much more complex than Agency Theory. (AO1) It includes the different sorts of authority suggested by French & Raven, such a referent authority. However, Agency Theory includes some things that Social Impact Theory ignores, such as moral strain. (AO1) Milgram explains why his participants cried and fainted, but Social Impact Theory only looks at how likely people are to obey, not how they feel about it. Conclusion Social Impact is a theory that covers a lot more than just obedience. It also explains diffusion of responsibility. This makes it a bit of a vague theory. It’s not a theory of obedience in particular, unlike Agency Theory.

Answer 10

- Personality - Situation - Gender - Culture

Answer 11

LEGITIMACY Reducing the authority figure's perceived legitimacy reduces obedience e.g. dress code. PROXIMITY Increased distance between the authority figure and the participant decreases obedience. BEHAVIOUR OF OTHERS Witnessing disobedience in others increases defiance. Meeus and Raajmakers (1955) found obedience drops when the experimenter is absent (36%) and when two peers rebel (16%) - however personality is also important.

Answer 12

Schools use psychology to bring about obedience. School uniform is a good way of deindividuating students, which should make them more obedient (according to Zimbardo, 1968). Of course, this strategy can backfire. There is the danger that deindividuated students will end up obeying the wrong authority figures, like bullies and trouble-makers. Isolation also increases obedience, so separating students from their friends and sitting them far apart helps (and small class sizes make it easier to do this). This also makes it easier for the teacher to be physically close to students - especially naughty ones who like to sit at the back - because distance from the authority figure increases disobedience. Prestigious settings improve obedience. Some teachers put symbols of authority on or near their desks - flags, awards, certificates and so on. Teachers try to look prestigious, with suits, ties and formal dress codes. Milgram's Variations support this strategy, although Milgram is clear that being physically nearby is more important for an authority figure than just looking physically imposing.

Answer 13

- Authoritarianism The more authoritarian the personality, the greater the shocks administered. The F-scale (Adorno et al (1950). It was noted that high scores on this scale were associated with receptivity to fascist ideology (extreme intolerance based on right-wing political perspective). Elms asked 20 obedient and 20 defiant Pps to complete the F-scale; the average F-scale scores were significantly higher in the obedient than the defiant Pps. This is supported by a further study by Dambrun and Vatine (2010) using a virtual simulation of Milgram’s study, where lower levels of authoritarianism were associated with dissent and withdrawal from the study. - Internal and external locus of control Some people have an “internal locus of control”, meaning that they take greater responsibility for their actions, as they believe they are in control of what they do and what happens to them, other people have a more external locus of control, meaning that they take less responsibility for their actions and feel that what they do and what happens to them is governed more by the situation and other people around them, circumstances which they believe are out of their control. Those with internal locus of control will be more likely to be defiant, those with external locus of control will be more likely to be obedient. The data on this is very contradictory but Blass has re-analysed data collected by Holland (1966) for example and found evidence to suggest that the “internals” are more likely to drop out earlier than “externals”.

Answer 14

Sheridan and King (1972) devised a study where participants were asked to deliver shocks to a puppy, women were 100% obedient, men were 54% obedient.

Answer 15

Kilham and Mann (1974) devised a Milgram replication study where men were 40% fully obedient and women only 16% fully obedient.

Answer 16

That males use an 'ethic of justice' and females are inclined to an 'ethic of care'.

Answer 17

Individualist cultures encourage people to pursue their own personal fulfillment and happiness; they value independence and autonomy (freedom to choose)

Answer 18

Collectivist cultures encourage people to find fulfillment through family, work and tribe; they value duty and put the needs of the group above the needs of the individual

Answer 19

Hofstede’s Power distance Index measures the extent to which the less powerful members of organizations and institutions (like the family) accept and expect that power is distributed unequally. For example, Germany has a 35 on the cultural scale of Hofstede’s analysis. Compared to Arab countries where the power distance is very high (80) and Austria where it very low (11), Germany is somewhat in the middle. Germany does not have a large gap between the wealthy and the poor, but have a strong belief in equality for each citizen. Germans have the opportunity to rise in society. On the other hand, the power distance in the United States scores a 40 on the cultural scale. The United States exhibits a more unequal distribution of wealth compared to German society. As the years go by it seems that the distance between the ‘have’ and ‘have-nots’ grows larger and larger.

Answer 20

Australia (low PDI 36/100) 28% fully obedient. Poland (higher PDI 68/100) 90% obedient. - shows cultural dimensions do correlate with obedience.

Answer 21

This theory was proposed by Tajfel and Turner in 1979,1986. Social Identity Theory (SIT) says we get our self-esteem from the groups we belong to. It opposes “Realist” theories because it suggests that group membership by itself is sufficient to create prejudice, without any need for competition over resources. It’s widely recognised that people tend to identify with their groups. They also tend to have negative views about some other groups – “outgroups”.

Answer 22

People place themselves in groups which creates in- and outgroups, and prejudice. seeing yourself as part of a group. As well as a personal identity (who you see yourself as) everyone has a social identity (the groups they see themselves as being a part of). Social identity may involve belonging to groups based on your gender, social class, religion, school or friends.

Answer 23

An individual changes their behaviour and thinking to fit with the group norms. once you have a social identity, you automatically perceive everyone else you meet as either part of your ingroup (the ones who share the same social identity as you) or the outgroup. You pay particular attention to ingroup members and adopt their values, attitudes, appearance and behaviour.

Answer 24

Self-esteem is boosted by perceiving the in-group as superior and outgroup as inferior. this is viewing your social identity as superior to others; it comes from regarding the products of your ingroup (the things your ingroup does, their attitudes or utterances) as better than the products of an outgroup. This leads to prejudice and, if you have the power to influence the outgroup, it will lead to discrimination too.

Answer 25

The most famous research into SIT was carried out by Tajfel et al. (1970). These experiments were known as “Minimal Groups” studies, because Tajfel was looking at groups that people had the minimal possible reason to feel loyal to. Tajfel recruited Bristol schoolboys aged 14-15 and divided them into minimal groups. In one study, this was done by showing them dots on a screen and telling some boys they had over-estimated and others they had under-estimated the number of dots; in another Tajfel showed the boys paintings by the artists Paul Klee and Wassily Kandinsky, then telling some boys they had shown preference for one, some boys the other. (Can you imagine anything a 14-year-old boy could care less about?) In fact, the boys were assigned to groups randomly but they were not told this. The boys were given the task of assigning points from a book of tables (Tajfel called them “matrices”). Each matrix offered different allocations of points to a pair of anonymous boys. The points converted into money – 10 points became 1 pence – but the boys didn’t know which people they were giving points to. The boys would be fair if they were allocating points to two outgroup members or two ingroup members. However, if allocating to an ingroup AND an outgroup member, they awarded more points/money to boys in their own group – ingroup favouritism. If the boys had to choose beween maximum joint profit (an arrangement which awarded the most possible points/money to the two anonymous boys) and maximum difference (an arrangement that awarded more points/money to their ingroup), they would choose maximum difference. They would do this even if it meant awarding their ingroup less than the maximum ingroup profit would have done. In other words, they would shortchange their ingroup, so long as it gave them an opportunity to do better than the outgroup. Picture Tajfel concludes that outgroup discrimination is easily triggered – just perceiving someone else to be in an outgroup is enough to do it. There was no need for the boys to be in competition – they chose competitive options even when the matrices gave them fair options as well. The boys would choose fair splits of points some of the time, but Tajfel suggests this is less likely to happen when the groups are not “minimal groups” – when they are based on something more important than counting dots or liking artists.

Answer 26

The “Minimal Groups” studies that support SIT have been criticised for using artificial tasks that lack ecological validity. However, Tajfel would contend that, if boys will be discriminatory over trivial and pointless tasks like this, how much more likely are they to discriminate when something important is at stake! Another criticism of the studies is that adolescent boys are naturally competitive and the matrices looked like a competition of some sort. The boys may have assumed Tajfel wanted them to “win” at this game. When participants spoil an experiment by acting in the way they think (rightly or wrongly) that the researcher wants, this is called demand characteristics. There are gaps in the theory, such as why some people cling to social identity for their self-esteem more than others. A theory of personality like Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality might explain this better.

Answer 27

Strategies that increase people’s sense of personal identity may reduce prejudice, especially if they raise self-esteem at the same time. Counseling (especially using Cognitive Therapy) may be one way of doing this. Religion sometimes gives people a sense of self-worth, but it can also create a very powerful sense of social identity and lead to some of the worst discrimination. Encouraging people to see themselves as part of a larger social identity can combat outgroup discrimination. Some people think teaching “Britishness” in schools may reduce conflict between groups, if they all see themselves as British citizens. However, this may backfire if it leads to more conflict with people who are seen as “un-British”. Again, religion can bring together people of many nationalities and backgrounds. As St Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28). Other religions make similar appeals, but they can also create discrimination against non-believers. or interventions to increase self-esteem may help to reduce prejudice. Fein and Spencer 1997

Answer 28

Description Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed by Tajfel & Turner. It says that between groups is based on the need for self-esteem and happens even when there is no conflict over resources. Social categorisation is when you see yourself as part of a group which becomes your ingroup. Tajfel thinks your self-esteem is linked to how successful your ingroup is. Social identification is when you take on the attitudes, behaviours and values of your ingroup. It might include dressing or acting like other ingroup members. Social comparison is when you see your ingroup as better than the outgroups you meet. You over-value the products of the ingroup and under-value the products of outgroups, leading to prejudice. Evaluation SIT is supported by Tajfel’s “Minimal Group” studies which showed how boys will discriminate about outgroups even when social identity is based on something as irrelevant to them as modern art. However, these studies are artificial because the boys had to assign points from books of matrices to strangers, which is not like real-life racism or sexism which normally involves treating actual people badly. On the other hand, Tajfel would say if the boys were prepared to discriminate against anonymous boys on over pennies on the basis of differences in art, how much more likely they would be to discriminate when there are important things at stake. Personality is a variable SIT doesn’t take into account. Adorno suggests that Authoritarian Personalities are much more likely to discriminate because their self-esteem is more strongly linked to their social identity. Conclusion SIT suggests that intergroup conflict comes from an irrational side of human nature that will always be with us. It is depressing to think that, even if we can abolish hunger and poverty, prejudice will still exist so long as there are groups

Answer 29

Social Identity Theory (SIT) would explain that the teenagers have different social identities and view each other as belonging to outgroups. Because of Social Comparison they discriminate against outgroups, which explains the name-calling. They do this because their self-esteem is tied in with their group being best. The college staff could get the teenagers to focus on how they all love the same film so really they all belong to the same ingroup. Then the werewolf-fans wouldn’t threaten the vampire-fans self-esteem. The staff could give the teenagers a different outgroup to focus on, like a competition against another college. Then the other college would be the outgroup and the teenagers would “pull together” and see themselves as one big ingroup.

Answer 30

Two or more groups competiting for the same goal. prejudice and hostility intensify. (Sherif 1966)

Answer 31

Out group hostility and in-group solidarity arises in contests where only one group can win.

Answer 32

Realistic conflict theory states that whenever there are two or more groups that are seeking the same limited resources, this will lead to conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and discrimination between the groups. The conflict can lead to increasing animosity toward the groups and can cause an ongoing feud to develop.

Answer 33

Superordinate goals are mutually-desirable goals that cannot be obtained without the participation of two or more groups.

Answer 34

Cruel jokes about unemotional Germans and frog-eating French have grown less common since the creation of the EU, with British, French and German people trading and working together. They have more superordinate goals so the prejudice has decreased. After the 2015 Paris attacks, British football fans sang the French national anthem in Wembley. The superordinate goal of defeating ISIS meant that negative stereotypes about the French disappeared.

Answer 35

Sherif carried out the famous “Robbers Cave” study that showed Realistic Conflict in action. This is the Classic Study in Social Psychology so you will be learning about it elsewhere. In the 1970s, the Michigan National Election Studies survey gathered data on attitudes towards a government plan to merge schools and bus white children to schools alongside black children. In these surveys, white respondents opposed the idea of their children being schooled alongside African Americans. RCT would say this is because the white families felt that the privilege they enjoyed (wealth, better education, better career prospects) would be threatened if they had to share it with the children of black families. If RCT is correct, you would expect negative prejudices to increase when there was a shortage of resources. Christine Brain (2015) describes the conflict between Russia and Ukraine as a conflict over who controls the supply of gas to Europe, since Russian pipelines have to pass through Ukrainian territory. John Duckitt (1994) argues there are two types of realistic conflict, depending on whether or not the two groups have equal power. Standard Realistic Conflict is between two “peer groups” who are equal but competing. Sometimes an ingroup will be in conflict with an outgroup that has low status and isn’t a real threat. This is “domination of the outgroup by the ingroup”. The dominated group might accept their inferior status or might resent it. The powerful ingroup decides whether the rebellion is unjustified (leading to prejudice) or justified (leading to social change).

Answer 36

The “Robbers Cave” study was carried out on American schoolboys, not on adults. Testosterone and upbringing might make schoolboys especially likely to form tribes and be competitive. There’s a danger in generalising from them to adult behaviour. Attitude surveys suffer from a “chicken and egg” problem of validity. Which comes first, the prejudice or the perception of competition? Bigoted people will often create the idea of competition to justify their prejudices, but the prejudices may in fact come first. This is the insight from Social Identity Theory.

Answer 37

The idea of superordinate goals has a clear application for reducing prejudice and discrimination. The ingroup and outgroup need to work together towards something that is valued by both of them; then they see each other as members of the one group, with a shared goal of achieving resources through cooperation. This is how Sherif defused prejudice in “Robbers Cave”. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis applies here, because prejudice will be reduced if group members get to mingle freely with the outgroup and question their own stereotypes. It is important that leaders and authority figures support this mingling. This is the base of multicultural education that brings children into contact with other children of different ethnicity. Schools often have days where they celebrate the religion, food and dress of minorities.

Answer 38

Description Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) was developed by Sherif. It says that there is conflict between groups rather than cooperation and this happens for real reasons, like a lack of resources to go round. When competition occurs, prejudice forms. Scarce resources may be water and food but also things like money, jobs, places in schools or even social resources (like friends). This might explain “bitchiness” in school friendship groups. John Duckitt goes a bit further, suggesting that conflict can happen even when an outgroup has lower status and isn’t really a competitor over resources. This is because the low-status group might resent the high-status group but the high-status group doesn’t think this is justified. Conflict can be reduced if the ingroup and outgroup work together towards superordinate goals. This is when they start cooperating rather than competing to achieve the resources they want. Evaluation RCT is supported by studies like Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study, which showed groups of boys getting into conflict when they were put into competition. Sherif used superordinate goals to remove the competition and the boys became friendly again. This has a clear application because RCT says you can reduce prejudice by getting people from different groups to meet and work together in a spirit of cooperation. Allport’s Contact Hypothesis says if groups mingle they will lose their stereotypes. Social Identity Theory has a completely different view. It says prejudice happens automatically when groups form and doesn’t require any competition. SIT is supported by Tajfel’s Minimal Groups study where the boys discriminated against the outgroup even though they didn’t have to. They did this by assigning points in an unfair way. Conclusion RCT suggests there is a real reason for group conflict (or at least group members believe there is a real reason) but SIT suggests there is something instinctive and irrational about prejudice. RCT ignores this irrational side to human nature which is studied by Tajfel, Adorno and Milgram.

Answer 39

Social Identity Theory (SIT) would explain that the teenagers have different social identities and view each other as belonging to outgroups. Because of Social Comparison they discriminate against outgroups, which explains the name-calling. They do this because their self-esteem is tied in with their group being best. The college staff could get the teenagers to focus on how they all love the same film so really they all belong to the same ingroup. Then the werewolf-fans wouldn’t threaten the vampire-fans self-esteem. The staff could give the teenagers a different outgroup to focus on, like a competition against another college. Then the other college would be the outgroup and the teenagers would “pull together” and see themselves as one big ingroup.

Answer 40

- Personality - Situation - Culture (read the text book page for this)

Answer 41

To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced. Specifically, to see if two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through competition and then conflict resolution by working together.

Answer 42

The IV is the stage of the experiment: (1) ingroup formation, (2) friction phase and (3) integration phase This is a Repeated Measures design.

Answer 43

Intergroup behaviour was measured by observing the boys behaviour and friendship patterns and tape recording their conversations and recording the phrases they used; also the boys filled out questionnaires on their attitudes to their own group and the other group.

Answer 44

24 participants (11-year-old boys) who were selected by opportunity sampling. They were split into two evenly-matched groups of boys . The boys called themselves the “Rattlers” and the “Eagles”. Two boys later left (from the Eagles) due to homesickness, reducing the sample to 22 by the end of Phase 1.

Answer 45

The boys arrived on separate buses and settled into their cabins on two sites. They were unaware of the other group, thinking they were alone at the park. Each group junior camp counselors (college students earning money during the summer) who lived with the boys and supervised their activities and senior camp counselors who were participant observers who stayed with the boys for 12 hours a day. Sherif was very clear that he did not want his observers to influence the boys in any way: Nobody is to be a leader to the boys ... or interact with subjects in any way that they might contaminate the group dynamics that they are there to observe - Muzafer Sherif Ingroup Formation lasted a week. Each group had tasks to accomplish (eg a treasure hunt with a $10 prize). During this time the boys gave their groups names and discovered the existence of the other group; they immediately requested a baseball game against the other group. The friction phase involved a tournament between the two groups. This involved sports like baseball, tug-of-war and scavenger hunt but also experimental tests, like a bean-counting competition. A trophy was promised for the winners along with prizes like knives and medals. In the integration phase, Sherif tried to bring the two groups together. He tried “mere contact” by allowing the groups to have dinners and watch films together in the recreation hall. When this failed, he took a different approach, blocking the water pipe to the camp which forced the boys to work together to find the broken portion of pipe. Other tasks involved choosing films to watch together, cooperating to pull a (supposedly) broken-down truck and pitching tents with missing parts.

Answer 46

Sherif found that the boys required little encouragement to be competitive. As soon as they found out about another group in the park, they resorted to “us-and-them” language and wanted a baseball match – so the boys themselves initiated the start of the friction phase. Picture In the friction phase, the two groups met for baseball and name-calling started immediately. The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ flag and the Rattlers retaliated by doing the same. After their second flag was destroyed, the Rattlers did a night raid on the Eagle’s cabins, stealing comics and overturning beds The Eagles launched their own raid, but brought bats with them for maximum destruction When the Eagles won the tournament, the Rattlers stole their prizes (medals and knives) The two sides met for a fight, but the camp counsellors intervened and this phase ended. Picture In the integration phase, the shared films and meals deteriorated into name-called and food-fights. The shared task fixing the water pipe produced cooperation, but another food fight followed. However, each shared task led to reduced hostility. By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.

Answer 47

Sherif regards the study as proving his hypotheses about intergroup behaviour – especially Realistic Conflict Theory. The groups formed quickly, with hierarchies (“pecking orders) and leaders, without any encouragement from the adults. When the groups meet in competitive situations, ingroup solidarity increases as does outgroup hostility. “Mere presence” by itself doesn’t reduce outgroup hostility. Friction is reduced when the two groups are forced to cooperate, negotiate and share. Sherif calls this working towards “superordinate goals” An important conclusion from the study is that, although intergroup conflict is inevitable when competition is present, it can be reduced.

Answer 48

22 boys is not a large sample. In a sample this small, any anomalies (boys with unusual characteristics, like violent bullies) skew the results. However, Sherif went to lengths to screen the boys beforehand, removing any from troubled backgrounds or with antisocial behaviours. Only boys were used, so the results may not generalise the girls or mixed sex groups. Crucially, they were all children, so the results may not generalise to adults. The boys were supposed to be “all American” types: white, bright and sporty. This wasn’t entirely representative of young Americans back in the ‘50s and it certainly isn’t representative of America today, where whites make up 50% of school intake, with the other 50% being Hispanic, African American and Asian American.

Answer 49

Since it involves observation, there are problems with reliability in this study. The observers were only with the boys for 12 hours a day and could not see or overhear everything that went on. Despite this, Sherif took pains to make the study more reliable. He used a numbered scoring system for the boys’ friendship patterns, which collected quantitative data. He also used multiple observers on occasions, creating inter-rater reliability. Where possible, he tape recorded the boys’ conversations, so they could be played back and analysed later. Certain aspects of this study could be replicated, such as the bean-counting test along with the tournament and the prizes. However, other procedures were developed by Sherif “on the fly” as events developed (for example, the boys themselves requested the baseball match and Sherif had to intervene to prevent a fight). These things might happen differently if the study was replicated again. In the light of the findings by Frances Cherry (1995) about the mutiny in the 1953 study, Sherif's reliability is put in doubt, since he got different results on different occasions.

Answer 50

The study shows how competition and frustration creates hostility towards outgroups. In society, this suggests that discrimination and violence could be reduced if jobs, housing, education and other opportunities were shared more fairly between different groups, such as ethnic groups or social classes. This is the basis for a lot of Left Wing political thinking. The study also shows that hostility can be reduced if groups are made to interact and work together towards common goals. It is not enough for them to be “mere presences” living alongside each other. This suggests ghettos should be discouraged and immigrants should be made to take up the host culture’s language, education and pastimes. This is the basis for a lot of Right Wing political thinking.

Answer 51

Sherif claimed that, by using several different research methods (observing, tape recording, tests, quantitative as well as qualitative data), he was making his study more valid. The study has ecological validity, because these were real boys at a real summer camp, doing real activities. Even the specially created tasks (fixing the broken water pipe, pulling the truck) seemed real to the boys. There were some unrealistic features, such as the camp counselors not intervening until the boys were actually ready to fight each other. Although this is a field experiment, it lacked a Control Group. Sherif does not have a “normal” summer camp to compare his camp to. It may be perfectly normal for food fights and raids to happen in summer camps where the counselors aren’t imposing much discipline. It may be normal for such boys to end up as friends after 3 weeks, regardless of whether they are given special tasks to carry out. In other words, Sherif may have exaggerated how much of the boys’ behaviour was due to intergroup factors. If Michael Billig (1976) is correct, Sherif misunderstood the findings of his own study, because he hadn't realised the experimenters made up a third group in the camp, the group with the most power. This casts doubt on the validity of Sherif's conclusions. Gina Perry (2014) also argues that the observers had a much bigger influence on the boys than Sherif intended. She points out that the Rattlers took their name from an incident where a senior counselor pulled out a gun and shot two snakes, which very much impressed the boys.

Answer 52

The boys did not give valid consent to be in this study and do not seem to have been debriefed afterwards – they never realised they were being experimented on. This certain fails to respect their autonomy (because they had no choice) and dignity (because they were tricked and put through some upsetting conflicts). They were deceived about the broken water pipe being an accident and the food truck breaking down. They were also subjected to risk (because there was vandalism, theft and nearly a serious fight) which the experimenters did little to mitigate. However, the researchers dropped their professional detachment when a serious fight nearly broke out and intervened to prevent it; this is an example of scientific integrity. However, the boys’ parents were aware that this camp was some sort of psychology project and they did give presumptive consent on their sons’ behalf. However, they were asked not to visit the camp and check up on their sons, so they couldn’t be informed about everything that was going on. The boys could withdraw from the study and in fact two of them did go home in the first week. It’s debatable whether the boys were harmed by this study. There were raids and food fights. One boy had his comics stolen. A fight with weapons very nearly broke out. However, these might be typical events in American summer camps, especially in the rough-and-ready culture of the 1950s (knives were used as prizes, which would never happen today). The boys seemed to enjoy themselves, which suggests the harm they were exposed to was no greater than what they would be exposed to in their normal lives. However, Gina Perry (2014) argues that the boys had unhappy experiences because the camp counselors did not intervene to protect or guide them and that some of them still look back on their time at Robbers Cave will bad feelings. Sherif could also be defended by pointing to the common good served by this sort of research. By understanding intergroup conflict, we are better able to prevent it or defuse it. This is social responsibility in research.

Answer 53

Sherif’s study has high ecological validity. The 22 boys were at a real summer camp (Robbers Cave in Oklahoma) and had no idea anything unusual was going on. Activities like pulling the truck seemed real to them. Sherif’s study is also valid because he used different methods, like observing and tape-recording the boys. He collected quantitative and qualitative data about their behaviour. For example, he scored their outgroup friendships at the end of the friction and integration phases and found the Rattlers went from 6.4% to 36.4%. However, some parts of the study were unrealistic, like the bean-counting test, asking questions about their friendship choices and camp counselors not imposing discipline. Gina Perry (2014) describes the counselors doing unusual things, like photographing the boys raiding cabins rather than putting a stop to it. The boys would have sensed how odd this was and this may have made them react strangely to the situation. Because the boys didn’t realise they were in an experiment, this means they couldn’t give informed consent. Sherif also deceived them (eg telling them the truck was broken when it wasn’t really). However, it might be that nothing went on at Robbers Cave that wouldn't happen at any summer camp for boys in the 1950s. It's natural enough for boys to form gangs, fall out then make up over 3 weeks. In conclusion, Sherif tried to observe the boys without influencing them in any way. Its debatable whether he succeeded. On the one hand, his observers did nothing to prevent bullying and violence, which created an unusual atmosphere and put the boys at risk. On the other hand, the adults couldn't help influencing the boys. Gina Perry claims the Rattlers took their name from watching one adult shoot snakes with a gun.

Answer 54

To find out if the same results as Milgram’s 1963 study re-occur when the study is replicated with modern participants in 2009. Also, to see if personality variables like empathy and locus of control influence obedience. Finally, to see if the presence of a disobedient “model” makes a difference to obedience levels.

Answer 55

The main IV is the base condition (same as Milgram, 1963) compared with the “model refusal” (rebellious partner) condition. This is an Independent Groups design. It compares the 2009 participants with the 1960s participants and it also compares the control group with the disobedient model group.

Answer 56

Obedience is measured by how many volts the last shock to be delivered was - before the participant refused to go on, exhausted all the “prods” or reached 150V (whichever happened first)

Answer 57

70 participants (a mixture of men and women) did the experiment, being randomly put into the two conditions. They were a volunteer sample, recruited through newspaper and online ads and fliers left in libraries. They were paid $50 before the study started. They were aged 20-81. Burger actually recruited a lot more participants but screened many of them out. He dropped volunteers who had heard of Milgram’s original experiment, who had attended more than 2 Psychology classes, who had anxiety issues or drug dependency. It was a two-step screening process: those with psychological knowledge were screened at the start before even attending; those with drug or emotional issues were screened through a questionnaire when they arrived (but they still got paid, even though they didn't do the study!).

Answer 58

The procedure replicates Milgram’s variation #5 on his baseline study. The experimenter is a white man in his 30s; the confederate (learner) is in his 50s. The script resembles Milgram’s but the test shock that the participant receives is only 15V rather than Milgram’s painful 45V. The participant/teacher watches the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room. The teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter directs the teacher to deliver a shock, starting at 15V and going up in 15V intervals. The learner indicates he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful. At 75V the learner starts making sounds of pain. At 150V the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains. If the teacher moves to deliver the 165V shock, the experimenter stops the experiment. In the “model refusal” condition, a second confederate pretends to be a second teacher. This teacher delivers the shocks, with the naïve participant watching. At 90V the confederate teacher turns to the naïve participant and says “I don’t know about this.” He refuses to go on and the experimenter tells the naïve participant to take over delivering the shocks.

Answer 59

Burger found that 70% of participants in the baseline condition were prepared to go past 150V, compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation #5. This sounds like a big difference but it is not statistically significant given the number of people involved. Picture Burger also compared men and women but didn’t find a difference in obedience. Women were slightly less likely to obey in the “model refusal” condition but this was not statistically significant. Empathy did not make a significant difference to obedience. However, in the base condition, those who stopped at 150V or sooner did have a significantly higher locus of control (but this was not the case in the “model refusal” condition).

Answer 60

Burger concludes that Milgram’s results still stand half a century later. People are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values. my partial replication of Milgram’s procedure suggests that average Americans react to this laboratory situation today much the way they did 45 years ago - Jerry Burger Burger makes the assumption that any participant who was willing to go beyond 150V would have been willing to go all the way to 450V the way Milgram’s participants did. He argues that their “self perception” would have made them do this. People like to see themselves as consistent; once they had made a decision to ignore the heart condition, they would not go back on that. The “model refusal” results were not very different from the base condition. This is odd because Social Impact Theory suggests the impact of the authority figure would be lessened if divided between two teachers rather than focused on one. Milgram found less obedience in this condition, but he used two rebellious models, not one. Empathy didn’t make a difference to obedience, which goes against what Milgram thought and what Burger expected. Participants who were high in empathic concern expressed a reluctance to continue the procedure earlier than did those who were low on this trait. But this early reluctance did not translate into a greater likelihood of refusing to continue - Jerry Burger However, locus of control did make a bit of a difference, suggesting some people resist the agentic state. However, this disappeared in the “model refusal” condition and Burger doesn’t have a definite explanation for that. It is not clear why the presence of the refusing model would underminethis tendency. One possibility is that the base condition may have represented more of a me-versus-him situation that consequently triggered a desire to assert personal control - Jerry Burger

Answer 61

Burger’s sample of 70 people is larger than Milgram’s sample of 40. It covers a wider age range (Milgram recruited 20-50 year olds, Burger 20-81 year olds) and two thirds of Burger’s sample were women, whereas Milgram’s were all male. However, when you add up all Milgram’s samples across all his Variations, there are much more than 70 and Milgram did test women in Variation #8. Burger also excluded a lot of people from his final sample; for example people with emotional issues or some education in Psychology. This may have affected the results and Milgram used a wider range of types of people.

Answer 62

Milgram’s original procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated. In 1974, Milgram published the results of his 19 Variations, which all replicated his baseline 1963 study. Burger is replicating aspects of Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy) and Variation #17 (model refusal) as well as Variation #8 (testing women). Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible and used the same confederates every time. By filming the whole thing, Burger adds to the inter-rater reliability because other people can view his participants’ behaviour and judge obedience for themselves.

Answer 63

The study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. Authority figures should wear symbols of authority (uniforms) and justify their authority with reference to a “greater good”. Testing people for locus of control might identify those most likely to be disobedient – people with a strong need to be in control are less likely to take orders. Social Impact Theory suggests strategies for increasing the pressure on these people to be obedient.

Answer 64

Milgram’s study was criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. This criticism still applies to Burger’s study. In other ways the study is valid. Because the participants were paid fully in advance, we can be fairly sure it was social pressure that made them continue shocking, not a cost/benefit calculation about whether they personally would gain or lose money. However, stopping the study at 150V may be invalid. Perhaps participants who were prepared to go to 165V would still have dropped out later. It is a huge assumption to say they would have continued to 450V. The “model refusal” group, in particular, might have had second thoughts as the shocks got stronger.

Answer 65

Burger believes his study avoids the ethical problems of Milgram’s original. Burger screened out participants who were likely to be distressed by the study. The Experimenter was a trained clinical psychologist who could identify signs of distress and would stop the experiment if anyone seemed to be disturbed by what was happening.. The study was approved by the university Ethics Panel, who had the power to shut it down if it looked like anyone was being harmed. Burger reduced the test shock from a painful 45V to a mild 15V. He also stopped the study at 150V so he didn’t force anyone to “go the distance” to 450V, which reduced many of Milgram’s participants to tears (and three of them fainted). Nonetheless, there are still ethical criticisms. Burger deceived his participants just as Milgram had done – the shocks weren’t real, the learner’s cries were a tape recording, the learner and second teacher were confederates. He did not get informed consent (as with Milgram, this was advertised as a memory study), although he did debrief participants afterwards. The BPS Ethical Guidelines say participants must not be distressed; even though no one was reduced to tears, the procedure was surely distressing for at least some participants.

Answer 66

Burger’s study has problems with ecological validity just like Milgram. Giving electric shocks to a learner is artificial and doesn’t happen in real life. That means the study doesn’t really tell us about why people obeyed the Nazis. In fact, the situation is so bizarre it might not tell us anything about the participants' normal behaviour. However, Burger did improve the validity by paying the participants $50 in advance. He also advised them three times that they could withdraw and still keep the money. This removes the confounding variable in Milgram's original research that some of them might have continued because they were worried they would lose the money (a cost/benefit analysis, not real obedience). Burger’s biggest problem is that he stopped the study at 150V and assumed that anyone who was prepared to go on would have gone to 450V. This is Burger's "150 Volt Solution" but it might not be a correct assumption, especially in the “model refusal” condition where participants might have had second thoughts and backed out later. However, Burger did this to make the study more ethical than Milgram. Delivering the higher shocks to a learner who seems to be dead was very distressing for Milgram’s participants and Burger spared his participants having to do this. He also screened out people with emotional issues and made sure the experimenter was a clinical psychologist who could identify distress and stop the experiment if the participant showed signs of suffering. Conclusion Burger did what was supposed to be impossible – replicating Migram ethically. He settles the debate about whether you would get Milgram’s same results in the 21st century – you would! However, he leaves a lot of questions, such as why empathy didn’t make people stop and why the “model refuser” had so little impact.