1 - Social Psychology Flashcards

Question

What percent of participants went to the full 450V on Milgram’s experiment?

Answer 1

+ Good external validity - Milgram argues the lab reflected wider authority relationships IRL. + Supported by future replication - French TV 2010, results and behaviour reflect Milgram. - Ethics - participant was deceived, but this was needed to get valid results and avoid demand characteristics. They believed they were harming the student - Extreme emotional stress (biting nails, sweating etc.) One participant even had a seizure due to stress

Answer 2

Proximity Location Uniform

Answer 3

Blaming the person giving the order for any negative consequences of one's actions

Answer 4

The opposite of the agentic state - we feel a sense of responsibility for our own actions

Answer 5

Agentic Shift

Answer 6

Binding factors - aspects of the situation which allow the person to ignore or minimise the damages effect of their behaviour and thus reducing the “moral strain”

Answer 7

An explanation of obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey those who we believe to have authority over us. This relates to social hierarchy.

Answer 8

+ Cultural difference - people less obedient in Australia - 16% went to 450V, Germany was more obediant - 86%. Cultural difference increases validity. + Application - explains how obedience leads to real life war crimes. Legitimate authority becomes destructive (Hitler etc.) - Milgram showed this and went against participants’ conscious. Explains how obedience leads to war. - People blindly follow orders - Battalion 101.

Answer 9

A type of personality that Adorno argues was susceptible to obeying people in authority. They are submissive to higher status and dismissive to inferior

Answer 10

Extreme respect for authority. Show contempt for people they perceive as having an inferior social status. They have highly conventional attitudes towards sex, race and gender. Society is “going to the dogs” - they believe they we need strong, powerful leaders to reinforce traditional values. Believe in traditional values such as love of country, religion and family. Inflexible outlook on life - no “grey areas” - everything is either right or wrong

Answer 11

How someone’s personality affects obediance

Answer 12

1950. He believed that a high level of obedience was basically a psychological disorder and tried to locate the causes of it in the person’s personality. Studied more than 2,000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. He creates the F-Scale. If you score highly you’re a strong Authoritarian.

Answer 13

``` Strict discipline Impossible high standards Conditional love - depends on child’s behaviour An expectation of absolute loyalty Severe criticisms of perceived failings ```

Answer 14

Locus of control | Social support

Answer 15

+ Research supports the authoritarianism personality as an explanation for obedience. Elms conducted interviews with a small sample of participants who had been obedient in Milgram’s study. They found higher levels of authoritarianism compared to those who did not obey. They saw Milgram as more admirable than the learner, which did not happen with those who did not obey. This suggests that those who obeyed in Milgram’s study were higher than authoritarianism traits. Reliability. - This is a limited explanation of obedience as it cannot explain obedience in the majority of a country’s population. In pre-war German, millions of people demonstrated racist and anti-semitic views despite the fact that there would have been multiple different personalities, it is extremely unlikely they would all possess the same personality. This is a limitation and it is better explained by social identity and an alternative explanation is more realistic. The majority of German people would identify with the anti-semitic Nazi state. Internal validity. - There are issues regarding the methodology of the F scale as a measure of authoritarianism. Greenstein describes the F scale as comedy of methodological errors. For example, the scale has been criticised as they are all written in the same direction. Meaning you can get a higher score from just ticking the same line of boxes. This means that people who agree with the items on the scale are not necessarily authoritarianism. It is merely measuring people tendency to,agree with things. Internal validity. - You cannot establish cause and effect with obedience and authoritarianism based on Adorno’s research. The F scale questionnaire found a significant correlation between variables. For example, authoritarianism is strongly correlated with prejudice against minority groups. However, Adorno could not claim that authoritarianism is the cause of obedience as you cannot establish cause and effect with correlations. Validity.

Answer 16

Internal - the person believes their behaviour is caused primarily by their own personal decisions and efforts External - the person believes their behaviour is caused primarily by fate, luck or other external circumstances

Answer 17

He redid Milgram’s study Internal people were less obedient - greater resistance to authority 37% or internals L.O.C didn’t complete the experiment 23% of external L.O.C didn’t complete it This increases the validity of L.O.C explanation - explains resistance

Answer 18

They analysed over 40 years of data It showed that people have become more external as well as resistant to obedience. Challenges link between internal I.O.C and resistant behaviour. This could be down to changing society where things are out of personal control.

Answer 19

+ Higher internal L.O.C are less likely to conform or obey. People are more self-confident, intelligent, achievement-orientated and have less need for social approval. These traits lead to greater resistance to social influence. - The role of L.O.C in resisting Social Influence is exaggerated. Rotter (1982) says it only comes out in novel (out of the ordinary) situations and has little influence on usual/normal behaviour. This point is often overlooked.

Answer 20

Pressure to conform can be reduced if there are others not conforming. It enables the participant to be free to follow their own conscience.

Answer 21

Pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person seen to disobey. Rates dropped 55% when a participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. They see them as a model - it frees the participant to act from his own conscience.

Answer 22

+ research support - resistance to conformity. Allen and Levine (1971) - conformity decreased when there is one dissenter in an Ash-type study. Even happened when descent towards thick glasses and said he had difficulty with vision. Reliability. + research support - resistance to obedience. Gamson et al (1982) - dissenting peers showed more resistance than Milgrom study. This is probably because they were in groups. 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled. Reliability.

Answer 23

A form of social influence in which a minority group of people influence others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. This leads to internalisation (ISI).

Answer 24

Commitment Flexibility Consistency

Answer 25

Green-blue study 6 people, 2 were confederates giving the wrong answer. On 8.4% of trials, participants gave the same wrong answer. 32% of participants gave the same wrong answer at least once

Answer 26

Synchronic Consistency - everyone in a minority saying the same thing Diachronic Consistency - saying the same thing over time

Answer 27

Doing daring things - risk taking for their cause - increases influence As shown by Fathers 4 Justice

Answer 28

Nemeth (1986) The more flexible you are to the majority, the more they will be influenced. He created an experiment based on a mock injury and 4 people, 3 participants and needed to agree on a compensation amount for the victim. The 4th one was the confederate and he had to persuade them on a low amount. The more he was flexible the more the others agreed (were influenced)

Answer 29

The more dangerous or rules broken by the minority, the more attention and publicity they receive.

Answer 30

An increase in people shifting from majority to minority

Answer 31

When a population forgets how society changed to form what it is today, but they remember it used to be different

Answer 32

Research support for consistency: + Moscovici - consistent minority report had a greater effect than inconsistent + Wood - meta-analysis showed Consistency is a major factor in M.I. + Research support for depth of thought: Change to minority involves deeper idea processing than change to majority. Min to maj is more likely than maj to min. Martin et al proved this. Research support for internalisation: Moscovici - Answers written down (private) - more people agreed with minority than when answers were public. - Artificial tasks: Moscovici’s study lacked external validity - they are limited in what they can tell about minority influence in real life situations. Jury making/political campaigning etc. are more realistic. - Limited real-world application: Usually in society, minority groups are looked down upon as inferior. Majority groups have status and power and see minority as hostile.

Answer 33

Artificial tasks: Moscovici’s study lacked external validity - they are limited in what they can tell about minority influence in real life situations. Jury making/political campaigning etc. are more realistic. Limited real-world application: Usually in society, minority groups are looked down upon as inferior. Majority groups have status and power and see minority as hostile.

Answer 34

Drawing attention - demonstrating the problem, usually through stunts/marches; shows commitment Consistency - emphasise the problem Deeper processing - more people question/think about the problem Augmentation principle - people pay attention to those who take risks Snowball effect - gradual change; more join minority Social cryptomnesia - everyone forgets how society changed

Answer 35

Nemeth argued social change happens slowly. He argued minority influence is likely to be indirect and delayed. The majority is influenced on matters related to the issue, not the issue itself. (Eg: smoking damaging babies’ lungs compared to smoking itself. It could be considered a limitation - it shows the effect are fragile and its role in social influence is very limited