Obedience and Prejudice

Question 1

How did Latané define targets and sources?

Answer 1

Latané referred to targets as the individual being impacted on and referred to the source as the source of social influence.

Question 2

According to social impact theory what are the factors that affect the influence of the source on the target?

Answer 2

Strength - determined by status, authority, age.
Immediacy - determined by proximity or distance between target and source or presence of barriers between the two.
Number - refers to how many sources and targets are in the social situation.

Question 3

In social impact theory, define psychosocial law

Answer 3

One source is more likely to have the greatest effect, a second will have a further effect but the effect will become less pronounced as more sources are added.

Question 4

In social impact theory, describe division of impact

Answer 4

The number of targets to be influenced by the source affects the impact of the source.
SIT suggests in terms of obedience an authority figure would have diminished capacity to influence someone if that someone had an ally or group of allies.

Question 5

Who proposed Social Impact Theory?

Answer 5

Latane, 1981

Question 6

State 2 strengths of social impact theory

Answer 6

• The theory has positive contributions to society as it can be used to predict behaviour under certain conditions. This can be used to control obedience that is bad for society and develop forms of useful interaction. Eg. Deciding on class sizes and how to deal with issues of crowding
• The theory has supporting evidence from Milgram’s research into obedience where pps (targets) willingness to harm another was influenced by the experimenter (source).

Question 7

State 2 weaknesses of social impact theory

Answer 7

• The theory fails to account for individual differences. Some of us are more resistant to social impact whilst others are more easily persuaded or controlled.
• The theory is an oversimplification of human nature and social interaction. The impact if others involves involved so many different factors such as their status, closeness and size of group. Such a wealth of rich information cannot be reduced to mathematical formula.

Question 8

What are the three main factors affecting obedience?

Answer 8

Situational factors
Individual differences
Culture

Question 9

Describe how situational factors affect obedience

Answer 9

Milgram’s experiments demonstrated that various situational factors increased or decreased levels if obedience/dissent suggesting that situation had a direct impact on obedience levels.
Proximity is a factor as the closer the authority the higher the level of obedience.
Status of authority also plays a role as obedience was higher when the authority figure was perceived to be legitimate at Yale University but it fell when the experiment was moved to Bridgeport or instructions were delivered by an ordinary man.

Question 10

Describe how individual differences affect obedience

Answer 10

Personality is someone’s unique and stable responses to specific situations.
From follow-up investigations with pps, Milgram found that dissenting people take more of the blame themselves (48%) whereas obedient people are more likely to displace the blame onto the experimenter (25%). This shows individual differences affect whether people obey authority figures or dissent.

Question 11

Describe whether culture affects obedience

Answer 11

Milgram concluded from his studies that it was human nature to obey in certain situations and this was a feature of all societies, suggesting culture did not have an effect on obedience.
Cross cultural studies based on Milgram’s study have been carried out in many different countries, though it was not possible to replicate the set up exactly due to ethical reasons. Like Milgram the studies shown high levels of obedience.

Question 12

State one strength and one weakness of describing situational factors as a factor affecting obedience

Answer 12

👍Supporting evidence for the situation affecting obedience comes from Milgram’s studies. As one element if the situation changed in Milgram’s variation studies so did the obedience level. Eg, by changing the location of the study to a rundown office block reduced the obedience level.
👎Stating that it is only situation that affects obedience is reductionist as it ignore the role that other factors might play. Not all of Milgram’s pps obeyed in the same way despite all being in the same situation. Eg. 35% of pps did eventually disobey meaning personality must play a role in levels of obedience and dissent.

Question 13

State one strength and one weakness of describing individual differences as a factor affecting obedience

Answer 13

👍Milgram’s follow up studies on pps do indicate that individual differences in personality between those who obey and those who disobey might exist. Eg. Those who obey are more likely to have an authoritarian personality.
👎Milgram’s studies did not directly control for, or focus on, how the pps personality might influence their obedience. Therefore more research is needed to link personality to obedience.

Question 14

State one strength and one weakness of describing culture as a factor affecting obedience

Answer 14

👍Supporting evidence that culture does it have an affect comes from Blass (2012) who reviewed obedience studies from the USA and elsewhere and found the average figures of obedience to be very similar, 61% in the USA compared to 65% elsewhere.
👎It is not possible to draw cross-cultural conclusions in obedience/dissent e cause obedience studies in different cultures had different procedures. Eg. Using ultra sound bursts in Austria and negative comments in Holland. Therefore it might be the procedure change rather than the culture change that is being measured.

Question 15

State the aim of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 15

To partially replicate Milgram’s original study in an ethical way to whether situational factors affect obedience to an authority figure.

Question 16

State 4 procedure points of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 16

• Pps responded to adverts, as Milgram’s did. The volunteer sample was 29 men and 41 women and pps were given $50 to keep whatever happened.
• The pp, the teacher, was instructed by the experimenter to administer electric shocks to te confederate, the learner, which increase by 15 volts each time the learner got a question based around word pairs wrong.
• The experimenter would end Te study either when all verbal prods had been given and the ok refused to carry on or when the 150v level had been teacher and the pp went on to continue.
• unlike Milgram’s study pps were regularly reminded they could withdraw with full payment. Te experimenter explain immediately to pps that the shocks were fake and the leaner came into the room to show he was fine.

Question 17

State 2 results of Burgers contemporary study

Answer 17

• Burger found that 70% of pps in the baseline condition went to carry on after 150v compared with 82.5% in Milgram’s experiment 5. This was not a significant different.
• There was little difference between men and women as Burger predicted. Though women were more reluctant to continue than men in the modelled refusal condition.

Question 18

State the conclusion of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 18

Burger concluded that his partial replication how’s that the same results were found today as Milgram found in 1963 and 1974.

Question 19

State two strengths of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 19

• High reliability as Burger used Milgram’s procedure to a great extent, only deviating from it for ethical reasons such as his screening process and repetition of the pps right to withdraw at any time. By using the same procedure it was possible to claim that the study was a replication and results could be compared with those of Milgram.
• Ethical as Burger was careful to exclude anyone who might be affected, judged by a clinical psychologist rather than himself. On three occasions pps were told they could withdraw an keep the payment of $50. By stopping the pps at 150v, he made sure they did not go as far as Milgram’s pps and so were less likely to be upset by what they had done.

Question 20

State two weaknesses of Burger’s contemporary study

Answer 20

Low ecological validity as it was carried out in an artificial lab setting not in the pps natural environment. Pps may have felt protected fm the consequences of their actions and therefore pps would not normally behave in this way.
- There are still ethical inverts as Burger’s replication did how that pps were willing to administer what they thought were shocks to another person who has also mentioned a heart condition in their presence, which can e distressing to find out.

Question 21

What is meant by prejudice?

Answer 21

A learned negative attitude or prejudgment about another person/group that involves feelings of dislike, hostility and fear based in little or no knowledge of them but rather a stereotype.

Question 22

What is meant by discrimination?

Answer 22

Actions that occur towards another person/group because of fears/prejudice. It could be physical, avoidance or verbal actions

Question 23

What are the three stages prejudice occurs in proposed by Tajfel & Turner?

Answer 23

Social categorisation
Social identification
Social comparison

Question 24

Describe social categorisation

Answer 24

Tajfel & Turner maintain it is Te automatic act of categorising ourselves and others into particular social groups.
A group that you belong to or are a member if is the in-group.
A related group we do not belong to is the out-group.

Question 25

Describe social identification

Answer 25

Tajfel & Turner argue we adopt the identify of the in group we have categorised ourselves as belonging to and internalise the culture of that group.

Question 26

Describe social comparison

Answer 26

Tajfel & Turner suggest we compare our in-group with more out-groups, viewing them in negative way.
Out-group denigration or hostility takes place. This discrimination stemming from prejudice caused by grouping. Opportunities to put down out groups, to make them look bad, are seized I order to raise groups self-esteem.

Question 27

State 2 strengths of Tajfel & Turners social identity theory

Answer 27

• There is supporting evidence for the theory from Sherifs robbers cave study. Sherif found that boys at a summer camp, web out into groups, showed prejudice and in-group favouritism before competition was induced.
• The theory has positive contributions to society. If prejudice is the result of grouping, prejudice could be reduced by changing group boundaries eg creating one big group.

Question 28

State 2 weaknesses of Tajfel & Turners social identity theory

Answer 28

• The theory fails to take into account individual differences. Some people have a much greater tendency than other favour in-groups over out-groups, depending on their personality.
• The theory could be seen as an oversimplification. It assumes that prejudice arises only from being grouped and our desire to improve our social standing against other groups. However our environment, histories as genes contribute I out social identities and prejudices as well.

Question 29

State the aim of Sherif et al’s Robbers cave field experiment

Answer 29

To test the idea that if you create an in-group/out-group situation an then create conflict between them, prejudice will arise.

Question 30

State 4 procedure points of Sherif et al’s Robbers cave field experiment

Answer 30

• 22, 11 year old boys of similar backgrounds were selected and spent 3 weeks at a summer camp based in the Robbers Cave National Park. They were randomly allocated to one of two groups on arrival.
  -Stage 1: In group formation
  For the first week the groups were kept apart. Each group were asked to carry out tasks to help them bond together & establish norms & values. Eg choosing a name and flag.
  -Stage 2: Friction phase
  After a week the trips we formally made aware of each other and conflict/friction was then introduced by having a competition with prizes.
  -Stage 3: Integration phrase
  Groups were initially brought together and then introduced to superordinate goals where the boys had to work together to overcome problems. Eg fixing a water tank

Question 31

State 3 results of Sherif et al’s Robbers cave field experiment

Answer 31

Stage 1: The boys bonded and developed a strong in-group preference. Eg each group gave themselves a name.
Stage 2: The competition led to immediate hostility between the groups. Eg prizes were stolen by the losing group.
Stage 3: During the initial contacts eg watching a film together, prejudice remained, eg they sat in their own groups. The hostility was reduced during the joint problem solving tasks with superordinate goals.

Question 32

State the conclusion of Sherif et al’s Robbers cave field experiment

Answer 32

When two groups meet in competition prejudice and discrimination increases leading to inter-group conflict.

Question 33

State two strengths of Sherif et al’s Robbers cave field experiment

Answer 33

• The study was a field experiment therefore it was high in ecological validity. The boys were at a summer camp which is a natural environment. This means the boys did normal camp activities so results can be generalised to real life.
• The study has positive contributions to society. The findings can be applied to real life by helping reduce prejudice between groups in society though use of superordinate goals. Eg opposing football fans showing hooligan type behaviour could organise a charity football match together.

Question 34

State the two weaknesses of Sherif et al’s Robbers cave field experiment

Answer 34

• The study suffered from low iteration validity as the situation could not be carefully controlled de to it taking place in the natural environment of the summer camp. Therefore it was vulnerable to extraneous variables.
• The study had low generalisability because of problems with population validity. The sample was ethnocentric as pps were white middle-class American boys were 11 years old.

Question 35

What theory did Sherif propose?

Answer 35

Realistic Conflict theory

Question 36

Describe Sherif’s realistic conflict theory

Answer 36

Sherif claimed that whenever two or more groups are in competition for a real or perceived scarcity of resources such as food, money, jobs, territory etc, conflict will occur and prejudice will follow.
This will create an in-group and out-group situation were the out-group will be threatening the in-group for resources.
Sherif proposes that negative stereotyping against the other group will take place and also discrimination.

Question 37

According to realistic conflict theory when is prejudice and discrimination most likely?

Answer 37

When resources are finite or very scarce. Eg territory

Question 38

According to realistic conflict theory how can discrimination be reduced?

Answer 38

If both groups have a superordinate goal mean a mutually beneficial goal for both groups in which both groups need to participate in order to reach the goal.

Question 39

State 2 strengths of realistic conflict theory

Answer 39

• There is supporting evidence from Sherif et al. They found that when competition was introduced between the 2 groups of boys on a summer camp inter group conflict was created. Eg, prizes were stolen by the losing group.
• The theory has real life applications. The 2015 conflict between the Ukraine and Russia is in part due to disputes about the transportation of gas through the Ukraine to Europe by Russia. It is suggested that this conflict and prejudice is about completion over resources, gas, and also territory, over which Russia transports it’s gas to Europe, this fits with RCT ideas.

Question 40

State 2 weaknesses of realistic conflict theory

Answer 40

• The theory could be seen as an oversimplification as its reductionist. It assumes that prejudice arises from inter groups competing for scare resources. However, out histories and genes contribute to prejudice as well. For example race in the USA and religion in Northern Ireland are the basis of prejudice and discrimination in these countries.
• The theory fails to take into account individual differences. Some people have a much greater tendency than others to show inter group prejudice and discrimination, depending on their personality and cognitive factors.

Question 41

Describe how individual differences can affect prejudice and discrimination

Answer 41

Someone with an authoritarian personality are more likely to be hostile to people they see as inferior/subordinate to themselves, particularly those from minority groups or their out-groups. Eg, those of a different race, age, sexuality
Authoritarian personality types are obedient to authority, rigid in thinking ad intolerant to change. They are likely to be conventional in their attitudes and confirm to wider social group norms which can lead to prejudice attitudes am discrimination.

Question 42

Describe how situational factors can affect prejudice and discrimination

Answer 42

Guimond et al (2003) suggests prejudice cannot be down to personality alone, personality is seen as stable and enduring and so changes in prejudice over time must be affected by other factors such as the situation.
Situational factors affecting prejudice are changing social norms or social norms that are seen to be failing. This is because strong an stable social norms ten to work against prejudice in society.
Another factor is perceived or actual social threat. Threat creates dear and fear in turn creates prejudice in order to reduce the fear.

Question 43

Describe how culture can affect prejudice and discrimination

Answer 43

Culture can be seen to be an influence on prejudice if the culture in question has existing social/cultural norms that legitimise prejudiced practice, has strict religious laws that support prejudice views or events that occur that trigger prejudice towards another group.

Question 44

What is assimilation policy linked to?

Answer 44

Assimilation policy is linked to low pro-diversity and high prejudiced attitudes.

Question 45

What is multiculturalism linked to?

Answer 45

Multiculturalism is high in pro-diversity and low in prejudice.

Question 46

State a strength of using individual differences as an explanation prejudice and discrimination

Answer 46

👍The authoritarian personality explains individual differences in human behaviour as it helps is to understand why groups such as the National Front have extreme prejudiced views or some student may bully at school.

Question 47

State a weakness of using situational factors as an explanation prejudice and discrimination

Answer 47

Although it seems situational factors are a big influence in prejudice levels, they alone cannot explain all examples of prejudice. For example not all Germans were anti Semitic during WW2 proving personality factors must play a part in influencing our prejudice.
SIT has been criticised for overstating situational factors and ignoring individual differences between in-group members, some members may actively choose to discriminate or not based in their personality type.

Question 48

Evaluate how culture can affect prejudice and discrimination

Answer 48

👍Becker et al (2012) looked at data from 21 cultural groups and found that there were effects of cultural norms with regard to prejudice that were over and above personal beliefs and attitudes.
👎SIT accounts for across culture similarities in therms of prejudice and discrimination. These theories maintain that there are universal laws about prejudice regardless of culture.

Question 49

What is developmental psychology?

Answer 49

A ranch if the subject that investigate the changes that occur as we age/develop trough the course of our lifespan, from infancy to old age.
It is concerned with the factors that affect us as we develop whether biological or environmental.

Question 50

What is the key question for social psychology?

Answer 50

Why does anti-social/violent crowd behaviour occur?

Question 51

State a description for the key question

Answer 51

Rioting is an example of crowd behaviour when control over the crowd is lost and anti-social behaviour such as looting of shops as well as general violence like setting cars alight is shown.
For example the London riots in the summer of 2011 started in Tottenham when a crowd gathered in response to the police shooting of Mark Duggan, control was lost and it turned violent.

Question 52

Explain why anti-social behaviour occurs using social identify theory

Answer 52

In a crowd, football supporters categorise themselves as ring part of the in group and in opposition with the rival football team who are the out group. Two football teams, even in a large crowd can easily identify with their in group though social identification. Eg they wear the same football and sing the same songs.
Through social comparison football supporters show in group favouritism and denigrate the opposing team by putting them down through derogatory chanting, name calling and offensive banners.

Question 53

Explain why anti-social behaviour occurs using realistic conflict theory

Answer 53

Football is all about competition and RCT suggests that anti-social/violent behaviour between football fans stems from the natural competition hat arises eg to win the game or the trophy.

Question 54

Explain why anti-social behaviour occurs using agency theory

Answer 54

Milgram’s agency theory would say that rioters in a crowd are agents or those who they see we superior such as older peers, adults or gang leaders. They act in the agentic state eg setting fire to a police care because they have been told to.
In the agentic state football hooligans do not take responsibility for their actions as thy so not follow their own free will. They blame the authority figure as they are the one who tells then what to do such as smuggling flares into the stadium or beating up other factors.
Not everyone in a crowd will follow the group and commit violent actions, not all football supporters are hooligans therefore according to agency theory they remain in the autonomous state, following their own free will.
Some rioters who commit violent vets may actually be in Te autonomous state because they believe what they are doing is correct and justifiable thus acting of their own free will.

Question 55

When creating a questionnaire or interview what issues are important to consider?

Answer 55

Researcher effects
Social desirability
Wording of questions

Question 56

Explain what is meant by researcher effects in questionnaires

Answer 56

Researcher effects: Researchers can affect the outcomes of studies in the way questionnaires are designed and the way interviews are carried out. Researcher characteristics such as age, gender, manner, facial expressions and personality can influence how honest pps are and how much they open up, particularly for social sensitive research. Researchers have to think carefully about the language used and avoid the use of leasing questions.

Question 57

Explain what is meant by social desirability in questionnaires

Answer 57

Pps may respond to a question in a way that is seen as desirable according to social norms. This is a particular problem with socially sensitive research eg matters related to sexuality or racism. Many questionnaires/interviews have lie detector questions to check for genuine responses.

Question 58

Explain what is meant by wording of questions

Answer 58

Pps need to understand what the questions mean in order to answer it in a correct/valid way. Questions must also not be leading or unethical. This can be achieved by completing a pilot study (a small scale trail run if the survey to check such details)

Question 59

Define alternative hypothesis

Answer 59

An alternative prediction to the null hypothesis used in non experimental methods. It stages the expected outcome of the research. Includes variables under investigation, should be clear, testable, operationalised and precise.

Question 60

Define self report data

Answer 60

This is data self reported by the participant themselves through questionnaires or interviews. Eg a participant reports on how they feel, their attitudes and opinions etc.

Question 61

Define open questions

Answer 61

Questions that allow the pps to answer freely in any way they choose. They produce qualitative date that consists of words that describe the pps views.

Question 62

State a strength and weakness of using open questions in a questionnaire

Answer 62

👍High validity as they enable researchers to collect rich and detailed responses.
👎Low reliability as pps tend to interpret and respond to these questions in different ways and researchers subjectivity affects the analysis of responses.

Question 63

Define closed questions

Answer 63

Questions that are fixed in the the way they can be answered. It produces quantitative data that can be reduced to number and quantities. Eg how much do you agree on a scale of 1-5?

Question 64

State a strength and weakness of using closed questions in a questionnaire

Answer 64

👍Generalisability as it is quicker to collect and analyse the information, meaning lots of people can be targeted. Eg through email or self completion.
👎Low validity as quantitative date does not reflect real life as pps are restricted to responses chosen by the researcher.

Question 65

Define leading questions

Answer 65

A question that prompts or encourages the answers desired.

Question 66

Define likert scale and ranked scale closed questions

Answer 66

Likert scale involves pps rating their level of agreement in terms of their opinion/attitudes.
Ranked scale involves a respondent ranking their choices relative to other options. To score a ranked question, each preference should be given a weighting.

Question 67

State a strength and weakness of using likert scales and ranked scale closed questions

Answer 67

👍These types of questions have the advantage that they offer respondents a range of different options so that their strength of opinion can be gauged.
👎With likert scale questions pps may just choose a neutral option such as unsure.