(P1) social psychology Flashcards

Question

**BPS code of ethics and conduct** what does *integrity* include?

Answer 1

the researcher must maintain professional boundaries and act on misconduct if witnessed. *deception* is a key part of this. this refers to deceiving or lying to the PP during the study, which may be distressing; therefore, it must be avoided.

Answer 2

1. informed consent 2. deception 3. right to withdraw 4. debriefing 5. competence

Answer 3

**AIM** 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. **IV** 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. **DV** 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) **SAMPLE** 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!). **PROCEDURE** 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. Burger used questionnaires to measure individual differences that might be factors in obedience: - **Interpersonal Reactivity Index** is a 28-question test that measures empathy - how sensitive you are to other people's feelings - **Desirability of Control Scale** is a 20-question test that measures locus of control - how important is it for you to be in control of events in your life. Burger also used ethical controls that improved on Milgram's original: - There was a two-step screening process to filter out anyone who might be unduly stressed by the experience - The participants were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any point and still keep the $50 - The experimenter was actually a clinical psychologist, skilled in spotting and reacting appropriately to distress - The "test shock" experienced by the participants was only a mild 15V, not Milgram's painful 45V - Burger did not allow time to pass before he introduced the (healthy) learner and debriefed the participants **RESULTS** 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). **CONCLUSIONS** 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. - 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.

Answer 4

situational factors are variables in the environment that impact levels of obedience **1. proximity** proximity refers to how close/distant the authority figure is to the individual. when an authority figure is in close proximity to the individual, they are more likely to obey. - (evidence) In Variation #7, Milgram investigates whether obedience is affected if the authority figure is far away. When the Experimenter leaves the room, telephoning in his instructions, obedience goes down from 65% (baseline) to 22.5%. **2. status / legitimacy** the status or legitimacy of an authority figure greatly influences the role of obedience. reducing the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure, through altering his or her mode of dress for example, can reduce obedience. similarly, reducing the prestige or status of the venue can reduce obedience. - (evidence) milgram's variation 13: ordinary man giving orders - bickman (1974) showed that people in real-world situations are more likely to follow orders from someone wearing a guard/security uniform rather than ordinary clothes or a milkman's uniform. **3. behaviour of others** the behaviour of those around us influences us to obey/disobey. **4. momentum of compliance** how far soneone goes in obeying an authority figure who gices orders. - (evidence) milgram's 1963 experiment

Answer 5

dispositional factors are variables within yourself that impact whether you obey. **1. personality: authoritarianism / locus of control** **personality** refers to a set of traits relating to an individual's character that remains stable over time. - according to adorno's theory of personality, individuals who score highly on the F-scale are considered as having an **authoritarian** personality. these individuals are more likely to obey orders given by an authority figure. - **locus of control** the degree to which people believe that they are in control of their actions. *internal locus of control* someone with an internal locus of control would believe that they are in control and take responsibility for their own actions (e.g. i did not perform well in my test because i did not study properly) *external locus of control* someone with an external locus of control would blame external forces for their own circumstances (e.g. i failed the test because it was rigged) **2. culture** culture may impact levels of obedience. **3. gender** your gender may impact levels of obedience.

Answer 6

right wing authoritarianism is a strand of authoritarianism that links to a political focus. this has been consistently found to correlate with prejudice attitudes. an individual with this personality has *rigid thinking* and prefers society to have *strict rules* which they stick to and expect others to stick to. failure to adhere to these rules should be *punished* according to them. (examples of RWA leaders include: stalin, hitler, kim-jong-un, donald trump)

Answer 7

adorno et al. (1950) developed a questionnaire called the california f-scale to measure levels of authoritative personality. he used a sample of 2000, middle-class, white Americans. in milgram's original research, psychologists questioned whether the obedience occured due to situational factors (e.g. uniform and location) or dispositional factors (e.g. personality). **personality** refers to a set of traits relating to an individual's character that remains stable over time. - according to adorno's theory of personality, individuals who grew up with strict parents who's rules they had to obey have an authoritarian personality. as a result, these individuals are more likely to obey orders given by an authority figure but are *dismissive* to individuals below them. **characteristics of authoritarian personality** 1. obedient to authority figures 2. hostile to those below them 3. view things rigidly 4. hold rigid +/ conventional views 5. usually intolerant to people that are weak +/ different

Answer 8

high internals perceive that they have control over the things that happen to them and their behaviour. they are thus more likely to take personal responsiblity for their actions. **in relation to obedience** these individuals are less likely to obey and are more likely to become leaders as they are unlikely to rely on others opinions because they actively seek out information.

Answer 9

high externals view that they are influenced by external influences that they may not be able to control (e.g. luck).

Answer 10

the person is seen as having the authority to give the order, this may be indicated or suggested bt their title, appearance such as smart dress/uniform etc.

Answer 11

**gender** expectations of gender differences in obedience may be due to gender stereotypes about women being more empathetic and caring, or less assertive. most studies have not found a significant difference in levels of obedience between men and women.

Answer 12

whether there is a difference in measured behaviour or traits between men and women.

Answer 13

AGAINST gender as an influence on obedience **Milgram's Experiment 8** with a sample of 40 women, the obedience rate was 65%, the same as the male PP's in the original (1963) study. this showed that there was no gender difference in obedience. - **Burger (2009)** this was corroborated in Burger's study, who found a smaller gender difference but it was not statistically significant. FOR gender as an influence on obedience **Sheridan and King's (1972)** ordered PP's to give real electric shocks to a live puppu. They found that 100% of female PP's were fully obedient whereas only 54% of males were. - This said, the women did show grave distress as they were crying during the study.

Answer 14

**culture** is a factor that may affect the likelihood that a person or group will follow orders in to ways: *individualistic cultures* that value independance, may be more likely to defy authority figures compared to people who grew up in *collectivist cultures*, that value what is best for the group.

Answer 15

stress the needs of the individual over the needs of the group as a whole. people are seen as independant and autonomous. social behaviour tends to be dictated by the attitudes and preferences of individuals. cultures in: north america & western europe tend to be individualistic.

Answer 16

emphasise the needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and desires of an individual.

Answer 17

(replications of milgram's study in different countries) milgram's study had limited generalisability, which meant his study lacks cross-cultural validity. one way to address this is through replications of his study across different cultures. **1. milgram (1963)** location: USA sample: m + f general population obedience result: 65% - individualistic culture **2. edwards et al. (1969)** location: south africa sample: m & f obedience result: 87.5% - collectivist culture **3. kilham & mann (1974)** location: australia sample: m & f students obedience result: 40% 16% despite these findings, it is important to note that there may be a variety of wider situational factors influencing obedience rates (e.g. kilham and mann mentioned 'anti-war demonstrations' and 'campus unrest' going on at the time)

Answer 18

agency theory was developed by stanley milgram, the American psychologist who carried out the famous Obedience studies. it says that people will obey an authority figure when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequence of their actions.

Answer 19

**1) individual and society interplay-** social psychologists assume an interplay exists between individual minds and the broader social context. An individual’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours are continuously shaped by social interactions and in turn, individuals influence the societies they are party of. **2) behaviour is contextual** one core assumption is that behaviour can vary significantly based on the situation and context. While personal traits and dispositions (individual differences) matter, the social environment often plays a decisive role in determining behaviour. **3) objective reality is difficult to obtain** our perceptions of reality are influenced by personal beliefs, societal norms and past experiences. Therefore, our understanding of ‘reality’ is subjective. **4) social reality is constructed** social psychologists believe that individuals actively construct their social world. Through processes like social categorisation, attribution and cognitive biases, people create their understanding of others and societal norms. **5) people are social beings with a need to belong** A fundamental assumption is the inherent social nature of humans. People have an innate need to connect with others, form relationships, and belong to groups. This need influences a wide range of behaviors and emotions. **6) attitudes influence behaviour** it’s a foundational belief that our attitudes (combinations of beliefs and feelings) can and often do drive our actions. However, it’s also understood that this relationship can be complex and bidirectional. **7) people are motivated to see themselves in a positive light** The self plays a central role in social psychology. It’s assumed that individuals are generally motivated to maintain and enhance a positive self-view. **8) behaviour can be predicted and understood** An underlying assumption of any science, including social psychology, is that phenomena (in this case, human behavior in social contexts) can be studied, understood, predicted, and potentially influenced. **9) cultural and biological factors are integral** Though earlier social psychology might have been criticized for neglecting these factors, contemporary social psychology acknowledges the roles of both biology (genes, hormones, brain processes) and culture (norms, values, traditions) in shaping social behavior.

Answer 20

agency theory suggests that humans have two mental states: **autonomous** in the autonomous state, we perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own behaviour so we feel guilt for what we do. **agentic** in the agentic state we perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone else’s will, the authority figure commanding us is responsible for what we do so we do not feel guilt.

Answer 21

**autonomous** in the autonomous state, we perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own behaviour so we feel guilt for what we do.

Answer 22

**agentic** in the agentic state we perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone else’s will, the authority figure commanding us is responsible for what we do so we do not feel guilt.

Answer 23

people who are perceived as **authority figures** often carry symbols of authority (like a uniform) or possess status (like rank). An order from an authority figure triggers the agentic shift into the agentic state.

Answer 24

when an authority figure issues an order that goes against our conscience, we experience moral strain. this is because we have two contradictory urges: (1) to obey the authority figure (and society’s expectations) (2) to obey our consciences (and keep our own self-image as a ‘good person’) *moral strain might appear as physical distress like: shaking or weeping. *going into the **agentic state** removes moral strain, because we regard the authority figure as now being responsible for our actions. this is because of the appeal of the agentic state. milgram points out that his own PP’s used ‘defence mechanisms’ to lessen the moral strain: **1) denial** some of the participants in Milgram's study minimised the pain they were causing to the Learner, convincing themselves that the shocks weren't dangerous (even though "DANGER" was written on the shock generator); Milgram argues that many people in Nazi Germany did this, refusing to believe what was going on in the death camps **2) avoidance** many participants tried not to look at the Experimenter or even look up from the shock generator **3) degree of involvement** some participants only flicked the switches on the shock generator lightly, as if this would somehow lessen the pain **4) helping the learner** other participants tried to help the Learner by stressing the correct answer on the memory test; in Variation #7, some participants deliberately gave a weaker shock rather than the stronger shock because they thought no one was watching

Answer 25

milgram points out that his own PP’s used ‘defence mechanisms’ to lessen the moral strain: **1) denial** some of the participants in Milgram's study minimised the pain they were causing to the Learner, convincing themselves that the shocks weren't dangerous (even though "DANGER" was written on the shock generator); Milgram argues that many people in Nazi Germany did this, refusing to believe what was going on in the death camps **2) avoidance** many participants tried not to look at the Experimenter or even look up from the shock generator **3) degree of involvement** some participants only flicked the switches on the shock generator lightly, as if this would somehow lessen the pain **4) helping the learner** other participants tried to help the Learner by stressing the correct answer on the memory test; in Variation #7, some participants deliberately gave a weaker shock rather than the stronger shock because they thought no one was watching

Answer 26

milgram has two possible explanations for the Agentic Shift: **1) evolutionary explanation** he argues that obedience is a survival trait that enabled tribes of early humans to flourish. Early humans who were disobedience did not survive the dangers of the prehistoric world and we have not inherited their genes. Even today, society could not function without obedience. - However, Nazi Germany was an example of the Agentic Shift backfiring, because people obeyed orders they should have rebelled against. **2) conditioning** milgram also thinks conditioning plays a part. from an early age, our parents, neighbours and teachers condition us to respect authority figures. they *reward* us when we are respectful and *punish* us when we disobey **(operant conditioning)**. by the time we reach school-age, obedience is deeply ingrained. these two explanations are **complementary** (they work together). evolution might have given us a *predisposition* towards agency but obedience is also strengthened by our upbringing. this is an example of **nature and nurture** in psychology.

Answer 27

agency refers to the feeling of control over actions and their consequences.

Answer 28

Milgram’s famous 1961 study into obedience was the basis for Agency Theory. Milgram observed the participants arrive in an autonomous state, go through the Agentic Shift, experience moral strain and become agents for the authority figure, carrying out acts that went against their conscience. In 1974, Milgram published his book Obedience to Authority detailing 19 “variations” on the original obedience study. These support Agency Theory in various ways: **Variation #5** featured a learner with a heart condition. Obedience dropped slightly, but not much. Burger (2009) also found high (70%) levels of obedience when he replicated this. This suggests that empathy doesn’t make people disobedient; it just increases their moral strain, making the Agentic State more tempting. **Variation #10** used a run-down office rather than Yale University and obedience dropped to 47.5%. This is also to be expected if the Agentic Shift is triggered by symbols of authority. Other researchers were interested in why some participants disobeyed. **Personality** might be a factor. **Milgram & Elms (1966)** studied the original participants and identified an authoritarian personality type that admired rules and was inclined to obey. This personality had already been identified by Theodor Adorno (1950) and linked to Fascist politics and discrimination. Another personality factor is a need to be in control of your own behaviour. The link between a psychological need to be in charge and disobedience to authority was explored in the Contemporary Study by **Burger (2009)**.

Answer 29

**Credibility** Milgram carried out a lot of research in support of Agency Theory. His “variations” support the idea that situational factors make participants more or less obedience, especially when they relate to the perceived authority of the experimenter. On the other hand, dispositional factors (like empathy or gender) don’t seem to make much difference at all. Later studies (like Burger, 2009) have tended to back up Milgram’s conclusions. All around the world, obedience is high, even when authority figures give orders that are distressing and immoral. Agency Theory also explains events like the Holocaust, the Rwandan genocide and the ethnic cleansings in the Balkans in the ‘90s and in Syria today when these crimes are ordered by authority figures. **Objections** Moral strain is one of the distinctive features of Agency Theory (it is missing from Social Impact Theory). However it is a problem for the theory. In Milgram’s observational studies, moral strain was shown by the participants who obeyed (weeping, groaning, shaking, fainting), not by the ones who disobeyed. Milgram’s theory suggests that the Agentic State is an escape from moral strain, but this is not what is observed in his studies. Milgram’s research suffers from a lack of ecological validity, since in real life teachers are not asked to electrocute students, nor were wartime Germans asked to do this by the Nazis. The artificial and unusual nature of the supporting research might count against the theory. Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) replicated Milgram with insults instead of shocks; this is much more realistic but this study still put participants in an unusual position (making them pretend to interview people for a job and deliver insults that appeared on an overhead TV screen). **Differences** The alternative theory is Social Impact Theory which suggests that everyone applies Social Force to everyone else to get what they want. This is similar to Milgram’s idea of the Agentic State, because people find it hard to resist pressures to obey. Both theories regard people as passive, doing whatever social pressure makes them do. However, Social Impact Theory ignores the importance of moral strain. There are other theories that explain obedience. Theodor Adorno (1950) argues that some people have an “Authoritarian Personality” that is threatened by people who are different and enjoys following rules. This theory that suggests obedience to evil orders comes from a dysfunctional personality, not a social situation. **Applications** The idea of the Agentic Shift may help reduce prejudice and discrimination because authority figures could tell people to be tolerant and understanding of outsiders. In fact, this is often done, with celebrities and sporting heroes visiting schools to encourage tolerance and equality (as well as telling students not to do drugs or crime). This is one of the reasons why there is such an outcry when a celebrity like a sports star or musician makes a racist remark or behaves in a sexist way: as an authority figure, they may be encouraging their fans to do as they do. Agency Theory also suggests there is always a danger of blind obedience, even from people who have no personal prejudices. To counter this, society tries to hold authority figures to account through democratic processes and “checks and balances” in government, so that no authority figure has too much power. Holocaust Memorial Day (27 January) is celebrated each year because Agency Theory tells us that the Holocaust could happen again, anywhere.

Answer 30

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 31

In the case of Britain, France and Germany, these are all European countries that used to compete for imperial colonies and still compete for power in Europe. There are only so many colonies or European jobs/money to go round, so these are limited resources. Countries like the Netherlands and Denmark never competed with us for power, control or wealth, so we don’t have negative stereotypes or cruel jokes about them.

Answer 32

Conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and discrimination between groups can be reduced in situations where two or more groups are seeking to obtain some superordinate goals. **Superordinate goals** are mutually-desirable goals that cannot be obtained without the participation of two or more groups.

Answer 33

Superordinate goals are mutually-desirable goals that cannot be obtained without the participation of two or more groups. *diagram below https://www.psychologywizard.net/uploads/2/6/6/4/26640833/5122924_orig.png

Answer 34

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 35

**Credibility** There’s a lot of research in support of Realistic Conflict, especially the “Robbers Cave” study and also a lot of attitude surveys like the Michigan National Election Studies. It is also backed up by common sense (face validity). Football fans tend to have negative stereotypes about rival teams, but no particular view about teams much lower (or higher) in the league that aren’t in competition with their team. Extremists who try to whip up prejudice often claim that outgroups represent a threat to people’s jobs, education, money or privileges. In other words, they try to create a perception (which may not be true) that resources are scarce and the outgroup are competitors. This is exactly what RCT would predict. **Objections** 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. **Differences** Tajfel & Turner’s Social Identity Theory (1979) stands in stark contrast to RCT. SIT claims that prejudice is natural and instinctive and happens immediately, as soon as you categorise yourself as belonging to an ingroup (social categorisation) and notice other people belonging to an outgroup (social comparison). This prejudice has nothing to do with competition over resources. SIT is backed up by Tajfel’s “Minimal Group” studies (1970) where boys showed outgroup discrimination even though they weren’t in competition with the outgroup – they would choose options from the matrix booklets that offered scarce resources (in points) in order to create competition rather than the options that would give their ingroup more points. As with “Robbers Cave”, this is a study of schoolboys that may not generalise to adult behaviour. Unlike “Robbers Cave”, assigning points from matrix booklets was deeply artificial and may lack ecological validity. There are other theories that explain prejudice as well. Theodor Adorno (1950) argues that some people have an “Authoritarian Personality” that is threatened by people who are different and enjoys disciminating against outgroups that have less status. Adorno’s research involved questionnaires (the “Fascism Scale”) and interviews to get quantitative and qualitative data. Again, this is a theory that suggests groups do not need competition in order for prejudices to form. **Applications** 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 36

social impact theory is a model that conceives of other people’s influence as the result of social forces acting on the individual. social impact theory attempts to produce an underlying law that explains a whole set of studies from the ‘60s and ‘70s, including Milgram and Tajfel, into how people conform to the group they are in, follow leaders and imitate each other.

Answer 37

**social categorisation** categorising yourself in a certain social group. **social identification** the group in which you identify yourself with because you have similar attributes, interests etc. an individual is likely to take on the norms and attitudes of group members. **social comparison** comparing your group to another group, which leads to heightened self-esteem. **in-group favouritism** when you have a preferential bias towards the group you identify with (in-group) **prejudice** anyone who is not part of your 'in-group' is known as an 'out-group' and will be discriminated against as a result. this is because we will tend to be biased towards in-group members to maintain self-esteem.

Answer 38

**1) social force** This is a pressure that gets put on people to change their behaviour – if it succeeds, that is Social Impact. Social force is generated by persuasion, threat, humour, embarrassment and other influences. Social force is made up of Strength, Immediacy and Numbers: **-strength:** This is how much power you believe the person influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an organisation, their orders will have more Strength **-immediacy:** This is how much power you believe the person influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an organisation, their orders will have more Strength **-numbers:** The more people putting pressure on you to do something, the more social force they will have Notice how this applies to Milgram’s study and variations. Milgram also found obedience was lower when the authority figure was absent (variation #7) or was perceived to have less strength (variation #13) Latané suggests a mathematic equation to work out the Social Impact (i) in any situation. This is i = f (SIN) where S, I and N are Strength, Immediacy and Numbers.w **2) psychosocial law** This is the idea that the first source of influence has the most dramatic impact on people, but that the second, third, fourth, etc sources generate less and less Social Force. For example, being watched by one other person can make you feel awkward, but being watched by two doesn’t make you twice as awkward. Increasing the audience to a hundred or even a thousand doesn’t increase the sense of pressure by as much as you would think. The same applies to authority figures. One teacher giving you an order generates a lot of Social Force but, if you resist, bringing in a second and a third teacher to repeat the order doesn’t double or triple the Social Force; bringing in the entire school staff won’t be all that effective. **3) divisions of impact** Social Force gets spread out between all the people it is directed at. If all the Force is directed at a single person, that puts a huge pressure on them to conform or obey. But if the Force is directed at two people, they only experience half as much pressure each. If there are ten of them, they only feel one tenth of the pressure. This is known as diffusion of responsibility – the more of you there are, the less personal responsibility each of you will feel. This applies to Milgram too because his other variations showed how obedience went down when the participant had a rebellious partner. Latané has an equation for this too: i = f (1/SIN)

Answer 39

**1) social force** This is a pressure that gets put on people to change their behaviour – if it succeeds, that is Social Impact. Social force is generated by persuasion, threat, humour, embarrassment and other influences. Social force is made up of Strength, Immediacy and Numbers: **-strength:** This is how much power you believe the person influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an organisation, their orders will have more Strength **-immediacy:** This is how much power you believe the person influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an organisation, their orders will have more Strength **-numbers:** The more people putting pressure on you to do something, the more social force they will have Notice how this applies to Milgram’s study and variations. Milgram also found obedience was lower when the authority figure was absent (variation #7) or was perceived to have less strength (variation #13) Latané suggests a mathematic equation to work out the Social Impact (i) in any situation. This is i = f (SIN) where S, I and N are Strength, Immediacy and Numbers.w

Answer 40

**2) psychosocial law** This is the idea that the first source of influence has the most dramatic impact on people, but that the second, third, fourth, etc sources generate less and less Social Force. For example, being watched by one other person can make you feel awkward, but being watched by two doesn’t make you twice as awkward. Increasing the audience to a hundred or even a thousand doesn’t increase the sense of pressure by as much as you would think. The same applies to authority figures. One teacher giving you an order generates a lot of Social Force but, if you resist, bringing in a second and a third teacher to repeat the order doesn’t double or triple the Social Force; bringing in the entire school staff won’t be all that effective.

Answer 41

**3) divisions of impact** Social Force gets spread out between all the people it is directed at. If all the Force is directed at a single person, that puts a huge pressure on them to conform or obey. But if the Force is directed at two people, they only experience half as much pressure each. If there are ten of them, they only feel one tenth of the pressure. This is known as diffusion of responsibility – the more of you there are, the less personal responsibility each of you will feel. This applies to Milgram too because his other variations showed how obedience went down when the participant had a rebellious partner. Latané has an equation for this too: i = f (1/SIN)

Answer 42

Latané (1981) gives a number of examples of Social Impact. An interesting one involves the US Christian televangelist Billy Graham (see left). The hypothesis was that Billy Graham would make more converts in front of small audiences. Latané researched the numbers of people who responded to Graham's appeal for converts and found that when the audiences were small, people were more willing to sign cards allowing local vicars to contact them later. This demonstrates divisions of impact (also known as diffusion of responsibility). 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 43

** Credibility** 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”. ** Objections ** 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. ** Differences ** Milgram’s Agency Theory is very simplistic compared to Social Impact Theory. Milgram suggests we have evolved to go into an obedient mental state around anyone we recognise as an authority. There’s not much evidence for this in general. Social Impact Theory suggests many features of Agency Theory are true – that the strength (S) of the authority figure is an important predictor of how obedient someone will be – but there are other situational factors as well, like the numbers of people involved (N) and the immediacy (I) of the orders. However, Agency Theory explains some things better than Social Impact Theory. For example, in Variation #10, obedience was lower in a run-down office compared to Yale University. Milgram explains this through the prestige of the setting adding to the authority figure’s status, but this is hard for Latané to give a mathematical value to. Similarly, Milgram has an explanation for the shaking and weeping his participants engaged in – moral strain. There’s no discussion of moral strain in Social Impact Theory, which views people as either obeying or disobeying and nothing in between. ** Applications ** 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 44

the portion of an individual’s self-concept (how one perceives themselves) derived from a perceived membership in a relevant social group. It’s widely recognised that people tend to identify with their groups. They also tend to have negative views about some other groups – “outgroups”. But why do some outgroups attract hostility and discrimination? Tajfel wondered what made the Nazis (powerful and rich) want to destroy his Jewish family and neighbours (who were weak and very poor). It didn’t seem to Tajfel there was any “realistic conflict” going on, because the Polish Jews weren’t in competition with the Nazis and didn’t have anything the Nazis needed. So he looked for a different explanation.

Answer 45

Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggests conflict based on irrational needs for identity rather than rational competition for scarce resources. SIT proposes that people might make choices that cost them what they need, in order to defeat out-groups.

Answer 46

**1) Social Categorisation:** this is 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. **2) Social Identification:** 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. **3) Social Comparison:** 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 47

Social identity refers to the ways that people's self-concepts are based on their membership in social groups. Examples include sports teams, religions, nationalities, occupations, sexual orientation, ethnic groups, and gender.

Answer 48

https://www.psychologywizard.net/uploads/2/6/6/4/26640833/3107868_orig.jpg

Answer 49

Tajfel & Turner argue that self-esteem is at the core of social identity. We need to feel good about ourselves so we need to feel good about the groups we belong to. Not everyone identifies with their ingroup to the same extent. Personality may be a variable here, such as Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Type: people who get their self-esteem from social identity rather than personal identity. There needs to be grounds for making comparisons with other groups. Social Comparison doesn’t happen with respect to outgroups you never meet or who aren’t relevant to your life. Football fans tend to compare themselves to supporters of a rival club, but not to teams in much higher or lower leagues.

Answer 50

Picture This is a compulsory theory so everyone learns it and the Examiner will expect you to know it in detail. While the Exam could ask general questions about the theory's ideas or evaluation, it could also ask specific questions, like, How does Social Identity explain genocide? or, What explanations does Social Identity give of gangs? or, What makes Social Identity credible (or flawed) as a theory of prejudice? Make sure you can explain the STRENGTHS of this theory as well as the weaknesses. Picture TAJFEL & TURNER (1979) SOCIAL IDENTITY EXPLAINS PREJUDICE This theory was developed by Henri Tajfel (pronounced TIE-FELL) and John Turner, two British psychologists. Tajfel (caption right) was a Polish Jew whose family were killed in Nazi death camps. He settled in Britain but devoted himself to researching prejudice and discrimination. 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. This theory is significant for students in other ways: It opposes Realistic Conflict Theory, which suggests conflict based on irrational needs for identity rather than rational competition for scarce resources. SIT proposes that people might make choices that cost them what they need, in order to defeat out-groups. It illustrates features of the Social Approach, since it shows how decisions that people think are personal to them are actually expressions of their group identity and their group needs It ties in to your Key Question in Social Psychology, since it helps explain prejudice and how to reduce it WHAT IS SOCIAL IDENTITY? It’s widely recognised that people tend to identify with their groups. They also tend to have negative views about some other groups – “outgroups”. But why do some outgroups attract hostility and discrimination? Tajfel wondered what made the Nazis (powerful and rich) want to destroy his Jewish family and neighbours (who were weak and very poor). It didn’t seem to Tajfel there was any “realistic conflict” going on, because the Polish Jews weren’t in competition with the Nazis and didn’t have anything the Nazis needed. So he looked for a different explanation. Social Identity Theory proposes that group formation goes through three stages: Social Categorisation: this is 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. Social Identification: 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. Social Comparison: 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. Picture Picture Picture Tajfel & Turner argue that self-esteem is at the core of social identity. We need to feel good about ourselves so we need to feel good about the groups we belong to. Not everyone identifies with their ingroup to the same extent. Personality may be a variable here, such as Adorno’s Authoritarian Personality Type: people who get their self-esteem from social identity rather than personal identity. There needs to be grounds for making comparisons with other groups. Social Comparison doesn’t happen with respect to outgroups you never meet or who aren’t relevant to your life. Football fans tend to compare themselves to supporters of a rival club, but not to teams in much higher or lower leagues. Picture RESEARCH INTO SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY THE FINDINGS OF STUDIES 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. Picture 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. Picture 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 51

**Credibility** SIT is supported by Tajfel et al.’s 1970 study into minimal groups. The research showed how boys will discriminate against an outgroup (even an outgroup that contains their own friends) and show favouritism to an ingroup (even an ingroup made up of strangers) and that this will happen when the group identity is based on something as flimsy as “being an over-estimator” or “preferring the art of Paul Klee”. SIT also provides an explanation for why discrimination occurs even when the outgroup is no threat to the ingroup and there is no competition over resources. If self-esteem is based on social identity, then some people need to put down outgroups in order to feel good about themselves. **Objections 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. **Differences** Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (1966) stands in contrast to SIT. RCT claims that prejudice is produced by competition and happens when there is (or seems to be) a scarcity of resources like food, money, jobs or status. RCT is backed up by Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study (1954) where boys showed outgroup discrimination when a tournament was arranged between them. This started with name-calling and food fights but became increasingly violent. As with “Minimal Groups”, this is a study of schoolboys that may not generalise to adult behaviour. Unlike “Minimal Groups”, boys squabbling at a summer camp possessed much more ecological validity than ticking books of matrices. **Applications** 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.

Answer 52

**personality**

Answer 53

1) individual differences: personality 2) situation 3) culture

Answer 54

personality refers to a set of traits relating to an individual's identity that remain stable over time. according to adorno, individuals with an authoritarian personality grew up with strict parents who's rules they had to obey as a result of this. these individual's grew up to obey authority figures but are dismissive to individuals below them. those with an authoritarianism personality are likely to be: obedient to authority figures, hostile to those below them in status, view things rigidly, hold rigid +/- conventional views and are usually intolerant to people that are weak +/- different. **prejudice as an ego-defence** adorno proposed that prejudice is a defense mechanism to protect the ego from unacceptable hostility towards their parents. this hostility is repressed into the unconscious and displaced onto minority groups, which become the targets of hostility.

Answer 55

social dominance orientation refers to an ideological attitude and someone who sees society as hierarchical with themselves in a position of dominance over those of a lower status. people with this ideological attitude are not egalitarian (they do not believe in equality in society). individuals who believe in social hierarchy are more likely to be prejudiced to groups of a lower social status and they will want their own group to dominate others.

Answer 56

*STRENGTHS* - used a variety of methods - qualitative and quantitative data *WEAKNESSES* - subjectivity - experimenter bias: interviewers knew F-Scale scores - social desirability bias - correlation not causation - risk of acquiescent response bias, which is known as *agreement bias* and is a form of response bias in questionnaires where you select the positive response more than the negative. the F-scale was worded so that agreement (e.g. yes) always indicated an authoritarian response)

Answer 57

- the RWA scale is balanced to have an equal number of pro and anti-authoritarian statements. - the scale is also updated through older versions and are sometimes used (as the F-scale is quite outdated) - despite all this, the responses still contain likert-scale answers reducing the validity of the scale.

Answer 58

**openness** + (high) scores are creative, imaginative, eccentric and open to new experiences meaning they are less likely to discriminate or prejudice others because they have an open mindset. - (low) scores are practical, conventional, sceptical and rational meaning they are more likely to discriminate against others because they hold rigid, conventional views. **conscientiousness** + (high) scores are organised, self-directed and successful but controlling. - (low) scores are spontaneous, careless and can be prone to addiction. **extroversion** + (high) scores are outgoing, enthusiastic and active; you seek novelty and excitement. - (low) scores are aloof, quiet and independent; you are cautious and enjoy time alone. **agreeableness** + (high) scores are trusting, empathetic and compliant, you are slow to anger, meaning that they are less likely to display discrimination or prejudice because they are accepting and trusting of those who belong to different out-groups/backgrounds to them etc. - (low) scores are uncooperative and hostile, find it hard to empathise with others, meaning they are more likely to discriminate and prejudice against those of a different out-group because they struggle to empathise with different beliefs. **neuroticism** + (high) scores are prone to stress, worry and negative emotions. - (negative) scores are emotionally stable but can take unnecessary risks.

Answer 59

**akrami et al. (2006)** suggest that personality characteristics are present in situations where there is prejudice, even if it seems they do not totally account for such prejudice. they point out that not all germans were anti-semetic during world war ii and not all the US soldiers attacked iraqi prisoners at abu ghraib. there can be a strong influence from situational factors; however, this does not mean that personality factors do not affect prejudice and discrimination.

Answer 60

The law governing the use of animals in scientific research is the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act, 1986. Research needs a licence from the Home Office; the premises must be licensed for animal research as must every individual involved in the research. Laboratory animals must be procured from “high quality suppliers” who comply with Home Office standards. The BPS has published guidelines for psychologists working with animals: **Legal Requirements:** Research must not break the law regarding endangered and protected species. This particularly restricts research involving great apes (chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans). **Replacement:** Where possible, live animals should be replaced with research alternatives, like videos and computer simulations. Animals should only be used as a last resort. **Choice of Species:** Species bred in captivity are ethically preferable to creatures taken from the wild; research should be minimised if it involves highly sentient (thinking, feeling) animals, like the great apes **Reduction:** The number of animals used should be minimised as much as possible; this involves carefully designed experiments and good use of statistics to get the maximum amount of data from the smallest number of animals **Animal Care:** When not being studied, animals must be housed, fed and watered in a suitable way as well as being given space and companionship appropriate to their species **Disposal:** When the research is over, animals should be disposed of humanely; ideally they should be kept alive for breeding or as pets **Procedures:** Animals must be treated humanely during research. The BPS gives special consideration to these three areas: (1) Caging: Distress should be minimised during caging; social species need companionship and animals unused to other animals may be distressed if caged with them (2) Deprivation: Some food deprivation is allowable (and may be normal and healthy for animals) but distress should be minimised (3) Pain: Anaesthetics should be used to minimise pain; animals should be given medical treatment after research; humane killing must be considered if suffering cannot be reduced

Answer 61

The BPS Guidelines are based on a Cost-Benefit Model, which means that research which breaks some Guidelines sometimes might be allowable if the benefits seem to outweigh the "costs" in terms of animal suffering.

Answer 62

the ethics of animal research are sometimes summed up by three principles known as the 3 R's. **REPLACE** the use of animals with different techniques; virtual simulations on computers or studying videos of past research are recommended. **REDUCE** the number of animals used to a minimum; in a well-designed study, the maximum data can be extracted from the minimal number of animals. **REFINE** the way experiments are carried out to make sure animals suffer as little as possible. this includes better housing and improvements which minimise pain and suffering.

Answer 63

**COST** animals don't have to be paid, unlike human participants. However, the cost of buying lab animals from a Home Office approved supplier can be considerable. Then there is the cost of feeding them and keeping their housing at the right temperature. **DANGER** Animals can bite and scratch and even lab-raised animals can carry diseases (indeed, research animals may be deliberately infected with diseases). This can be a danger to human researchers. Connected to this is the need to keep the research area clean and the animals free from stress that would make them aggressive. **SPACE** Animals are typically small and take up less space than human participants. However, if they are to be given the space suitable to the needs of their species, so that they can maintain territory and feel secure, then much more room needs to be set aside for them. **SUPERVISION** Researchers can go home for the weekend and human participants can have “time off” but animals need to be cared for continuously, so someone has to visit them, feed and water them and possibly release them and interact with them for social time.