paper 1 essay plans Flashcards
1
Q
Milgram AO1
A
- 40 white men, newhaven 20-50 y/o
- shock generator 15-450
- mr wallace stuck to a script eg only screamed after 270v and silent at 310v
- 4 prods - please → you have no choice
- 100% up to 300v, 65% 450v
- signs of tension - shaking, sweating, laughing
2
Q
Milgram AO3
A
- androcentric - higher empathy women? acc no variation 8
- stand. proc but task validity
- inf consent, justified
3
Q
Variation 7 AO1
A
- proximity
- 40 white men from New Haven
- initial face to face but other instructions given over phone
- scripted telephone call
- 22.5% obedience, some lied about voltage, just did 15v not increasing
4
Q
Variation 7 AO3
A
- generalisability - andro/ethno
- stand.proc but task validity
- RTW is seen by low obedience rate
5
Q
Variation 10 AO1
A
- location
- 40 men from Bridgeport
- Research associates of Bridgeport - fake name
- 3 clean but sparsely furnished rooms
- 48% obedience and 2 refusals
- only variation to refuse
6
Q
Variation 10 AO3
A
- Generalisability andro/ethno
- more valid because fake organisation
- standard proc
- task validity
7
Q
Variation 13 AO1
A
- 40 men from New Haven
- 3 men, 2 confeds, learner and accomplice to note timings and sit at a desk
- exp. didnt say shock level and had a staged call and left
- accomplice suggests increasing shock level
- 20% obedience and 16/20 stopped before max
- accomplice had to really try to get the teacher to ↑ voltage
8
Q
Variation 13 AO3
A
- standardised proc but weak task validity
- deception - accomplice but makes it more valid
9
Q
Agency theory AO1
A
- Agentic state
- autonomous state
- moral strain
- socialised for society
- develop defence mechanisms eg denial and repression
10
Q
Agency theory AO3
A
- sedekeides and jackson zookeeper+railings - better in uniform
- rank and Jacobson - 16/18 nurses refused to give a lethal dose
- App to Holocaust - soldiers questioning orders
- individual differences - gender schema theory
11
Q
SIT AO1
social impact theory
A
- influences in general, not just obedience
- targets and sources
- strength, immediacy, number
- multiplicative effects - more sources
- divisional effects - more allies
- law of diminishing returns - proportionally smaller gain in power for the number of increasing sources
12
Q
SIT AO3
social impact theory
A
- Milgrams rebels found a 10% obedience but mullen strength/immediacy only in self report
- why we obey but better than alt theory agency theory
13
Q
factors affecting obedience AO1
A
- personality - empathic concern, auth personality, locus of control,
- gender - gender role schema, men strong, women submissive,
- Situation - proximity, momentum of compliance, location, status of person
14
Q
personality affects obedience AO3
A
- Elms and milgram high F scale pressed button longer, burger high empathy still obeys but protests
- Milgram found 118 ppts, obedient blamed exp, disobedient blame self but holland repeated, no diff between LOC + obedience
15
Q
gender affects obedience AO3
A
- milgram 65% max with women, 27% stopped at 300v, more than men BUT empathy shown diff
- sheridan and king puppy shocked rather than learner, women 100% compliant - 54% men
- blass - no difference in gender across 10 studies
16
Q
culture affects obedience AO1
A
- learnt through environment
- value deference - show respect, follow leaders, obey
- value justice - if theyve signed a contract, obey, if they deserve it, obey
- power distance - high- accept power is unequal, obey, low - less likely to obey
- individualism vs collectivism - looking after self, behave as a collective group, need unquestioning loyalty to relatives etc
17
Q
culture affects obedience AO3
A
- ancona and pareyson - italy low power distance - 85% obedience - no BUT issues like max shock level 330 less dangerous and used students
- australia repeated milgrams study and found 16% female obedience, 40% male BUT holland recreated and found a 92% obedience rate
18
Q
situational factors of obedience AO3
A
- milgrams variation 7 phone call - 22.5% obediece over the phone
- location shown to have an effect by Milgram exp 10
- Rank and Jacobson - 16/18 nurses refused doc giving too much
- mullen immediacy only in self report data
19
Q
SIT AO1
social identity theory
A
- mere existence of 2 groups cause prejudice
- categorisation - me/ not me
- identification - norms, beliefs, badges
- comparison to out group
- in group favouritism, reasons: permeability, securtiy, relevance
- out-group bias discrimination towards outgroup
20
Q
SIT AO3
social identity theory
A
- Lalonde hockey teams
- Dobbs and crano split groups point system
- applied to hooliganism
- individual differences/ bio predisp.
21
Q
RCT AO1
A
- prejudiced caused by competition
- negative interdependence situation - one winner
- resources are finite eg power, land, territory,
- zero sum fate; one group can only benefit at the others expense
- superordinate goals reduce prejudice
22
Q
RCT AO3
A
- Sherif et al robbers cave but only young boys
- application to workplace conflict but ind diffs/ genetic predisps
23
Q
ind diffs in prejudice AO1
A
- Conscientiousness causes suspicion of weird ppl so prej.
- agreeableness - compassion, variety valued so no prej
- Auth personality reflect heirarchies so prej to minorities
- Dogmatism - intolerant of others beliefs so prej
24
Q
Ind diffs in prejudice AO3
A
- Cohs et al found a corrolation of 0.57 between conscientiousness, RWA and prejudice
- unreliable as self-report data
- Strickland and Weddell baptist ppts likely to be prej to minorities if high on D scale
- Too close to F scale to be said to measure anything new
25
Q
Sherif AO1
A
- 22 boys 11-12 y/o from OK, USA, matched on IQ+ sport ability
- competed for prizes like pocket knives
- played games like tug of war, capture the flag and swimming races
- groups treated diff - one picnic, one arrived late to cause frustration
- stage 1 - 6.4% rattlers considered out-group as friends
- stage 2 “stinkers and smart alecks”
- unblocking water supply/ camp-over reduced prejudice
26
Q
Sherif AO3
A
- Androcentric
- eco/task validity but stand.proc
- both qual and quant data
27
Q
Reicher and Haslam AO1
A
-15/322 men picked
- researchers informed ppts ab stress
- told promotion on day 3 but after, no movement
- guards no social identity, prisoners did, became cohesive after day 3, stormed the guards and took over
28
Q
Reicher and Haslam AO3
A
- Small sample but justified
- poor task validity
- informed consent, RTW any footage
- demand characteristics of the guards
29
Q
Social key question
what is the question
A
“How can the rise in hate crime following brexit be exaplined by social psychology”
30
Q
social KQ structure
A
- the fact
- the theory
- how it explains the fact
- why its an issue for society
31
Q
Social KQ full plan
A
- 2 polish men killed →RCT states neg interdep. situation → may be why polish men killed→ issue as need EU workers
- muslim woman said easy targets→ SIT social categorisation → identified by niquabs, burkas etc→ issue because if not leaving house, hospo money
- muslim couple attacked with acid→SIT comparison → muslim couple categorised into outgroup → NHS spent treating acid victims
- 23% rise in HC 11 months post-B→ superordinate goals → could reduce local prejudice→ less money spent by police for attacks
HC = hate crime B= Brexit
32
Q
Baddeley AO1
A
- 72 men and women from ARPU
- 4 lists - Ac sim, B ac cont, C sem sim, D sem cont.
- 10 1 syllable words presented on a slide show for 3s each
- interference task (8 digit numbers read out at 1 digit per second, ppts 8 seconds to write it down, X6)
- write down words in the correct order
- did that 4 times, then a 15 min interference task then retest where words were visible
- Results - no sig diff between A&B, D better recalled than C, recall poorer for sem sim words than dissim
- Around 50% of semantically similar words were recalled in trial 4 compared to 85% of semantically dissimilar which was a significant difference
33
Q
Baddeley AO3
A
- generalisability poor because ethnocentric
- standardised proc good
- extraneous variables eg STM blocked equally good
- reductionist so cannot be valid for all of memory
34
Q
steyvers and hemmer AO1
A
- initial testing - prior expectation and perception testing
- 49 ppts, ppts shown 1 of 2 possible images of 5 scenes for either 10 or 2 seconds randomly allocated a time ordering
- scenes inc urban, kitchen, dining room, hotel, office
- results - 82% of low-probablility objects were correctly recalled
- 91% correct recall of common objects
- people stopped themselves when they werent sure - EWT?
35
Q
Steyvers and Hemmer AO3
A
- ungeneralisable small sample and ethnocentric - California
- internal validity due to preliminary testing
- Standardised procedure so reliable
- Reductionist view of memory
36
Q
MSM AO1
A
- Sensory - 3-4s or 200-500ms - stored by modality
- STM - 30s, 5-9 chunks, mostly acoustic, forgetting , overloading
- LTM - 20m-forever, semantic, semantic search, forgetting lack of retrieval
37
Q
WMM AO1
A
- Heirarchal system
- slave system
- VSSP - 3/4 Corsi, right hemisphere
- PL - 2s capacity word length effect
- AL - sub-vocal rehearsal
- PAS - auditory imagery
38
Q
WMM AO3
A
- Hunt CE psychomotor task intelligence task, limited capacity
- Liebermann splitting VSSP
- Application to revision
- reductionist as only looks at WM, not LTM, sensory etc
39
Q
Episodic and semantic AO1
A
- Episodic - mental diary, T/P referencing, context encoded,
- Semantic - encyclopedia, no T/P referencing, context not necessary, memory trace stronger
- episodic more prone to transformation
40
Q
Ep and Sem AO3
A
- Clive Wearing - episodic memory but not semantic
- Tulving - diff parts of the brain active
- Squire and Zole - medial temp lobe both ep and sem
- Bartlett better - schemas
41
Q
Reconstructive AO1
A
- memory not like a tape recorder
- schemas - rationale - way to compare experiences
- accomodate our memories by levelling and sharpening
- omissions - irrelevant info forgotten
- rationalisation - adding info to explain the event so it fits the schema
- confabulation - using schemas to fill in missing parts of memory
