Paper 1 Evaluation Flashcards
Normative influence may not be detected, why? (example).
Individuals might not recognize the behavior of others as a factor in their own behavior.
Example: Nolan found people underestimated the impact of social norms on energy conservation despite evidence showing its strong influence. This suggests reliance on beliefs about motivation, leading to underestimation of normative influence.
how does information influence task type have an influence on conformity
Tasks with clear physical criteria, like city population, have less influence from others. Tasks without clear criteria, like fun cities, rely more on social consensus, showing stronger informational influence.
Asch’s research may be a’child of its time’
Asch’s findings might be unique due to the time period of the study. During McCarthyism, when fear of going against the majority was high, conformity was more pronounced. Perrin and Spencer’s UK study initially showed low conformity, but when the stakes were high, conformity levels rose, confirming the influence of perceived costs on conformity, as seen during the McCarthy era.
Cultural differences in conformity
Research shows varying conformity rates across cultures. Individualist cultures like Europe and the US have lower rates (around 25%), while collectivist cultures in Africa, Asia, and South America have higher rates (around 37%). Conformity is viewed more favorably in collectivist cultures, seen as ‘social glue’ binding communities together.
The SPE and its relevance to Abu Ghraib
(military prison in Iraq notorious for the torture and abuse of Iraqi prisoners by US soldiers in 2003 and 2004.)
Zimbardo believed that situational factors like lack of training, boredom, and no accountability led to abuses by guards. He saw these factors present in both the Stanford Prison Experiment and at Abu Ghraib, leading to misuse of power by guards in both situations.
SFE roles from assigned roles or social identity?
Zimbardo’s SPE concluded that people conforming to roles can lead to tyranny. Reicher and Haslam disagree, saying group behavior depends on social identity and values, shown in their BBC prison study. Group behavior isn’t solely determined by roles, but by the identity and values of the group.
Proximity and obedience: Reserve Police Battalion 101
Mandel challenges Milgram’s obedience research, citing Reserve Police Battalion 101. Despite factors that should increase defiance, like close proximity to victims, most followed orders to kill Jews. Mandel argues obedience is not the sole explanation for atrocities, masking deeper reasons like antisemitism.
Location and obedience: Fromm’s critique
Fromm argues that Milgram’s subjects’ obedience was influenced by the lab setting and the authority of science. In real life, obedience to authority, especially destructive obedience, is harder to achieve and takes more time. Fromm cautions against generalizing from Milgram’s study, suggesting real-life obedience is more complex and requires extensive manipulation and dehumanization.
The power of uniform: Durkin and Jeffery (2000)
Durkin and Jeffery found that children’s understanding of police authority is influenced by visual cues, like police uniforms. In scenarios, children aged 5-9 were more likely to identify the person wearing a police uniform as capable of making an arrest, regardless of actual occupation. This shows that children rely on superficial appearance rather than social status in perceiving authority
Agentic state or cruelty?
Milgram proposed the agentic state to explain obedience, but some believe participants showed signs of cruelty. The Stanford Prison Experiment, where guards acted cruelly without direct orders, supports this view. This suggests obedience might stem from agentic shift for some, but for others, it could be a desire to harm others.
Obedience in cockpit: Tarnow (2000)
Tarnow studied US aircraft accidents from 1978 to 1990, finding excessive reliance on the captain’s authority. Like in Milgram’s study, this blind obedience led to tragic consequences in 19 out of 37 accidents. This demonstrates the power of legitimate authority to enforce obedience, similar to Milgram’s findings.
Education and authoritarianism
Research suggests less-educated people tend to be more authoritarian and obedient. Milgram found lower-educated participants were more obedient. This implies lack of education could lead to both authoritarianism and obedience, challenging the idea of a direct causal relationship between the two.
Social context and obedience: Milgram’s view
Milgram argued that social context, not personality, primarily influenced obedience levels. Factors like proximity of the victim and presence of disobedient peers affected obedience. He believed specific situations caused obedience or resistance, regardless of personality traits. Purely authoritarian explanations lack flexibility to explain these variations.
Failure to replicated meltzoff and moore
Studies like Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate earlier findings. Meltzoff and Moore argued Koepke’s study was less controlled. Marian et al. (1996) replicated Murray and Trevarthen’s study, finding infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions. They suggest replication failure may lie in methodology differences. This shows earlier findings weren’t consistently replicated, possibly due to methodological variations.
individual differences in interaction synchrony
Isabella et al. (1989) found stronger attachment in infant-caregiver pairs linked to greater interactional synchrony. Heimann (1989) showed infants who imitate more have better relationships at three months. It’s unclear if imitation causes or results from early synchrony. Research reveals significant individual differences but doesn’t pinpoint their cause.
cultural variations in attachment
Individualist cultures prioritize personal needs, while collectivist cultures prioritize group needs. Research, like Sagi et al. (1994), shows multiple attachments are more common in collectivist societies. In communal environments like Israeli kibbutzim, closeness with mothers was less common compared to family-based arrangements. This suggests the stage model of attachment may be specific to individualist cultures.
Challenging monotopy
Bowlby proposed one special emotional bond with secondary attachments. Rutter argues all attachments are equal, forming an infant’s attachment type. This challenges Bowlby’s idea of a hierarchical attachment system.
ethical issues with harlow
Harlow’s study caused lasting emotional harm to monkeys but advanced understanding of attachment processes, benefiting human and primate infant care. While ethically controversial, the study’s benefits are argued to outweigh its costs, highlighting the importance of ethical considerations in scientific research.
generalising animal studies to humans
Animal studies aim to generalize findings to human behavior, but humans have more conscious decision-making. However, studies like Harlow’s are supported by human research, such as Schaffer and Emerson’s findings on infant attachment. Animal studies provide insights into human behavior but confirmation through human research is essential.
criticisms of imprinting
Initially thought irreversible, imprinting is now seen as more flexible (Hoffman, 1996). Guiton (1966) reversed imprinting in chickens initially mating with rubber gloves; later, they mated normally after being with their own species. Imprinting may resemble other learning processes, being rapid, effortless, and reversible.
research supporting imprinting
Guiton (1966) showed leghorn chicks imprinted on yellow rubber gloves, supporting imprinting. This suggests young animals imprint on any moving object during critical development. Male chickens later tried to mate with gloves, linking early imprinting to later reproductive behavior. Guiton’s findings support Lorenz’s research and conclusions.
alternative explanation to the learning theory
Bowlby’s theory offers a more complex explanation of attachment compared to learning theory. While learning theory explains how attachments might form, Bowlby’s theory explains why they form and their strengths, like protection and increased survival chances. This makes Bowlby’s theory more robust in understanding attachment.
limitations of drive reduction theory
- The concept that seeks to explain why we act the way we do
Drive Reduction Theory, once popular in the 1940s, is now outdated because of several shortcomings. Firstly, it fails to account for behaviors unrelated to reducing discomfort; activities like bungee jumping, which increase discomfort, remain unexplained.
Additionally, the theory struggles to elucidate the mechanism of secondary reinforcers like money, which don’t directly alleviate discomfort yet are reinforcing. These limitations undermine the theory’s explanatory power and led to its rejection by psychologists.
limitations of the learning theory
Learning theory oversimplifies attachment, focusing solely on food as the key element. Harlow’s study with rhesus monkeys showed infants preferred contact comfort over food, challenging this notion. Schaffer and Emerson’s research further supports this, indicating attachment isn’t food-based but also involves contact comfort. This suggests learning theory overlooks crucial factors in attachment formation.
continuity hypothesis in attachment
Bowlby’s theory suggests attachment influences later relationships. The Minnesota parent-child study (Sroufe et al., 2005) followed participants from infancy to late adolescence, finding continuity between early attachment and later social/emotional behavior. Securely attached infants showed higher social competence, popularity, and empathy later in childhood. This supports the continuity hypothesis, indicating a link between early and later attachments.
temperament hypothesis in attachment
The temperament hypothesis suggests an infant’s innate emotional personality, or temperament, influences attachment behavior. Infants with an ‘easy’ temperament are more likely to form strong attachments, while ‘difficult’ infants tend to be insecurely attached. Belsky and Rovine (1987) found behaviorally unstable infants were more likely to develop insecure attachments. While Bowlby emphasized the role of the primary caregiver’s sensitivity, Kagan’s view focuses on infant behaviors. However, research suggests an interaction between infant temperament and caregiver responsiveness, supporting a combined influence on attachment.
Harlows Study - Confounding Variable
This study lacks internal validity as some variables were not the same, such as the heads of the mother, meaning this could be a confounding variable as it is possible that the reason the infant monkeys preferred one “mother” over the other is because one had a more attractive head.
