Social

Question 1

describe obedience:

Describe destructive obedience:

Answer 1

complying with the rules set by a recognised AF who may impose sanctions for disobedience so it is a form of social influence

following orders that lead to the harming of another person or people e.h. hitlers regime

Question 2

Describe Milgrams agency theory 1973 of obedience:

Answer 2

the general tendency to obey those who we percieve to be an AF is a mechanism for maintaining a stable society, to live in a complex society we need social rules and give up some of our free will. The system is a hierarchy with people at the top telling others what to do and this promotes a stable society.

We are socialised into this agentic state from childhood which is further reinforced in school with detentions etc to maintain order, milgram said we like in the classroom we are constantly subordinating our own needs and wishes to others in society, like in the work place where employers put the companys needs before their own.

Question 3

give and explain the 2 states proposed by milgram:

Answer 3

• Agentic state, participants give up their own free will and have no choice but to obey an AF.
  Milgram said it started when a social bond is formed, once formed people feel obliged to to continue what is being asked of them, openly displaying demand characteristics in the given situation, they will not say no as the anxiety that accompanies refusal is not worth it.
  It involves a shift in responsibility/agentic shift, so they feel at ease.

-Autonomous state is where you take control and feel responsibility for your actions, our behaviour is self directed BUT there may be a reason, for example Gretchen Brandtt refused in milgrams study because she had seen enough suffering during the holocaust (individual difference).
There are strategies we develop to deal with moral strain, these are an important aspect of the agentic state, moral strain happens when we do something we believe to be immoral.
We also use defence mechanisms to avoid the distress of doing acts we may normally not find acceptable, denial for example and displacing the blame to the AF.

Question 4

Give 2 strengths of milgrams agency theory of obedience:

Answer 4

1) Agentic theory says we obey an AF this is supported by Milgrams 1963 study of obedience, where 65% of participants were willing to obey orders from an AF and potentially harm another human because they were agentic they displace the responsibility.

2) Milgrams agency theory says moral strain occurs when we know we are doing something wrong but still do it, in milgrams 1963 study participants were seen to show signs like nervous laughing of sweating

Question 5

give 2 weaknesses of milgrams agency theory of obedience:

Answer 5

1) Milgrams agency theory explains obedience as due to situational factors like the presence of an AF. but does not consider individual differences for example Gretchen Brandt who was a participant in one of milgrams studies who refused to go above 210v when asked by an AF because she was a survivor of Nazi Germany and had witnessed too much suffering, an individual difference which means obedience is more complex than just being explained by agency theory

2) Agency theory states we obey when in the presence of an AF as we are agentic, however this is not the only explanation, for example charismatic leadership theory suggests we obey someone because they are skilled at gaining obedience in how they act/speak to the audience, regardless of their authority position as proposed by agency theory.

Question 6

What is the aim of Milgrams 1963 study of obedience?

Answer 6

to investigate how far volunteer participants would go in obeying an AF by giving electric shocks to another participant, to test whether the idea Germans were different to other people and more susceptible to carry our barbaric acts against the Jews and other minority groups.

Question 7

Describe the PROCEDURE of Milgrams 1963 original study on obedience:

Answer 7

The study was concerned with the size of the electric shocks that a person would give, in the context of psychology: effect of punishment on learning (this is what subjects thought they were being tested on). A VOLUNTEER SAMPLE of 296 which he took 160 MALES - they were spread evenly across the 4 initial variation conditions - from a NEWSPAPER ARTICLE each participant was PAID 4 dollars on arrival and was held at YALE UNI.

In the Lab, there was the volunteer and an experimenter (actually a 31 year old bio teacher) dressed in a grey coat and another subject (actually a 47 yr old accountant and an impressive looking shock machine that went from 15-450 volts.

A RIGGED draw took place so the volunteer was the teacher and the other person was the Learner.

The teacher was told it would cause no permanent tissue damageand a trial shock of 45v was given, the learner was put in a seperate room and strapped with electrodes to his wrist to a chair, the teacher was told every time a wrong answer was given to give a shock - AND HE WAS TOLD TO INCREASE THE VOLTAGE EACH TIME.

• no responses were actually given and prerecorded responses were actually given - in order to convince the teacher of authenticity
• If they looked like they wanted to stop they were prodded by a statement for e.g. “please continue please on’ (4 times until they stopped at the 5th with different variations).
• They stopped when they refused or reached 450v
• They were then FULLY DEBRIEFED and made sure they were okay

Question 8

what were the results milgrams 1963 original study of obedience?

Answer 8

QUESTIONAIRE RESULTS:
Milgram asked staff and students to predict how many of the 40 would continue to 450v, the student mean was 1.2% and for the staff 0.1%.

EXPERIMENT RESULTS:
For experiment 1: it was actually 65%, none before 300v, 14 stopped before 450v

IN THE POST EXPERIMENTAL INTERVIEW:
The subjects were asked how painful the last few shocks were, the mean response was 13.42/14 (extremely painful on the scale).

The participants were seen to display high levels of stress: sweat, stutter, laughing fits (they told milgram this was stress and they were not enjoying it in the interview later) , and for 3 full blow, uncontrollable seizures where they had to stop the experiement.

Question 9

Give 2 strengths of Milgrams 1963 original study on obedience:

Answer 9

1) Milgrams experiments were well controlled because the procedures were standardised even the feedback from the learner was tape recorder, while different variables were carefully manipulated to see the effect of obedience - which was accurately operationalised as the amount of voltage given - which increases reliability and is scientifically objective.

2) Milgrams study has experimental validity as there was a volunteer sample of participants as they believed they were actually shocking someone so it is realistic to them.

Question 10

give 2 weaknesses of milgrams 1963 original study on obedience:

Answer 10

1) The sample were volunteers and male mainly which is not representative of the entire population and therefore is not generalisable in the future for it to be representative of females, females should be used.

2) Due to the artificial laboratory setting some psychologists have suggested milgrams experiment is an artificial test of obedience and therefore lacks ecological validity and has mundane realism.

Question 11

give the aim and procedure of Milgrams replication in a rundown office block (experiment 10):

Answer 11

AIM -

He was aware that the institutional context of yale uni being a prestigious place could have affected obedience (higher levels because of the situation they were in) - they know this from the follow up interviews where they went because it was Yale uni so it have them the confidence to go.

Procedure -

In a FIELD EXPERIMENT he relocated to a rundown commercial office building in a town called BRIDGE PORT, CONNECTICUT, research associates of bridgeport a private company were named as the group conducting research - it takes away the link from yale.
The building was run down, opposite some shops, it was a 3 room office suite, it was clean and had little furniture.

40 volunteer participants were recruited through mailshot recruitment and paid 4 dollars 50 cents, the same personnel and the same age and occupation details of participants were used, the researchers told them they were a private firm conducting research - makes it realistic as it is common.
THEY FOLLOWED THE SAME PROCEDURE, VERBAL PRODS AND SAME APPARATUS AS ORIGINAL.

Question 12

give the results and conclusion of Milgrams replication in a rundown office block (experiment 10):

Answer 12

Quantitive - slight reduction in obedience of 47.5% obeying up to max compared to 65%, NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT

Qualitative - no noticeable reduction in tension from the bridgeport participants, estimations of pain felt by the victim were slightly higher but not significantly large enough.

conclusion - the legitimate setting of the first study did not influence obedience so it must be the presence of the AF.

Question 13

give 2 strengths of Milgrams replication in a rundown office block (experiment 10):

Answer 13

1) mailshot recruitment was used to ensure the sample size was random and could be generalised to the entire population

2) he used a 3 roomed office block to test obedience on an AF which increased ecological validity and people are more likely to do obedient tasks in a natural office environment which is realistic.

Question 14

give 2 weaknesses of Milgrams replication in a rundown office block (experiment 10):

Answer 14

1) he used 40 males which is not generalisable to all of the population as no women were used, so the results of environment being a factor is not representative of women’s obedience behaviour.

2) he went against APA guidelines as he lied/deceived his participants by telling them it was a private company conducting research.

Question 15

give the AIM and PROCEDURE of milgrams replication of his original study using telephonic instructions (Experiment 7):

Answer 15

AIM - To establish whether proximity of the experimenter had an influence on the level of obedience displayed.

PROCEDURE - Lab experiment, he wanted to test the effect of physical distance between the experimenter and the teacher. 40 Participants. After giving initial instructions (same as the original) to the teacher face to face, the experimenter then left the room and continued to give instructions over the telephone. Milgram and his team followed the same procedure, verbal prods and the same apparatus as the original experiment.

Question 16

give the results and conclusion of milgrams replication of his original study using telephonic instructions (Experiment 7):

Answer 16

Quantitive - The number of participants willing to give the max voltage fell from 65% to 22.5%.
Qualitative - He also observed that participants continued to administer lower shocks rather than increase and even lied to the experimenter about it, with many assuring him they were increasing the shock level.

Conclusion - when not face to face it is easier not to obey, so the physical presence is a force when it comes to obedience levels, they should plan to be present rather than giving orders from a distance, such as over a telephone.

Question 17

give 2 strengths of milgrams replication of his original study using telephonic instructions (Experiment 7):

Answer 17

1) Increased validity - as he used an artificial setting (lab with 3 rooms), so he could control extraneous variables , so this could also test if the lab setting affected obedience.

2) He used the same standardised procedure as the original i.e. shock generator, phone call, this makes it easy to replicate to test whether proximity of an AF is a variable of affecting obedience - Reliability

Question 18

give 2 weaknesses of milgrams replication of his original study using telephonic instructions (Experiment 7):

Answer 18

1) lacks ecological validity as it took place in a lab which is not an natural setting, so the results of proximity may lack ecological validity.

2) it was an artificial task of electrocuting the learner so has low task validity as we do not go round being told to shock people in daily life to test obedience.

Question 19

give the AIM and PROCEDURE of milgrams ordinary man given order which is one of his replications of his original study on obedience:

Answer 19

AIM - he aimed to test whether the perceived authority of the experimenter could be a factor in influencing obedience, it involves an AF were an ordinary man would give orders and to see if the participant would still obey.

PROCEDURE - 20 Participants, lab experiment it began like all the other with the experimenter giving instructions to the point of administering shocks, before he gets any closer he gets called away and leaves the room, the ordinary man recommends to the teacher to increase the voltage one at a time when the learner makes a mistake, if the teacher refused the man offers to swap roles - this happened 16/20 times, the teacher would then observe the new teacher going through the shocks despite the learner cries.

Question 20

give the results and conclusion of milgrams ordinary man given order which is one of his replications of his original study on obedience:

Answer 20

Quantitative - rate of obedience went down to 20%, 5 physically stopped the test.
Qualitative - Almost all of the original teachers protested, some tried to disconnect the power, some tried to physically restrain the new teacher, the original teachers began to defend the learner.

Conclusion - when the ordinary man was giving the orders the subjects felt less obligated to listen to them, when the common man experimenter took over the shocking the subjects felt they could protect the learner from the shocks, there attitude was different from all the others, they criticised the ordinary mans judgement as bystanders, therefore the AF us important is getting people to obey - perceived authority.

Question 21

give 2 strengths of milgrams ordinary man given order which is one of his replications of his original study on obedience:

Answer 21

1) increased reliability - same standardised procedure, same ordinary man which makes it easier to replicate to test where an ordinary man is a variable that would effect whether someone would obey an AF or not.

2) increases validity - they were deceived as they did not realise they were being fooled therefore increasing realism.

Question 22

give 2 weaknesses of milgrams ordinary man given order which is one of his replications of his original study on obedience:

Answer 22

1) 20 male participants along with an ordinary man to test obedience, not generalisable to the entire population as he did not use women, so it is not representative of women obedience levels and behaviour.

2) the 20 male participants were ethically deceived as they were told it was a study about obedience which breaches APA ethical guidelines nowadays in relation to not deceiving participants about the obedience study.

Question 23

explain the ethical issue for deception in milgrams original study and give his defence:

Answer 23

he deceived his participants as he told them it was a study on learning even though it was obedience, they also thought they ere shocking another human.

He would now have received accurate results as the prediction highly underestimated obedience levels.

Question 24

explain the ethical issue for the right to withdraw in milgrams original study and give his defence:

Answer 24

he did not give them the right to withdraw and he even pressured them to go on with verbal prods i.e. pls go on

he said they were free to go at any time as they were not physically restrained it was just not made clear, if after the 4th verbal prod they did not obey they were then able to leave

Question 25

explain the ethical issue for confidentiality in milgrams original study and give his defence:

Answer 25

He did maintain it as he did not give out of the names of participants but he did publish the area

he said partial confidentiality was maintained

Question 26

explain the ethical issue for consent/informed consent in milgrams original study and give his defence:

Answer 26

he did gain consent but it was not informed because he deceived them

he said subjects did agree to take part so partial consent was gained but not informed as the results would not have been realistic

Question 27

explain the ethical issue for distress in milgrams original study and give his defence:

Answer 27

he caused distress to participants as one had a violent seizure and the rest could have psychology damage i.e. guilt or loss of self esteem

sweating trembling etc

he said if distress was too severe through the one way mirror the study was stopped
All subjects were debriefed and reassure that no one had been hurt, a trained psychiatrist was on hand and they were also examined for years to come, a follow up opinion survey showed 84% were glad they took part 15% neutral and 1.3% were very sorry/sorry , people said they had learnt from it.

Question 28

explain the ethical issue for competence in milgrams original study and give his defence:

Answer 28

due to levels of distress he was accused of incompetence - cost benefit model

he said did not think obedience levels would be that high so distress would not have been observed as he asked others he was competent and did not expect the results he was competent and did adhere to ethical guidelines.

Question 29

give the aim of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

Answer 29

he wanted to investigate obedience and to see whether situational factors still affect obedience to an AF even after 45 years.
Also to see if personality variables (individual differences) like empathy and locus of control influence obedience.
Finally to see if the presence of a disobedient model makes a different to obedience levels.

Question 30

give the procedure of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

ONLY INCLUDE THE SCREENINGS AND BASIC A01 CONTENT

Answer 30

people responded to advertisements on flyers in a local newspaper local businesses and online, they were promised 50 dollars for taking part in 2 45 minute sessions, they expressed interest through phone or email (LAB EXPERIMENT AND VOLUNTEER SAMPLE)

BURGER DID 2 SCREENS TO REMOVE VULNERABLE PEOPLE:

screen 1: they were contacted by a researcher who screened them, i.e. to see if they had done psychology classes and had previous knowledge of milgrams study, 30% more we excluded on the grounds of mental and physical health
screen 2: screening on a questionaire on age, occupation, education and ethnicity and did the beck anxiety test to protect vulnerable groups
They were taken to a mini interview which lasted 30 minutes to check for psychological disorders.
123 people took part in the second round of screening and 47 were removed for confidential reasons, they were told to come back a week later 6 dropped out, 5 admitted to knowing about milgram and 1 did not attend, THE FINAL SAMPLE WAS 29 MALES AND 41 FEMALES AGED 20-81 WITH AN AVG. AGE OF 42.9 YRS.

Question 31

give a summary of the first experiment (control condition) of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

Answer 31

experiment 1) they were split into 2 equal groups and introduced to the confederate, they were given the 50 dollars and told they could keep it if they withdrew - less stress
a rigged draw was used and a shock generator (15v not 45v tester). - similar to milgrams

They were asked to sign consent form
The teacher saw the them tied down and the electrodes on them in the separate room - the learner revealed a heart problem at this stage
They were told to read out 25 word pairs and told to give 15v for a wrong answer
prods and prerecorded responses were given like milgrams

At 75v a small grunt was heard and it became louder until 150v where they were heard to yell and wanted to get out and mentioned their heart condition

It stopped when they refused or reached 165v

At the end they were told it was not real and they were introduced to the learner who was fine they were then fully debriefed once they were fine.

Question 32

give a summary of the second experiment (modelled refusal condition) of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

Answer 32

all participants followed the same procedure as the baseline but with 2 conefederates instead - they posed as a participant and were the same gender.
The drawing of roles were rigged
the fake one did start and the other one sat by
at 75v as scripted they hesitate and at 90v said i dont know about this after hearing a grunt
they were them prompted by the experiment but refused
the fake one then refused after being prompted by the experimenter but refused to carry and a pushed their chair away from the table, the real one was then asked to continue

Question 33

give the results and conclusion of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

Answer 33

aim -
in experiment 1 70% had to be stopped before going past 70% just lower than 85.2% in milgrams experiment 5 replication
in experiment 2 63.3% went to continue after 150v despite the others withdrawing - similar to baseline
Little difference in obedience levels between genders

conclusion -
both experiments were similar to milgrams research, time and changes in society did not affect the results nor did the refusal of a confederate , they assumed if they went to 150v they would go to 450v

model refusal was not very different to the baseline which is odd as SIT says the presence of an AF lowers obedience when it is divided between 2 people.

Question 34

give 2 strengths of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

Answer 34

1) reliable as he s
used milgrams standardised procedure only changing it for ethical reasons (like the screening process and the fact he repeated the fact they could leave whenever) , therefore it is reliable and has scientific credibility in relation to milgrams original study of obedience.

2) ethical strong as he did not include anyone with emotional issues and told them they could withdraw at any time, he also reduced stress by stopping them at 150v much lowers than milgrams 450v, so he protected vulnerable people in relation to obedience in stressful situations.

Question 35

give 2 weaknesses of Burgers 2009 replication of milgram to see if people would still obey today:

Answer 35

1) he only did a partial replication as he only went to 150v not 450v so comparing the results that situation factors cause obedience to milgrams 450v is limited. - reliability?

2) he did convince them they were actually electrically shocking someon, which would have caused them stress under BPS ethical guidelines therefore making it unethical in terms of obedience

Question 36

give a brief overview of 2009 BPS guidelines:

Answer 36

it outlines rules and regulations to undergo research
you must keep records and not release the name of participants for privacy and confidentiality

you should gain informed consent from all unless it would ruin the research results but you should gain approval from BPS

you should not decept the participants - unless it is needed for the results but you should gain approval from BPS

you should make the right to withdraw clear
you should avoid harm (mental and physically - leave the same way they came)
you should debrief them at the end so they know what happened and everyone is safe

researchers must be competence and ensure everyone is safe and arrange alternative arrangements and seek consultation if required.

the researchers should not claim credit for something you didn’t do, don’t form relationships with participants. make sure so Sexual harassment takes place.

if someone can’t make a decision their lasting power of attorney should do it for them otherwise the participant themselves can do it.

Question 37

explain the ethical controls and issues in burgers study of obedience:

Answer 37

There was a 2 step screening process to remove vulnerable participants and lower stress levels

the test shock was 15v not 45v to lower stress as they thought they would have been doing less harm

they were warned 3 times in writing that they could withdraw at any time and still keep the 50 dollars, this ensures they do not stay if they do not want to and lowers stress levels

Question 38

give a brief overview of social impact theory:

Answer 38

it refers to the idea of conforming to social influence depends on the strength of the groups importance, its immediacy and number of people in the group.

Aronson et al 2007 predicts conformity will increase as the strength and immediacy increases, the more important a group is to us the more likely we are to conform.

Latane 1981 proposed that it looked at social influences that can be used to explain who people are obedience, he said we are influenced by the actions of others, persuaded, threatened and supported by others. The effect on us is due to the actions of others and this affects how we behave, feel and act. - he proposed a formula: function of strength x immediacy x no. sources

Question 39

explain social forces in the context of social impact theory by Latane 1981:

Answer 39

this refers to the influence of the sources has on the target which can be related to the strength of the source, the immediacy and the no, sources.

A sources strength is influenced by age, status and authority, milgram found more obedience in Yale uni than at the run down office block.
Immediacy: how close, a drill instructor screaming in your face has more effect than if they were 10 feet away.
number: how many sources are present

Question 40

explain multiplication vs division of impact in the context of social impact theory by latane 1981

Answer 40

multiplication: if there are multiple sources on one target the effect is bigger

division: if there is one source but multiple targets the effect is less as it has to be split between multiple people

Question 41

explain the law of diminishing returns in the context of social impact theory by latane 1981:

Answer 41

latane said when the source group is given 3 extra people, it has less of an influencing effect. So AF in numbers has more effect on obedience

Question 42

give 2 pieces of research evidence for social impact theory by latane 1981:

Answer 42

latane in his paper said people are more likely to tip more in a restaurant if they pay on separate bills, individual is 19% but in a group of 6 it is only 13%

latane said we respond to normative influence (desire to be liked) when the group is very important to us and we spend a lot of time with them. - a group of 4 people may exert more influence than a group of 2/3 but 40+ makes no difference.

Question 43

give 2 strengths for social impact theory by latane 1981:

Answer 43

1) impact is affected by no. people b being influenced as much as by the no. doing the influencing - this is supported by milgrams variations where when participants thought they had peer support they were less obedient.

2) strength of the source will affect behaviour is supported by latane and harkins 1976 who found that students who were expected to sing before an audience of high status people experienced more tension than if it was a low status group.

Question 44

give 2 weaknesses for social impact theory by latane 1981:

Answer 44

1) it does not apply to all situations for example, it cannot predict what happens when 2 equal groups come face to face, who wins?

2) it only look at social impact in general and obedience in particular, for example it can explain why the presence of others affects obedience but not the change of setting on obedience levels.

Question 45

compare theories of obedience:

Answer 45

agency says it is caused by socialisation to an AF, but SIT says it is the interaction between social forces

agency says people obey because they are agents to society - may be reductionist as it only covers one factor (situational variable), SIT uses multiple factors, immediacy, strength, number etc - holistic theory as it covers multiple factors

they both do not cover individual differences - personality for example - locus of control theory says obedience is higher when a person has an external locus of control compared to internal locus of control

supporting for agency is milgram
supporting for SIT is latane and darley 1970 where a lone person is more likely to help a victim compared to if they were in a group - divisional effect

Question 46

give a brief overview of SIT as an explanation of prejudice by tafjel and turner 1979 1986:

Answer 46

prejudice is caused by the creation of groups , it is human nature to think we belong to a group, they believed group membership alone was enough to cause prejudice. - we identify with a group to aid cooperation and help us form societies.
- In group (same traits), out group (not the same traits)

SIT says we promote the in group over the out group and we do this to enhance our own status as we think we are the best and then our self esteem is enhanced - this forms part of our self identity.
When social identity is favourable the group will be positive and vice versa (as self esteem is lowered)/

Within a group, each individual has a social identity, an image based on the attributes of the group groups to which we belong. Our social identity will influence out personal identity within the group because the group memberships are a source and influence on our self-esteem. For example if a team loses a football match, the lowered social identity of the groups will have a negative impact on the individual group and members personal identities.

Question 47

explain CIC in the context of SIT:

Answer 47

1. SOCIAL CATEGORISATION takes place when we classify other people as members of a particular group. Categories we all tend to subscribe to involve gender, race and social class. Others are more relevant to some people than others, for example, to football supporters or cat lovers.
2. SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION we tend to adopt the characteristics of the group to which we have categorised ourselves as belonging. There is an emotional significance to identification with a group, and one’s self-esteem becomes bound up with group membership. If our self-esteem is to be maintained out group needs to compare well against other groups which involves shift in a person’s thinking and involves a change to his or her self-concept as a new social identity is formed.
3. SOCIAL COMPARISON is where you contrast YOUR group (ingroup) with others (outgroup) in order to maintain self-esteem. Hostility between groups is thus not only a matter of competing for resources like jobs, but also the results of competing identities. If the ingroup members are seen as better, then we too, as an ingroup member, must also be better. We are therefore motivated to perceive out ingroup in a positive light and this can be enhanced further through seeing the outgroup in unfavourable terms.

The desire to see the ingroup as different and better is known as the QUEST FOR POSITIVE DISTINCTIVENESS. Differences between groups are emphasised and similarities minimised. These cognitive processes may lead to discrimination between ingroup and outgroup members, meaning not only do we think about outgroup members differently, we also may treat them differently.

Question 48

explain the application for SIT:

Answer 48

This process explains a range of phenomena for example, racism, class conflict etc. and in doing so offers a partial explanation for the tendency for people to discriminate in favour of people from their own country and against those from other countries.

Apply the three processes above to the prejudice behaviour of football hooliganism.

So in order to elevate personal identity, the positive attributes of the in-group must be raised as well. This is done through,

• IN-GROUP FAVOURITISM which is the tendency of a group members to see the individuals within their groups as unique (heterogeneous) and favourable
• NEGATIVE OUT-GROUP BIAS is the tendency to view members of the out-group as “all the same” (homogenous) and in an unfavourable light. This social comparison ensures that the social identity of the group is elevated.

So there are 3 variables that contribute to in-group favouritism;

• The extent to which the individuals identify with the in-group
• The extent to which there are groups for making comparisons with the out-group
• The relevance of the comparison group in relation to the in-group

Question 49

give 2 strengths for Social identity theory:

Answer 49

1) Social Identity Theory suggests that prejudice forms as the result of the presence of an ingroup and an outgroup which is supported by Tajfel and Turner “minimal Groups Study” which found that just the presence of an in and out group created in-group favouritism within British schoolboys.

2) Social Identity Theory suggests that prejudice forms as the result of the presence of an ingroup and an outgroup which is supported by Cialdini et al (1976) analysed the results of US university football scores and observed the attending students clothing after a big football game, they were more likely to wear the football team sweatshirt in that had won the game. When interviewed if the team had won they referred to “us” and “they” when they lost. So an individuals personal identity is affected by their association with a football team (social identify) supporting social identity theory.

Question 50

give 2 weaknesses of Social identity theory:

Answer 50

1) Social Identity Theory suggests that prejudice forms s the result of the presence of an ingroup and outgroup however this does not consider individual differences eg, confidence in prejudice, a closer look at the results of the minimal group studies shows wide variations in the degree to which people discriminate against the outgroup.

2) Social Identity Theory suggests that prejudice forms as a result of the presence of an ingroup and outgroup however this does not consider other factors for example, in Rwanda the fighting between the Hutu and Tutsi people was over power, resources and politics as well as memories of past events and not because of ingroup favouritism.

Question 51

give a brief overview of RCT as an explanation of prejudice sherif 1966:

Answer 51

REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY argues that people become PREJUDICED towards someone else when CONFLICT over MATERIAL RESOURCES arise
The CONFLICT is real and groups change in line with a SITUATION when faced with it.

The PROCESS OF NEGATIVE STEREOTYPING involves CONFLICT between the INGROUP and the OUTGROUP.

The INGROUP STEREOTYPES and behaves towards the OUTGROUP in ways that their INDIVIDUAL moral values and codes would usually NOT allow, which results in HOSTILITY and CONFLICT.

Evidence to reinforce this comes from Sherif’s Robbers Cave experiment (1961) got a group of boys on a summer camp in America and split them into 2 groups the Rattlers and the Eagles, causing INTERGROUP CONFLICT. For the first week the two groups did not know about each other, and passed the time normally and separately. The Rattlers were “tough guys”, whereas the Eagles did not allow “swearing”. The groups were then allowed to find out about one another and felt that the other was invading their territory which resulted in each group negatively stereotyping and conflict. Sherif then introduced real conflict in the form of a tournament in which the teams got points and the member of the team with the most points got a prize. This led to further loyalty to the ingroup and increased hostility and conflict to the outgroup

Sherif managed to create CONFLICT between an INGROUP and an OUTGROUP which resulted in PREJUDICE. They found that a hierarchy structure resulted (eg, leader-followers) with LOYALTY to the INGROUP and HOSTILITY being shown towards the OUTGROUP.

SO the INGROUP STEREOTYPED THE OUTGROUP IN A NEGATIVE WAY.

However when the groups were need to work together for a common all, there is a reduction in hostility and greater harmony between groups. Sherif believed that intergroup hostility can only be reduced by SUPERORDINATE GOALS, where all members need to cooperate to achieve the intended outcome, in this case the camps water supply.

RESOURCES may be water and food, or they may be jobs if unemployment is higher. They could be territory, financial resources, military resources or social resources (ie, friends). So in times of scarcity, prejudice is more likely to arise.

Question 52

give 2 strengths of RCT:

Answer 52

Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that prejudice results due to competition between groups over material resources which is supported by Sherif’s Robbers cave study field experiment which found that competition increased hostility between two groups of boys.

Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that prejudice results due to competition between groups over material resources which can be applied to explain acts of genocide in society for example, Tutsi tribe settled peacefully and intermarried with the Hutu tribe in Rhwanda, in Africa, until competition over political rivalry between the two groups caused mass genocide of almost 1 million Tutsi.

Question 53

give 2 weaknesses of RCT:

Answer 53

Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that prejudice results due to competition between groups over material resources, Sherif recognised that even before the competition element in his studies was introduced there was hostility between the groups, showing that Social Identity Theory is correct and the mere presence of another group is enough for prejudice to be created.

Realistic Conflict Theory Suggests that prejudice results due to competition between groups over material resources, this does not take into account individual differences of authoritarian personality which could lead to prejudice attitudes as supported by Adorno.

Question 54

give the background info and context of sheriffs et al study 1954-1961 intergroup conflict and cooperation robbers cave experiment:

Answer 54

Sherif and his team conducted a series of summer camp experiments to investigate intergroup conflict.
Each study was standardised: 10-12 year old boys attending a 2 week summer camp were divided into groups and made to compete against one another in a series of camp games.
The behaviour of the boys was observed and recorded to analyse how competition brought about conilict.
The first in the series of experiments was undertaken on 24 well-adjusted boys who were attending an 18-day summer camp in the isolated Northern Hills of Connecticut in 1949.
The boys
arrived and spent some time as one large group before they were divided into 2 separate groups that then competed in camp activities.
The 2 groups were placed in separate living conditions, “bunk houses” and for the first activities like hikes did this separately. From this point onwards the groups began to form identities, naming themselves “Red Dogs” and “Bull Dogs”. Within the groups new friendships formed, a hierarchy was established, they adopted symbols and nicknames.
Their allegiance began to shift towards
their new group and they favoured time and unity with their new groups rather than the whole larger group, it was at this stage they group conflict began to appear. They even went onto rate individual members of the other group negatively, despite being rated as best friends at the beginning of the camp.
A second study was conducted in upstate New York in the summer of 1953. This time the groups called themselves “the Panthers” and “the Pythons”, following a similar pattern of in-group favouritism and competition as the first study. However the boys got suspicious and discovered the research was trying to create conflict between them (demand characteristics), so the study was stopped.
The third set of experiments which involved the reduction of prejudice that we will be looking at.

Question 55

give the aim of sheriffs et al study 1954-1961 intergroup conflict and cooperation robbers cave experiment:

Answer 55

To investigate intergroup relations over a period of time when various experimentally induced situations were introduced.
A second aim was to specifically look at in-group formation, the effect of competition and the conditions under which conflict could be resolved. - subordinate goals

Question 56

explain the procedure of sheriffs et al study 1954-1961 intergroup conflict and cooperation robbers cave experiment:

Answer 56

Field Experiment at the Robber’s Cave Camp in Oklahoma, (an old hideout for outlaws like Jessie
James).
They study was completed in 3 stages:

1. In-groups were created by facilitating tasks that required in-group cooperation.

2.
The two groups would be bought together in situations where they would have to compete against one another for goals.

3. Superordinate goals were introduced to encourage cooperation between the groups in order to reduce in-group hostility.
   There were 22 boys (selected from a sample of 200), aged 11-12 years of age, “normally adjusted” from middle-class Protestant families, from schools in Oklahoma City. It was controlled that the boys did not know or meet each other prior, parents were paid to not to visit their boys during the 2 week period (Sherif told parents he did not want them getting homesick but really he did not want them there as an extraneous variable). Across the two groups the boys were matched against each other (individual differences controlled) and then divided equally based on parental information and teachers educational (IQ test) and athletic assessments.

Data collection
Observation - a participant observer was allocated to each group 12 hours a day.
Sociometric analysis - issues such as friendship patterns were noted and studied.
Experiment - eg, the boys had to collect beans and estimate how many each boy had collected.
Tape recordings - adjectives and phrases used to refer to their own group members and to out-group members were examined.

Stage 1 (ingroup formation)
During the first 5-6 days of the 2-week camp, the two groups of boys were separate from on another and completed group activities (eg, treasure hunt with $10 prize) designed around in-group formation. During this stage the camp staff (actual researchers) observed the vertal and non-verbal communication within each group and the relationships that were emerging Sociometric data was gathered on how the boys rated each other in terms of popularity, initiative etc

Stage 2 (friction phase)

The 4-6 days involved bringing the boys together for competitions as part of the camp tournaments eg tug or war, baseball, scavenger-hunt, including tasks like bean-counting competitions. They arranged it so that each group member had to compete in order to win points towards the tournament total - a trophy was promised along with prizes such as knives and medals. They were also put into situations that would incite frustration and informed that the other group was to blame.
They observed stereotypes forming between each group, along with
behavioural attitudes.

Stage 3 (integration phase)
The last 6-7 days specifically focused on bringing reducing the group conflict through activities designed to promote goals that needed cooperation between both groups. Three problem situations were set up,
Fixing the water tank that provided water to both groups
A joint camp-over where group members had to work together for food and sleeping gear.
Starting the broken-down camp bus.

Question 57

give the results and conclusion of sheriffs et al study:

Answer 57

Stage 1 - the boys in each group formed their own set of group norms which lead to a group identity. They took part in various cooperative activities and by the end had a name “Rattlers”, other group “Eagles”. At the end of this stage the groups were made aware of each other and a
“them” and “us” situation arose.
Stage 2 - the boys were beginning to show signs of hostility to the other group. Leaders emerged within each group and the groups became territorial. When the tournament began the boys began to fight, calling names and the Eagles burned the Rattlers camp flag. They observed a strong sense of in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias, resulting in derogatory terms being used eg, stinkers, braggers, sissies etc, about the other group. When asked to self-report about their friend, 93% selected exclusively boys from their own in-group.
Stage 3 - researchers brought the 2 groups back together, eating together in a communal dining hall and watching movies together. However, this was not enough and the animosity between the two groups continued.
List actions tah
Tasks involving superordinate goals were brought in eg, fixing the water tank. They were divided up and asked to identify the problem with the water supply. When the broken faucet was found, the boys were observed to be mingling and talking, however this did not last long and name calling began again.
The camp staff told the boys that they could secure a movie by paying for it collectively. They devised a payment plan and a reduction in hostility was observed. Finally the boys worked together to pull the camp bus, which was rigged by the researchers to not start.
At the end of the study, the researchers reassessed friendship choices. They found a significant increase in the number of boys whose friendships were now the out-group compared to those choices made in stage 2.

Sherif’s team concluded that strong in-group identities were formed initially and with the introduction of competition the negative out-group bias quickly emerged. The introduction of superordinate gaols had a reunification effect in reducing negative out-group bias because it removed the competition by getting them to collectively work together. This study supports the Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif) in that prejudice could be brought about through competition for resources.

Question 58

compare two theories of prejudice:

Answer 58

Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that prejudice results due to the ingroup (eg) and outgroup (eg) competing for material resources like a trophy, money or political power.
On the other hand
Social Identity Theory suggests that prejudice results due to just the presence of the ingroup (eg) and outgroup (eg) creates prejudice in people.
Realistic Conflict Theory looks at how prejudice can be reduced, by working together to solve superordinate goals, were groups have to work together to solve a problem, usually one on a large scale.
Pili cation,
How ever
Social Identity Theory looks at how prejudice can be reduced by redrawing group boundaries so that the ingroup adopt the outgroup to become one ingroup.
Realistic Conflict Theory is supported by Sherif Robbers Cave experiment in which the boys rewarded members of their ingroup more over the outgroup when competing for a material resource which is what the theory suggested.
Both
Social Identity Theory is supported by Tajfel and Turners minimal group study in which boys rewarded members of their ingroup over the outgroup, showing ingroup favouritism which is what the theory suggested.
However, Sherifs Robber’s cave experiment, supporting Realistic Conflict Theory was completed in a field environment which is difficult to control for extraneous variables like first time at the camp which could have made the boys prejudice and not the ingroup task.
How ever
However, Minimal groups study by Tajfel supports Social Identity Theory and was completed in a laboratory environment which is low in ecological validity as it is not a natural environment for testing ingroup
favouritism
Realistic Conflict Theory can be applied to explain prejudice in society for example, in Rhwanda the Hutus killed many of the Tutsis in an act of genocide because of a struggle for land, a material resource.
In addition
Social Identity Theory can be applied to explain prejudice in society for example, in Rhwanda the Hutus killed many of the Tutsis in an act of genocide because those in the ingroup showed favouritism eg, Hutus and killed those in the outgroup Tutsis.

Question 59

give 3 strengths of sheriffs study:

Answer 59

G – In Sheriff et al 1954/1961 intergroup conflict and cooperation, robbers cave experiment, sheriff used 24 boys aged between 11 and 12 from a middle class protestant background from schools in Oklahoma, this means the results from Sheriffs et al study are generalisable to the target population (which was boys aged 11-12), therefore the results are representative of the target group Sheriff was aiming to observe and gather results on.
V - Sheriff et al had the camp counsellors collect data 12 hours day at the summer camp in Robbers Cave in Oklahoma. They visually recorded behavioural information on the boys and jotted it down later. This provides qualitative data on the prejucide acitivty taking place on the 3 stages of the experiment, this means validity is high due to the results gathered being accurate as the 24 boys ages being 11 and 12 will not realise their actions are being recorded, this means they cannot alter their behaviour to fit with what they think the experimenters want.

D – Sheriff et al used a matched pair design which produced equal teams from the 24 boys ages 11-12, he matched IQ and athleticism equally. This therefore reduces these factors altering the results of the study and therefore influencing the accuracy of the prejudice behaviour. This ensure only the prejudice in these boys is being measured.

Question 60

give 2 weaknesses of sheriffs study:

Answer 60

G - In Sheriff et al 1954/1961 intergroup conflict and cooperation, robbers cave experiment, sheriff used 24 boys aged between 11 and 12 from a middle-class protestant background from schools in Oklahoma. Due to only 22 boys, a small number, being observed this makes the results from the study not generalisable to the whole of the USA as we do not have enough data to compare it to the entire population.

R - Sheriff et al conducted an experiment which was at Robbers Cave Camp in Oklahoma – this is a natural setting, therefore extraneous variables like the weather, noise etc cannot be controlled like they could in a lab setting, therefore these variables may have had an effect on the results of prejudice behaviour 24 boys between the ages of 11 and 12. For example if the weather was bad this could have put the boys in a bad mood and they may have been more likely to be prejudice towards the out group (the group of characteristics/traits you do not have). Therefore, the results may not be 100% reliable.

E – Sheriff et al’s study would have gone against APA guidelines due to the 24 boys aged between 11 and 12 being put under significant amount of distress over the 2 week period, this may have happened when Sheriff et al introduced stage 2 – friction phase where the purpose was to ignite prejudice behaviour, this was shown when physical fights broke out between groups, however, Sheriff et al stated no serious injuries and long term psychological damage occurred, he also stated the benefits out wayed the costs of the experiment.

Question 61

explain the difference between internal and external locus on control:

Answer 61

internal - people tend to believe they are responsible for their actions and are less likely to be influenced by others

external - it is out of their control and is down to other factors like fate

Question 62

explain the difference between etic and emic?

Answer 62

etic is is specific to one culture
emic is universal across all

Question 63

give 2 strengths for individual differences in personality in prejudice?

Answer 63

Adorno theory of personality and research studies suggests that overly harsh parenting style creates a person that is prone to prejudice behaviour in which they scapegoat other people to vent their anger onto others whom they see as inferior to them.

Right Wing authoritarianism suggests that there are personality traits that people learn that makes them prejudice which is supported by Altemeyer who found aggression and conventionalism correlated with prejudice behaviour in those who showed them in their personality.

Question 64

give 2 weaknesses for individuals differences in personality on prejudice:

Answer 64

Adorno theory of personality and research studies suggests that overly harsh parenting style creates a person that is prone to prejudice behaviour in which they scapegoat other people to vent their anger onto others whom they see as inferior to them, however alternative theories such as social learning theory would suggest that we imitate the behaviour of others so we copy others prejudice behaviour and not due to personality.

RWO and SDO over time are not consistent as found by Levin who found when primed Jewish participant to think about their social identity with Israel, they changed their ideas when asked to think about it - so prejudice is not fixed in personality due potentially changeable ideas about different cultures.

Question 65

give 2 strengths for individual differences in culture on prejudice:

Answer 65

Cultural explanations include etic (between cultures) and emic (all cultures) ideas for explaining prejudice behaviour which is supported by Katz (1993) who found the majority of students in their study viewed African Americans as superstitions and ignorant and Jews as Shrews - showing prejudicial differences.

Norm of fairness theory shows that many cultures are more concerned with fairness than competition as supported by Wetherall who found Polynesian children were fairer in allocation to point of the outgroup than Caucasian white classmates, showing different prejudice
differences depending on the culture.

Question 66

give 2 weaknesses of individual differences on culture on prejudice:

Answer 66

Cultural explanations include etic (between cultures) and emic (all cultures) ideas for explaining prejudice behaviour however this is not the only explanation of prejudice, Adornos authoritarian personality theory suggests that prejudice occurs from having and AP and not to do with cultural explanations of etic and emic so is an incomplete explanation of all cultural differences in prejudice.

Norm of fairness theory suggests that many cultures are influences by the need to be fair which is
reductionist as Sherif would suggest that culture is also to do with competition over materials resources and not just a need to be fair, so is an incomplete explanation of prejudice.

Question 67

give 2 strengths for the individual differences on situation factor on prejudice:

Answer 67

Social Identity theory (T&T) suggests that prejudice behaviour is the result of identification with two groups which is supported by Tajfel’s experiment in which boys gave more points to others in their ingroup than outgroup, suggesting prejudice is a situational factor.

Realistic Conflict theory (Sherif) suggests that prejudice occurs when an ingroup and outgroup compete for material resources as supported by his Robbers Cave experiment in which two shows that groups of boys, the Eagles and Rattlers ncerned competed for prizes and became prejudice to on as each other.

Question 68

give 2 weaknesses for individual differences for situation on prejudice:

Answer 68

Social Identity theory (T&T) suggests that prejudice behaviour is the result of identification with two groups however, Adornos authoritarian personality theory suggests that prejudice occurs from having and AP and not to do with situational explanations of ingroup favouritism so is an incomplete explanation of all cultural differences in prejudice.

Realistic conflict theory suggests that competition over material resources creates prejudice which is reductionist as there are other explanations to prejudice behaviour that it does not consider such as social learning theory and imitating the prejudice behaviour of others whom we imitate and copy.

Question 69

give 2 strengths for individual differences of personality on obedience:

Answer 69

Adorno (1950) suggests that those with an authoritarian personality (theory of personality) due to tough upbringing tend to be more obedient to an authority figure as supported by Milgram and Elms (1966) who found those with higher authoritarian traits from the f-scale questionnaire were more obedient.

Rotter (1966) locus of control theory of personality suggests that those with an external locus of control are more obedient as found by Blass (1991) whose participants with an internal locus of control were less obedient than those with an external locus of control.

Question 70

give 2 weaknesses for individual differences on personality for obedience:

Answer 70

Adorno (1950) suggests that those with an authoritarian personality due to tough upbringing tend to be more obedient to an authority figure, however this does not take into consideration situational variables such as Milgram’s (1963) study in which the presence of an authority figure influences obedience and not whether the person has an authoritarian personality.

Anderson et al correlational analysis found there was a positive correlation between people having high internal locus of control and leadership skills, however this is correlational data which does not show a cause-and-effect relationships between LOC and obedience traits, other factors could also be important.

Question 71

give 2 strengths for individual differences for gender on obedience:

Answer 71

Whether you are male, or female may influence how obedient a person is as supported by Kilham and Mann who found males and females both gave shocks to puppies when ordered to do so by an authority figure showing obedience levels in both genders.

Gender as a factor in obedience has
research - Milgram in experiment 8 using all female participant found no significant different in the obedience behaviour in his electric shock experiment to the scores of males in the original
- suggesting obedience is no different in males and females.

Question 72

give 2 weaknesses of individual differences on for gender on obedience:

Answer 72

Gender of a person, ie, being male or female as a factor influencing obedience is not the only factor that influence obedience, Adorno (1950) suggests that those with an authoritarian personality due to tough upbringing tend to be more obedient to an authority figure, and not a person’s gender that influences obedient behaviour.

Gender theories as an explanation of obedience are reductionist as they suggest that obedience is due to someone’s gender and does not consider external situational variables such as the social learning theory which suggests imitation of same gender role models is also an important factor in influencing how obedient someone is.

Question 73

give 2 strengths for individual differences of culture on obedience:

Answer 73

Hofsted (2011) suggested two traits were important in obedience, being part of an individualistic culture in which people can be less obedience and collectivist cultures in which they are sometimes more obedience - suggesting a cultural difference in obedience behaviour.
e.g. China

Blass 1999) collated data on many obedience studies completed across the world showing differences e.g., In Italy Ancona found 85% levels compared to only 28% in Australia (Kilham and Mann).

Question 74

give 2 weaknesses of individual differences on culture for obedience:

Answer 74

Blass (2012) calculated the average rate for 8 non-USA Milgram study replications and found on average 66% obedience compared to 61% of the USA studies - showing similar levels of obedience irrespective of culture.

Culture of a person, ie, which country they come from for example, as a factor influencing obedience is not the only factor that influence obedience, Adorno
(1950) suggests that those with an authoritarian personality due to tough upbringing tend to be more obedient to an authority figure, and not a person’s culture that influences obedient behaviour.