Social Flashcards
What was Milgram’s experiment inspired by?
Inspired by Nazi war, want to test if ordinary people would do similar things. Milgram’s students predicted only 1% would obey.
Obedience study aim
If participants would obey from authority that’s against their morals.
Create baseline data to be compare with later variations.
What’s was the IV and DC?
No IV as it was a structured observation.
DV, obedience score.
Procedure
Lab experiment.
Participants were told it was a memory study.
Milgram’s watched through a 1 way mirror.
Participants felt a 45V at the start.
Fake coin toss.
Goes but by 15V for every wrong answer.
Tape recorded responses.
What was the sample?
40 male participants aged 20-50
Volunteer sampling.
Paid $4 for turning up.
What was the 4 prods?
Please continue.
The experiment requires that you continue.
It’s absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice but to go on.
Findings
Participants were more obedient until 300V.
Between 300-375V, 14 dropped out.
Qualitative data, 14 showed nervous laughter.
Conclusion
Ordinary people would obey in the right situations.
What was variation 7?
Sample of 40 women.
65% obedience.
No gender differences.
What was variation 10?
Run down office block.
Obedience dropped to 19.
Participants showed more doubts.
What was variation 13?
Ordinary authority figure.
Fake participants suggested to go up to 15V every time answer is wrong.
4/20 wen up to 450V.
16 rebel participants watch someone deliver shocks.
All protested.
People more willing to be bystanders than to intervene.
Obedience study generalizability
Large sample but all male from same culture.
Time locked.
Volunteer sampling.
Tested a total of 780.
Variation 8 tested women.
Meeus and Raaijmakers, 92% obedience in Netherlands but used insults.
Reliability
Can be replicated eg his variations and Burger.
Standardized procedure.
Perry argue Milgram’s didn’t follow standardized procedure, not strict with prods.
Application
Enhance obedience.
Explains My Lai massacre.
Tragedies can be prevented.
Validity
Lack ecological validity.
Some argue participants were acting.
Perry, Milgram’s twisted data in variation 8, experimenter not letting withdraw after 4 prods as both gender should experience agentic state in his theory.
Claimed the drop to 47.5% in variation 10 were not sig but a difference of 17.5% is usually sig.
Ethics
Deception, can’t be conducted if knew the aim.
Debrief, checked they were in good state, 40 interviewed by a psychiatrist a year later.
Define autonomous state
We perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own actions.
Define age tic state.
We perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone so they will be responsible for our actions.
Define moral strains
We have 2 contradictory urges, to obey authority or conscience.
Ways people avoid
Denial
Avoidance
Degree of involvement
Helping the learner
Agency theory credibility
His variations support situational factors affect obedience but disposition Al factor like gender don’t.
Burger supported conclusion, proven not rime locked.
Objections
Moral strain only showed by obeyed participants.
Lack ecological validity.
Menus and Raaijmakers replicated with insults.
Differences
Social impact theory claim everyone applies social force to get what they want, similar to agentic state. Both assume people are passive.
Adorno (1950), obedience to evil orders come from a dysfunctional personality, not social situations.
Application
Always danger to blind obedience so society try hold authority to account through democracy, not too much power, prevent tragedies.
Who developed Social impact theory?
Latane (1981), every person is potentially a source or target.
What are the 3 laws of behavior?
Social force
Psychological law
Divisions of impact.
What’s social force?
Pressure make people change behavior.
Generated by persuasion, threat etc.
Strengths-how much power you believe the person influencing you has.
Immediacy-how recent and close the influence is.
Numbers-more people telling you to do something. More social force.
What’s psychological law?
First source of influence has the most influence
What’s divisions of impact?
If force is directed at 1 person then puts extra pressure and more responsibility.
Social impact theory credibility
Sedikides and Jackson, people show more obedience when they were wearing uniform (strength), more people begun to ignore instruction (immediacy) and the larger the proud the more obedience (divisions of impact).
Explained classic studies that seem unrelated.
Latane et al, developed dynamic SIT to pat attention to how minorities and majorities influence each other.
Objections
Pays too much attention on person giving the order.
Treats people as passive.
Differences
Agency theory too simplistic, no evidence of the shift between mental state, there’re other situational factors.
Agency theory explain some better eg situations also put pressure and moral strain.
Applications
Use of formula to calculate impact allow us to predict events.
Shows why some repressive gov try to stop people use social media and gather public meeting.
Define prejudice and discrimination
Prejudice
Attitude to certain group or person due to group membership, usually neg.
Discrimination
People are treated different due to group membership, can be covert or overt.
Who developed Social identity theory?
Tajfel (1970)
What’re the 3 processes where we eva as one of us or them?
Social categorization.
Social identification.
Social comparisons.
What’s social categorization?
Categorize a person to a group.
Doesn’t have to have conflict.
Can lead to ingroup favoritism and outgroup bias.
What’s social identification?
Process following categorization.
Individuals adopt ingroup identity.
Self esteem is bounded with ingroup membership.
What’s social comparison?
Self esteem determined by how we see our group.
Gain knowledge by comparing with other group.
Comparisons is subjective.
Both competing identities and resources, create hostility.
Social identity theory credibility
Breakwell, people who didn’t go to games showed most bias as they want to prove they’re fans.
Levin, football fans more likely help stranger who tripped than if they wear opposing team clothing.
Supported by minimal group study.
Explains why discrimination occur even outgroup have no threat and competition.
Objections
Adolescent boys may be naturally competitive.
Fail to explain individual differences. Postmes et al, individual characteristics create a social identity, not social identity create characteristics.
Western explanation, individualist culture.
