Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

A-Level Psychology (edexcel) > Social > Flashcards

Social Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Define ‘Social Psychology’.

A

The scientific field that seeks to understand the nature and causes of individual behavior in social situations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What is obedience?

A

A type of social influence where a person follows an order from another person who is usually an authority figure.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is agency theory?

A

A theory that suggests people have 2 states of behavior in social situations.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Define the ‘autonomous state’.

A

When people direct their own actions and take responsibility for the results of those actions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Define the ‘agentic state’.

A

When people allow others to direct their actions, and then pass of the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What is moral strain?

A

Experiencing anxiety, usually because you are asked to do something that goes against your moral judgement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Which study supports Agency Theory?

A

Milgram’s study of obedience in 1963

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What were the 2 aims of Milgram’s study?

A
  • Investigate levels of obedience in the face of legitimate authority even when the command requires destructive behaviour
  • Understand the German holocaust
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

What was the procedure of Milgram’s study?

A
  • 40 men aged 20-50 years old from New Haven
  • Drop out at any point
  • Learner strapped to chair and electrodes attached to wrist (supposedly)
  • Test shock 45V
  • every time a ‘learner’ gets a general knowledge question wrong they have to ‘shock’ them, increasing th voltage each time up to 450v
  • Given prods by a confederate in a white lab coat, connoting authority, such as ‘please continue’ ‘you must continue’ ‘the study requires you continue’
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

What were the findings of Milgram’s study?

A

-65% gave full 450V shock -100% went to 300V -35% = nervous laughter -3 ppts had full seizures

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the conclusion of Milgram’s study?

A

People are obediant to legitimate authority even when it is destructive to another person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

What were some strengths of Milgram’s study?

A

-Standardized (same experience for everyone) -Confederates always the same -Learner’s ‘mistakes’ same for all -Tightly scripted responses -Repeatable

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What were some weaknesses of Milgram’s study?

A

-Gina Perry argued that they deviated from the script -Orne+Holland argued that the experimenter wasn’t concerned so ppts may not believe it -Questions the validity of the results
extrememly unethical: participants so anxious they has seizures is putting them massively in harms way

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

What was variation experiment 7 and what results did it give?

A

Telephonic Instructions, levels fell to 23%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was variation experiment 10 and what results did it give?

A

Rundown office block, levels fell slightly to 48%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What was variation experiment 13 and what results did it give?

A

ordinary man giving orders, levels fell to 20%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What is Social Impact Theory?

A

Latene developed the theory in 1981 to describe the effect that certain social situations can have on our behavior.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What is the ‘source’ in social impact theory?

A

person doing influencing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what is the ‘target’ in social impact theory?

A

people who are influenced

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

what is the equation for impact on the target? (SIT)

A

f(SIN)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what does the S stand for? (SIT)

A

strength

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what does the I stand for? (SIT)

A

Immediacy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What does the N stand for? (SIT)

A

number of sources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What is the light bulb analogy of Social Impact Theory?

A

brightness is affected by strength of the bulb, distance from the light source and number of bulbs

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

what is the divisional effect in Social Impact Theory?

A

social impact is reduced if there are more targets than sources

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

what is the impact on target equation Social Impact Theory?

A

impact on target = f(1/SIN)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

what is the law of diminishing returns in Social Impact Theory?

A

once source group > , each added person has less of an influencing effect

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What is supporting evidence for Social Impact Theory?

A

OBEDIENCE AT THE ZOO -Sedikides + Jackson (1990) -visitors asked not to lean on railing -confederate either as zoo keeper (58% obedience) or regular person (35% obedience) -61% when in same room, 7% when in adjacent room -obedience greater in groups of 1/2 that 5/6

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

What is a differing theory for Social Impact Theory?

A

-Immediacy less important than strength -Hofling (1966) - unknown doctor called 22 nurses to administer overdose -95% went to obey despite doctor not present

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

What is an application for Social Impact Theory?

A

political influence: -adopting strong + persuasive style of communication -reach voters face-to-face -address smaller groups rather than crowds

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Define ‘dissent’ in obedience.

A

Having opinions that differ from those held by others. (disobedience)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Define resistance in obedience.

A

Ability to withstand social pressure to obey authority , influenced by both situational and dispositional (personality) factors.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is the ‘authoritarian personality’? adorno et al 1950

A

hostile to inferior and obedient to superior -likely to have grown up with strict parents -scores high on the Fascism scale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What is Locus of control (LOC)? (rotter 1966)

A

persons perception of personal control over their behavior -internal = self responsibility -external = governed by others and chance factors -internal = more likely to disobey authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

Evaluate personality factors in influencing obedience.

A

strength: research support (Milgram tested his ppts, obedient ppts scored higher on F scale) -ca: may just be correlational (other factors may impact) - Miller 1975 found that when told to hold live wires people with an external locus of control were more obedient to high and low status experimenters and people with internal locus of control unaffected by the status
weakness: Schurz: asked to blast painful ultrasound on female students, fully obedient and resistive ppts had similar LOC on questionnaire
-APPLICATION: field of human resources: some jobs require higher obedience levels, using LOC scale to recruit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

What impact does gender have on obedience?

A

-Women are more obedient than men (Sheridon + King = electric shock puppies, 100% females 54% males obeyed, (women did appear more distressed)
-Men more obedient than women (Kilham + Mann, replicated Milgram’s study = 40% males, 16% females fully obedient, even less when asked to shock another woman)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How does culture impact obedience?

A

Individualism vs collectivism -individualists = self resilience + personal autonomy -collectivists = loyalty to groups + interdependence -Power Distance Index (PDI) = how accepting people are of order and inequality in society -low PDI = more resistant

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

Evaluate culture as an influence of obedience.

A

+ close relationships between obedience and PDI (Kilham + Mann), both low in Australia, both high in Poland
- very similar levels of obedience between US & rest of world, universal social behavior

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

How do situational factors influence obedience?

A

-Legitimacy: perceived status (Milgrams variation) -Proximity: (Latene) Social Impact Theory -Behavior of others: role models who disobey, Milgram variation 17 (2 peers rebel, obedience = 10%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

Evaluate situational factors in influencing obedience.

A

supporting evidence (Social impact Theory, obedience at the zoo)
conflicting evidence -personality of each individual also impacts -
APPLICATION: can help prevent rule breaking, increased obedience by Immediacy and Legitimacy

41
Q

Who developed Social Identity Theory?

A

Tajfel + Turner (1979,1986)

42
Q

What are the 3 stages of Social Identity Theory?

A
  1. Social categorization - see yourself as part of a group 2. Social identification - identifying with the group and taking on their norms and attitudes 3. Social comparison - see in-group as better than out-group to boost self esteem
43
Q

Evaluate strengths of Social Identity theory.

A

-minimal group experiment
-64 15-16yr old boys from same school in bristol -divided into groups randomly but told was due to preference of painting, asked allocate points to their team and another team. immediately focussed on increasing the gap between their ingroup and the outgroup, showing the immediate social comparison and belief that they were better than the other team

44
Q

Evaluate an opposing weakness of Social Identity Theory

A

tajfel’s experiment is not realistic -just a game, no consequences, lacks mundane realism

45
Q

Evaluate a differing theory of Social Identity theory.

A

-may only explain western societies, sample not generalisable

46
Q

Application for Social identity theory

A

attempting to reduce prejudice in classrooms. For example the introduction of a jigsaw classroom to reduce prejudice in the 1950s between white and black students, groups were mixed up and put into smaller groups for a group project with everyone being graded collectively. this led to decreased Prejudice as they worked together to get good grades

47
Q

What is Realistic Conflict Theory?

A

Prejudice arises due to groups competing for resources. There has to be competition present.

48
Q

Who proposed and experimented Realistic Conflict Theory? Who is our classic study?

A

Sherif et al (Robbers Cave)

49
Q

Explain sherif’s robbers cave experiment

A

22 11 to 12-year-old boys From Oklahoma invited to a summer camp set up by Sherif for the study they were split into two groups ,the rattlers and the Eagles. they were given activities to create a sense of competition such as Tug of War and running races. researchers also simulated cabin raids to create hostility. they were then given superordinate (common) goals, fixing the water tank or getting the bus started so they could leave

50
Q

What were the findings of the robber’s cave experiment?

A

before the Superordinate goals were introduced, 6.4% rattlers said they were friends with eagles, 7.5 eagles said they were friends with rattlers. after these goals, the % increased to 36.4 and 23.5 respectively. they also mixed groups and sat with people from the outgroups on the bus on the way home, despite calling them ‘rats’ and ‘stinkers’ before

51
Q

what were the conclusions of sherif?

A

the fight for resources (rewards, status over the other group) created outgroup hostility and ingroup solidarity, however this conflict can be resolved by introducing common goals.

52
Q

strengths of sherif

A

High construct validity, researchers spent over 300 hours observing and interviewing participants until they found 22. This ensured a match of personalities, so individual differences would not affect the group’s results.
Good ecological validity because it was a field experiment- the children thought that they were taking part in a summer camp. This shows how they would naturally react in this situation, showing that conflict would naturally be created.

53
Q

weaknesses of sherif

A

Not generalisable because he only used children. It may not be representative of how prejudice is created in adults and conflicting goals may only work for pre-teens. He also only used males, so it may only be applicable to this gender. Could also just show western cultures.
Replication of Spencer with sea scouts with a football match. The scouts knew each other well before the football match took place. In-group solidarity did not increase because everyone interacted well with each other. This suggests that prejudice can only be created from if the competing groups do not know each other, therefore, not explained by realistic conflict theory

54
Q

Who proposed the Right Wing Authoritarian personality type?

A

Altemeyer

55
Q

What leads to a Right Wing Authoritarian personality?

A

strict parenting and conditional love, hostility experienced is projected onto those who are perceived as lower status

56
Q

Who proposed a Social Dominance Orientation personality?

A

Pratto et al

57
Q

What leads to a Social Dominance Orientation personality?

A

socialization -role models -seeing the world as a competitive jungle, fight for resources

58
Q

What factors impact prejudice?

A

personality -culture -situation

59
Q

What is a strength of individual differences
affecting Prejudice?

A

Cohrs et al = RWA and SDO both correlated positively with prejudice behavior and negatively with openness to experience -levels of prejudice can be accurately predicted by personality types

60
Q

What is an opposing argument of individual differences
affecting prejudice?

A

Louis et al 2003 noted that right wing authoritarian and social dominance orientation scales do not include items which are heavily affected by social norms or attitudes for example 72% of their Australian participants strongly disagreed with the statement the white races the best race but agreed with the exclusion of asylum seekers showing its important to understand social as well as individual Factors in order to address the consequences of prejudice effectively

61
Q

Explain how social dominance orientation is not a reliable predictor of prejudice

A

levin 1996 found that sdo is not stable and consistent over time. He asked Jewish participants to think about their social identity within Israel and found that ashkenazi Jews showed higher sdo scores compared while with other Jewish groups, however these differences disappeared when the participants were asked to think about the Israeli Palestinian relationship this suggests that sdo can be manipulated and can be in effect of Prejudice as well as a Cause

62
Q

What is an application for Factors affecting Prejudice?

A

reducing prejudice -learned through specific world views -greater regulations of media sources

63
Q

What are the 2 subtopics within social psychology?

A

Prejudice and Obedience

64
Q

what is our contemporary study?

A

burger 2009

65
Q

What were the aims of Burger’s 2009 study?

A

-see if Milgram’s findings were era-bound -see if obedience is impacted by gender or personality traits (empathetic concern and desire for control)

66
Q

What was the sample and ethical controls of Burger’s 2009 study?

A

-29 men + 41 women aged 20-81 -flyers, ads, newspapers + online
more ethically sound:
Rigorous screening process, excluded those psychologically vulnerable
Clinical psychologist used as an experimenter, instructed to stop the experiment if they detected excessive stress during the procedure
Immediately debriefed to relieve stress
Reduced maximum voltage to 150-volt

67
Q

What was the procedure of Burger (2009)

A

replication of Milgram’s baseline
Experimenter and confederate chosen for their resemblance to those used in Milgram’s study
Similar script to Milgram’s original; explaining the use of the electric generator
Exactly like Milgram, learner was placed in the adjoining room while the teacher was placed before the electric generator
15 volt sample shock
Same four verbal prods from Milgram’s study used

68
Q

What were Burger’s findings?

A

-70% obedient compared to 65% in Milgram’s study
-no significant gender differences
-no differences linked to empathetic concern
-higher desire for control = more defiant

69
Q

What is a conclusion to Burger’s study?

A

-Milgram’s findings not era-bound -desire for control has impact on obedience

70
Q

Evaluate Burger’s study.

A

-strength: -VALIDITY: none knew Milgrams research, excluded if took 2+ psychology classes, enhanced internal validity of study
weakness: GENERALISABILITY: poor, 38% deselected after screening, may have lead to biased sample who are more psychologically robust with lower obedience levels

71
Q

what is our theory about prejudice for our practical?

A

once a person feels that they really belong to a group (social identification) their attitude towards other similar competing groups will be affected. they will br more positive to their ingroup and more negative to their outgroup.

72
Q

what wad the aim of our practical?

A

To investigate whether a sense of belonging to an ingroup of rugby fans led to Prejudiced views about an outgroup of football fans

73
Q

what was the experimental / alternate hypothesis of our experiment

A

rugby fans will show significantly more positive attitudes towards fellow rugby fans than football fans.students who play rugby will show significantly more negative attitudes towards footballers than towards fellow rugby players.

74
Q

describe the step by step method you followed when carrying out your practical

A

we selected participants using opportunity sampling and by asking them if they played rugby. we took the ones that fulfilled our criteria to a separate area, away from their friends, and read them the standardised instructions. we lied about the aim of the study, saying it was concerning sixth former’s attitudes towards sport. we gave them some distance and they completed the questionaire. afterwards, we read them the debrief, telling them the true aim and asked the to sign the consent form.

75
Q

what was our target population and what was our sample?

A

target= rugby fans of all ages
sample= 16-18 year old rugby fans from sixth form (opportunity sample)

76
Q

how did you plan the survey to control for any extraneous variables

A

the one open question was put first so answers would be unaffected by following questions and so words/adjectives couldn’t be used for the checklist questions unless they completed questions out of order - avoid context effect
took away from friends reduce soical desirability affect
lied about aim to avoid social desirabiity bias and demand characteristics.

77
Q

describe the findings of your social practical

A

The mean number of times rugby players were positive towards rugby players was 7.8, the standard deviation of this being 1.7, while they were only positive towards football fans an average of 0.8 times, standard deviation of 1.1. The mean number of times rugby players were negative towards rugby players was 0.8, the standard deviation of this being 0.9, while they were negative towards football fans an average of 6.3 times, standard deviation of 2.3. During thematic analysis, we identified the theme of “rugby players are more masculine”, the quote “rugby are men” falling under this category.

78
Q

give an example of a closed question used in your questionaire

A

how much do you agree with the statement that football players need a very high level of technical skill? SA A DK D SD

79
Q

give an example of an open question used in your experiment

A

how would you compare the attitudes of rugby players vs football players?

80
Q

what is the conclusions that can be drawn from your experiment?

A

we accept the research hypothesis that rugby fans will have signifcantly more positve attitudes towards fellow rugby fans than they do footballers, which we can therefore link to the theory that once a person feels they belong in a group their attitude towards other similar groups will change, our findings proving this research theory to be true.

81
Q

What are examples of situational factors that affect prejudice?

A

social norms
competition and resource stress

82
Q

Explain how Minard 1952 shows social norms effect on Prejudice

A

A study of white and black us coal miners found that they were friendly and cooperative with each other below ground (whilst they all identified as miners away from the prejudiced society above ground) but they held negative views of each other above ground (whilst they identified with white and black social groups above ground surrounded by that norm).

83
Q

Explain Esses 2001 research on the effect of resource stress on Prejudice

A

Found that resource stress occurs when people believe commodities are Limited. Prejudice arises if in group members see themselves in Direct competition for scarce resources with another group, heightened if the situation is seen as ‘zero sum’ for example only one can win. For the in group tries to demonstrate the outgroups lack of worthiness due to the perceived threat they pose ( idea supported by the robber’s cave study on realistic conflict Theory)

84
Q

Explain akrami at al 2009 research of situational factors on Prejudice

A

Participants were exposed to hearing a confederate express skepticism that the statement ‘discrimination of women is no longer a problem in Sweden’ can be agreed with. Later measured attitudes towards women were significantly lower for a group who had this statement compared to a control group who did not hear the statement showing that Prejudice can be affected by situational factors such as perceived norms and social threat

85
Q

Explain a counter argument for akrami et al 2009

A

He also reported that personality variables such as RDA and sdo had an influence as well as just whether they had exposed to the statement or not, therefore showing how situational and individual differences are both important equally

86
Q

What are two norms associated with the effect of culture on Prejudice

A

The norm of fairness
the norm of tolerance

87
Q

Explain Baldwin 2007 research on the norm of intolerance

A

Baldwin suggests that all cultures partly see themselves as superior so they appear to not be prejudiced but their positive behavior towards outgroups is actually to support lower status groups out of pity and belief they are worse off than them, leading to microaggressions and increased Prejudice

88
Q

Extra point about the norm of intolerance

A

some cultures accept and even encourage outward expressions of prejudice, e.g. apartheid in south africa after 1948

89
Q

Explain wetherals 1982 research in terms of the norm of fairness

A

This study replicated the minimal groups experiment in a New Zealand School. They found that Polynesian children were more generous and fair than their Caucasian classmates, offering a more equal distribution of points between the groups. New Zealand is a individualistic culture focused on benefiting themselves as individuals whereas Polynesian cultures are collectivist more focused on sharing and cooperation.This research shows how the effect of the norm of fairness in culture can influence Prejudice

90
Q

What is our key question in social psychology?

A

What can be held accountable for atrocities such as the Abu graib prison abuse?

91
Q

Describe the issue (key question)

A

The Abu grave prison torture Was discovered in the early 2000s After the publishing of photos of the torture. Reservist rank US soldiers were running a prison in Iraq for 12-hour shifts where the prisoners were psychologically physically and sexually abused after the soldiers were told to soften them up for interrogation. Are the soldiers themselves to blame or was it situation that caused them to act this way? This can also be applied to society so we can understand why people act Prejudiced or hostile

92
Q

The situation was to blame: zimbardo’s experiment (key question)

A

24 college students with no criminal record beforehand were believed to be good people, psychologically tested beforehand and for any extreme personality traits. Participants were put into a prison role play and split into either being guards or prisoners. The ‘guards’ gradually became increasingly verbally and physically abusive towards the ‘prisoners’, leading to zimbardo ending the study early to avoid further psychological detriment. This supports the idea that bad situations can make good people do bad things.

93
Q

The situation was to blame: soldiers in agentic state

A

Milgrams experiments helped develop the agency Theory, outlining the two States we are in during behaviour: The autonomous state means you have free will and you can choose your actions, whereas the agentic state means you do not have control over your actions and you are a slave to authority. It can be argued that soldiers were in the agentic state because as military reservists they were the lowest status of soldier and therefore would have obeyed their orders from their superiors out of respect or fear of dischargement.

94
Q

The situation was to blame: realistic conflict theory

A

rct: Prejudice and hostility arises when there is competition over a limited resource, for example the primary resource of living, not being killed in the war. it can be argued the soldiers were put under immense stress which triggered them to act in this way

95
Q

The soldiers themselves were to blame: authoritarian personality

A

This type of personalty is developed when children are parented harshly and recieve conditional love, the hostility the child feels is directed onto lower social groups as a form of self regulation.the army attracts these personalities as the psychological robustness is needed to execute difficult army tasks, i.e. killing. this means the soldiers likely were aware they were able to project their hostility to the prisoners and had choice over their actions.

96
Q

The soldiers themselves were to blame: they actually were not in the agentic state

A

if the soldiers had disagreed with the orders, they would have experienced moral strain (anxiety). the soldiers are smiling in the uncovered pictures whilst causing severe distress to others, suggesting they’re proud of their work. if therye not experiencing moral strain, can be argued theyre not in the agentic state and had free will with their actions.

97
Q

The soldiers themselves were to blame: realistic conflict theory is not generalisable

A

rct is only supported by the robbers cave study, but this sample is ungeneralisable: it is 11-12 year old protestant oklahoma boys competing for a trophy ina summer camp environment, abu graib is a completely different environment in which the solders are grown adults competing for their lives in an active warzone. as the sample can’t be generalised, neither can rct

98
Q

conclusions of key question

A

soldiers were to blame: weren’t in the agentic state due to lack of moral strain, and the type of abuse (humiliation, not effective torture) is an example of hostility being displaced like authoritarian personalities do
fisk et al 2004: once they established the abuse as a group norm, it was very hard not to conform. ‘ in combat, community to ones unit means survival, and ostracism means death’.

A-Level Psychology (edexcel) (6 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions