Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology 1B > Social 2 > Flashcards

Social 2 Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
0
Q

What is the illusion of transparency?

A

Can everyone read our emotional states?

Savitsky & Giolvich (2003)

  • perceived anxiety from public speaking
  • people fear they will become anxious and that people will be able to see this
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
1
Q

What is the spotlight effect?

A

Are we being watched?

Gilovich et al (2000)

  • wearing a t-shirt with Barry Manilow on it
  • put into a social situation and asked on how many people do you think noticed the t-shirt
  • wore the t-shirt - overestimated the number of people who saw the t-shirt, in real life not very many people noticed
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Define self-concept and what it is made up of

A

How we define ourselves

Made up of individual self-schemas (beliefs)

We are self-schematic on

  • important decisions (intelligence, independent, socially aware, fun-loving, ethical etc)
  • things that matter to us focus our attention on others
  • we remember self-referent information better
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What is the self-reference effect?

A

Kahan & Johnson (1992)

  • sex in the city characters - which do you identify with?
  • anything we strongly identify with, we process more information leafing to it more wrongly / we remember more about them
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Self-perception - Bem (1972)

A

We learn about ourselves by a simple process of introspection

Make inferences from out behaviours to find out about ourselves

Very subjective way of learning about ourselves

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

Social comparison - Festinger (1954)

A

How do we compare to other people - we gain knowledge about ourselves as individuals by comparing to other people

Dependant on how we view ourselves and who we compare ourselves to

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

Feedback / “Looking glass self” - Cooley (1902)

A

A person’s self grows out of society’s interpersonal & interactions as well as the perceptions of others

People shape their self-concepts based on their understanding of how others perceive them

Since people conform to how they think others think them to be, it’s difficult to act differently from how a person thinks they are perceived

Eg get good feedback from teachers or people telling you’re good fun at a party

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

Define self-esteem

A

An individual’s sense of self-worth, or the extent to which the individual appreciates, values or likes them-self

  • self-esteem motivates us to evaluate ourselves positively
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Define the better-than-average effect

A
  • when we rate ourselves higher on subjective (disciplined vs punctual) and socially desirable traits in comparison to average others
  • when people have the tendency to compare their characteristics and own behaviours higher than how they see their peers on particular characteristics or behaviours
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Define a stereotype

A

A shared belief about person attributes, usually personality traits but often also behaviours, of a group or category of people

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Define a self-fulfilling prophecy

A

Occurs when people’s erroneous behaviours lead them to act towards others in a way that brings about the expected behaviours, thereby confirming their original impression.

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

What factors influence person perception?

A
  • we know about people’s temporary states & enduring dispositions by observing their actions

Selection - eg appearance & behaviour
Organisation - eg coherent representation
Inference - eg stereotypes

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

Do first impressions matter?

A
  • primacy effect?
  • we are more likely to remember information first given to us about a person since this forms our initial impression of them

Asch (1946)

  • stated that we form impression by some gestalt procedure
  • each piece of information influencing our “picture” of the person
  • participants given a list of character-qualities which was all the same apart from one word - either ‘warm’ or ‘cold’
  • intelligent & warm person - positive impression
  • intelligent & cold person - negative impression
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Describe the link between personality traits and faces

A

Trait impressions are made within 100ms & can affect how we treat a person - Willis & Todorov (2006)

Competent-looking politicians are more likely to be elected - Todorov et al (2005)

Baby-faced men receive light sentences - Zebrowirt & McDonald (1991)

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

What are the 4 biases in impressions?

A

1) First impressions
2) Negative information
3) Schemas
4) Stereotypes

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

How can negative information lead to a bias in impressions?

A

Negative impressions are harder to change

Because - unusual & distinctive or may signal potential danger

Less likely to want to become friends with someone if initially they shrugged you off when you first met

They may in fact be a nice person and were having a bad day - but since you first met them in a negative way, you are more likely to trust this negative opinion gained by your own personal experience rather than someone’s word saying they are in fact a nice person

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

How can schemas bias our impressions of other people?

A

Our knowledge of ‘how people tick’ helps categorise them

Implicit personality theories such as the halo effect

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

How does stereotyping bias our impressions of other people?

A

They guide perception but often result in a noticing bias - if you know something about someone you will notice it more, pick it out more than other behaviours

Can result in a “them and us” mentality - eg younger or older generations

Can influence how we treat others & how we think about ourselves:

  • eg Eberhardt - death row, black offenders more likely to receive the death penalty as well as having “black” stereotypes
  • eg Rosenthal & Jacobson (1968), the self-fulling prophecy of late bloomers; told kids that the teachers could identify late bloomers (kids who were about to show a substantial leap in intellectual development) whilst in fact nothing distinguished late bloomers from the other children - just showed that the high expectations of the teacher lead them to show greater attention & encourage to the late bloomers who became more energised & worked harder
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What are attributions?

A

Judgements about the causes of our own and other people’s behaviour and outcomes

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

Define the two different types of attributions

A

Personal / Internal - infer that a person’s characteristics cause their behaviour

Situational / External - infer that aspects of the situation cause a behaviour

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

How can attributions theories explain how we come to understand other people’s behaviours?

A

Heider (1958) feels that we are naive psychologists

Try to understand what factors cause a person to act in a certain way so we can consider what type of factors / attributions caused the behaviour - personal or situational factors?

BUT this can bias us

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

Define the fundamental attribution error

A

When we underestimate the impact of the situation and overestimate the role of personal factors when explaining other people’s behaviour

Eg writing an essay on euthanasia or gay marriage and being given a particular view on it.

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

Describe the link between culture and attributions

A
  • culture significantly influences how we think about & perceive our social world
  • they can influence psychological processes too
  • East Asian countries tend to think holistically
  • Westerners tend to think more analytically

Hofstede (1991):

  • individualistic cultures - ties in between individuals in society are loose - everyone is expected to look after themselves.
    Eg parts of Europe, Africa, Asia & Latin America
  • collectivist cultures - from birth onwards, people are integrated into strong groups which protect them in exchange for loyalty
    Eg USA, Australia and parts of Europe
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Define an attitude

A

The affect for or against a psychological object (Thurstone, 1931)

Allport (1935)

  • mental and neural state of readiness
  • organised through experience
  • exerts a direct or dynamic influence on the individual’s responses to all objects & situations which it is related

Eagley & Charlken (1993)
- the tendency to think, feel or act positively or negatively towards objects in our environment

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

Describe the structure of attitudes

A

ABC model - Affect, Behaviour, Cognition

  • measurement of A and C is used to predict B
  • knowing someone’s thoughts and emotions can help us predict their behaviour
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Where do attitudes come from?

Mere Exposure Effect (Zajonic, 1968)

A

Repeated exposure of something leads to a more positive feeling about it

  • showed some symbols that resembled Chinese characters
  • some of the symbols shown were repeated
  • varied the exposure of the individual symbols
  • P’s told they were adjectives - asked to judge which were positive or negative emotions
  • positive correlation was found between the number of repeated exposure with positive meanings
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Where do attitudes come from?

Associative Learning

A

Classical conditioning:
Eg adverts - scantily dressed women attract men to buy things

Instrumental learning:
Eg good behaviour - rewarding prosocial behaviour at school

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

Where do attitudes come from?

Self-perception

(Freedman & Fraser, 1966)

A

Inferring environmental attitudes from previous behaviour eg introspection (Bem)

  • asked people to either sign a petition for a billboard or place a small poster in their window about supporting safe driving
  • 2 weeks later asked again by a different person if they would allow a large billboard up allowing safe driving
  • those who agreed to the first request complied with the second request
  • because they developed a positive attitude towards the campaign itself; thought why they signed the petition/put up poser initially

Foot-in-the-door effect - get a small yes then get a bigger yes

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

How / Can we measure attitudes?

A
  • abstract ideas in our heads?

S-R method - questionnaire

  • Likert scale - numerical scale (strongly agree to strongly disagree)
  • ask about the emotional, cognitive & behavioural aspects
  • easy to create & distribute
  • require P’s to tell the truth so some issues as some attitudes are quite sensitive so people may not fully tell the truth

Covert measure

  • body language, physiological cues
  • eg Implicit Association Test (IAT)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Describe the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

A

Simple experiment - press one of 2 buttons on a computer screen

Can revel unconscious or ‘hidden’ attitudes that we normally inhibit or may even be unaware of

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

Describe Kelley’s (1950) research

A

Guest lecturer in a psychology course who was unknown to sample previously

Given an introduction of the lecturer where the participants were either told the lecturer was ‘very warm’ or ‘rather cold’

Asked for impressions afterwards - the information given beforehand affected the overall impression of the lecturer

Warm was rated more favourably, more considerate, more socials leaf more popular, better natured and more humane

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

Describe Payne’s (2001) research in attitudes

A

Tested racial attitudes

33
Q

Describe LaPiere’s (1934) research

  • do attitudes predict behaviour?
A

Anti-Chinese sentiment in the USA at the time - wanted to see if this prejudice was true

Travelled through America with a well-off Chinese couple and visited over 250 hotels & restaurants - only told to go away once

6 month follow up survey - asked “Will you accept members of the Chinese race as guests in your establishments?” - lots said no

Link between expressed attitude and overt behaviour

34
Q

Do attitudes actually predict behaviour?

A

The majority of research shows there is no link between attitudes / emotions expressed and overt behaviour

Wicker (1969) demonstrated that we do only what we say we’ll do 2/3 times out of 100

Examples:

  • awareness of the effects of smoking doesn’t affect smoking behaviour
  • awareness of the effects of TV violence doesn’t stop people watching it
  • awareness of the benefits of eating health doesn’t make people actually do it
35
Q

When will attitudes predict behaviour?

A

When questions being asked are specific to what’s being measured:

  • need to ask about specific behaviour intentions instead of asking about general attitudes
  • eg Davidson & Jacard (1979) - women’s use of the contraceptive pill correlated with attitude to birth control, attitudes to the pill and attitude to using the pill

If the subjective norm is supportive - In LaPiere’s study the social norm was to serve customers, not to express their racist views

If the individual is self-aware - increase in SA promotes behaviour that is line with our attitudes

  • eg Diener & Wallbom (1976) - student were given a timed IQ test
  • given a chance to work over the time limit
  • either in a room with a mirror or not
  • with mirror - only 7% cheated, whilst with no mirror 70% cheated
36
Q

What 2 techniques can change our attitudes?

A

Persuasive communication and Cognitive dissonance

37
Q

Define 3 aspects to persuasive communication

A

Hovland et al (1953) - The source, the message and the audience

Source - more likely to listen to if credible and likeable
Message - key factor
Audience - Individual differences can apply eg self-esteem

38
Q

What are examples of persuasive communication?

A

Health messages often frighten us to capture our attention - does this lead to attitude & behavioural change?

  • moderate fear arousal works better - Janis & Feshbach (1953)
  • remember - need to back up fear messages with advice on how to stop a behaviour in order to change people’s attitudes

Subliminal messages - “eat popcorn” and Bush 2000 campaign

Feeling happy makes us like & consume products more
Winkelman & Berridge (2004) - primed neutral faces with happy, neutral or angry emotions and then given a drink
- smiling face - drink rated as having a nicer flavour

39
Q

Describe Festinger’s Cognitive Dissonance Theory (1957)

A
  • we are motivated to maintain consistent cognitions (thoughts)
  • inconsistency is uncomfortable
  • when cognitions are inconsistent, a person experiences an uncomfortable state of tension (CD)
  • person becomes motivated to reduce this dissonance
40
Q

Describe Festinger & Carlsmith’s research (1959)

A
  • subjects were asked to perform a series of boring tasks
  • asked to tell the next P’s that the tasks had been interesting
  • either paid $1 or $20
  • $1 - had a more favourable attitude, willing to help again

WHY?
- justifying behaviour - $1 group didn’t have a reasonable explanation as to why they lied about the tasks, so had to reevaluate their attitude towards the experiment

41
Q

Describe the case of Kitty Genovese

A
  • catalyst essentially for all the research into bystander invention
  • murdered in 1964 in New York
  • attack lasted over 30 minutes despite there being 38 witnesses who did not intervene - WHY?
42
Q

What is the stage model of Bystander Intervention?

A

1) Define the situation as an emergency
2) Assume responsibility (decide whether you will intervene)
3) Decide on action

  • go through processes of appraisal before we intervene eg go through the pro’s and con’s
43
Q

Defining the situation - Latane & Darley (1970)

A
  • P’s invited for a discussion about uni life
  • Pumped smoke into the room until an extreme situation - 6 mins
  • 3 conditions - alone, with 2 others and 2 non-responsive stooges
  • alone = 75% helped, with 2 others = 38% & with the 2 non-responsive stooges = 10%
  • the results shows us that the presence of others inhibit our behaviour - we look to others to clarify / decide what’s going on
44
Q

Describe the ‘lady in distress’ experiment

A
  • same set up as the smoke experiment
  • staged an accident - tape of trying to open a file cabinet which fell onto the women who then called out for help
  • alone = 70% helped, with a friend = 70% helped
  • with a stranger = 40% and with a passive confederate = 7%
  • pluralistic ignorance - when we rely on other people to define a situation as an emergency

This relates to the James Bulger case - wasn’t seen as an emergency case, instead it was viewed as older siblings looking after a younger sibling so no-one interacted

Also to Kitty Genovese - people thought it was a lover’ stiff so didn’t want to intervene

45
Q

Taking responsibility - Darley & Latane (1968)

A
  • group discussion via an intercom system
  • at the beginning of the session, 1 P (actor) revealed that he was epileptic and prone to having fits
  • different conditions - subject thought they were alone, thought there were 2 or 4 others
  • during the discussion, tape recording of the actor having an epileptic fit
  • helping behaviour was measured 6 mins / after 6 mins
  • alone - 85% : 100%
  • 2 others - 62% : 81%
  • 4 others - 31% : 62%
  • presence of others inhibits both rate of helping and speed of helping due to diffusion of responsibility
46
Q

What’s the cost of helping - Darley & Boston (1973)

A
  • helping behaviour in seminary students before they were to give a talk on the Good Samaritan
  • told they’d been given a mix up of rooms - either told it was close by or further across campus
  • either told they would be late, on time or early
  • faked an emergency situation - had to physically step over a person in distress to get to the new classroom
  • late = 10%, on time = 45%, early = 63%
  • individuals rushing - their imperative was to get to the classroom to give their talk rather than help someone after falling
47
Q

Piliavin’s (1969) research

what’s the cost of helping?

A

NY subway

IV = type of victim (drunk or ill/blind with a cane) 
DV = rate / speed of helping

High cost, less / slower helping - drunk - 50% helped
less willing to get involved with victims who may be volatile?

Low cost, faster helping - sober & blind - 95% helped

  • observers noted down the time to help, age, gender etc of the helpers
48
Q

Explain why bystanders don’t help

A

Pluralistic ignorance:
- how do others define the situation? do people view it as an emergency situation whilst you don’t? etc

Diffusion of responsibility:
- social loafing - will someone else react and help?

Costs of helping:
- if high costs associated with helping behaviour then people will be less likely to help

49
Q

Are men more helpful than women?

A

Piliavin - found that more men helped than women

Eagley & Crowley (1986)

  • meta analysis of 172 studies
  • no overall difference in rate of helping BUT different situations affect it
  • men - more likely to help in dangerous situations
  • women - more likely to help in more socially support situations
  • men also more likely to help females especially if they are attractive whilst women help fairly equally
50
Q

Describe the link between proximity and attraction

A

Festinger, Schacter & Black (1960)

  • found that people were more likely to make friends with people they came into contact with in regards to the layout of their flat
  • eg became friends with people who used the same flight of stairs etc

Pelham et al (2003) - name-letter effect

  • rate letters of alphabet as the ones which are more attractive and repeated
  • prefer the letters in our own name - self serving bias?
  • familiarity leads to liking - makes us feel safe
51
Q

Attraction and Familiarity

A

Mere exposure effect - Zajonc (1968) with the Chinese characters

We like people who are similar in age, attitudes, beliefs, religion, race, smoking behaviour, economics, education, height, intelligence and appearance
(Buss, 1985 and Kandel (1978)

  • attitude similarity & friendships
  • married couples rated as similar are happier and less likely to be divorced

Cognitive consistency explanation - if we are in a relationship with someone different, not a lot of cognitive consistency / similarity

Social Comparison Theory - look to people to validate our world view - in a relationship with a different kind of person, you feel like you are being challenged

52
Q

Describe love

A

Rubin (1973)

  • involves attachment, caring and intimacy
  • is an attitude which can be defined & measured
53
Q

What is the difference between liking and loving?

A

Liking - the desire to interact with somebody else

Love - involves trust and excitement

(Lamm & Wiesmann, 1977)

54
Q

Describe Sternberg’s triangular theory of love (1986)

A

Intimacy, passion & commitment

- various combinations of these to produce different classifications of love relationships

55
Q

Describe companionate love

A

This is a slow-developing love which is built on intimacy and commitment

In order for a relationship to survive, relationships need to develop into this type of love

56
Q

Describe Gupta & Singh’s (1982) research into cultural expectations and love

A

Romantic love over time:

  • arranged marriages - perception of love increased over time
  • marrying for love - perception of love decreased over time

Romantic expectations - is it a social construct?

57
Q

Define emotion

A

Psychological & physiological reactions to internal or external eliciting stimuli which result in:

Subjective experiences eg happiness, anger etc

Physiological changes eg autonomic arousal and hormonal responses (heart rate & adrenaline)

Behavioural responses eg sweating, tremors etc

58
Q

Describe what adaptive functions emotions can have

A
  • Fear & alarm can aid personal survival - fighting or fleeing when confronted by danger or threat
  • social communication - provide clues about our internal states and emotions. They also influence how other people behave toward us too.
  • Interest, joy, excitement, contentment and love can help us form intimate relationships as well as helping to broaden our thinking and behaviour so that we can explore and consider new ideas.
  • positive emotional expressions also pay off - a smiling infant is likely to increase parents feelings of affection and caring and happy adults also tend to attract others and have richer and more supportive relationships
59
Q

What four common features of emotional states?

A

1) emotions are triggered by external or internal eliciting stimuli
2) emotional responses result from our appraisals of these stimuli, which give the situation it’s perceived meaning & significance

3) our bodies respond physiologically to our appraisals:
- becoming physically aroused when we feel fear, joy or anger
- experience decreased arousal when we feel contentment or depression

4) emotions include behaviour tendencies
- some are expressive behaviours - smiling with joy, crying
- some are instrumental behaviours - ways of doing something about the stimulus that evoked the emotion (eg studying for an anxiety-arousing test, fighting back in self-defence)

60
Q

Define eliciting stimuli

A

Stimuli that trigger cognitive appraisals and emotional responses

61
Q

Define cognitive appraisals

A

The interpretations and meanings that we attach to sensory stimuli

62
Q

Define conformity

A

A change in beliefs or behaviour as a result of real or imagined group pressure

63
Q

Define compliance

A

Is outward conformity in response to an implied or explicit request while privately disagreeing

64
Q

Define obedience

A

Behaviour as a result of a direct ask or command

65
Q

Daily social influence - Mood Contagion

A

The tendency for people to emotionally converge

Happy people, you’ll feel happy
Sad people, you’ll feel sad

66
Q

Daily social influence - Contagious Yawning

A

Humans and some primates

Very specific - is there a psychological component?
–> empathy - a cognitive component of theory of mind

Empathy & Theory of Mind (Platek et al 2005) - develops with age

Young children are susceptible to contagious yawning - Anderson and Meno (2003)

67
Q

Daily social influence - The ‘Chameleon Effect’

A

When people mimic / mirror our behaviour, we are more likely to trust or help

Van Baaren et al (2003) - waiters mimicked behaviours of their customers which lead to greater liking, helping and tipping from their customers

68
Q

What are social norms?

A

A rule, value or standard shared by members of the social group that prescribes appropriate, expected or desired attitudes and conduct in matters relevant to the group - Turner (1991)

  • help to co-ordinate group behaviour eg punctuality
  • everyone benefits from these rules
  • can learn though observation and implicitly (by the situations we find ourselves in)
69
Q

Describe Asch’s (1951) study into conformity

A
  • simple perceptual task - a card with one line and then another card with 3 lines of differing lengths - P’s had to say which line of the 3 matched the length of the original line
  • group situation with group pressure - 1 true P listened to the rest of the group incorrectly answered the question
  • 32% mean conformity rate, 75% never conformed at least once and 25% never conformed
  • explanations - don’t want to upset the experiment, doubted judgement, unaware of mistake and feared being ridiculed
  • size of majority affected conformity too - 1 stooge = 3%, 2 stooges = 14% and 3 stooges = 32%
  • conformity dropped when there was social support
70
Q

Why do we conform?

A

To create a pleasant atmosphere

To be accreted and avoid rejection

  • eg Asch’s study - P’s didn’t want to be humiliated
  • fear of ridicule - lots of jokes made towards the individual making the wrong answer, groups punish those who dissent
  • normative social influence - conform to be accepted / liked by a group

To be correct
- Sherif - using information from others to try and have a valid / valued view of the world

102
Q

Describe Payne’s research (2001)

A
  • tested racial attitudes
  • investigated the influence of racial cues on the perceptual identification of weapons
  • had to press one button if there was a picture of a tool or and the other button if it was a weapon
  • unknown to the participants, they were primed with faces - half the time it was a white person, the other it was a black person
  • weapons fitted a ‘black stereotype’ and were identified faster than the pictures of the tools
103
Q

Describe Sherif’s (1935) Autokinetic Effect Experiment

A
  • aimed to demonstrate that people conform to group norms when they are put in ambiguous situations
  • P’s placed in a darkened room with a light source in front of them
  • asked to estimate how much the source moved about - it did not actually move
  • it appeared to move - the brain recognised the image on the retina of the light source from the movement of the eyeball
  • established their own internal reference since there was no other reference due to the darkened room
  • then observed as part of a group - found that people changed their views in order to compromise / fit in with the group
104
Q

Define obedience and it’s differences to conformity

A
  • obedience is an explicit social influence and is diffult to say no to
  • obedience is a direct order and there is a power imbalance
  • conformity - there is no explicit need to act and there is power quality
  • ## extreme forms can lead to evil acts - explanation for the actions of the Nazis in the Holocaust?
105
Q

Describe Milgram’s (1963) study in obedience

A
  • looking at the power of the social situation to regulate and control our behaviour
  • ad for P’s to take part in a learning study - how punishment can improve learning
  • learning through associative word pairs - punishment would improve rates of learning (the fear would make them learn)
  • actor = learner - was seen being strapped into the chair and shown that the “shocks” were working
  • the true P was the teacher, the one reading out part of the word pair
  • 15v to 450v - each incorrect answer, increase voltage for the nest trial
  • prerecord repsonses:
    75v - grunt of pain, 120v - shouted that it was too painful, 300v = refused to carry on & agonised screams, 330v - silence
  • beforehand - majority said people would refuse to go on after 170v results
  • 65% of P’s went all the way to 450v - willing to kill someone in the situation
106
Q

Why was obedience so high in Milgram’s study?

A

Yale university? Prestigious place of learning?

  • took experiment to different districts and into different settings - general office places
  • obedience levels were still very high - Downton was 48.5%

Was it because the learner & teacher were in separate rooms?

  • same room = 40%
  • forced = 30% - physically holding down the learners hands onto the electrical plate

Was it because the experimenter was in the room?

  • was Milgram’s presence influence the results?
  • left the room - rates of obedience dropped
  • having a dissenter in the room reduced obedience too - they illustrated that it was possible to rebel and how to take yourself out of the experiment
107
Q

Why do we so readily obey?

A

Personal responsibility

Agentic mode of thinking - taught from a very young age

Cognitive reinterpretation & blaming the victim

  • they weren’t responsible - were not distressed
  • didn’t flip the switch - obedience was much higher

Perceiving legitimate authority

  • uniform increases responsibility
  • Bushman (1988) - female confederate was either dressed in a uniform or just smartly and ordered passer by for change for a parking meter - 70% complied to the uniform whilst 58% complied to her being smartly dressed
  • grey lab coat worn by experimenter in Milgram
  • prison officers in Zimbardo?

Gradual abdication of responsibility

  • complied 22 times by 330v
  • began very small, gradually the voltage built up
  • difficult to turn around and say enough is enough
108
Q

Evaluation of Milgram

A

Ethics?

  • traumatic experience, deception - didn’t know what was in store
  • post research - no long lasting psychological harm, they were happy to take part as it was a learning experience?

The findings are very uncomfortable?

Was it representative?

Experimental realism?
- Sheridan & King (1972) - shocks to animals, obedience mirrored Milgram’s study

Demand characteristics?

  • artificially carried out in a psychology lab - no ecological validity, no real life representation
  • Hofling et al (1966) - nurses willing to give lethal doses of drugs - willing to simply follow an order despite having the knowledge that it is wrong
109
Q

Recent research in obedience

A

Burger (2009) - replicated the obedience task
- replicated Milgram’s findings - high %’s of P’s continued after 150v

Slater et al (2006) - virtual reprise of Milgram’s obedience task

  • similar to Milgram’s task where P’s were teachers who had to administer a series of word associations to a virtual human representing the stranger
  • responded to the situation as if it was real despite knowing the situation was not as well as knowing that it was a virtual human

Psychology 1B (5 decks)

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