Social Flashcards
When was social psychology developed?
In the mid-19th century…
… as there was a desire to understand the collective or group mind.
Experimental social psychology (studying human behaviour in controlled conditions) grew in the 20th century
What are the 3 Key Ideas of social psychology?
- Individuals influence social behaviour
- Groups influence social behaviour
- Social Situations influence social behaviour
What are the Key Assumptions in social psychology?
Humans are social beings, therefore behaviour is best understood within the social context
What was the aim of Milgram 1963 obedience study?
To test the hypothesis that Germans are different…
By investigating how the situational context could lead ordinary people to show obedience to authority and inflict harm on others.
What participants were involved in Milgram’s 1963 obedience study?
40 adult males aged between 20 and 50 volunteer themselves through answering a newspaper advert and were paid four dollars to take part in a study of memory and learning.
Where did Milgram’s original obedience study take place?
A laboratory at Yale University
What was the procedure of Milgram’s original obedience study?
- Participants were told it was a test of learning and the effect on punishment on memory
- Participants were shown the equipment which was a shock generator in one room with switches going from 15 V to 450 V
- The teacher was given a sample shock of 45 V
- The teacher was instructed to start a word association task the teacher read a list of two word pairs and the learner was supposed to memorise them.
- the teacher next read the first word of the word pair again and asked the learner to choose the correct second word from a choice of four
- If the learner got the answer correct they would move onto the next word. If the answer was incorrect the teacher was instructed by the researcher to give the learner (fake) electric shocks.
What standardised responses occurred during Milgram’s original experiment?
- Three out of four of the word task answers were given incorrectly
- Experiment 1: The learner banged on the wall when 300 V was applied. The learner refused to answer after 315 V.
- Experiment 2: The learner grunted at 75 V, learner said “experimenter, get me out of here” at 150 V, screamed and refused to continue at 300 V, and gave no response at 330 V.
- If the teacher hesitated, the experiment to said “please continue” or “it is absolutely essential that you continue”. If the teacher said the learner clearly did not want to continue the experimenter said “whether the learner likes or not you must go on until he has learnt all of the word pairs correctly so please go on.”
- if the teacher still refuse to go on the trial of the experiment was ended.
What was the results of Milgram’s original study?
- Experiment 1: all teachers gave shocks up to 300 V up; and 65% continued to the full 450 V.
- Experiment 2: 62.5% of all teachers gave the full 450 V.
- These results completely contradicted the predicted results of 4% reaching the 450 V
What is the conclusion of Milgram’s original obedience study?
- Ordinary people are capable of following orders to hurt others, even when this causes them distress.
- Obedience to authority is due more to situational factors than to deviant personality: Therefore Germans are not different.
Within the conclusion, what did Milgram summarise the features that lead to obedience were?
- Yale university is a prestigious institution -> it represents Authority, respect and high standards; and is unlikely to allow anything unethical to occur
- Experimenter wore a white coat which represents authority and scientific knowledge
- The study seemed to have a worthy cause, which is to learn about memory
- The experiment wasn’t conducted against the learner’s will, and he had given consent
- The participant had volunteered and had made a commitment
- The participant was paid and thus felt obliged
- The shocks were painful, but not dangerous
What are the strengths in the methodology of Milgram’s original study?
- There were 40 American males, from a range of occupations and ages- Large sample- Generalisable to American males
- The study involved both quantitated data and qualitative observations – good scientific research (Provides both objective and in-depth data analysis)
- Procedure was highly standardised – can be replicated to produce similar results, therefore reliable
- high degree of control over IV and DV, providing a good cause and effect relationship – high internal validity
What are the weaknesses in the methodology of Milgram’s original study?
- The samples did not include females all people of different cultures. Therefore it is not representative of everyone and can’t be generalised to all of society.
- Volunteer sampling was used and participants may have been more compliant/obedient and character than others in American society. Therefore, the sample is not representative and findings can’t be fully generalised.
- Giving someone electric shocks does not represent every day life behaviour therefore the findings lack mundane realism.
- Participants may have guessed that the shocks were not real and played along with the experiment due to demand characteristics. Therefore the findings may not have internal validity.
What are the strengths in the ethical issues of Milgram’s original study?
- Milgram carried out questionnaires with people before the experiment; as no one expected to be as obedient as they were. This means they didn’t plan for any psychological harm to happen.
- Participants volunteer themselves and thus gave general consent
- Milgram fully debriefed participants
- The initial report of the study kept the confidentiality of the participants
- Ethical guidelines were not as strict in the 1960s as they are today. Also Milgram had competence as a researcher.
What are the weaknesses in the ethical issues of Milgram’s original study?
- Participants were placed on the great emotional stress, and even when this happened the experimenter prompted that they carried on. This breaks the guidelines of psychological harm.
- Participants did not know the experiment would be about obedience, and therefore informed consent was not gained
- There was a high level of deception in the study as participants thought it was a study of memory.
- Video and audio recording were made of participants and so confidentiality was not kept
- The verbal prompts from the experimenter reduced the participants’ awareness of their right to withdraw from the experiment.
What real life example backs up the findings of Milgram’s original study?
Oskar Groening discussed that he was influenced by authority to commit the acts that he did during Nazi Germany
What were the three variation studies?
Telephonic Instructions
Rundown Office Block
Ordinary Man Gives Order
What happened during the telephonic instructions study?
- Milgram west to investigate the effect of the proximity on the level of influence.
- The experimenter gave the initial instructions face-to-face, left the room and then continued to give instructions over the telephone.
- 22.5% of participants continued to the full 450
What happened during the run down office block study?
- Milgram was investigating how the institutional context would affect the obedience of participants
- Milgram conducted this experiment in the sparsely furnished room in the rundown office building in Connecticut.
- Participants were told the study was being conducted by a private company commercial industry
- 48% of participants went to the full 450 V
What happened during the ordinary man gives orders study?
- Milgram investigated the impact of power relations on obedience
- The experimenter goes through the same instructions as in the original study, but then received a fake phone call which makes him leave the room urgently. Before he leaves he instructs them to continue with the experiment
- The learner then tells the teacher he should increase the shock level by one step each time he makes a mistake. Throughout the experiment he insists that this procedure should be followed.
- 20% of participants went to the full 450 V
What Situational Factors affect Obedience and Dissent?
Momentum of Compliance
Proximity
Status of the Authority
Personal Responsibility
How does the Momentum of Compliance affect Obedience?
Starting with small + trivial requests, the participant has committed themselves to the experiment. as the experiment continued, the ppts felt duty bound to continue.
Milgram: The initial shocks were small, but increased slowly in 15-volt increments. The situation created a binding relationship that escalated steadily.
How does Proximity affect Obedience?
The closer the authority figure, the higher the level of obedience.
How does the Status of Authority affect Obedience?
Obedience could only be established when the authority figure was perceived to be legitimate.
How does Personal Responsibility affect Obedience?
Participants would be more obedient when personal responsibility is removed, an places onto the shoulders of an authority figure.
In a variation study where ppts had to sign a contract that stated they were taking part at their own free will and relinquishing any legal responsibility from Yale university, obedience fell to 40%
What Individual Differences are looked at which affect Obedience and Dissent?
Personality
Gender
Culture
What Personality Factors affect Obedience and Dissent?
Locus of Control
Authoritarian Personality
Empathy
How does Locus of Control affect Obedience and Dissent?
Rotter’s (1966) locus of control personality theory outlines that people either have an internal or external locus of control.
Internal: Individuals believe they are responsible for their own actions, and are less influenced by others.
External: Individuals believe behaviour is largely beyond their control, but due to external factors such as fate.
People with an external locus of control are more likely to be influenced by others.
What does it mean to have an Authoritarian Personality?
These are individuals who are typically submissive to authority, but are harsh to those seen as subordinate to themselves.
What research shows that an Authoritarian Personality can affect Obedience and Dissent?
Adorno et al: Devised the F-scale (Fascism scale), a questionnaire used to detect the authoritarian personality.
Milgram + Elms: Compared the F-Scale scores for 20 obedient and defiant ppts- Obedient ppts had a higher F-scale (fascism scale), indicating an authoritarian personality type, compared to dissenters.
A 2010 study stimulating Milgram’s experiment found that those with high authoritarian scores were less likely to withdraw; maybe because they were submissive to the authority of the experimenter.
How does Empathy affect Obedience and Dissent?
It is believed that those with high empathy would be less likely to harm others.
Burger: Empathetic ppts were more likely to protest against the shocks, but this didn’t translate to low obedience levels
What Research Evidence showed NO Gender Differences in Obedience and Dissent?
1) Milgram:
Milgram used predominantly male ppts in his experiments,but he did conduct one experiment that involved 40 female teachers
Previous research indicated that females were more compliant than males, yet we traditional think of women as less aggressive.
Milgram found that females were virtually identical to males in their levels of obedience (65%), 27.5% breaking off at the 300v level; yet their rated anxiety levels was much higher than males who were obedient. This was also found in Burger’s (2009) replication
2) Blass:
Found that obedience between males + females were consistent across 9 of the 10 obedience experiments he reviewed.
What Research Evidence showed Gender Differences in Obedience and Dissent?
1) Sheridan + King:
Adapted Milgram’s exp to involve a live puppy that received genuine shocks. All 13 female ppts were much more compliant, and delivered the maximum levels of shocks, compared to men
2) Kilham + Mann:
Did a direct replication of Milgram’s exp in Australia. They found that females are far less obedient (16%) than male ppts (40%). This may have been sue to the learners and teachers being the same sex: the females may have joined together in an alliance to react again the aggressive male experimenter
It seems there is very little,is any, gender differences in obedience; despite traditional beliefs would be more compliant to authority
What are the Two types of Culture?
Individualistic Culture
Collectivistic Culture
What are Individualistic Cultures?
e.g. America + Britain
They tend to behave more independently, and resist conformity/compliance.
They are less likely to be obedient.
What are Collctivistic Cultures?
e.g. China + Israel
They tend to behave as a collective group based on interdependence; meaning cooperation + compliance is important for group stability.
They are more likely to be obedient.
What is criticism to cultural differences in obedience?
On closer inspection of the methodologies of the research studies, it seems that the variation in % of ppts who gave the full shock is more of a product of the Procedure employed, rather than cultural variation
What was the Aim of Burger’s 2009 study?
To investigate obedience
- …by partially replicating Milgram’s experiment to see if situation of factors affect obedience to an authoritative figure
What was the Sampling Process of Burger’s Study?
- Individuals responded to an advert in a newspaper
- They were asked about physical + psychological health, and if they’ve attended a psychology class.
- They then answered multiple questionnaires regarding their age, ethnicity, education, occupation, anxiety levels, depression levels and personality (e.g. Beck Anxiety Inventory, Beck’s Depression Inventory)
- Participants were then interviewed by a clinical psychologist to identify anyone who may be negatively affected by the study.
- Final Sample: 70 participants- 29 males, 41 females.
Age Range: 20-81 years old
What was the Procedure of ‘Experiment 1- Baseline Condition’ in Burger’s (2009) study?
Same procedure as Milgram, however:
During the brief, ppts were reminded 3 times that they could withdraw at any time. The learner also mentioned having a heart problem.
The experimenter was a clinical psychologist, instructed to stop the experiment if the ppt showed excessive distress
At 150 volts the pre-recorded response of “Ugh. That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had a heart trouble. My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out”
The experiment ended at 150V. The DV was operationalised by if they wanted to proceed or not.
What was the Procedure of ‘Experiment 2- Modelled Refusal Condition’ in Burger’s 2009) study?
Same procedure as the baseline condition, but:
There were 2 confederates involved; the ‘learner’, and ‘Teacher 1’. The ppt was always Teacher 2.
Teacher 1 and 2 matched in gender.
Teacher 1 took the lead and asked the questions/gave the shocks.. Teacher 2 sat with them.
At 75v, Teacher 1 hesitated after the learner grunted. At 90v, teacher 1 stated ‘I don’t know if I can do this’.
Teacher 1 was prompted by the experimenter, but refused to carry on. The experimenter then asked Teacher 2 to continue.
What were the Results of Burger’s (2009) Study?
Experiment 1: 68.35% continued after 150 volts.
Experiment 2: 58.9% continued after 150 volts.
There is no significant difference in obedience levels between:
Burger’s results and Milgram’s Variation Results
Baseline + Modelled Refusal Condition
Males and Females
What was the Conclusion for Burger’s (2009) study?
People are as obedient today as they were in Milgram’s day: Situational factors influence obedience to an authority figure
Burger stated that, although 150v was seen as the ‘point of no return’, he didn’t know whether they would still go to the full 450v
There may be personality factors inked to obedience, but it is unclear what they are.
What were the Strengths of Burger’s (2009) study?
Generalisability: The sample size were 29 females, 41 females, with an age range of 20-81 years.
Reliability: The procedure involved someone mentioning they had a heart condition and they wanted to stop at 150v, which is standardised.
The researcher measured the results using quantitative data, which is an accurate + objective strategy
Internal Validity:The researcher controlled extraneous variables, like ensuring they didn’t have anxiety or depression which would affect obedience.
What were the Weaknesses of Burger’s (2009) study?
Ecological Validity: The study took place in a lab; and involved a task of answering word pairs, with wrong answers leading to electric shocks increasing in size.
Validity: We can only assume the participants would continue to obey after 150v
Practical Application: Its difficult to assume that ppts in Burger’s study would have equally obeyed Hitler, as war is so much more complex
What are the Ethical Issues surrounding Burger’s (2009) study?
Psychological Harm: Ppts were still put in an anxiety provoking situation, where they thought the shocks were harming someone
Withdrawal: The verbal prompts used by the experimenter effectively removed any previously established right to withdraw.
What does Agency Theory suggest about social hierarchies?
Human society is hierarchal in nature: there are few at the top giving instructions on how to behave.
This hierarchy must’ve evolved for survival functions, which is why some survive and others die out.
This hierarchy is needed for stability, as without it, there would be chaos + social breakdown.
What does Agency Theory suggest about nurture and upbringing?
We are innately prepared to be obedient, due to exposure to authority figures from a young age (e.g. parents + teachers).
They use rewards and punishments to encourage obedience +discourage dissent.
What is Socialisation?
Socialisation: The process by which we learn the rules + norms of society through socialising agents such as teachers and parents
What is the Agency Theory say about our ‘states’?
Humans exist in 2 different states: Autonomous + Agentic.
An autonomous state refers to humans acting on free will.
Agentic state refers to humans acting as an agent for the authority figure
Moral Strain occurs when a person is asked to do something they wouldn’t choose to do themselves, and goes against their moral rights. Moral strain results in anxiety.
This allows them to reject the consequences of their actions
What research evidence supports Agency Theory?
Milgram
Vietnam War- My Lai
Hofling et al
How did Milgram’s Study support Agency Theory?
65% of participants were willing to seriously harm an innocent confederate to obey an authority figure.
When he debriefed the participants, many reported that their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter, and they didn’t want to do it
How did the Vietnam War (My Lai) support Agency Theory?
The village My Lai was approached by American soldiers who were ordered to shoot the occupants who were suspected to being Vietcong soldiers.
Lieutenant Calley instructed his division to enter the village and shoot, despite to return of fire.
The American soldiers massacred old men, women + children in the village that day after being ordered by Calley. Calley claimed to just be following orders.
How does Hofling et al’s study support Agency Theory?
A stooged doctor phoned a nurse working on a ward.
He asked to administer twice the daily dose of a drug to the patient.
Against hospital policy, the stooge doctor informed the nurse that she would sign the prescription later
21 out of 22 followed orders, and several justified their behaviour as being a result of authority
Why is Agency Theory Reductionist?
Individual Differences: Doesn’t take things like personality, gender, situation, etc into account
Reductionist: Undermines the interconnection between nature and nurture.
How is Agency Theory not Credible?
The concept of switching to your agentic state after being in your autonomous state and experiencing moral strain is an internal mental process that can’t be directly measured.
There is no direct evidence for the evolutionary basis of obedience.
What does Agency Theory not explain about Obedience?
Doesn’t explain motivational issues behind obedience
What is an Alternative Hypothesis to Agency Theory?
Identified 5 Bases of Power-
(Legitimate Power, Reward Power, Referent Power, Expert Power, Coercive Power)
These factors are said to provide a better explanation for Milgram’s findings.
Who created Social Impact Theory, and when?
Latane, 1981
What is are ‘Targets’, and what are ‘Sources’?
The target refers to the person being (socially) impacted on, and the source being the influencer
How does social impact depend on ‘Social Forces’?
The degree of social impact on a target depends on:
- Strength of the Source: determined by how much power, status or authority the target perceive the source to have
- Immediacy of the Source: the proximity/distance between the source and the target, presence of barriers between the source + target, and how recent the event occurred
- Number of Sources: how many sources are exerting influence on the target
What is the Multiplication Effect (for social impact theory)?
The greatest social impact occurs when there is a multiplication of all 3 factors
i = f (SIN)
How does social impact depend on ‘Social Laws’?
The multiplication effect declines in certain social situations, due to ‘social laws’
e. g. 1: Social Impact will be less when the target is part of a large group, as the impact of the source will be divided between the group
e. g. 2: Although an increase in sources will result in an increases of obedience, the increase in obedience is not proportional (e.g. the 33rd source entering the room won’t cause 33x anxiety levels than 1 source.)
What are the Strengths of social impact theory as an explanation of obedience?
Milgram’s Studies: In his original study 65% gave 450v, which dropped to 22.5% in the telephonic conditions. This is due to the low proximity.
Practical Application: It can be used by leaders in society to ensure they achieve high levels of obedience- two leaders need to work together to talk to individuals in small groups (social engineering)
Complexity: It is a more complex explanation of how obedience works compared to agency theory, as it refers to status, proximity and number of authority figures. Agency theory only discusses status.
What are the Weaknesses of social impact theory as an explanation of obedience?
Reductionism: It oversimplifies the interaction between individuals- the ‘target’ is not always a passive receiver of command; and the ‘source’ may change their commands due to target influence.
Individual Differences: some ‘targets’ may have an authoritarian personality, making them more submissive to authority by harsh to those more subordinate
It explains how people are influenced, but not why. Agency theory explains why, saying its due to socialisation.
What was the aim of Sherif’s (1956/61) study?
To investigate relations between groups:
To see whether strangers who have common goals will form a close group.
To see whether 2 groups that compete with each other will become hostile towards each other.
What was the Procedure of Stage 1 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
For 1 week, the two groups were kept apart and allowed to form group norms + identities
Boys developed an attachment to the group throughout the first week of the camp, by doing various activities together (hiking, swimming, etc)
The boys chose names for their groups- The Eagles + The Rattlers- and stencilled them onto shirts + flags
What was the Procedure of Stage 2 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
The boys were told about another. They went through a tournament of a series of competitions; where the winner get trophies, medals, and camping knives
The researchers recorded phrases used by the boys, and analysed if they’re derogatory
A bean counting competition was included-boys had to then estimate how many each found; which was to see if they’d overestimate the in group/ underestimate the out group
What was the Procedure of Stage 3 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
To achieve harmony within the group, the boys started doing tasks that brought them all together
Examples: Fixing a water tank, pulling a broken truck out of mud
Data was collected through the observation of the boys’ friendship, an analysis of friendship, through the experiments and tape recordings.
What were the Results of Stage 1 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
The boys bonded with their groups and both groups had a recognised leader.
They discussed the existence of the other group in negative terms e.g. ‘they had better not be in our swimming hole’.
What were the Results of Stage 2 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Towards the end of stage one, the groups began to become competitive and prejudice became apparent between the two groups
At first this was only verbally expressed but as the competition wore on this expression took a more direct route
The Eagles refused to sit with the Rattlers, the Eagles burned and Rattlers flag. The next day the Rattlers ransacked the Eagles cabin overturned beds and stole private property
What were the Results of Stage 3 in Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
The hostility between the groups initially remained, but the problem solving problems began to reduce the hostility towards each other.
When they fixed the water tank they celebrated together, and there was cooperation by all the boys contributing the same amount to hire a film
For tasks helped to reduce friction and by the end of the stage, although friendship choices still favoured the in-groups, there was increased friendships between the groups
The Rattlers even spent a $5 prize from one of the competitions on drinks for all of the boys
What was the conclusion of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Groups bonded and developed hierarchies within them, as expected
When the groups met in competition, in-group solidarity and cooperation increased, and hostility towards the other group was strong
Contact between the two groups was not enough to reduce hostility, and friction was reduced by the groups having to solve problems together and cooperate
What were the Strengths of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Reliability: all boys experienced the same team-building and competitive activities in three stages – standardised
Ecological Validity: The boys behaviour was tested on summer camp at the Robbers Cave National Park, Oklahoma - natural environment
Internal Validity: The ppts were all very similar, meaning participant characteristics couldn’t affect results
The covert observations mean that the researchers (initially) weren’t going to affect their behaviour
Practical Application
What were the Weaknesses of Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Generalisability: The participants were twenty two 11 and 12 year old boys who are all athletic/sporty, and are white American Protestants
Ecological Validity: The procedure involved strangers meeting and competing, which is artificial as usually people in competition have a history of social interaction
Internal Validity: The naturalistic environment meant that the researchers couldn’t really control extraneous and confounding variables
Internal Validity/Mundane Realism: Unpublished researcher notes and interviews many years later revealed that the boys were aware that behaviour was being recorded, and the researcher may have encouraged hostility between the boys by breaking down tents and blaming rival teams – demand characteristics
What are the Ethical Issues surrounding Sherif’s (1954/61) study?
Protection From Harm: They were given pen knives as prizes, allowed to set fire to flags
Sherif encouraged high levels of conflict in order to gain successful study outcomes
Deception: The boys believed it was a study of leadership, rather than hostility
Where did Sherif et al’s (1954/61) study take place?
Robber’s Cave State Park, Oklahoma
it occurred during the boys’ summer camp
Who created Realistic Conflict Theory, and when?
Sherif, 1966
How does Realistic Conflict Theory claim how prejudice arises?
Sherif claimed that prejudice arises when there is conflict between groups.
The conflict can be a conflict of interest (e.g. both groups believe their ideas are right and the others wrong) or ‘inter-group conflict’
What is ‘inter-group conflict’?
Competition for resources (e.g. both groups want the same land or the same jobs). He called this ‘inter group conflict’.
What happens when conflict is present, according to Realistic Conflict Theory?
When conflict or competition is present, the groups form stronger identities and these result in extreme in-group favouritism and out group hostility.
In-group favouritism may be shown through overly generous distribution of resources in favour of the in-group. Out-group hostility may be shown through withholding resources from the out group (discrimination) and even violence against members of the out group.
How does Realistic Conflict Theory argue that hostility/prejudice can be reduced?
However, Sherif believed that hostility is reduced when the groups have a common goal and work together to achieve that goal.
He called this a ‘superordinate goal’ and claimed it would only reduce prejudice if all members of each group co-operated in order to achieve the intended outcome.
What did Sherif do to support Realistic Conflict Theory?
Sherif carried out a number of summer camp studies to show how quickly prejudice and discrimination occurs when groups of boys are in competition with one another. His studies also showed how common goals (superordinate goals) could help to reduce prejudice and discrimination.
List the Advantages and Disadvantages of Realistic Conflict Theory.
Carol + Ember
Sherif + Ecological Validity
Aronson et al
Practical Application
Complexity
Real life example
How does Carol + Ember’s study support Realistic Conflict Theory?
Carol + Ember: observed that in tribal societies, intergroup hostility increases when social or natural conditions mean that competition for these resources are necessary. during periods of famine/natural disasters, warfare was more likely to the available, scarce resources.
Similar studies have suggested that when population is low and land abundant, hostilities between small societies are less likely; but when populations expand and land becomes in short supply, conflict + violence increase.
How does Sherif’s findings support or challenge Realistic Conflict Theory?
Sherif: The greatest amount of evidence comes from Sherif’s field experiments (inc. Robber’s Cave); which found that competition increased hostility between the groups.
Ecological Validity: These are seen as important ‘real-life’ evidence for prejudice/
How does Aronson et al’s findings support or challenge Realistic Conflict Theory?
Using the ‘jigsaw technique’, where students were divided into small groups that had to succeed in one group task to ensure the success overall class project; they found that levels of competition decreased.
Does Realistic Conflict Theory have Practical Application?
Realistic Conflict Theory can be used in schools to reduce prejudice; by joining 2 ‘opposing groups’ together to work on a problem solving task; or through the ‘jigsaw technique’
