Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

psychology > Social > Flashcards

Social Flashcards

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

agentic shift

A

individual displaces the responsibility of the situation onto the authoritative figure absolving them of the consequence of their actions

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

prejudice

A

when you form a judgement about something

- extreme attitude

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

discrimination

A

treating people differently according to group membership

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

stereotype

A

overgeneralised belief about someone

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

ethnocentrism

A

belief ones own ethnic group is superior

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

football hooliganism

A

violent behaviour by spectators

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

obedience

A

type of social influence where someone acts in response to direct order by an authoritative figure

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

destructive obedience

A

complying with instructions that leads to negative outcome

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

theories of obedience

A
  • social roles
  • social situation
  • groups
  • interaction
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

autonomous state

A

acting on ones own free will

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

agentic state

A

when one acts as an agent for another, give up free will

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

moral strain

A

action goes against your moral judgement

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

socialisation

A

process by which we learn rules and norms of society through socialising agents

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

hierarchical

A

social organisation ranked from top to bottom

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

who came up with social impact theory

A

latané (1981)

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

agency theory

A

humans exist in 2 different states; autonomy and agency

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

what is social impact theory

A

peoples actions affect how we act in response

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

3 social impact theory principles

A
  • social forces
  • psychosocial law/ multiplicative effect
  • divisional effect
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

social forces

A

the impact of influence is a function of

  • strength
  • immediacy/proximity
  • numbers
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

psychosocial law/ multiplicative effect and example

A

first source of influence has the most dramatic impact on people than 2nd and 3rd
e.g. one teacher gives order is more effective than 2nd or 3rd

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

divisional effect

A
  • diffusion of responsibility
  • social force gets spread out between people
  • the more of you there are the less responsibility you feel
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

factors affecting obedience

A 
Situation 
- proximity
- legitimacy
- momentum of compliance
Personality
- locus of control
- authoritarian personality
Culture
- individualism - collectivism
Gender
-milgram replications
- moral reasoning
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

moral reasoning

A
  • Gilligan suggested males and females have different principles which affect moral decision making
    Males= ethic of justice (equity and fairness)
    Females = ethic of care (nurturing and supporting)
    therefore males more destructive obedient
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

evaluation of moral reasoning

A
  • strength of Gilligan is qualitative research ppts interviews about real life dilemmas and men favoured justice orientation and females favoured care
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

gender difference in obedience

and a conclusion

A
  • milgram found no difference yet higher anxiety levels for those who were obedient
  • women more obedient than men
    Sheridan and king - 1972 electric shocks to puppy
    females = 100%
    males = 54%
  • men more obedient than women
    Kilham and mann 1974 - replicated milgrams study
    females = 16%
    males = 40%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

evaluation of gender difference in obedience

A
  • Blass 1999 found 8/9 milgram styled studies there was no significant difference

C= milligrams study was androcentric and Gilligan said M+F just see the world differently. Vital to combat androcentrism and not overlook similarities in M+F

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

culture differences in obedience

A

individualistic - e.g. USA more independent and resist conformity
- collectivistic - e.g. China behave as a collective group so compliance is vital for stability

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

evaluation of culture differences in obedience

A
  • weakness is that most nations have similarly high obedience levels (Blass)
  • avg obedience levels for 8 non-US milgram replications shows 66% compared to 61% of US replication
  • perhaps obedience is a universal social behaviour and culture doesn’t affect it much

C= Blass’ analysis does suggest universality but collectivist cultures may be under-represented and procedural differences make comparison difficult

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

evaluation for agency theory

A
  • SE from from milligram’s study as ppts showed overt signs of moral strain and many reported their behaviour was experimenters responsibility
  • Hofling et al 1966- stooge doctor phoned nurse to administer 2X dose - 21/22 complied. nurses displaced responsibility and justified it to be a result of hierarchy
  • does not explain individual differences - why some people don’t obey
  • theory cannot be directly measured
    I+D = social impact theory is a better explanation as it explains why people disobey

C- this theory is oversimplified and overstated
- agent state is not inevitable so it would be more beneficial to look at factors that lead to people to resist destructive obedience

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

evaluation for social impact theory

A
  • theory oversimplifies the nature of human interaction and individuals differences are some people are more resistant
  • does not take into account how to sources and target interact with one another
  • useful as it can predict behaviour under certain conditions but doesn’t say why people are influenced by others
  • SE from Milgram
    I+D = reductionistic as it reduces complexity of human thoughts and feelings to predict outcomes
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

proximity FAO

A

as distance increases obedience reduces

- Milgram variation removing physical buffers the wall led to obedience falling by 22.5%

32
Q

legitimacy FAO

A

status of authority and location

33
Q

momentum of compliance

A

ppts committed to small requests

34
Q

evaluation for situational factors affecting obedience

A
  • SE from milgram however there were individuals differences to why people refused to obey which is personality
  • applied to rule breaking signs provide immediacy and strength
35
Q

internal locus of control

A
  • responsible for own actions less influenced by others (dissent)
36
Q

external locus of control

A

behave beyond their control, fate (more obedient)

37
Q

authoritarian personality

A
  • harsh to people subordinate to themselves but submissive to authority
    obedience = high f-scale score = authoritarian personality
    Adorno believed that harsh parenting developed authoritarianism
38
Q

F-scale

A

questionnaire to detect authoritarian personality

39
Q

Evaluation for locus of control

A
  • weakness as experiment Schurz found ppts obedient in giving painful doses of ultra sound had same locus of control than disobedient
  • applied to jobs as LOC test can be part of recruitment
40
Q

Evaluation for authoritarianism

A
  • SE form milgram as tested 20 obedient ppts and 20 not where obedient had increased F-scale score.
  • Cannot claim relationship between childhood and obedience as there are other factor such as education
41
Q

3 stages for prejudice to occur

A
  1. Cognitive - belief/ stereotype about a group
  2. Affective - negative feelings towards group
  3. Behavioural - behaving differently
42
Q

who came up with social identity theory?

A

Tajfel

43
Q

define Social identity theory

A
  • social behaviour is driven by motivation to maintain a positive sense of self as a valued member of a group
44
Q

3 stages of social identity theory

A
  • social categorisation - people categorised as a member
  • social identification -adopt identity and internalise norms
  • social comparison - compare to maintain self esteem
45
Q

in group

A

we have membership

46
Q

out-group

A

rival group

47
Q

in group favouritism

A

members see individuals in group as unique

48
Q

negative out-group bias

A

members of out-group are all the same

49
Q

personal identity theory

A

own unique qualities, personality and self-esteem

50
Q

social identity

A

attributes of group to which we belong

51
Q

evaluating social identity theory

A
  • SE from Tajfel (1979) as more points were awarded to in-group than out-group members and shows that social categorisation is sufficient to trigger in-group favouritism and discrimination against out-group.
  • however, this study lacks mundane realism and IRL we may be less discriminatory due to unpleasant social consequences
  • SE from Jane elliot who divided class into blue/brown eyes and group who was told they were better performed better academically
52
Q

realistic conflict theory

A

competition causes conflict

  • scarce resources
  • leads to negative stereotyping and discrimination
  • depends on how long conflict lasts
  • 1 group may see the other as inferior
  • superordinate goal
53
Q

superordinate goal

A

goal that can only be achieved by working together

54
Q

evaluating realistic conflict theory

A
  • SE from sherif 1954 as showed that competition does lead to intergroup hostility and prejudce
  • but he reported that the boys were being hostile before competitive events so presence of other group was enough for prejudice to occur
  • applied to reduce prejudice with superordinate goal
55
Q

milgram study ASHPR

A

1963
H: germans are different
A: how obedient ppts are when ordered to give shocks
S: 40 men, 20-50, yale uni, newspaper ad
P: $4 per hour ‘study memory’ (new haven)
ppt= teacher confederate=learner/ experimenter
- chosen by fake coin toss
- learner strapped in chair and teacher sampled 45v shock
- ppts instructed to give increasing shocks for wrong answer
- at 270v = screaming
prods = ‘please continue’ ‘you have no other choice’

R: estimate >3% go to 450v
65% gave max shock
100% went to 300V

*ppts examined by psychiatrists 1 year after

56
Q

what caused obedience in milligrams study

A
  • authoritative figure
  • lab coat
  • prods
  • location
  • gradual commitment
  • ppts couldn’t see effect
57
Q

milgrams variation 10 - location

A

institutional context of yale could increase obedience with prestige setting
A: see if location was a factor of obedience
P: rundown office block, sparsely furnished, ppts recruited by mail, conducted by research associates of bridgeport, in bridgeport connecticut
R: 48% gave max shock
C: the less reputable context reduced legitimacy of study

58
Q

milgrams variation 7 - telephone instructions

A

experimenters intimidating presence had a factor on obedience levels
A: see if proximity of experimenter impacted obedience
P: 3 experiments
1. experimenter few feet away
2. experimenter changed from hard to unaggressive
3. instructions over telephone
R: 22.5% gave max shock
C: closer the proximity of experimenter the more obedient you become

59
Q

milgrams variation 13 - ordinary man

A

A: to see if altering power and position of experimenter changed levels of obedience
P: 3 people arrived at the lab, 2 confederates
- teacher told to strap learner into chair but not what level of shock to give
- learner said good way to conduct study would be to increase shock levels
R: 20% gave max shock
C: lower authoritative role the less obedient the person becomes

60
Q

tajfel and turner ASPRC

A

1979
A: see the cause of intergroup discrimination
S: 64 Bristol schoolboys aged 14+15
P: divided into groups after showing them dots on a screen and telling boys they had over/under estimated (random)
- told tested visual judgement

  • they were told to assign points from matrices
  • each matrix offered different allocation of points to a pair of anonymous boys
  • 10points = 1 pence* *didn’t know who they were giving points to *

R: 2 outgroup/ 2 in-group = fairness
1 outgroup and 1 in-group = in-group favouritism

  • shortchanged in group to do better than outgroup

C: outgroup discrimination is easily triggered just perceiving has enough to do it

61
Q

classic study ASPR

A

Sherif et al 1954 - robbers cave experiment
A: see whether intro to comp will increase hostility and see whether superordinate goal will decrease hostility
S: 22 boys 11 years old middle class, protestant, Oklahoma, none knew each other prior

P: boys matched on athletic and educational ability

  • 2 groups arrived on different days to different location
  • data collected over 3 weeks
  • parents paid $25 to not visit

Stage 1: in group formation

  • non competitive activities to bond in group (rattlers or eagles)
  • canoeing, tent pitching, building campfires

Stage 2: friction

  • tournament against out group with prizes and medals
  • tug of war, baseball, tent pitching
  • extra points for treasure hunt
  • researchers trashed rattlers campsite

Stage 3: reduce friction

  • increasing social contact by eating and watching movie together
  • had to collectively raise money to watch the film
  • superordinate goal introduced; fixing water tank that provided water to both groups

R:

  1. boys formed own group norms chose name and made flag that formed group identity
  2. hostility then after tournament, boys fought, name called and eagles burned rattlers flag
  3. when asked who they friend were 93% chose in group
    - after movie and bus boys reassess friends and increase number of friendships that were now outgroup
62
Q

evaluation of the classic study

and conclusion

A
  • high ecological/ task validity
  • no protection of ppts as they were fighting
  • researchers sabotage lacks internal validity
  • not generalisabel to girls, other classes
  • observation = subjectivity
    C=
  • findings important in predicting when prejudice may be present
  • however, limitations; sample and duration
  • good application to reducing prejudice
63
Q

6 ethical guidelines that burger did

A
  1. 2 step screening process
  2. ppts told 3 times (2x in writing) R2W
  3. sample shock administered with informed consent
  4. study to not go on longer than 150v
  5. ppts informed quickly that learner received no shocks
  6. experimenter instructed to end study if signs of excessive stress
64
Q

contemporary study AHSPR

baseline condition

A 
burger 2009
H: would people still obey?
A: to see if there are gender differences in obedience
S: 29men 41 women aged 20-81 $50, 45 min
- recruited from adverts (flyers)
- lab exp
-6 ethical safeguards

P: baseline condition

  • santa clara uni
  • ppts randomly assigned to 2 groups
  • experimenter gave ppt and confederate $50 and R2W
  • study effects of learning
  • both signed informed consent form
  • confed warned ppts of heart condition
  • Exp (script) ‘‘while shocks may be painful they aren’t dangerous’’
  • ppts given sample shock, 2 declined
  • word pairs same as milgram
  • after 75V = small grunt increasing volume
  • after 150V ‘’ get me out of here’’ ended

R: 70% continued after 150V
M= 66.7% F=72.7%

65
Q

contemporary study AHSPR

modal refusal condition

A

P: modal refusal condition

  • 2 confeds used (2nd same gender as ppt)
  • rigged draw so ppt always teacher 2 confer teacher 1
  • teachers told to sit next to each other
  • teacher 1 begin procedure
  • 75V ‘‘ugh’’
  • 90V ‘‘ugh’’ confed: ‘‘idk about this’’ Exp: pls continue
  • confederate quit and asked real ppt to continue

R: 63.3% continued after 150V
M: 54.5% F= 68.4%

66
Q

evaluation of contemporary study

A
  • strength is that no ppt had prior knowledge of milligrams study so good internal validity as they were asked if they had taken psychology classes
  • no application as ppts were stopped so situation loses its potency
  • generalisable to all gender and ages
  • lab exp low ecological validity
  • ethics

C: similar to milligrams study showing that 45 years later obedience levels remain high

67
Q

factors affecting prejudice

A

personality

culture

68
Q

personality (FAP)

A

authoritarianism persoanlity

  • harsh parenting creates this
  • highly prone to display prejudice
  • parents expect absolute loyalty and extremely high standards of achievement
  • children feel hostile towards parents conditional love so they displace anger towards something else
69
Q

evaluation for personality (FAP)

A

SE = Chors et al (2012) found right wing authoritarianism correlated with prejudice when questioning German nationals which shows that trait affects prejudice

70
Q

culture (FAP)

A

if a culture has existing social norms, law and events which endorse prejudice. It is difficult to establish whether one culture is more prejudice than another

Katz and braly 1933
- conducted questionnaire at princeton uni
A: investigate national stereotypes of Americans about other cultures
P: ppts given list of ethnic groups and had to pick 5 traits that they thought represented e.g. lazy, ignorant
R: african americas as superstitious and ignorant
jews as shrewd

71
Q

key question

A

why does football hooliganism occur in football?

Issue: in contemporary society as violence impacts local public services, police, legal system and NHS
- also threatens economy as damage to buildings homes and vehicles need to be compensated for

Agency
realistic conflict
social identity

C: these theories can be used to reduce it
RCT = superordinate goal SE sherif
SIT = pubs ban team colours
SIMT= increase police and security

72
Q

practical AHSPR

A

A: investigate gender differences in obedience
H: females will score higher on obedience questionnaire than males suggesting females will perceive themselves as more obedient
S: 38 ppts aged 16-18, 19m NHHS opportunity sample

P: 19 researchers design questionnaire 10 Qs have you ever broken the law, informed consent and R2W

R: mean scores F=19 M=16.2

73
Q

distinct features of burgers study

A

A: see if there are gender differences in obedience
S: 29m 41f aged 20-81, $50 for 45mins, recruited from adverts (flyers)

6 ethical safeguards

  1. sample shock with informed consent
  2. R2W 3X twice in writing
  3. 2 step screening process
  4. study not to go past 150V
  5. quickly debriefed
  6. Burger could pull them out following any signs of excessive stress
74
Q

distinct features of burgers baseline condition

A
  • santa clara uni
  • exp gave ppt and confederate $50 and R2W
  • both signed informed consent
  • confederate warned ppts of heart condition
  • exp ‘’ while shocks may be painful they aren’t dangerous’’
  • ppts given sample shock (2 declined)
  • word pairs same as milgram
  • 75V = small grunt
  • 150V ‘’ get me out of here’’

Results: 70% continued after 150V

75
Q

distinct features of burgers modal refusal condition

A
  • 2 confederates used
  • 2nd same gender as ppts
  • rigged draw so ppt always teacher 2 confed= teacher 1
    -teacher told to sit next to each other
  • teacher 1 began procedure
  • 75V ‘‘ugh’’
  • 90V ‘‘ugh’’ confederate ‘‘IDK about this’’
    exp ‘’ pls continue’’
  • confederate quit and asked real ppt to continue

R: 63.6% continued after 150V

psychology (16 decks)

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