Social Flashcards
agentic shift
individual displaces the responsibility of the situation onto the authoritative figure absolving them of the consequence of their actions
prejudice
when you form a judgement about something
- extreme attitude
discrimination
treating people differently according to group membership
stereotype
overgeneralised belief about someone
ethnocentrism
belief ones own ethnic group is superior
football hooliganism
violent behaviour by spectators
obedience
type of social influence where someone acts in response to direct order by an authoritative figure
destructive obedience
complying with instructions that leads to negative outcome
theories of obedience
- social roles
- social situation
- groups
- interaction
autonomous state
acting on ones own free will
agentic state
when one acts as an agent for another, give up free will
moral strain
action goes against your moral judgement
socialisation
process by which we learn rules and norms of society through socialising agents
hierarchical
social organisation ranked from top to bottom
who came up with social impact theory
latané (1981)
agency theory
humans exist in 2 different states; autonomy and agency
what is social impact theory
peoples actions affect how we act in response
3 social impact theory principles
- social forces
- psychosocial law/ multiplicative effect
- divisional effect
social forces
the impact of influence is a function of
- strength
- immediacy/proximity
- numbers
psychosocial law/ multiplicative effect and example
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
divisional effect
- diffusion of responsibility
- social force gets spread out between people
- the more of you there are the less responsibility you feel
factors affecting obedience
Situation - proximity - legitimacy - momentum of compliance Personality - locus of control - authoritarian personality Culture - individualism - collectivism Gender -milgram replications - moral reasoning
moral reasoning
- 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
evaluation of moral reasoning
- strength of Gilligan is qualitative research ppts interviews about real life dilemmas and men favoured justice orientation and females favoured care
gender difference in obedience
and a conclusion
- 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%
evaluation of gender difference in obedience
- 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
culture differences in obedience
individualistic - e.g. USA more independent and resist conformity
- collectivistic - e.g. China behave as a collective group so compliance is vital for stability
evaluation of culture differences in obedience
- 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
evaluation for agency theory
- 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
evaluation for social impact theory
- 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
proximity FAO
as distance increases obedience reduces
- Milgram variation removing physical buffers the wall led to obedience falling by 22.5%
legitimacy FAO
status of authority and location
momentum of compliance
ppts committed to small requests
evaluation for situational factors affecting obedience
- 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
internal locus of control
- responsible for own actions less influenced by others (dissent)
external locus of control
behave beyond their control, fate (more obedient)
authoritarian personality
- harsh to people subordinate to themselves but submissive to authority
obedience = high f-scale score = authoritarian personality
Adorno believed that harsh parenting developed authoritarianism
F-scale
questionnaire to detect authoritarian personality
Evaluation for locus of control
- 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
Evaluation for authoritarianism
- 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
3 stages for prejudice to occur
- Cognitive - belief/ stereotype about a group
- Affective - negative feelings towards group
- Behavioural - behaving differently
who came up with social identity theory?
Tajfel
define Social identity theory
- social behaviour is driven by motivation to maintain a positive sense of self as a valued member of a group
3 stages of social identity theory
- social categorisation - people categorised as a member
- social identification -adopt identity and internalise norms
- social comparison - compare to maintain self esteem
in group
we have membership
out-group
rival group
in group favouritism
members see individuals in group as unique
negative out-group bias
members of out-group are all the same
personal identity theory
own unique qualities, personality and self-esteem
social identity
attributes of group to which we belong
evaluating social identity theory
- 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
realistic conflict theory
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
superordinate goal
goal that can only be achieved by working together
evaluating realistic conflict theory
- 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
milgram study ASHPR
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
what caused obedience in milligrams study
- authoritative figure
- lab coat
- prods
- location
- gradual commitment
- ppts couldn’t see effect
milgrams variation 10 - location
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
milgrams variation 7 - telephone instructions
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
milgrams variation 13 - ordinary man
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
tajfel and turner ASPRC
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
classic study ASPR
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:
- boys formed own group norms chose name and made flag that formed group identity
- hostility then after tournament, boys fought, name called and eagles burned rattlers flag
- 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
evaluation of the classic study
and conclusion
- 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
6 ethical guidelines that burger did
- 2 step screening process
- ppts told 3 times (2x in writing) R2W
- sample shock administered with informed consent
- study to not go on longer than 150v
- ppts informed quickly that learner received no shocks
- experimenter instructed to end study if signs of excessive stress
contemporary study AHSPR
baseline condition
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%
contemporary study AHSPR
modal refusal condition
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%
evaluation of contemporary study
- 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
factors affecting prejudice
personality
culture
personality (FAP)
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
evaluation for personality (FAP)
SE = Chors et al (2012) found right wing authoritarianism correlated with prejudice when questioning German nationals which shows that trait affects prejudice
culture (FAP)
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
key question
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
practical AHSPR
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
distinct features of burgers study
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
- sample shock with informed consent
- R2W 3X twice in writing
- 2 step screening process
- study not to go past 150V
- quickly debriefed
- Burger could pull them out following any signs of excessive stress
distinct features of burgers baseline condition
- 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
distinct features of burgers modal refusal condition
- 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
