Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology unit 1 > Social Approach > Flashcards

Social Approach Flashcards

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

Define the social approach

A

Study’s individuals in a social context / behaviour is influenced by the actual, imagined or implied presence of others / culture + society influence behaviour / Obedience + prejudice

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

Key assumption 1

A

Effect of interaction between individuals / individuals affects each others behaviour / Agency theory suggest people are agents of society + behave to benefit their society / people help others - sends signals to other by the way you look + behave / obeying some not others / helping behaviour + body language + obedience

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

Key assumption 2

A

Effect of being in groups in society / people live within culture + society (where they are members of certain groups) - these experiences affects behaviour / e.g pupil or teacher at school / SIT suggest identifying oneself as part of a group can bring about prejudice against rival groups / members copy one another - crowds can become unruly / Prejudice + peer group pressure + crowd behaviour

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

Key assumption 3

A

Effect of social situation / social situation affects behaviour / e.g. evening out with friends you express your feelings on religion ….when in a business meeting in a different country would not comment

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

Agency Theory - Milgram (1973)

A

explain obedience shown in his earlier experiments / Agentic + autonomous state / Moral strain / social situation

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

Agency theory - states

A

Agentic state: agent of recognised authority, do not take responsibility or consequences for actions / Moral strain: negative feeling caused when doing something you feel is morally wrong but feel compelled to do it cause of the social situation / Autonomous state: free make own choices. control their actions, take responsibility

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

Agency theory - social situation

A

socialised to recognise, respect, obey recognised authority figure / do what they say when a recognised authority figure is present

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

Obedience

A

Blind obedience: carrying out the order without questioning / leads to destructive obedience
Destructive obedience: carrying out orders that cause harm to you and others

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

Prejudice + discrimination

A

Prejudice: a negative feeling towards an individual or group of people e.g. race / religion - Adolf Eichmann
Discrimination: acting on the prejudice e.g. race / religion - Adolf Eichmann

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

Social Identity Theory - Tajfel

A

Tajfel was a Jew who suffered in WW2 / To explain prej _ disrim / SIT suggests the simple act of grouping brings about prejudice / How you feel about yourself depends on your group / CIC + deindividuation

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

SIT - Social catergorisation

A

putting oneself into a group - group you belong to ‘in group’ not ‘out group’ e.g. Man U + Liverpool

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

SIT - Social Identification

A

taking on the norms of the group e.g. where the same colour clothes liverpool manchester

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

SIT - Social Comparison

A

members of one group compare themselves to those of other groups / in group made to be superior / out group made to be inferior e.g. Liverpool Manchester United calling the other losers

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

Deindividuation

A

The groups opinion and attitudes become your opinions and attitudes e.g. Liverpool Manchester

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

Evaluation of Agency theory - strengths

A

Has supporting evidence - Milgram (agentic, social situation…physical harm….65% obeyed)
Credible explanation - WW2, Adolf Eichmann / Abu Ghraib prison

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

Evaluation of Agency theory - weaknesses

A

Ignores dispositional reasons such as personality - some people more obedient than others - Adorno (more obedient depending on how they have been socialised)
To simplistic - more than two states / could be in both states at the same time

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

Evaluation of SIT - strengths

A

Supporting evidence - Tajfel minimal groups - grouping induced prejudice
Credible - mob mentality - footballers - Hillsborough

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

Evaluation of SIT - weaknesses

A

Simplistic - prejudice based on historical relationships rather than grouping
Supporting theory’s not ecologically valid - lab experiments - control - Tajfel

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

Milgram (1963) study of obedience - AIM

A

establish a base line measure of how obedient naive participants would be when order to administer increasingly intense electric shocks to an innocent victim

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

Milgram (1963) study of obedience - PROCEDURE

A

40 volunteers - newspaper ad (study of human memory) $4.00+car fee / Yale university / ppts + confederate - rigged draw = confederate learner + ppts teacher / shown equipment - shock generator 15v-450v + description - chair with straps + wired to generator / ppts read words to learner - every wrong answer = shock / learners response scripted + no shocks given / various point complained his heart was bothering him + refusal to continue – 315v went silent / verbal prods were given by the researcher / obedience measured = how far up generator ppts went

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

Milgram (1963) study of obedience - RESULTS

A

prediction = 140v / all ppts went to 300v / 14 stopped between 300v-375v / 65% (26) = 450v fully obedient

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

Milgram (1963) study of obedience - CONCLUSION

A

Social setting is powerful determinant of behaviour / socialised to recognise authority - react with obedience /

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

Milgram (1963) study of obedience - EVALUATION - S

A

Theory to support - Agency theory / Applicable - Adolf Eichmann / high experimental validity / ethics - presumptive consent / reliable

24
Q

Milgram (1963) study of obedience - EVALUATION - W

A

low eco validity - lab exp / low generalisability - american males - variations - Meeus et al / ethics - psychological harm (stress)/ deception (aim/shocks) / verbal prods

25
Q

Variation - 1974 exp 10 - Bridge Port, Connecticut

A

run-down office building / ppts believed project being run by private research firm - no connection to Yale / 47.5% obedience - suggests location played a part - not crucial however

26
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - AIM

A

test obedience requiring administration of psychological harm / up-to-date Milgram expt

27
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - PROCEDURE

A

39 Dutch male+female 18-55yrs volunteers - newspaper ad testing psychological stress + test achievement - $13 / ppts administer 15 increasingly insulting remarks to confederate applying for job at uni / confederate increasing objections / ppts told to ignore + carry on = verbal prods /

28
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - RESULTS

A

92% fully obedient (all 15 insults) - even if they said it was unfair + did not want to do it / follow up questionnaire = ppts not liking baseline procedure + upset by it / 73% believed real - 23% unsure - 4% hoax / Responsibility = 45% researcher - 33% themselves - 22% applicant

29
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - CONCLUSION

A

high levels of obedience even 20 yrs later after Milgram / Obedience in Holland is higher than US in the 60s / ppts more likely to comply psychological rather than physical harm - consequences less obvious

30
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - EVALUATION - strengths

A

High eco validity - Holland high unemployment rates / Reliable - standardised - 15 insults / ethics - presumptive consent

31
Q

Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - EVALUATION - weakness

A

ethics - deception, psychological harm / generalisability - volunteer sampling

32
Q

Meeus et al + Milgram - comparison

A

psychological - physical / high eco validity - low eco validity / Holland - US / unethical - more ethical (BPS guidelines) / 92% obedient - 65% obedient / nominal fee / support Agency theory / volunteer sampling

33
Q

Meeus et al - variations

A

Researcher absent = 36% obedient / Two confederates = 16% obedient / Variations 83% believed it was a hoax

34
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - AIM

A

whether nurses would comply with an instruction that infringes on hospital regulation / test strength of doctor-nurse relationship how far nurse would go with doctors orders

35
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - PROCEDURE

A

22 wards public+private hospitals USA / capsules = placebos - containers labelled 5mg Astroten - indicated normal dose (5mg) + max dose 10mg / nurse on duty gets call from Dr Smith (confed) to give 20mg Astroten to his patient (Mr Jones) / Dr Smith said he would come in 10 mins + sign authorisation / real doctor posted nearby (unseen) observed nurses / questionnaire - asking nurses what they would do / questionnaire - student+graduate nurses / expt carried out from 7pm-9pm

36
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - RESULTS - questionnaire

A

10/12 graduates would not have followed instructions / 7 mentioned reasons of dosage discrepancy - written permission / all 21 student nurses said wouldn’t have followed

37
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - CONCLUSION

A

What people say and do is very different / nurses not functioning as intelligence on the ward - merely deferring to the doctors / whilst trust is important - nurses need to use their own knowledge when putting patients at risk / nurses need to be trained to question doctors - doctors made aware of destructive outcomes of their perceived authority

38
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - EVALUATION - Strengths

A

High eco validity / consistent finding with Milgram + Meeus - high obedience to authority / application

39
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - EVALUATION - Weaknesses

A

generalisability - male nurses + other professions / ethical - informed consent + deception + with draw

40
Q

Hofling et al (1966) - RESULTS - expt

A

95% (21/22) obeyed without hesitation / emergency calls common / 1 nurse questioned doctors identity + why he was in their ward

41
Q

Tajfel et al: AIM

A

demonstrate that the simple act of putting people into groups (categorisation) is sufficient for people to discriminate in favour of their own group - against members of others

42
Q

Tajfel et al: PROCEDURE

A

64 boys -Bristol school - 14 15 years old - same house+form - knew each other / boys asked their preference on two paintings - Klee + Kandinsky - boys thought they were split into two groups based opinions - random / participants taken to separate cubicles + told which group they were in / given booklet of matrices + told task is giving to others rewards + penalties in real money / boys do not know identity of other participants - code numbers / value of points given = 10th penny / each row of matrix labelled ‘these are rewards+penalties for member no….’ of your group+other group / participants had to tick a box in each matrix

43
Q

Tajfel et al: RESULTS

A

boys choosing between two boys from same group = maximum fairness / boys choosing between two boys (in group+out group) = boys discriminated in favour of their in-group / boys choose maximum difference of maximising joint profits for both groups - gave fewer points to boy in their group insure boy in out group got less

44
Q

Tajfel et al: CONCLUSION

A

inter-group discrimination is easy to trigger off / the very act of categorisation into groups is enough to produce discrimination

45
Q

Tajfel et al: EVALUATION -strengths

A

reliability - paintings+matrix+code numbers+lab expt / theory supports SIT / ethics - informed consent

46
Q

Tajfel et al: : EVALUATION - weaknesses

A

low eco validity - lab expt / demand characteristics - lab / competition rather than discrimination

47
Q

Abu Ghraib: Description

A

Prison in Iraq / 2004 photo’s were leaked / photo’s of Iraqi prisoners being tortured / prisoners were held by the US military / soldiers involved in a court - martialled - 11 guilty of abuse / soldiers claimed - doing as they were told (getting prisoners ready for interrogation) + pawns of authority / prosecution argued - corrupt cops took pleasure in tormenting the prisoners in their care

48
Q

Abu Ghraib: Milgram explanation

A

Based on Agency theory / ordinary people will do bad things when put into a social situation that demands it / Agentic state: soldiers - for higher authority + military job more likely to be agents (Holfling nurse+doctor) / Autonomous state: Joe Darby - leaked the photo’s + even in that setting

49
Q

Abu Ghraib: Tajfel explanation

A

Based on SIT / Categorisation: soldiers in-group + prisoners Out-group / Comparison: soldiers superior / War setting boost the desire to appear superior + social identity leading to the humiliation they cause the Iraqi prisoners

50
Q

Key issue - obedience

A

Abu Ghraib

51
Q

Key issue- prejudice + discrimination

A

Football violence - mob mentality

52
Q

Football violence: description

A

loyal fans / religion / very passionate / competition+tension - stadiums+pubs / before - competition + history between teams / After - last long time - spills into pubs+ streets / taunts towards other team (rival) / dress code - kit worn (group membership) chants (Liverpool - you’ll never walk alone) / Hillsborough disaster 1989 - Liverpool Vs Nottingham Forest

53
Q

Football violence: Tajfel explanation

A

SIT / CIC+in-group+out-group / Tajfel (1970/71) - minimal groups / deindividuation - mob mentality - anonymity in crowd (collective mind+everyone follows one another) - heightened when in football kit / large groups become dangerous = more damage + injuries / need for police force = big drain on resources / can lead to football hooliganism = in group favouritism becomes intense

54
Q

Survey methods

A

survey = technique used for gathering data about people - often large groups / interviews + questionnaires

55
Q

Self - report data

A

information about the participant - from the participant ( participant fills out questionnaire)

Psychology unit 1 (1 decks)

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