Social Approach Flashcards
Define the social approach
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
Key assumption 1
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
Key assumption 2
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
Key assumption 3
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
Agency Theory - Milgram (1973)
explain obedience shown in his earlier experiments / Agentic + autonomous state / Moral strain / social situation
Agency theory - states
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
Agency theory - social situation
socialised to recognise, respect, obey recognised authority figure / do what they say when a recognised authority figure is present
Obedience
Blind obedience: carrying out the order without questioning / leads to destructive obedience
Destructive obedience: carrying out orders that cause harm to you and others
Prejudice + discrimination
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
Social Identity Theory - Tajfel
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
SIT - Social catergorisation
putting oneself into a group - group you belong to ‘in group’ not ‘out group’ e.g. Man U + Liverpool
SIT - Social Identification
taking on the norms of the group e.g. where the same colour clothes liverpool manchester
SIT - Social Comparison
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
Deindividuation
The groups opinion and attitudes become your opinions and attitudes e.g. Liverpool Manchester
Evaluation of Agency theory - strengths
Has supporting evidence - Milgram (agentic, social situation…physical harm….65% obeyed)
Credible explanation - WW2, Adolf Eichmann / Abu Ghraib prison
Evaluation of Agency theory - weaknesses
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
Evaluation of SIT - strengths
Supporting evidence - Tajfel minimal groups - grouping induced prejudice
Credible - mob mentality - footballers - Hillsborough
Evaluation of SIT - weaknesses
Simplistic - prejudice based on historical relationships rather than grouping
Supporting theory’s not ecologically valid - lab experiments - control - Tajfel
Milgram (1963) study of obedience - AIM
establish a base line measure of how obedient naive participants would be when order to administer increasingly intense electric shocks to an innocent victim
Milgram (1963) study of obedience - PROCEDURE
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
Milgram (1963) study of obedience - RESULTS
prediction = 140v / all ppts went to 300v / 14 stopped between 300v-375v / 65% (26) = 450v fully obedient
Milgram (1963) study of obedience - CONCLUSION
Social setting is powerful determinant of behaviour / socialised to recognise authority - react with obedience /
Milgram (1963) study of obedience - EVALUATION - S
Theory to support - Agency theory / Applicable - Adolf Eichmann / high experimental validity / ethics - presumptive consent / reliable
Milgram (1963) study of obedience - EVALUATION - W
low eco validity - lab exp / low generalisability - american males - variations - Meeus et al / ethics - psychological harm (stress)/ deception (aim/shocks) / verbal prods
Variation - 1974 exp 10 - Bridge Port, Connecticut
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
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - AIM
test obedience requiring administration of psychological harm / up-to-date Milgram expt
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - PROCEDURE
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 /
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - RESULTS
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
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - CONCLUSION
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
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - EVALUATION - strengths
High eco validity - Holland high unemployment rates / Reliable - standardised - 15 insults / ethics - presumptive consent
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) - EVALUATION - weakness
ethics - deception, psychological harm / generalisability - volunteer sampling
Meeus et al + Milgram - comparison
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
Meeus et al - variations
Researcher absent = 36% obedient / Two confederates = 16% obedient / Variations 83% believed it was a hoax
Hofling et al (1966) - AIM
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
Hofling et al (1966) - PROCEDURE
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
Hofling et al (1966) - RESULTS - questionnaire
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
Hofling et al (1966) - CONCLUSION
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
Hofling et al (1966) - EVALUATION - Strengths
High eco validity / consistent finding with Milgram + Meeus - high obedience to authority / application
Hofling et al (1966) - EVALUATION - Weaknesses
generalisability - male nurses + other professions / ethical - informed consent + deception + with draw
Hofling et al (1966) - RESULTS - expt
95% (21/22) obeyed without hesitation / emergency calls common / 1 nurse questioned doctors identity + why he was in their ward
Tajfel et al: AIM
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
Tajfel et al: PROCEDURE
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
Tajfel et al: RESULTS
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
Tajfel et al: CONCLUSION
inter-group discrimination is easy to trigger off / the very act of categorisation into groups is enough to produce discrimination
Tajfel et al: EVALUATION -strengths
reliability - paintings+matrix+code numbers+lab expt / theory supports SIT / ethics - informed consent
Tajfel et al: : EVALUATION - weaknesses
low eco validity - lab expt / demand characteristics - lab / competition rather than discrimination
Abu Ghraib: Description
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
Abu Ghraib: Milgram explanation
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
Abu Ghraib: Tajfel explanation
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
Key issue - obedience
Abu Ghraib
Key issue- prejudice + discrimination
Football violence - mob mentality
Football violence: description
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
Football violence: Tajfel explanation
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
Survey methods
survey = technique used for gathering data about people - often large groups / interviews + questionnaires
Self - report data
information about the participant - from the participant ( participant fills out questionnaire)
