Social Approach

Question 1

Describe Milgram’s Study

Answer 1

Aim: to test the hypothesis that ‘the Germans were different’, see how obedient people would be when it meant harming another person
Milgram advertised for volunteers to take part in a study on memory. 160 pps were eventually selected. Each participant was introduced to Mr Wallace (a confederate) and told that either they, or Mr Wallace would be randomly allocated the roles of either ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’. Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’ who would receive an electric shock every time he got a memory question wrong (Mr. Wallace was in another room so could be heard but not seen). Shocks went up in 15v increments up to 450v marked ‘XXX’. The researcher & Mr Wallace followed a carefully scripted set of responses & prompts. At 180v Mr Wallace complained of a weak heart; at 300v he banged on the wall & demanded to be allowed to leave; at 315v he refused to answer & became silent.

Question 2

Generalisability for Milgram’s Study

Answer 2

YES:
Pps had a diverse range of occupations, educational levels and ages.
Milgram found very similar results with female pps and cross-cultural results tend to be similar
NO:
> Pps were all white, US males.

Question 3

RELIABILITY FOR MILGRAM’S STUDY

Answer 3

a standardised procedure was followed, I.e., the same script & verbal prompts were used for each participant.

Question 4

RESULTS OF MILGRAM’S STUDY

Answer 4

100% went to 300v & 65% went to 450v.

Many of the pps repeatedly argued with the researcher BUT continued to obey.

Question 5

CONCLUSION TO MILGRAM’S STUDY

Answer 5

Milgram concluded that the power of the social situation is a powerful determinant of behaviour – we are socialised from an early age to recognise authority and obey those with perceived power.

Question 6

VALIDITY OF MILGRAM’S STUDY: POSITIVE

Answer 6

Milgram did his best to convince the naïve participants of the legitimacy of his research: he gave pps a small ‘sample’ shock, the equipment looked real and the cries of Mr Wallace seemed genuine
Behaviour of the pps suggested that they were showing signs of stress e.g. sweating and nervous laughter.
real life incidents e.g. Mai Lai, support the ecological validity of Milgram’s study. Sheridan & King carried out a similar study, pps thought they were shocking puppies, & similar results were obtained.

Question 7

VALIDITY OF MILGRAM’S STUDY: NEGATIVE

Answer 7

VALIDITY OF MILGRAM’S STUDY: NEGATIVE
Orne & Holland (1968) suggest the situation is too strange to be credible for the pps, e.g., why was there a need for a ‘teacher’, if the research was really about memory, why couldn’t the researcher administer the shock? Also, as the ‘learner’ cried out in pain the researcher remained aloof & distant, leading the pps to suppose the ‘learner’ was not really suffering any harm.
Orne & Holland argued that the pps behaved in a nervous way to please the researcher.
Ecological validity: Giving electric shocks to strangers is not something likely to occur in real life. The study also took place in a lab experiment. Aronson & Carlsmith argue that Milgram’s research was high in internal validity but low in external validity.
Population validity: a volunteer sample was used, so pps may have been more compliant or more authoritarian in character.

Question 8

ETHICS OF MILGRAM’S STUDY

Answer 8

Pps were deceived, but that was necessary to ensure experimental validity, although this meant they could not give informed consent.
Withdrawal was made difficult, but in real life situations it is often not easy to disobey & follow your conscience.
Pps were caused distress by the experience & the insight it gave them about their behaviour, however, they were fully debriefed & reassured that the shocks were not real & obedient pps were told that their behaviour was normal & disobedient pps were told that their behaviour was desirable. In this way Milgram attempted to make all the pps feel better about themselves.
Milgram sent out a questionnaire to over 1000 pps who had taken part in his studies & of the 92% who responded only 2% said they were sorry to have taken part.

Question 9

GINA PERRY: MILGRAM REASSESSED

Answer 9

Perry found that Milgram’s research was not as well-controlled, reliable & profound as it seemed. She argues that Milgram manipulated his research to get the results he wanted.
Milgram’s study is famous for the result that 65% of pps went to 450v, however, this only happened in the first study of 24 variations. In over half of the other studies, 60% of people disobeyed.
There were also methodological problems with the experiment. The highly controlled laboratory study that Milgram described actually involved a large degree of improvisation and variation from one subject to another.

Question 10

VARIATIONS OF MILGRAM’S STUDIES

Answer 10

Prestige - rundown office block – obedience levels dropped to 47.5%.
Responsibility: when the participant was not directly responsible for the shocks & someone else pressed the shock button, obedience rose to 92.5%. When the pp had to hold the learner’s hand on the shock plate obedience dropped to 30%.
Uniform – no lab coat - obedience fell to 20%.
Witnessing disobedience – a confederate pp refuses to go on at 150v, another stops at 210v, only 10% of naïve pps then obeyed the experimental instructions & carried on to 450v.
Proximity – phone study – obedience dropped to 22.5%, pps lied about increasing the voltage; obedience went back up when researcher returned.

Question 11

ETHICAL ISSUES AND THE STUDY OF OBEDIENCE

Answer 11

Studies of obedience often involve deception, preventing participants giving informed consent, but this is often necessary to ensure experimental validity.
Participants may experience significant distress - they may find out quite negative things about themselves, I.e., they are prepared to cause harm to others.
Withdrawal is sometimes made difficult to simulate the effects of obedience in real life situations – but participants can be fully debriefed afterwards.
The benefits of the research to wider society may outweigh the ethical costs to the participants, i.e., finding out why even good people do horrible things in order to understand why atrocities are committed & prevent them from happening in the future.

Question 12

MILGRAM’S AGENCY THEORY

Answer 12

Milgram argued that general tendency to obey those we perceive to have authority is a mechanism to ensure a stable society.
To run smoothly, hierarchical societies have evolved that require us to obey many social rules; keeping to these rules means that we have to give up some of our free will.
Obedience results in social order the majority of the time; however, there are times when obedience has led to horrific consequences.
To enable us to give up some of our free will we have evolved 2 states: autonomous & agentic.
The change from an autonomous to an agentic state is called agentic shift.

Question 13

WE ARE SOCIALISED FROM AN EARLY AGE TO…

Answer 13

develop an agentic state. This process starts in the home, continues in school and into the workplace: to maintain order we obey parents, teachers and employers.
We use this agentic state to avoid moral strain. As a result the actions undertaken no longer affect our self-image.

Question 14

THE POWER OF A PERCEIVED LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY FIGURE…

Answer 14

stems from his/her perceived position in a social situation, not their personal characteristics.

Question 15

POSITIVE EVALUATION OF AGENCY THEORY

Answer 15

Experimental support is provided by Burger’s study.
Milgram & Hofling show how scientists & doctors are perceived as legitimate authority figures.
Brief conducted a study where US Business Students believed they were interviewing a candidate for a job, the majority were prepared to discriminate against black applicants, if they were told the company president wanted the job to go to a white person.
When Milgram debriefed pps, many reported that their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter & that they had not wanted to carry on the procedure (even thought they did). This provides evidence for the concept of displacement of responsibility.
Krackow asked 68 US nurses the last time they had disagreed with a doctor’s orders. Two factors emerged as influencing the nurses’ decision whether to obey or disobey: the most important factor was the authority of the doctor.
Face validity, e.g. My Lai

Question 16

NEGATIVE EVALUATION OF AGENCY THEORY

Answer 16

Some argue that Milgram’s findings are not necessarily explained by being in an agentic state, but more by individual differences in personality, i.e., some pps were more cruel & sadistic. E.g., Zimbardo: ‘guards’ acted cruelly towards ‘prisoners’ despite the fact there were no obvious authority figure instructing them to do so.
Milgram claimed that people shift between autonomous & agentic states. However, Lifton says that this idea of rapidly shifting states fails to explain the very gradual transition in German doctors working at Auschwitz, who started as ordinary, caring medical professionals & turned into people who carried out horrific human medical experiments on helpless prisoners.
THE OBEDIENCE ALIBI: gives people an excuse for their awful actions: ‘I was just following orders’.

Question 17

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY

Answer 17

Developed by Latané
Focuses on social force; how values, beliefs, cognitions and behaviour change due to the actions or presence of others. When these social forces exert enough pressure to force people to change their behaviour, this is known as social impact.
Strength: how much power the individual perceives the source to have.
Immediacy: how recently the event occurred or whether there were intervening events
Number: the more people exerting pressures of the individual, the greater social force they will have.
SIT also says that the first source has the most social impact, but the second doesn’t generate as much pressure, and the third even less etc. e.g. being watched by one person would make you nervous, but being watched by 2 wouldn’t make you twice as nervous.

Question 18

SIT EVALUATION

Answer 18

Milgram found that the presence of two disobedient pps lowered obedience in the naïve pp. This demonstrates the divisional effect of one source on many targets; the lessened ability to influence someone if they have allies.
SIT oversimplifies the nature of human interaction & ignores individual differences, i.e., some people might be more resistant to social impact, some are more easily persuaded.
SIT might be useful in predicting behaviour under certain conditions (predictive validity); however, it is more descriptive than explanatory. It does not explain why people are influenced by others, simply under what conditions they are more likely to be influenced.

Question 19

WHAT SITUATIONAL FACTORS ARE INVOLVED IN OBEDIENCE?

Answer 19

Momentum of compliance
Uniform
Proximity
Location/status
Witnessing disobedience
Personal responsibility

Question 20

WHAT IS MOMENTUM OF COMPLIANCE?

Answer 20

Starting with small & trivial requests, the naive pp has committed themselves to the experiment. As the requirements of obedience increase, the pps feel obligated to continue, they have made a commitment; also they have already gone so far that stopping now may suggest they were wrong to start in the first place.
The fact that voltage gradually went up in 15v increments may exemplify this
This idea has face validity in the holocaust.

Question 21

THE INFLUENCE OF CHARISMA

Answer 21

Charismatic leaders may enhance people’s tendency towards destructive obedience, e.g., Hitler & Stalin were regarded as charismatic leaders. Though charismatic leadership can also bring positive change, e.g. MLK.
House suggests that charismatic leaders have excellent communication skills, a high level of concern for the needs of their followers & mastery of impression management (making others see us as we wish them to see us.

Question 22

THE INFLUENCE OF PERSONALITY/DISPOSITION

Answer 22

Authoritarian Personality: Adorno argued that the key to understanding extreme obedience lies in personality. He argued that people with an authoritarian personality have a tendency to be extremely obedient.
Adorno developed the fascist-scale. Individuals with a high F scale score, indicating an authoritarian personality, tend to be rigid thinkers who obey authority, see the world as ‘black & white’ & believe in strict adherence to social rules & hierarchies.
Locus of control: Internal locus of control believe that they control their fate, external believe in destiny and that they are out of control of their own fate. Milgram’s pps demonstrated locus of control when they chose whether to obey or not. Those who disobeyed showed internal locus of control and those who obeyed showed external.

Question 23

AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY EVALUATION

Answer 23

Dambrun & Vatine conducted a simulation of Milgram’s experiment using a virtual computer simulation & found that authoritarianism was linked to obedience. Those pps with high authoritarian scores were less likely to withdraw from the study.
Milgram noted that the pps who gave the highest level of shock tended to blame the learner for their pain, rather than themselves or the experimenter; this is a trait typical of an authoritarian character. However, it should be remembered that Milgram’s pps were self-selected/volunteers; research has tended to show that volunteers are less authoritarian than other groups.

Question 24

EVALUATION OF LOCUS OF CONTROL

Answer 24

Elms & Milgram investigated the background of disobedient pps in Milgram’s experiments. Interviews revealed that disobedient pps had a high internal locus of control & scored highly on a social responsibility scale.
Similar findings were obtained from studies examining those who defied social pressure in Nazi Germany. Oliner interviewed 2 groups of non-Jewish people who lived through the holocaust in Nazi Germany, comparing the 406 who had protected & rescued Jews from the Nazis with the 126 in the sample who had not acted. Oliner found that the ‘rescuers’ had internal locus of control & also scored higher on measures of social responsibility.

Question 25

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERNCES: EMPATHY

Answer 25

One may assume that people who have high levels of empathy would be less likely to harm others when told to by an authority figure.
However, Burger found that although people who score high on empathy were more likely to protest against giving electric shocks, this did not translate into lower levels of obedience.

Question 26

THE INFLUENCE OF GENDER ON OBEDIENCE

Answer 26

Milgram’s research can be criticised for being androcentric.
Milgram did have one condition in which the pps were female. He found the self-reported tension in obedient females was significantly higher than it was for males, their rate of obedience was exactly the same as for males. Burger found the same results.
Sheridan and King replicated Milgram’s research but used puppies as the ‘learners’. They found 100% obedience for female and 54% for males.
Blass studied 9 replications of Milgram’s study with male & female pps; 8/9 found no evidence of any gender differences in obedience – in the one study where there was gender differences, women were made to shock women and men made to shock men, so perhaps this had more to do with it; people are more reluctant to hurt women.
SLT says women are socialised to be gentle and men aggressive, biological approach says men have more testosterone which makes them aggressive – however little evidence.

Question 27

THE INFLUENCE OF CULTURE ON OBEDIENCE

Answer 27

Smith & Bond say that individualist cultures eg UK behave in a less compliant, more independent way, whilst collectivist cultures eg China act as a group, meaning that compliance is important.
However, Shanab found in a replication of Milgram’s study in Jordan (collectivist) that obedience was 62% showing no real difference.
In cross-cultural studies there is different methodology, eg different maximum voltage, which may invalidate the findings.
Cross cultural studies are also limited to western nations.

Question 28

ZIMBARDO’S STUDY

Answer 28

A mock prison was set up and Zimbardo recruited volunteers to play ‘prisoners’ and guards.
Some of the guards became quite brutal & sadistic in their behaviour towards the ‘prisoners’.
Zimbardo said that this showed the power of the social situation to influence behaviour & that obedience comes from social context. We conform to the social roles we have been ‘given’ & destructive obedience can be explained by the power of the social situation to remove our autonomy & lead us to acting in an agentic way.
The guards perceived Zimbardo as a legitimate authority figure in the social context of the experiment.
The prisoners were dehumanised & the guards became de-individuated.

Question 29

DEFINE PREJUDICE

Answer 29

To pre-judge, when we allow our stereotypes to affect our beliefs & attitudes about a group of people (often based on little or no knowledge of them).

Question 30

DEFINE DISCRIMINATION

Answer 30

Actions or treatment based on prejudice. Unequal treatment of individuals or groups – often based on characteristics such as race or sex

Question 31

DEFINE HETEROGENEOUS AND HOMOGENOUS

Answer 31

Heterogeneous: all different – individuals within a group are different
Homogenous: all the same – members of the out-group are ‘all the same’

Question 32

WHAT IS PERSONAL/SOCIAL IDENTITY?

Answer 32

Personal Identity: our own unique identities, personality & self-esteem
Social Identity: the attributes of the group to which we belong/identify with (e.g., the social class we identify ourselves as).

Question 33

REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY – SHERIF

Answer 33

Prejudice comes from conflict/competition/tension between groups; often resulting from competition over resources, land or political dominance.
Sherif’s Robber’s Cave Experiment formed the basis of RCT. He found that competition between the boys created intergroup conflict, where real conflict is experienced between different groups
RCT has face validity, e.g., immigration, where immigrants (out-group) may face prejudice from the indigenous population (in-group) because the out-group are regarded by the in-group as competition for resources, such as jobs, housing & school places.
However, Sherif also found that OGH could be reduced with Superordinate Goals – where goals can only be achieved by co-operation of all group members (e.g., Belfast, City of Culture).

Question 34

RCT EVALUATION

Answer 34

Carol & Melvin Ember found that in tribal societies OGH increases when competition for resources becomes necessary (e.g., natural disaster makes food scarce). Similar anthropological studies have suggested that when the population is low & land abundant, hostilities between small societies are less likely; however, when population size increases & more strain is placed on scarce resources, conflict between tribes increases.
However, correlations don’t establish casual relations.
Evidence for RCT comes from the Robber’s Cave Experiment. However, hostility between the two groups began as soon as each group knew of the other’s existence – SIT may offer better explanation
Doty found that in the US levels of authoritarianism varied in the late 1970s-1980s, depending on the perceived threat from external sources, i.e., the Cold War & Russia. The higher the threat, the higher authoritarianism was.
Face validity: Palestine/Israel, Rwanda, Northern Ireland.

Question 35

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY – TAJFEL

Answer 35

simply being in a group, or perceiving that you are in a group, is enough to create IGL and OGH
SIT is made of 3 features: SOCIAL CATEGORISATION, SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION & SOCIAL COMPARISON.
By comparing our in-group more favourably with the perceived out-group we may increase our own self-esteem; if we are in that group & it is good, we must be good. The positive attributes of the in-group are elevated, whilst the qualities of the out-group are belittled.
This is done in 2 ways: in-group favouritism – seeing our own group in a favourable way, and that all members are unique (heterogeneous); and negative out-group bias – seeing members of the out-group in a negative light & as all being the same (homogenous).

Question 36

TAJFEL’S STUDY

Answer 36

64 boys from a Bristol comprehensive school were placed in groups according to minimal criteria – whether or not they liked the same paintings (Klee or Kandinsky). In reality the participants were allocated to groups entirely randomly.
Members of each group then had to allocate rewards, this was done by means of a matrix labelled as rewards for the Klee group, or rewards for the Kandinsky group. The choice of number set in each matrix demonstrated whether each boy, rewarded their own or the other group, penalised their own or the other group, or showed fairness to both groups.
There was no competition between the 2 groups and what they thought they had in common was minimal, and they had no idea who was in each group.
Pps consistently rewarded their own group, showing in-group favouritism, and they even failed to maximise their own profit in order to ensure that the other group was penalised.
Members of both groups were prepared to discriminate, presumably because this increased their own self-esteem.

Question 37

SIT EVALUATION

Answer 37

Sherif – IGL and OGH as soon as groups were introduced
Some argue that the boys in Tajfel’s study acted the way they did because there was an implicit sense of competition, not because of favouritism. The lack of ecological validity in Sherif’s study has also been criticised & demand characteristics were likely.
Lemyre & Smith found similar results to Tajfel & also found that discriminating pps had improved self-esteem following the experiment.
Cialdini looked at a US university football team’s fans. He found that fans were more likely to wear clothes related to the team when they won a game rather than lost. Supporters also referred to the team as ‘us’ when their team had won & ‘they’ when they lost. This demonstrates that an individual’s personal identity is affected by their social identity (association with football team).
Face validity – racism, snobbery.
Use in society

Question 38

WHAT IS THE FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION THEORY?

Answer 38

Dollard said that frustration always gives rise to aggression & aggression is always caused by frustration.
Dollard proposed that when we are prevented from being aggressive towards the source of the frustration, we will displace it on to a substitute, or a ‘scapegoat’.
The choice of scapegoat is not usually random, e.g., in England & Germany during the 1920s & 30s the scapegoat was predominantly Jews; and is currently immigrants, i.e., a community or group that is new, seen as a threat to jobs, is different etc.

Question 39

FRUSTRATION-AGGRESSION EVALUATION

Answer 39

Hovland & Sears found that the number of lynchings of black people in US from 1880 – 1930 was correlated with the price of cotton: as cotton prices dropped the number of lynchings increased. The cotton farmers got frustrated when cotton prices went down but couldn’t confront those responsible for it (the government), so displaced their aggression on to black people.
Frustration may be a contributory but not a causal factor for aggression, there may be other factors eg…
Frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression, e.g., some people may respond by giving up, becoming more determined etc

Question 40

SIMILARITIES BETWEEN SIT AND RCT

Answer 40

Both theories have much research evidence to support them, & both methodologies have involved deception.
Both have many real life examples to support them & both can be applied to reducing prejudice, eg superordinate goals, reducing opportunities for group categorisation/identification, ‘mixing up’ groups etc.
Both reject personality traits, as an explanation of prejudice & minimise the role of individual differences in prejudice. Instead, both focus on intergroup conflict as a result of social processes & the role of others.

Question 41

DIFFERENCES BETWEEN SIT AND RCT

Answer 41

SIT, unlike RCT, suggests that competition between groups is NOT necessary for prejudice.
SIT is based on minimal group experiments, designed to ensure that group members are randomly selected, there is no contact between group members, membership is anonymised, & token economy programmes are used. These conditions are necessary to ensure competition is not the driving force behind the behaviour of the group, simply the mere presence of the group. In RCT, the groups know each other & competition between groups is promoted.
SIT is generally based on lab experiments whilst RCT is generally based on Field Experiments.

Question 42

INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES – AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY

Answer 42

Adorno developed the theory of an authoritarian personality that could explain why some individuals are prejudiced,
Adorno argued that the authoritarian personality possessed specific traits that meant they were more likely to be hostile to people of a different ethnicity, social class/group, age, sexuality or other minority category.
Often they have experienced strict & unaffectionate parenting, as a result they frequently displace their aggression onto others. This represents their upbringing because they had to be respectful to their parents, while learning from them that they could be cruel to those who are perceived to be weak.

Question 43

AUTHORATARIANISM AND PREJUDICE – EVALUATION

Answer 43

Rubinstein measured the relationship between authoritarianism, religiosity & gender attitudes in 165 Jewish students & found those high in authoritarianism tended to be more religious & have more traditional attitudes to gender. Similarly, Whitley & Lee assessed attitudes to homosexuality along with personality in 216 US students. Authoritarian personalities were strongly associated with homophobic attitudes.
McFarland carried out a study in Russia & found authoritarian personality to be linked to prejudice. Authoritarianism is said to be innate not influenced by culture – this study supports that.
a correlation between prejudice & authoritarianism does not prove a causal relationship – not all authoritarianists are prejudiced.

Question 44

PREJUDICE AND CULTURE

Answer 44

Culture can be an influence on prejudice if that culture has existing social norms that justify prejudiced attitudes, have strict religious laws that endorse prejudiced practices, or events occur that trigger prejudice towards another group (e.g., Rwanda).
Al-Zahrani & Kaplowitz, in a cultural comparison between Saudi Arabians (collectivist) & Americans (individualist), found Saudis to report more IG favouritism & negative OG bias than Americans. But Kleugel found that collectivism is associated with greater tolerance & lower racism.
Face validity – Holocaust & Rwanda - phenomena such as these are hard to explain using dispositional analysis, thus supporting the role of culture in influencing prejudice.

Question 45

SHERIF – ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT - AIM

Answer 45

To investigate intergroup relations & group formation
To see if prejudice can be created between two very similar groups by putting them in competition with each other
To see if intergroup tension can be reduced using Superordinate Goals

Question 46

SHERIF – ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT – METHOD

Answer 46

Field experiment
22 11 year old white, middle-class protestant boys, from an opportunity sample, were taken to a summer camp.  They were all very similar & none of them knew each other.
The boys were divided into 2 groups and an observer was allocated to each group for 12 hours a day; issues such as friendship patterns were noted & studied; tape recordings of adjectives & phrases used to refer to in/ out-group members were examined

Question 47

THERE WERE 3 STAGES TO SHERIF’S STUDY:

Answer 47

Stage 1: They were put into 2 separate groups & for first 5 days each group given tasks which required in-group co-operation to perform to help them bond as a group & given names (Rattlers & Eagles).
Stage 2: The 2 groups were brought together & over next 5 days, tension was generated by staging competitions between the groups. It was necessary for each group member to contribute in the competitions in order to win points towards the tournament total. Both groups were exposed to arranged situations that they would find frustrating & believe were caused by the other group
Stage 3: Once hostility had been created the researchers tried to reduce it through superordinate goals, such as fixing the water tank and starting the broken-down camp bus.

Question 48

RESULTS OF SHERIF’S STUDY

Answer 48

Strong IGL and OGH was shown by each group; this was eventually reduced by the superordinate goals
Stage 1: each group developed their own norms & rules that strengthened their group identity: one group called themselves the ‘rattlers’, the other the ‘eagles’.
During stage 2 ‘us and threm’ language quickly developed. There was OGH, & groups became territorial. When the competition was announced the boys began to fight & the Eagles burned the rattler’s flag. There strong IGL: Rattlers labelled all Rattlers as brave, tough & friendly & (almost) all Eagles as sneaky and stinkers: the Eagles behaved similarly. When asked who their friends were out of all the boys, 93% selected only from their own IG.
At the end of stage 3, researchers found a significant increase in the number of boys whose friendships were now with the out-group, compared to those choices in stage 2.

Question 49

SHERIF – ROBBER’S CAVE EXPERIMENT – CONCLUSION

Answer 49

Competition increased prejudice & discrimination, leading to clear inter-group conflict; however, there was some hostility between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other.
Groups developed status hierarchies & group norms, each group developed a leadership structure. members tended to overestimate the abilities of their own group & minimise the abilities of members of the out-group.
Working together on SOG successfully, but not entirely, reduced prejudice & discrimination between the 2 groups.

Question 50

SHERIF’S STUDY – ETHICS

Answer 50

the boys were not harmed or distressed, physical hostility was prevented & the researchers tried to reduce the discrimination & prejudice at the end.
Parents had consented to the study, but the boys believed it was a study about leadership, so couldn’t give informed consent.
The study deliberately induced prejudice. This was exacerbated by the fact that Sherif was running out of funding after spending considerable amounts on the first two intergroup conflict experiments. Some believe this led Sherif to deliberately induce high levels of conflict & hostility between the groups to ensure the results he wanted.
Whether Sherif deliberately set out to create something negative: prejudice & discrimination, is debateable; do the benefits of the research outweigh the costs to the participants?

Question 51

SHERIF’S STUDY – GENERALISABILITY

Answer 51

The sample was not very representative, i.e., all white, protestant, middle class young boys – lacked population validity.
Sherif selected all boys who were keen on sport; not all boys have sporty traits & this could explain the degree of conflict between the groups, as they were perhaps naturally competitive.
The sample was made up of children – can we generalise to adults?

Question 52

SHERIF’S STUDY - RELIABILITY

Answer 52

The boys were all tested to ensure they were psychologically well-adjusted and they were all similar backgrounds – eliminates some cofounding variables
Researchers followed carefully planned procedures to ensure they did not influence the behaviour of the boys; they were only allowed to intervene in conflict between groups on safety grounds. However, interviews with the boys years later revealed that the boys were aware of audio equipment in the dining hall & staff making notes, also researchers seemingly actively encouraged intergroup conflict & created opportunities for conflict (blaming the rival group for vandalism). Thus the researchers did not merely observe but actively fuelled the conflict between the boys to get the results they wanted.

Question 53

SHERIF’S STUDY – APPLICATION TO REAL LIFE

Answer 53

Explain real life conflict over resources leading to prejudice & discrimination, e.g., Northern Ireland, Israel & Palestine.
Also, how to reduce prejudice through superordinate goals.

Question 54

SHERIF’S STUDY – VALIDITY

Answer 54

Ecological validity was high because they experiment was conducted in a natural environment, thus eliciting natural behaviour. However, Tyerman & Spencer asserted that Sherif’s study lacks ecological validity, as it is not a natural condition for strangers to meet & compete against one another; in real life it is more likely that group members will be familiar with one another.
There was high experimental validity - boys did not realise their behaviour was being observed & that they were in a study, eliminating risk of demand characteristics
All boys v similar – controlling extraneous variables, ensuring only competition created prejudice. However – some prejudice as soon as groups met.

Question 55

AIM OF BURGER’S STUDY

Answer 55

Some psychologists believe that people are now more aware of the consequence of blind obedience. Burger wanted to test this notion; he believed that although society’s cultures & values had changed, this would not have a significant effect on obedience.
He also wanted to replicate Milgram’s research in a way that adhered more closely to current ethical guidelines & caused minimal distress to pps.
To examine whether situational factors affect obedience to authority.

Question 56

BURGER’S STUDY – EXPERIMENT 1

Answer 56

Shock level didn’t go higher than 150v. This shock level ensured that pps did not feel that they had caused serious damage to the learner, decreasing distress. Burger utilised Milgram’s original procedures & prompts & found that 30% withdrew by 150v, & the remaining 70% went to 150v - figures very similar to Milgram’s original results.
Sample shock was 15v instead of 45
pre-recorded sounds of distress (a grunt) began at 75v. At 150v the ‘learner’ stated, ‘My heart’s starting to bother me now. Get me out of here…I refuse to go on.’ and the experiment was stopped.