Social Psychology Flashcards
Authoritarian personality
Define authoritarian Comes from parenting styles Adorno, a researchèr suggested that people who were raised very harshly would develop a personality that makes them submit to authority. His argument was that the lessons on how to behave children learn from their parents affect them when they grow up. strict- more authoritarian open- less authoritarian
Elms and milgram- found in more obedient people in milgrams studies have much authoritarian scores , so personality affects obedience
Counter- we cannot claim there is a causal relationship between childhood experiences and authoritarianism because they are correlations
Hyman and sheatsley - lower level of education, make you more authoritarian
Locus of control effect on obedience
high external loc- more likely to conform
believe you behave off other peoples directing
high internal loc- less likely to conform
you believe you choose things in
Opposing- Grete Schurz (1985) did similar task to milgram in australia but here ppt were instructed to give painful doses of US to a female student, those who obeyed’s locus of control wasn’t diff
Burger (2009) - found those with higher locus of control were more obedient
Situational factors on obedience
situation u are in directly effects obedience
evidence- Milgrams variations
-ao1 depending on situation u may or may not obey someone, legitimacy and proximity, if authority is legitimate and closer to you and environment is legitimate u are more likely to listen
proximity- milgram 7
authority giving direction from another room
65 to
depending on situation u are more or less likely to obey
Culture affecting obedience
AO1 , diff culture- diff obedience
people in uk people are more individualistic meaning culture emphasise you as an individual in places like china they are a more collectivist culture which is a society emphasises obligation to a group and then group more
they obey in more collectivist cultures as they want to fit in with the group
Kilnam and mann investigated australia has 20% obedience rate ( australia more collectivist)
In jordan the rate is
Situational factors for prejudice
AO1- explain realistic conflict theory
evidence- sherifs study shows when you are in conflict over limited resources you will prejudiced supporting that competition over limited resources causes prejudice
Realistic conflict theory explains prejudice
for example prejudice
Individual/ developmental differences for prejudice
wetherell replicated tajfel study, in new zealand, she found fairer polynesian were
Authoritarian personality in prejudice
people w this personality , perceive those inferior to them with higher prejudice
children who have been exposed to fear and punishments , express this onto others
Adorno’s (1950) Authoritarian personality can be used
to explain obedience.
But it can also be used to explain prejudice. Children
who have been subject to the fear and punishment
of strict parents may have a need to express those
frustrations on others. He argued those others would
be those who appear to be socially inferior.
But they are still submissive to those in authority.
divison of impact and diminishing
diminishing returns
influence of social force decreases as there is more
Social impact theory evidence
Sedikikes and jackson
Zookeeper- strength
when instruction was given- immediacy
size of group- number
Sherif et al Classic
A- to investigate how behaviour of groups in competition leads to prejudice
robbers cave camp- oklahoma
22nd aged 11 (1 was 12) , middle class protestant
stage 1 - groups were created by facilitating tasks, hiking together, creating flag
(in group cooperation)
Stage 2- groups were made to compete one another for a reward , like winner title in tug of war, treasure hunts,baseball games
called eachother names like pigeon
Stage 3- subordinate goals, were encouraged to cooperate to reduce in group hostility such as fixing water tank or starting broken down bud they both need
F- Ppt when exposed to another group became in hostile and unfriendly wanting to compete
once they worked together in tasks w positive interdependence, degree of friendships increased
C- when separate groups are in competition , prejudice increases , this prejudice can be seen in the fact that they didn’t not interact with the other group much , it also does prejudge can be reduced with cooperative goals and activities
SHERIF AO3 WEAKNESS
Low pop validity
all 11 , from oklahoma and boys
prejudiced behaviour displayed may be unique to their own social group? and increased prejudice in presence of competition may not be applicable to women , other ages or cultures
Circumstances that sherif study suggests are oversimplified
Tyerman and spencer conducted a similar experiment with sea scout troops , these boys all knew eachother, over course of two week there was no increase in prejudice suggesting competition only creates prejudice if they are unfamiliar with eachother
Sherif AO3 STRENGTH
Internal validity , they were matched
familiar in terms of personality skills ability interests,eliminates any pre-existing group identity , the group identity and prejudice can be a directly linked to competition, and it deals with extraneous variables
High mundane realism
list tasks
apply to real life, reduce tension at school by making them clean classroom
together
Realistic conflict theory principles
negative interdependence- two groups of people want same goal but only one can achieve it, causing opposing groups to become hostile and within group to become friendly
Limited resources- when they want materials there is an increase in conflict unless the resource is common
Positive interdepence- a goal two groups have to rely on eachother reduces
prejudice
Subordinate goals- goals that can happen if two groups work together
Social identity theory pt1
Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggest that prejudice comes from the formation of two
groups, without any other factor being present. The mere existence or
perception of another group’s existence can lead to prejudice and
discrimination.
Individuals strive to achieve a positive self-image so that they look good in the
eyes of others. This leads to high personal self-esteem and forms an
individual’s personal identity.
It is also a human trait to distinquish ourselves by our membership of certain
groups (our in-groups). This is called our Social identity.
Social identity can impact on personal identity because group members are
often a source of our self-esteem. This means that when the social identity is
favourable, personal identity of group members are positive. However, if social
identity is not favourable, personal identity will be negative and this lowers the
self-esteem of individuals within the group
In order to reconcile this, the positive attributes of the in-group need to be
raised. This is achieved via
1) In-group favouritism - the tendency of group members to see the
individuals within their group as unique (heterogeneous) and favourable
(positive prejudice)
2) Negative out-group bias - the tendency to view members of the out-
group as ‘all the same’ (homogenous) and in an unfavourable light
(negative prejudice)
social identity theory pt2
Tajfel and Turner proposed that there are three cognitive processes
involved in evaluating whether someone is in our in-group or our
out-group
Social Categorisation - We categorised others as
members of a particular social group eg gender, class,
race etc. This occurs naturally and in the absence of
conflict
Social Identification - We then adopt the identity of the
group we have categorised ourselves as belonging to.
We follow the behavioural norms of our in-group.
Group identification will affect self-esteem.
Social Comparison - We then compare our in-group to
other out-groups. For self-esteem to be maintained, our
group needs to compare well against other groups
social identity strengths
There is research evidence which supports the Social Identity Theory. For
example the Tajfel minimal group studies showed that boys would show
preference to their in-group even when there was no competition between
the two groups. Also Lemyre and Philip in a similar procedure to Talfel, found
that the participants who discriminated against others had improved self-
esteem after the experiment. This supports the notion that personal identity is
connected to social identity and that discrimination enhances both aspects.
There are also many practical applications for Social Identity. The
theory has been used to explain prejudice and discrimination between
a wide variety of groups from violence between opposing football
teams (and their fans) to religious wars and genocide. In seeking to
explain what might cause these events, the theory also leads to
practical solutions such as increasing positive contact between groups
in order to reduce prejudice in the future.
social identity theory weakness
There may be better alternative theories such as Realistic Conflict Theory.
Rather than just the creation of two groups leading to prejudice, realistic
conflict theory suggests that t is caused by the two groups competing in
some way. This may be a better explanation of how prejudice occurs as it is
often the case that two groups can live peacefully together until there is
competition for resources and this directly contradicts. Social Identity Theory
Another problem with the theory is that by focusing only on groups, no other factors are takt
into account. The theory does not measure how much prejudice there is, such as whether tr
are some situations in which there is greater prejudice against the out-group. In practice the
are often a number of factors involved. Therefore Social Identity theory may not be sufficien
explain prejudice which is a complex phenomenon.
Social identity theory
Tajfel conducted minimal group studies – these are based on groups that have no previous history as a group and no conflict between the groups
He told the boys they were taking part in an experiment about visual judgement.
They rated how much they liked a range of pantings by two different artists (Klee and Kandinsky) and were then put into groups – they were told that this was according to their painting preference, but actually it was random.
agency theory AO1
autonomous state- our behaviour is self directed and chosen, take responsibility for our actions
agentic shift- we judge people and make judgement whether they are higher or lower than us in hierarchy and whether their authority is legit , if it is we change from autonomous state to agentic state
Agentic state- behave on behalf of authority, do not take responsibility for actions
moral strain- if u believe harming others is wrong, but may feel it is wrong
binding factors- lead you to listen to authority figure, if moral strain is too high person defies, if binding factors are high person keeps listening
Agency theory AO3
Research:
Hofling et al
study had doctor telephone nurse working on ward at night to tell her to administer overdose of drug to patients, 21/22 nurses complied with doctors order before being stopped, justified by saying they needed to follow hierarchy of authority in hospital
Dispositional factors can affect obedience
Research suggests other factors can affect obedience Ranks and jacobsen
had nurses in two hospital asked by physician to administer a lethal dose of valium, 16/18 refused, knowledge of drugs and exposure to peers along w higher self esteem meant non compliance
agentic shift is not inevitable in face of authority factors like self esteem, knowledge and communication impacts obedience
Burger (2009) also found ppt with higher scores in desire for personal control are more likely to defy orders to shock
suggesting personalities have a role to play in behaviour whilst agency theory emphasises on situational factors influencing obedience
Realistic conflict theory AO3
Research to support rct idea that competition leads to prejudice
In robbers cave study by sherif, when they were competing over prize or title of winner in tug of war and baseball, prejudiced behaviour like name calling increased but when they had to cooperate for subordinate goals like fixing a water tank or bus they both needed they considered eachother as friends and prejudice decreased, change of boys supports competition leads to prejudice
Evidence against:
Tajfel and turner supports prejudice comes from in group favouritism , and that the mere perception of another group creates prejudice
tajfel APFC
P- 16boys, divided into groups based of artistic preferences on 12 paintings by Klee and kandinsky, then we’re told randomly that they prefer klee or kandinksy
then tajfel asked them to fill out reward booklets to reward both groups
F-out group discrimination is easy to trigger as the both picked scores that benefited their in group to the fair alternative and ended up leaving with less money than if they gave eachother the most as possible.
Conclusion
Tajfel evaluation
lacks mudane realism Privately allocating points is not representative of discrimination in real life, real life interactions are more complex. Discrimination is generally more public, observable behavioral actions or discussions, not this covert. Therefore it is difficult to apply these findings to understand the way prejudice exists in society.
Reliable, replications found similar results
8 trials first experiment found in in group and out group favouritism as did the trails in second experiment
supports social identity theory
Culture affect on prejudice
Culture can influence prejudice as Baldwin (2017) stated all
people believe that their culture is better than others (ethnocentrism). Where
cultures are more tolerant discrimination may exist in more covert ways (microaggressions), some cultures might have more open
discrimination and even legal prejudices against certain groups - the Apartheid was
legal in South Africa, meaning there were different laws for white and black people
until 1991, system fully abolished 1994.
Cultures may also differ in prejudice due to being individualistic
rather than collectivist. Collectivist cultures tend to be more focused on sharing and
cooperation so this might reduce discrimination, whilst those who are more
individualistic might be more likely to discriminate.
Supporting evidence
Margaret Wetherell (1982) conducted a replication of Tajfel’s experiment
using 8 year old school children in New Zealand. She found that indigenous Polynesian children were significantly more
generous in their allocation of points to outgroup members than their
white New Zealand classmates.
• Polynesia was rated more collectivist on Hofstede’s individualist scale.
(New Zealand scored 79/100, while Fiji, a Polynesian island, scored
14/100)
• Collectivist cultures more focused on sharing and cooperation, thus
reducing their level of discrimination.
Authoritarian personality on Obedience
Adorno (1950) explained that high levels of obedience relates to
authoritarian personality. Adorno believed that a harsh style of parenting
leads children to develop personality traits such as toughness,
destructiveness, which he termed ‘Authoritarian’
An authoritarian personality is typically submissive to authority but harsh to
those seen as subordinate to themselves. As they are submissive to authority,
this makes them likely to be obedient.
Elms and Milgram (1966) used the F-scale with participants from Milgram’s
studies, testing 20 fully obedience participants and 20 who were not. Obedient
participants scored higher on the F-scale. These findings suggest that
obedience is related to the personality characteristic of authoritarianism.
We cannot claim that there is a causal relationship between childhood experiences and
authoritarianism because these are purely correlations. Other factors may be involved, for
example both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of
education (Hyman and Sheatsley, 1954).
Authoritarian for Prejudice
Authoritarian personality Adorno et al (1950) -describes people with an
au pritarian personality as rigid in their thinking, obedient to authority, seeing
the world in black and white, and adhering to social hierarchy and rules.
Strict parenting and the idea of punishment can lead to scapegoating towards
others.
Right wing authoritarianism (RWA) focuses on 3 of the nine traits which make
up authoritarian personality. Altemeyer (1988) believed RWA was a product of
early social learning rather than strict parenting.
Corset al (2012) Investigation into individual differences and prejudice.
Participants completed questionnaires which measured WA and prejudice
about attitudes towards homosexuality, foreigners and people with disabilities.
Findings showed significant correlations between WA and generalised
prejudice. WA and authoritarian personality may be useful predictors for prejudice
We cannot claim that there is a causal relationship between childhood experiences and
authoritarianism because these are purely correlations. Other factors may be involved, for
example both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of
education (Hyman and Sheatsley, 1954).
individual differences Situational factors
Sherif Realistic conflict theory
Environment influences prejudice for example realistic conflict theory, sherif says introducing competition between two groups with negative interdependence, causes higher levels of prejudice, an example of this is immigration,
Supporting evidence
Sherif or
Milindra and pearson merkowitz
Carried out examination of data to see if when a dominant white majority
perceives a threat there is more prejudice and discrimination. They found that a perceived increase in presence of immigrants in the community correlated with an immigration policy with more restrictions Only the case in times of economic hardship and it was not the case at other times, supports rct that prejudice increases where there is perceived competition for resources
Gender affecting obedience
Gilligan suggests that women value interpersonal connections and feel more personally responsible and are less likely to be obedient when having to harm another,
The results demonstrate that only women would choose the Care Only Option. It also shows that men have a much higher tendency to choose Justice oriented options.
As such, this supports Gillian’s ideas that men and women have different
ways of thinking when dealing with dilemmas. Where women tend to show
more care, whereas men tend to follow hierarchies.
Burger (2009) found no significant difference in gender when it came to obedience
