Social Psychology

Question 1

Give 4 AO1 points on social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice

Answer 1

• *Social identity theory-** The view that your behaviour is motivated by self identity
• *Social Categorisation-** Ingroup, group we belong to and outgroup is anyone not in our group.
• *Social Identification**- The individual adopts the beliefs, values and attitudes of the group they see themselves belonging to.
• *Social Comparison-** Ingroup boosts self esteem by putting out group down to make ingroup feel better.

Question 2

Give 2 support points on social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice

Answer 2

1. Tajfel got 15yr old Bristol school boys to allocate meaningless points to ingroup and outgroup. Finding that the boys favoured the ingroup giving the outgroup less even if that meant less points overall to ingroup.
2. Fein and Spencer found that when they gave students a sense of high or low self esteem due to feedback on an intelligence test. Those who scored higher showed less anti-Semitic views.

Question 3

Give 2 weakness of social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice.

Answer 3

1. Lacks mundane realism as allocating points lacks mundane realism as in real life we might be less discriminatory as there might be unpleasant social consequences.
2. Wetherell replicated Tajfel’s study found in new Zealand that indigenous schoolchildren were more generous to the out group than their white counterparts. Suggests SIT may be ethnocentric because it fails to predict those from more collectivist cultures.

Question 4

Give 4 AO1 points assessing realistic conflict theory as an explanation of prejudice

Answer 4

1. Intergroup competition- if two different groups are striving for the same goal then prejudice will increase.
2. Negative interdependence- achieving a goal is important for both groups. Only one group can win so the other loses. Collaborators vs competitors.
3. Limited resources- Scarce materials, physical resources, symbolic resources. Physical and finite resources = most hostility/prejudice.
4. Superordinate goals- goals that can only be achieved through cooperation, using positive interdependence. Method to reduce prejudice.

Question 5

Give 3 strengths realistic conflict theory as an explanation of prejudice

Answer 5

1. Sherif - found that when they made the rattlers and eagles compete against one another hostility and competition increased.
2. Ember and Ember found that hostility increases when social or natural conditions mean that competition for these resources are necessary.
3. Aronson when the students were divided into smaller groups and told that each small group had to succeed to ensure the success of the overall class, reduced competition.

Question 6

Give 2 weaknesses of realistic conflict theory as an explanation of prejudice

Answer 6

1. Experimenters had to raid one groups cabin to make it look as though the other group had attacked them. Thus intergroup competition did not necessarily increase hostility.
2. Competition might not be necessary as Tajfel found that the boys showed prejudice despite no competition just the presence of ingroup and outgroup.

Question 7

Give 4 AO1 points: Evaluate individual differences (personality) as an explanation of prejudice.

Answer 7

1. Adorno’s Authoritarian personality- Lack of unconditional love from parents leads to scapegoating of anger.
2. Alport’s authoritarian personality- Think in black and white due to conditional love.
3. Right wing authoritarianism- Believe world is dangerous and threatening place
4. Social dominance orientation- Motivated to seek ingroup power and dominance.

Question 8

Give 4 AO1 points: Assessing the influence of cultural factors on prejudice and discrimination.

Answer 8

1. Norm of intolerance- All cultures are ethnocentric to some extent. In some cultures the norm is to be more accepting of diversity and tolerant. With micro aggressions more common.
2. Norm of fairness- Some cultures are focussed on fairness rather than competition so less prejudiced.
3. Individualism- Value personal autonomy and self reliance and therefore are more prejudicial and see groups as competition.
4. Collectivist- Value loyalty to the group, interdependence and cooperation. Less prejudicial and more focused on sharing and cooperation.

Question 9

Give 4 AO1 points: Assessing the influence of situation factors on prejudice and discrimination.

Answer 9

1. Social norms- unwritten rules of behaviour. Socialisation by the group to accept and internalise the groups prejudicial views.
2. Competition- If two different groups are striving for the same goal then prejudice will increase.
3. Zero-sum situations- Provisions for the outgroup will come at a cost to the indigenous population.
4. Resource stress- Scarce materials, physical resources, symbolic resources. Physical and finite resources = the most hostility and prejudice.

Question 10

Give 2 strengths: Evaluate factors affecting prejudice, in terms of situational and cultural factors.

Answer 10

1. Cantril suggested that as groups become increasingly prejudiced as they internalise the groups frame of reference.
2. Minard found that when miners were below ground (miners) they were friendly and worked well together but above ground (black and white ethnic groups) they held negative views.
3. Akrami- Group overheard a confederate say that sexism is no longer an issue. The group that heard this showed lower levels of sexism than the control.

Question 11

Give 2 weaknesses: Evaluate factors affecting prejudice, in terms of situational and cultural factors.

Answer 11

1. Hogan- Mood can effect levels of prejudice and discrimination and this idea extends to the collective mood of the nation. That media can influence how people are feeling and therefore how prejudiced they are.
2. Cohrs- Personality effected how prejudiced people are. RWA +0.48 and SDO +0.28 positively correlated with generalised prejudice

Question 12

Give 4 AO1 points: Assess the influence of individual differences (personality and gender) on obedience.

Answer 12

1. Authoritarian personality- Adorno. Used the F scale to assess authoritarian personality. Created by harsh critical parenting style. Conventionalism, authoritarian aggression, authoritarian submission and scapegoating.
2. Locus of control- Internal- greater responsibility for their actions, remain autonomous state. External- less responsibility for their actions, belief in luck or fate, shift into an agentic state.
3. Ethics of justice- More commonly seen in males. Value equality and fairness with a detached outlook to avoid bias. Destructive obedience due to obligation to authority figure.
4. Ethics of care- value interpersonal relationships and support those in need. Destructive obedience due to a focus on the greater good.

Question 13

Give 2 strengths: Assess the influence of individual differences (personality and gender) on obedience.

Answer 13

1. Sheridan and King- 54% of men obeyed the shocking of puppies and 100% of women obeyed
2. Elms and Milgram’s- Used F scale with original participants and obedient partipants scored higher on the F-scale.

Question 14

Give 2 weaknesses: Assess the influence of individual differences (personality and gender) on obedience.

Answer 14

1. Burger- No significant difference of obedience rates between the genders.
2. Schurz- Locus of control does not predict disobedience as Austrian participants were asked to give painful doses of ultrasound- no differences in the participants.

Question 15

Give 4 AO1 points: Assess the influence of culture on disobedience/dissent.

Answer 15

1. Individualism- Value personal autonomy and self reliance e.g. US and northern Europe
2. Collectivism- Value loyalty to the group and interdependence and cooperation in pursuit of group goals. Eg China and Brazil
3. Power distance index- How accepting people are of hierarchal order and inequality in society. High PDI subordinates expect to be told what to do and the ideal boss is a benevolent autocrat’.

Question 16

Give 4 AO1 points: Assess the influence of Situation on disobedience/dissent.

Answer 16

Legitimacy- The perception of authority. Achieved through uniform, how one dresses, the status of the venue and whether it is prestigious.

Proximity- The distance or closeness between the authority figure and the participant in terms of space and time. Physical and psychological barriers can change the levels of obedience.

Role of allies- Exposure to role models can encourage disobedience. Alleviates the binding factors to the authority figure as you have a fellow dissenter to bond with.

Question 17

Give 2 supporting points: Assess the influence of culture and situation on disobedience/dissent.

Answer 17

1. Kilham and Mann found that Australia and individualist culture had an obedience of 28%
2. Dolinski- Poland’s obedience of 90% and a PDI of 68%

Question 18

Give 2 weaknesses: Assess the influence of culture and situation on disobedience/dissent.

Answer 18

1. Blass calculated the average obedience rates from countries around the world and found the average doesn’t differ too much. Looked at 9 non US studies found an average obedience of 61% compared to 66% US replications.
2. Gupta- Replicated of Milgram’s experiment in India and despite high PDI of 77% with a low obedience of 42.5%

Question 19

Give the procedure of your social practical

Answer 19

1. Sample, opportunity with 18 females and 10 males taken from RPS sixth form. We handed them a questionnaire.
2. An example of an open question we gave them was ‘in great detail, describe the last time you were in trouble’ Close ‘have you ever had a detention before?’
3. Ranked scale, on a scale of 1-10, how obedient would you say you are?
4. Even participants completed the questionnaire in the common room.

Question 20

Give 4 marks AO1 of your social practical?

Question 21

What was Milgrams procedure?

Answer 21

1. Volunteer sample of 40 men aged 20-50 years old, from New Haven America.
2. They were given $4.50 for participation and told they could drop out at any point and still keep the money.
3. A shock volt of 45V was given to the teacher participant. And the voltage supposedly increased by 15V each time.
4. At 300V pounding was heard from the wall. At 315V more pounding was heard but from then on no further sound was heard.
5. On the 4th prod the participants were allowed to leave.

Question 22

What was Milgram’s findings

Answer 22

1. 65% of sample administered full 450V shock.
2. 100% went to 300V
3. 3 participants had seizures.

Question 23

What were Burgers findings?

Answer 23

1. 70% pressed 150V button compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s.
2. Women slightly more likely than men to press the 150V switch.
3. The defiant participant ad significantly higher desire for personal control scores. but no significant difference in empathic concern.

Question 24

What was Burgers Procedure

Answer 24

1. Stopped shocks at 150V as 79% of participants who reached 79% continued to 450V.
2. 2 step screening process to exclude volunteers who might have a negative reaction to the experience. Clinical psychologist was present for all trials and told to remove anyone who appeared excessively distressed.
3. 15V shock was given to participants rather than 45V.
4. Debriefed immediately after study ended.
5. Used self report questionnaires to measure empathic concern and desire for personal control.

Question 25

What was sherifs procedure?

Answer 25

1. 22 middle-class, protestant, 11 year old boys from Oklahoma, USA. Divided into two groups ensuring they were matched on equivalent abilities.
2. Stage 1: Group formation. Boys bonded as a group and took part in non competitive activities. 2 Eagles went home at the end of the week due to home sickness.
3. Stage 2: Friction. Each group learnt of the others existence. Then competed in a tournament with prizes and medals for the winners.
4. Stage 3: Reducing friction. Initial tasks involved increasing social contact eg eating or watching a movie together. Later superordinate goals were introduced. eg mending broken water supply.

Question 26

What were Sherifs findings?

Answer 26

1. Stage 1: Groups called themselves the eagles and the rattlers, leaders were established and social norms became apparent eg Rattlers were tough and swore a lot but eagles cried more when injured and were anti swear.
2. Stage 2: There was name calling, fights and scuffles, they raided and trashed each others cabins. 6.4% of rattlers friends were eagles.
3. Stage 3: Social contact did little to reduce friction. After a series of superordinate goals outgroup friendship increased. 36.4% of rattlers friends were eagles.

Question 27

In Variation 10: Rundown office block what % of participants were full obedient?

Answer 27

47.5%

Question 28

In Variation 7: telephonic instructions what % of participants were full obedient?

Answer 28

22.5%

Question 29

In Variation 13: Ordinary man gives orders what % of participants refused to continue?

Answer 29

80%

Question 30

Give 4 supporting studies: Evaluate individual differences (personality) as an explanation of prejudice.

Answer 30

1. Adorno says they are more prejudice to others due to their inability to express their anger at their parents.
2. Altemeyer believes that people seek security through preserving social order and are hostile to anyone who seems ‘different’
3. Cohrs found RWA positively corelated with generalised prejudice and negatively corelated to openness to experience.
4. Cohrs found SDO negatively correlated with agreeableness and positively corelated with generalised prejudice.

Question 31

Give 2 weaknesses: Evaluate individual differences (personality) as an explanation of prejudice.

Answer 31

1. Prejudice may be learnt through exposure to specific world views. Regulation of media sources may reduce this.
2. Allport believe not necessarily more prejudice but are more susceptible to political beliefs that target their inner insecurities and fears.