Social Psychology Flashcards
Describe and Evaluate Milgram’s study
Aim- To investigate harmful obedience (Obeying an instruction which involves harming others)
Method- Used Volunteer sample of 40, white American males, used fixed straw drawing task to assign role of teacher to participant and role of learner to confederate. Participant was instructed to shock confederate every time they got a question wrong on word-recall task, shocks would range form 15-450 and would start at 15 and increase by 15v after each shock.
Results- 65% went up to 450v, 100% went up to 300v
Conclusion- People will obey authority figures even If it means harming others
Evaluate Milgram’s study
EVAL
Sample- Sample was 40 American, white men, androcentric and ethnocentric sample, results regarding harmful obedience cannot be applied to women and other races, furthermore, the sample is very small and unrepresentative. Limited generalisability
Method 1 – Standardised procedure and controlled environment , less chance of extraneous variables, higher internal validity
Method 2- replicated 18 times and similar results were found, high reliability
Conclusion- Concluded people will harm others if instructed to by authority figure, has high applicability to past and present events , in the past, the holocaust soldiers had stated that the antisemitic acts of harm they carried out were just following orders and currently, in the war between Russia and Ukraine, soldiers are following orders to harm Ukrainian citizens.
Conclusion- Good methodology but limited sample which leads to limited generalisability.
Evaluate Ethics in Milgram’s study
Confidentiality was breached as recordings of the study were published; however it can be argued that this isn’t Milgram’s fault as, at the time, there was no services for footage to be published to.
Informed consent was breached as participants was told that they’d be taking part in an experiment which revolves around the effect of punishment on learning, this was not the case so participants weren’t fully informed, however Milgram gained consent, just not informed, and telling participants of experimental conditions may have lead to demand characteristics which decrease internal validity.
Right to withdrawal was breached as Milgram used prods which had pressured participants to stay in the experiment, however, the prods were justified as they solidified authority of experimenter.
Protection from harm, some participants may have received psychological harm at the time which means it was breached, however in a follow-up questionnaire, 92% of participants reported that they were glad to have taken part and only 1 participant out of all 18 experiments reported long-term psychological harm
Describe Hofling’s study
Hofling
33 22 Night nurses telephonically instructed them to administer 20mg of the drug astroten (which has a maximum dosage of 10mg), call would end when nurses obeyed or disobeyed, became upset, went to ask for help, couldn’t find medication, or the call lasted longer than 10 minutes. 98% 95% of nurses obeyed. 11 nurses were aware but still administered drug.
When other nurses were asked if they’d obey, 21/23 31/33 said they wouldn’t.
Conclusion- People will not question supposed authority figures even if they have good reason to
Describe Bickman’s study
153 opportunity sample, experimenter would instruct participants to do one of three things, move to another side of a pole, pick up litter, or give a coin for a parking meter. The experimenter would be in either police uniform, milkman uniform, or be in casual clothes, as the IV was uniform. The obedience was 88% 89% for officer, 57% for milkman and 33% for casual clothes. Bickman concluded that Shows the power of certain types of uniform, dress can suggest authority, people are more likely to obey if they know there is a consequence for dissenting.
Describe Milgram’s three variations
3 Variations
Telephone variation- IV- Proximity, the experimenter has an increased proximity as they are further away from participants, obedience decreased to 47.5%.
Bridgeport Variation-IV- Location, the experiment was held in Bridgeport office as opposed to prestigious Yale university, obedience decreased to 20%.
Ordinary man variation-IV-Uniform, the experimenter wore casual clothes as opposed to a lab coat in the original experiment, as a result, obedience drops to 20.5%.
Describe Sherif’s classic study
Sherif 1962
Robber’s cave study
Aim- Investigate effect of creating two ingroups on procedure.
Sample was 22, white, American boys of similar social class and IQ
Ingroup formation phase
Had boys work together in team building games, created team names and team flags, boys had formed a bond and ingroup
Friction Phase
Had two teams (Eagles and rattlers) meet and compete in games such as rounders for rewards such as food and/or movie nights.
Integration phase / conflict reduction phase
Had boys work together to resolve superordinate goals (Goals which benefit both groups) such as fixing a broken water pipe for hot water and retrieving a truck from a ditch to watch movies.
Results
In ingroup formation phase, boys had bonded and became an ingroup
In friction phase, boys committed physically/verbally violent acts, had burned flags and raided cabins
In integration phase, conflict was reduced.
Conclusion- Conflict is due to limited resources
Conflict can be resolved using superordinate goals
Evaluate Sherif’s classic study
Sample was 22 white, protestant boys- Sample was ethnocentric and androcentric, means that results regarding realistic conflict theory and superordinate goals cannot be generalised to women or people of other races.
Method 1- Boys showed conflict before friction phase which lowers reliability as it suggests that hostility was already present without any limited resources
Method 2- Study was a field experiment and took place in Robber’s cave summer camp, higher ecological validity as it was a real-life environment, which may have contributed to decreased DC.
Study concluded that conflict was due to limited resources and that conflict can be resolved using superordinate goals. This has application to football hooliganism, how they have conflict over the limited resource of a trophy and the conflict can be reduced by having the opposing teams work together to raise money for a football charity.
Conclusion- Study has good applicability and validity however the reliability and the generalisability are large limitations.
Evaluate ethics in Sherif’s study
Informed consent was broken as boys did not consent to study, however Sherif had gained gatekeeper consent from parents.
Right to withdrawal was broken as boys felt pressured to stay in experiment as it was in summer camp environment where they wouldn’t usually be able to lead, however this was necessary to enhance experimental realism and reduce demand characteristics.
Protection from harm was broken as boys had physically and verbally harmed one another, raided cabins, and burning flags, however this was justified as these actions showed prejudice and conflict.
Debrief was broken as boys weren’t debriefed, however it can be argued that the integration phase served as a partial debrief
Describe Reicher and Haslam’s contemporary study
Aim- Investigate adherence to social roles
Method- Volunteer sample of 15 men of diverse age, race, social class, matched the participants into trios and then allocated 2 participants to role of prisoner and 1 participant to role of guard. Guards were briefed in hotel.
3 PLANNED INTERVENTIONS
Day 1- Impermeability- Guards and prisoners were informed of a misassignment, and they were told that prisoners can be promoted to guard and guard can be demoted to prisoner
DAY2- Promotion- Roles/groups would change and then become impermeable, meaning that groups could no longer change
Day 5- Cognitive alternative- Mcabe, trade unionist will oppose current prison structure.
Used 3 types of data collection- Interviews Recordings, questionnaires, cortisol swabs
Results
Day 1- Guards had stronger shared identity as prisoners had behaved differently due to wanting to change groups, however, the guards didn’t enforce authority
Day 2- Prisoners had developed shared identity of creating nuisance and annoyance to guards due to being unable to change groups
Day 5- Mcabe, trade unionist introduced, offered structure where guards and prisoners could co-operate and communicate, widely accepted, dominant prisoners Edwards and Peckins had opposed this
Day 6- Mcabe removed Operation mayhem, the two dominant prisoners (Edwards and Peckins) had broken into guards quarters
Day 7- Bisom, ex-military veteran had established tyrannical rule and power after playing a passive role in the experiment
Day 8- Study cancelled 6 days early
Conclusion- People will readily accept extreme social solutions if there is no stable social structure.
Evaluate Reicher and Haslam’s contemporary study
Sample- Used a sample of men of diverse age, race, social class, the study has no ethnocentrism and therefore the results regarding extreme social solutions can be generalised to other races. The study is limited as it has androcentrism though and it only focuses on males which means results regarding extreme social solutions cannot be generalised to females.
Method 1- Used triangulated data collection (Recordings, questionnaires, cortisol swabs) as there was an objective measurement, it is a strength as this means there is a higher reliability.
Method 2- The guards did not enforce authority, this is a limitation as the external validity is lower because, in a normal prison environment, guards would be more forceful and enforce authority more.
ARTIFICIAL ENVIRONMENT, DECREASED INTERNAL VALIDITY DUE TO DC
Conclusion of the study- Concluded that people will readily accept extreme social solutions if there is no stable social structure in place, has past and present application. The past application comes from Germany and Hitler’s rise to power, where they accepted his Nazi ideals as they were struggling economically at the time. The present application comes from developing countries and how they’re more likely to have tyrannical leaders due to accepting their extreme ideas due to having no other option.
To conclude, the study has incredible applicability and reliability as well as a good methodology but is limited in its androcentric sample as well as its external validity.
Describe and evaluate agency theory
Agency Theory- Milgram 1963 States that people may begin in an autonomous state (free will), but when instructed to do something that goes against moral values, they may begin going through stages. The moral strain occurs as a person tries to balance the order of authority figure, with their own morals/judgement, this may lead to them feeling discomfort when ordered to do something. The next part is an agentic shift which occurs after authority figure assures person, they aren’t responsible for their actions. The person enters an agentic state where they blindly follow orders of authority figure.
C- Credibility from Milgram’s experiment (1963) where participants started off in free will, then showed discomfort when ordered to shock confederate, they began shocking confederate when they were assured, they were not responsible as they entered an agentic state.
O- Objection comes from Bibb Latane’s social impact theory which suggests that 3 social forces affect obedience as opposed to the moral strain and the lessening of it.
D- The theory does not account for individual differences such as personality or culture, an authoritarian may be more likely to enter an agentic state faster due to exaggerated respect for authority.
A – Can be applied to harmful obedience in situations such as Holocaust, as, when German soldiers were confronted with what they had done, they had stated that they were just following orders.
To conclude, the theory is highly applicable and credible, however it can be argued that is a limited theory as it doesn’t acknowledge individual differences.
Describe and evaluate social impact theory
Social Impact theory Bibb Latane 1981- Stated that people were either sources (Authority) or targets (People being influenced) for social impact, Latane suggested that there are 3 social forces which affect obedience. Strength (Legitimacy) of authority, which may be displayed through uniform, heightens social impact. Immediacy (Proximity between source and target) which increases social impact when target and source are close. Number, which can be increased to encourage multiplicative effect (More sources means higher social impact) however it shouldn’t be increased a large amount to avoid psychosocial law (Increasing number of social sources may have less of an impact past a certain threshold). Divisional effect states that more targets mean there’s less social impact.
C-The theory has credibility from Kitty Genovese, she was a strong and immediate social source who was ignored due to divisional effect, as there were 38 witnesses, her social impact had fallen and nobody helped her.
O- The theory was objected by agency theory which suggests that moral strain and the lessening of it affects obedience more than social forces.
D- The theory doesn’t acknowledge individual differences such as upbringing may account for impact of social forces, for example, if someone had a strict upbringing, would they be more affected by social forces.
A – The theory has application for riot suppression. The strength of the authority can be cemented by wearing riot gear/uniform which heightens their social impact. The immediacy of the authority can be increased by having them be closer to the rioters and this will heighten their social impact. The number should be increased to encourage multiplicative effect, but not too much that psychosocial law occurs and impact falls again.
To conclude, the theory has great real-life credibility and applicability however it has been objected and it doesn’t account for individual differences.
Describe and evaluate social identity theory
Social Identity theory- Tajfel and turner- States 3 stages
Categorisation- Happens at birth, comes from innate/observable qualities (Race,gender etc)
Identification- What a person identifies with, (Gender, sexual orientation), may influence behaviour as they conform to group norms
Comparison- Form outgroup prejudice (prejudice to people not part of their group) as they compare themselves to other groups
Ingroup favouritism (Seeing your ingroup as superior) and outgroup prejudice (Hostility to outgroup) are two key ideas. The theory suggests that people are prejudice due to wanting to heighten their ingroups (Group their apart of) self-image and their own self-esteem and prejudice
C- Jane Elliot’s blue-eyes brown-eyes experiment highlighted this idea, she first categorised the class by dividing them into groups based on the two eye colours. The class showed identification as, when Elliot stated that blue-eyed people were smarter than brown eyed people, she noticed that blue-eyed people performed better on tasks as opposed to when they’re told brown-eyed people are smarter. The comparison was shown by the verbal and physical conflicts which the boys had towards one another.
O- Has been objected by realistic conflict theory which suggests that conflict is due to limited resources as opposed to ingroup favoritism and outgroup prejudice
D- Doesn’t acknowledge individual differences, for example culture, how collectivist cultures may be more likely to show outgroup prejudice
A – Can be applied to bullying and group conflict such as football hooliganism, which is due to members of those groups wanting to heighten their groups self-image, their own self-image and self-esteem.
To conclude, the theory has experimental credibility and real-life application but is too simplistic as it doesn’t acknowledge individual differences, it also has been objected by realistic conflict theory.
Describe and evaluate realistic conflict theory
Realistic conflict theory
Suggests conflict occurs as a result of limited resources such as food, power, justice
C- Has credibility from Sherif’s 1960 Robber’s cave study where boys had physical/verbal conflicts over limited resources such as food and movies.
O- Has been objected by Tajfel and Turners social identity theory which suggests that prejudice isn’t due to limited resources, but it is instead due to group members trying to heighten the group self-image as well as their own, and their own self-esteem.
D- The theory doesn’t acknowledge how individual differences such as upbringing may affect prejudice, how someone who was brought up to be selfish may be more likely to have a higher level of prejudice.
A – Has application to football hooliganism where prejudice and physical/verbal conflict may be due to the limited resource of football trophies, and pride.
To conclude, the theory is very credible and applicable, however is limited in explanation and has been objected.
