Social Psychology Flashcards
Describe Milgram 1963
Aim- To investigate the extent of harmful obedience (Harming another person due to being instructed to by authority figure)
Sample- 40 American, White, Male ppts
Procedure- Study conducted in Yale University, fixed straw-drawing task allocated confederate to role of learner and participant to role of teacher in word-recall test, Milgram used fake aim “To investigate the role of punishment in learning” and ppts would shock confederate (Starting at 15V, increasing by 15V after each shock up to 450v) every time they got question wrong in word-recall test.
Results- 100% of ppts shocked up to 300v and 65% shocked up to 450V
Conclusion- People will obey authority figure even if it means harming another person (Harmful obedience)
Evaluate Milgram 1963
AIM- To investigate the extent of harmful obedience
SAMPLE- 40 American, white, middle-class and middle-aged males. The sample is androcentric and ethnocentric so isn’t representative of target population where male and females as well as people of other races are abundant, results regarding harmful obedience cannot be generalised to people of other genders and cultures who may show more or less obedience due to stereotypes and/or cultural upbringing
METHOD 1- Experiment was conducted with standardised procedure (using buffer) which enhances replicability of study and allows for reliability of results to be tested/established. (Strength) Replications occurred 18 times and all found similar results, higher reliability of results (Strength)
METHOD 2- Experiment was conducted in controlled and artificial environment where situational variables i.e. noise and prescience of others were controlled, this may reduce mundane realism of study and external validity of results as, in real life, there may be witnesses to the harmful obedience, which may result in less people obeying authority. (Limitation)
RESULTS/CONCLUSION- 100% of people shocked up to 300v and 65% of people shocked up to 450V, study concluded people will obey authority figures even if it means harming another person. The results/conclusions have applicability to past and present war crimes such as Holocaust and destruction of Ukrainian cities as these acts may be done due to soldier’s obeying commanders and political leaders. (Strength)
CONCLUSION OF EVAL- To conclude, the study has valuable and applicable aims, results and conclusions into understanding why people may harm others, and the results of the study have high reliability (consistent in 18 replications), however study lacks mundane realism (Artificial environment), meaning that results lack external validity and results are limited in generalisability due to unrepresentative sample (Androcentric and ethnocentric)
Evaluate Ethics for Milgram
Milgram didn’t abide by confidentiality as recordings of study were published which included ppt faces and voices, however Milgram can be justified for guideline being breached as he may have collected recordings for data analysis, but couldn’t foresee technical advancements leading to publishing of recordings so it was out of his control.
Milgram didn’t give and inform ppts of right to withdraw, ppts may have felt pressured to remain in study due to prods be experimenter “The experiment requires you to continue”, however this may be justified as prods had helped cement experimenter authority and ensure ppt obedience was being tested, maintained validity of results of research.
Milgram used and told ppts fake aim “To investigate the role of punishment on learning”, which means that he deceived ppts and broke the guideline Milgram was justified in doing this due to the fact that if he informed ppts of true aim, or not told them they may have shown demand characteristics either by knowing aim or figuring it out, which would’ve reduced internal validity of results of experiment.
Milgram broke the ethical guideline of debrief as he didn’t include a debrief at end of experiment, however he may be justified as he did partial debrief in form of questionnaire published 1 year after study where 92% of ppts self-reported that they were glad to have taken part in study and only 1 ppt out of all 18 experiments self-reported long-term psychological harm.
Describe Milgram 3 Variations
Milgram’s original study found that ppt obedience in terms of shocking up to 450v was 65%
In Telephone variation, where experimenter was at a further proximity and communicated to ppts via telephone instead of at closer proximity and in person (Like original), obedience had fell to 20%
In Ordinary man variation, where experimenter wore casual clothes and no lab-coat as opposed to being in lab-coat and uniform (Like original), obedience had fallen to 47.5%
In run-down office block variation, where experiment was conducted in Bridgeport office as opposed to Yale University (Like in original), obedience had fallen to 20.5%
Describe Agency Theory
Agency Theory suggests that everyone begins in an autonomous state (Free Will) where they act upon their own accord/morals, when instructed to do something that goes against these morals by authority figure, they face a moral strain (Distress where they balance their own morals/ideas with authority instructions). Once a person either is informed of the idea that authority figure will take responsibility for their actions or they displace that responsibility onto that authority figure, an agentic shift will take place and a person will enter an agentic state where they follow authority instructions blindly as they believe that authority figure is accountable for them and their actions.
Evaluate Agency Theory
The theory has credibility from Milgram’s study (1963), all ppts started off in an autonomous state (Free will), and when instructed to shock confederate they faced a moral strain (Distress as they balanced experimenter instructions with own morals/ideas) shown by them asking “Who’ll take responsibility for this”, when ppt informed experimenter will take responsibility for shocking, they displace responsibility onto experimenter, have agentic shift and enter an agentic state where they continue shocking confederate as they believe experimenter will take blame for it, led to 65% of ppts shocking to 450v.
The theory has been objected by social impact theory which suggests that obedience is affected by three social forces (Strength, number, immediacy) and not the reduction of moral strain and displacement of responsibility.
The theory has been criticised due to lacking explanation into effect of individual differences i.e. personality on progression to agentic state and obedience, for example, will authoritarians progress through stages faster due to exaggerated respect for authority?
The theory is highly applicable to explaining actions of Holocaust members in court, pleading not guilty as the were “Just following orders”, which suggests they were in agentic state and acting on behalf of commanders who they believed would take responsibility for their actions.
To conclude, theory is strong in the fact that it has research credibility (Milgram) and real-life applicability (Holocaust soldiers displacing blame), however is limited in credibility due to being objected by other theories (Social impact) and not explaining effect of individual differences (Personality) on progression through stages.
Describe Social Impact Theory
Social impact theory suggests that people are either social sources (Authority) or targets (People being influenced) for obedience. Social impact theory suggests that obedience towards social sources is affected by three social forces Strength , number, immediacy. Strength of authority figure is the superiority they have over you, for example a policeman in casual clothes won’t have as much strength/authority over you then a policeman in uniform as the uniform one has higher strength, higher strength= More social impact and obedience. Immediacy is proximity of authority figure, closer proximity/immediacy results in higher social impact and obedience. Number of authority figures is obvious but complicated, Divisional effect results in lower obedience/social impact and is when there’s a lower number of social sources compared to targets, this results in diffusion of responsibility between targets (If he’s not obeying then why should I?”, Multiplicative effect results in higher obedience/social impact and is when there’s more social sources than targets, this should mean that increasing the number increases obedience, however it’s important to acknowledge however it’s important to acknowledge psychosocial law- increasing social sources past threshold will have lower effect on obedience/social impact over time.
Evaluate Social Impact Theory
Social impact theory has real-life credibility from Kitty Genovese who was murdered despite being a strong and immediate social source (In danger and screaming near apartments) due to 38 witnesses and divisional effect (Reduced obedience and social impact as there’s a diffusion of responsibility between targets/witnesses), resulting in nobody taking personal responsibility to help her and her dying.
The theory has been objected by agency theory which suggests that obedience isn’t dependent on social forces (Strength, number, immediacy) but is instead based on lowering the moral strain of person you’re trying to influence, this may be through means of encouraging them that authority figure will take responsibility for their actions or person displacing responsibility onto authority figure.
The theory doesn’t acknowledge how individual differences (Upbringing) may affect importance of social forces, for example if someone is taught personal responsibility and independence at a young age, would they not have a diffusion of responsibility found in divisional effect and continue to obey social force?
The theory and social forces have application to riot suppression. Strength of riot officers can be increased by officers wearing riot gear, resulting in higher obedience and social impact. Immediacy of riot officers can be increased by having them be loud and close to rioters, this should lead to increased social impact and obedience. Number of social sources (Riot officers) should be increased to avoid divisional effect and encourage multiplicative effect (More social sources means more obedience), however shouldn’t be increased too much as psychosocial law could occur (Increasing amount of social sources past threshold results in reduced social impact and obedience as you keep adding), should find balance of number.
To conclude, the theory has been objected by agency theory (Suggests moral strain affects obedience) and has been limited in explanation of individual differences like upbringing on social forces and social impact, however the theory ahs real-life credibility (Kitty) and has real-life applicability (riot suppression)
Describe Factors Affecting Obedience
Situational factors are factors regarding the environment which may make a person obey, while dispositional factors are factors regarding the person which may affect obedience
Legitimacy of authority figure is a situational factor which may be influenced by uniform authority figure wears, in Bickman’s study it was found that there was 89% obedience for man in police officer uniform and only 57% for man in milkman uniform as police officer was perceived as more legitimate authority due to uniform.
Proximity of authority figure is a situational factor based on the distance between authority figure and person they’re influencing, closer proximity should mean more obedience, this was objected by results in Hofling’s study where It was found that 95% of nurses obeyed when telephonically instructed to administer medication.
Gender is a dispositional factor which suggests that women may be more obedient than men due to societal stereotypes and idea of being the “Weaker Sex”, however this was disapproved in replication of Milgram study where Milgram found that women had same level of obedience than men, however showed more anxiety than men, which can suggest that gender doesn’t affect obedience itself but may affect the feelings felt when obeying.
Locus of control is a dispositional factor and is the belief you have over who controls your life, someone with a high internal LOC believe that they’re in control of their own life and may take more responsibility for their actions, however a person with high external LOC may believe that other factors i.e. other people or the environment affect their life, less likely to take personal responsibility and may be more likely to shock confederates in Milgram’s study, based on the results of the study we can suggest LOC is the majority in population and his research (65% level of obedience regarding shocking up to maximum voltage)
Describe Realistic Conflict Theory
Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that conflict is due to two opposing groups competing for limited resources (Food, water, Jobs) and that conflict can be resolved by having two groups work together using superordinate goals (Goals which benefit both groups).
Evaluate Realistic Conflict Theory
The idea has research credibility from Sherif Robber’s cave study where he found that, when groups were in competition (Baseball) for limited resources (Food, movies), physical and verbal conflicts such as cabin raids and burning flags had begun due to conflict over limited resources, however Sherif also noticed that conflict began to reduce when both teams worked together towards superordinate goals such as fixing water tap for hot water.
Realistic conflict theory has been objected by social identity theory which suggests that conflict and prejudice between two groups is a result of ingroup favouritism and outgroup prejudice due to group members trying to heighten won self-image and self-esteem and group self-image as opposed to conflict between two groups being due to competition over limited resources.
The theory lacks explanation into effect of individual differences such as culture on conflict towards limited resources, for example, will collectivist cultures be less likely to have conflict over limited resources as they believe in group achievement and may share them?
Realistic conflict theory has applicability to prejudices such as sexism which may be re-enforced by idea that, as more women are feeling empowered there’s more competition between manual labour jobs of men and women, this may be why there’s more sexist, patriarchal men around. Women and men may compete over power, jobs, money.
To conclude, realistic conflict theory is credible due to research evidence and has high applicability to many real-life prejudices such as sexism and racism, however theory is limited due to being objected by social identity theory and not exploring effect of individual differences i.e. culture on conflict for limited resources
Describe Social Identity Theory
Tajfel and Turner suggested that people go through 3 stages. Social categorisation- People are placed into groups based on characteristics which they cannot control i.e. age, race, and gender
Social identification- People identify with groups i.e. sexual orientation, religion and may imitate group members or conform to group norms, creates a sense of belonging
Social Comparison- Where person forms “Us vs Them” Mentality and begins showing ingroup favouritism and outgroup prejudice in order to raise self-image of group and own self-esteem and self-image.
Suggests that conflict cannot be resolved
Evaluate Social Impact Theory
Social identity theory has credibility from Jane Elliot blue-eyes brown-eyes experiment, Jane Elliot categorised class members in accordance with eye colour and had them sit closer to people of similar eye colour. Jane Elliot showed social identification as, blue-eyed people performed better on tasks when she said they were smarter than brown-eyed people compared to when they were told they weren’t. Jane Elliot showed social comparison when blue-eyed and brown-eyed people had physical and verbal conflicts with one another, for example Blue-eyed person got into fight with brown-eyed person as they made fun of one another’s eye colour.
Social identity theory has been objected by realistic conflict theory which suggests that conflict can be resolved by use of superordinate goals and that conflict is due to two groups competing over limited resources such as food or money, and not due to members of both groups trying to heighten own self-esteem and self-image.
Social identity theory lacks explanation into individual differences such as personality on ingroup favouritism and outgroup prejudice, the authoritarian personality is characterised by a hostility to people socially inferior, does that mean that authoritarians are more likely to show outgroup prejudice in comparison to ingroup favouritism?
Social identity theory has high application value to events such as bullying which may occur as a result of bullies forming their own ingroup and wanting to heighten group self-image and own self-image and self-esteem by showing outgroup prejudice and making other groups feel inferior.
To conclude, social identity theory has high applicability to minor prejudices such as bullying, and has high, research credibility from Blue-eyes brown eyes experiment, however social identity theory lacks explanation into individual differences such as personality on ingroup favouritism and outgroup prejudice as well as the credibility being questioned due to objections from realistic conflict theory.
Describe Factors Affecting Prejudice- Personality
Adorno used numerous types of data, thematic apperception tests, questionnaires, interviews with Mack and Larry and Males and Females on: Political and religious beliefs, beliefs, upbringing/background, attitudes towards others/minorities to develop scales/questionnaires of authoritarianism:
Fascism scale- Sex crimes deserve more than imprisonment
Ethnocentrism scale- Belief that your own race is superior
Anti-Semetism Scale- Prejudice towards Jewish People
Anti-Democratic Scale- Dislikes democracy and fair election
Conservatism Scale- Likes social order and dislikes social change
Adorno stated that authoritarianism is a result of strict/unaffectionate parenting and a harsh upbringing involving being taught respect and the ability to be prejudiced to those socially inferior. Adorno stated that authoritarians may have these traits: Hostility, Hostility to people socially inferior, exaggerated respect towards authority figures, conform to group norms, dislikes social change. Adorno stated that these characteristics were innate.
The authoritarian personality has slight applicability to understanding small-scale incidents like bullying, however certain ideas of the theory has been objected, Adorno stated that some characteristics of the personality are innate, therefore someone cannot become authoritarian, however Rwandan genocide objects this as people became authoritarian after harmonious Tutsi settlement was formed, Adorno’s idea has no genetic explanation for social change
Describe Factors Affecting Prejudice-Culture
Cultural norms, laws, and events may affect prejudice, however due to being ever-changing, they may be difficult to measure
Katz and Braly (1933) conducted questionnaire on 40 males and 40 females where they had to assign 5-6 traits out of 84 to certain ethnic groups, Jews were described as shrewd and African Americans were labelled as Ignorant and Superstitious, study was replicated by Karlins (1969) and he found that some assigned traits remained and some changed, suggesting that, as cultures change, so does the prejudices they hold.
Individualist cultures are focused on self-achievement and are more self-led, they are more likely to show interpersonal prejudice (Prejudice towards people within own ingroup) as they see people as individuals, however collectivist cultures which rely more on group achievement and welfare may show more outgroup prejudice due to stronger bond/connection with people in ingroup and not seeing people as individuals.
Kleugel (1990) found that collectivists were more tolerant and less racist in comparison to individualist cultures
Al Zahrani and Kaplowitz (1993) found that Saudi’s (Collectivist) self-reported more ingroup favouritism and outgroup prejudice than Americans (Individualist) , suggesting collectivists are more prejudiced.
To conclude, it’s hard to measure and confirm cultural prejudices, the only sort of solution seems to be national stereotypes, however due to no link being made between culture and prejudice this cannot be proved
Describe Sherif (1963) Robber’s Cave (Classic Study)
Aim-See whether creating and ingroup and outgroup will create a intergroup conflict
Sample- 22, 11-Year old, white, protestant boys from America
Procedure- Study was conducted in Robber’s cave Summer Camp and involved a three-phase procedure.
Ingroup Formation- Boys were allocated to groups where they created group name and flag “Eagles and Rattlers” and participated In team-building games to create sense of identity.
Friction Phase- Boys took part in competitions against one another (Baseball) for rewards such as early lunch and movie night
Integration Phase/ Friction Reduction Phase- Both groups worked together to resolve superordinate goals (Boys had to fix broken water pipe for hot water)
Results
Boys had formed bonds with ingroup in ingroup formation phase
Boys had physical and verbal conflicts such as Cabin Raids, burning flags, fights due to competition over rewards
In integration phase/ friction reduction phase, two groups had reduced conflict due to working together towards superordinate goals
Conclusions
Prejudice/Conflict is a result of competition over limited resources (Food, Movie nights etc)
Prejudice and conflict can be resolved by having two opposing groups work together to resolve superordinate goals
Evaluate Sherif (1963) Robber’s Cave (Classic Study)
Aim- To investigate the effect of creating an ingroup and an outgroup on conflict
Sample- 22, 11-year-old, protestant, American , white boys, the sample is androcentric and ethnocentric, as well as only including people of one culture and one age group, this limits how representative the sample is and limits generalisability of results regarding realistic conflict theory to other races, genders (Females), age groups (Teenagers), and cultures who may show different levels of aggression due to maturity, cultural norms, and upbringing (Strength)
Method 1- The study had standardised procedures (The three phases), increasing replicability of the study and allowing for results regarding realistic conflict theory to be tested for reliability (Strength), however boys in the study showed conflict before friction phase/ competitions began which can suggest that conflict may not be due to limited resources like the study suggests (Limitation)
Method 2- The study was conducted in Robber’s cave summer camp, involving realistic tasks (Baseball and other competition games) typical of the environment, which increases mundane realism of study and external validity of results (Strength), however, study may not have been completely controlled and situational and ppt variables such as the idea that opposing group members possibly having conflict before joining camp which limits cause-and-effect of two groups and conflict and lowers internal validity of results (Limitation)
Results/Conclusions- Experiment found that conflict between two groups was due to competition for limited resources, and that conflict between these groups may be resolved by having groups work together using superordinate goals, these conclusions have high applicability to better understanding of ideas such as football hooliganism and pitch violence, where conflict may be due to opposing teams competing over trophies (Limited resource), and the idea that working towards superordinate goals such as Raising money for football charities may lead to a decreased conflict of the opposing teams.
To conclude, experiment has highly applicable results to pitch violence, the study has high mundane realism and the results have high external validity due to realistic task+ environment, however the results of study may lack reliability (Friction phase may not have caused conflict) and generalisability (Androcentric and ethnocentric sample)
Evaluate Sherif in terms of Ethics
Sherif broke guideline of informed consent as children weren’t informed of all experimental procedures and weren’t asked to give informed consent, however Sherif was justified in doing this as he gained gatekeeper/parental consent and informing boys of experimental procedures may have resulted in demand characteristics, lowering validity of results .
Sherif broke ethical guideline of protection from harm as boys had physical and verbal conflicts such as cabin raids and flag burning which may result In psychological distress and, in worse case, physical injury, however this was justified as the conflicts helped demonstrate prejudice between the two groups and served as evidence for realistic conflict theory.
Sherif had broken right to withdrawal as he didn’t inform boys of the right and boys may have felt pressured to remain in experiment due to assumption that being picked up and leaving summer camp may cause difficulty and they may not be allowed to leave straight away, however not informing boys of the right resulted in more naturalistic behaviour as boys weren’t aware of experimental participation, which led to higher internal validity of results regarding realistic conflict theory. Boys feeling pressured maintained mundane realism of study and external validity of results.
Sherif had broken the guideline of debrief as ppts weren’t provided with full debrief after experiment, however may be partially justified as partial debrief in form of friction reduction/integration phase resulted in decreased conflict/aggression between groups, resulting in boys being able to return to some level of normality.
