social psychology Flashcards
(109 cards)
1
Q
3 assumptions of the social approach
A
- behaviour is determined by our social situation and the social roles we are given (eg zimbardo)
- behaviour is determined by our interactions with others (eg asch)
- behaviour is influenced by culture and society
2
Q
what is population validity
A
whether you can reasonably generalise findings from your sample to a larger group of people
3
Q
random sample
A
every member of the target pop has an equal chance of being chosen (names out a hat)
- limits researcher bias
- unrepresentative sample
-time consuming
4
Q
opportunity sample
A
using people readily available to you
- quick and easy
- ethical
-biased
5
Q
volunteer sample
A
participants self select to take part in research by responding to an advert
- practical
- ethical
- biased
6
Q
systematic sample
A
pick every nth person from a sampling frame
- limits bias
- unrepresentative
- time
7
Q
stratified sample
A
proportionally represents the target population
- representative
- time consuming
8
Q
obedience
A
a form of social influence elicited in response to a direct order or response
9
Q
milgrams sample
A
40 middle aged white middle class males from USA
- responded to advert in the newspap er
10
Q
milgram aim
A
investigate the extent to which people would obey commands in a situation where their obedience could seriously harm somebody else even if it meant breaking their morals.
the broad aim was to investigate the idea “germans are different” after they persecuted jews in ww2
11
Q
milgram fake aim
A
effects of punishment on learners
12
Q
milgram procedure
A
- rigged draw (ppant teacher, confederate mr wallace learner)
- mr w strapped in, complains of heart condition
- word pair task, wrong answer shock (15-450v)
- mr w screamed and complained of heart condition
- ppant wants to stop, verbal prods “you have no choice you must go on” “ the experiment requires you to continue”
- ppant didnt know until after that shocks were not real and screams were played on a recording
13
Q
milgram findings
A
all 40 ppants went to 300 volts
65% (28) went to end 450 volts
marked effects of ppants stress including sweating, shaking and digging nails into flesh.
13
Q
milgram conclusion
A
social situation is a powerful determinant of behaviour. majority of ordinary people would follow destructive orders if instructed to by an authority figure, even if somebodys life is at risk.
14
Q
how can milgram be practically applied
A
helps us to understand historic events such as the holocaust and abu ghraib in which large amounts of ordinary people obeyed destructive orders to harm innocent people just because they were told too
15
Q
4 strengths of milgram
A
standardised procedure
internal validity
debreif
practical apps
16
Q
4 weaknesses of milgram
A
pop v
right to withdraw
mundane realism
psychological harm
17
Q
situational factors that couldve made milgrams ppants obey
A
payed incentive
authority figure (lab coat)
buffer (wall)
experimenter took responsibility
4 verbal prods
18
Q
four ethical principles
A
respect
competence
responsibility
integrity
19
Q
ethical guidelines should be followed
A
informed consent
deception
right to withdraw
debrief
protection from harm
confidentiality
20
Q
4 factors researchers should consider when doing a risk assessment
A
study from pov of participants
paid incentive
short/long term
cost benefit analysis
21
Q
milgram variation 7
A
telephonic
22
Q
aim of milgram 7
A
investigate whether proximity to the experimenter would influence the levels of obedience
23
Q
how did milgram 7 vary from original
A
after giving initial instructions in lab, experimenter left and gave the rest of the instructions via telephone
24
obedience levels in milgram 7
22.5%
25
milgram variation 10
run down office block
26
aim of milgram 10
investigate whether location of study would influence destructive obedience
27
how did milgram 10 vary from original
relocated to rundown office block in bridge port conneticut
ppants believed research was being ran by private research firm rather than yale
28
obedience levels milgram 10
47.5%
29
milgram variation 13
ordinary man
30
aim of milgram 13
whether the ordinary man not wearing a lab coat would influence obedience levels
31
how did milgram 13 vary from original
2 confederates
learner and experimenter
lab coat man takes phone call so ordinary man takes over
32
obedience levels milgram 13
20%
33
5 situational factors influencing obedience
social contract (money)
buffers
status of authority figure
deffered responsibility
location
34
3 ways personality impact obedience
authoritarian
locus of control
empathy
35
locus of control impact on obedience
- rotter
belief about whether the outcome of our actions are depending on what we do
external believe there behaviour is beyond there control so are influenced and more obedience
milgram found that the obedient participants blamed the learner
36
authoritarian personality impact on obedience
- adorno
rigid and intolerant to change
conventional
will obey superior
higher F scale, more obedience
37
empathy impact on obedience
burger found that although empathatic people protested against giving the shocks more, this didnt translate into lower levels of obedience
38
gender impact on obedience
SHERIDAN AND KING
live puppy as victim in milgram style epxeriment
women were more obedient
39
culture impact on obedience
individualistic culture (eg USA) behave more independently and resist conformity
collectivist cultures (eg israel) are interdependent and believe cooperation and compliance are importance and therefore are more obedient
40
what is my contemporary study for social psych
burger
41
aim of burger
to investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgrams 1963 study to examine whether situational factors still impact on obedience to authority almost 50 years later
42
burger sampling and screening
newspaper ad, 50$ incentive
1. asked if studied psych, phys and psych health
2. clinical questions, demographics, empathy scale, anxiety scale, depression scale, desirability control scale
3. interviewed by clinucal psychologist to see if theyd be negatively affected by the study
43
burger location
santa clara university
44
burger sample
70 men and women, 20-81 years old
45
burger procedure
- given 50$
- rigged role choice
- different rooms
- 15-450v
- same verbal prods
- stopped at 150v
- debreif
46
burger findings
70% went past 150v
females obeyed more
47
burger conclusion
average americans still obey in a lab situation the same way 46 years later. situational factors still have the same effect and culture hasnt had an impact on obedience
48
4 sterengths of burger
population validity
practical apps (historic events)
standardised procedure
debreifed
49
4 weaknesses of burger
eco v
mundane realism
demand characteristics (volunteer sample)
informed consent (fake aim)
50
agency theory ao1 why originally do we obey
evolved to obey a lef as it gives us a survival advantage
h/e this is only realised when we are socialised into following direct orders
51
agency theory ao1 autonomus state
two states autonomus and agentic
in autonomus we have free will, feel responsible and act according to concience
52
agency theory ao1 agentic state
when given orders we go through agentic shift
surrender free will, follow orders, agent to lef, defer responsibility, act against concience
53
agency theory ao1 moral strain
experience moral strain because given immoral orders, use defence mechanisms eg denial- used by nazis in holocaust
54
2 strengths of agency theory
supported by milgram - 65% obeyed, moral strain
face validity and explains events such as holocuast
55
2 weaknesses of agency theory
circular logic- obey because agent, agent because obey
cant explain individual differences, 35% didnt obey in milgram
56
social impact theory ao1 strength
status lef will increase obedience
importance based off age gender and status
57
social impact theory ao1 number recieving
increased number receieving decreased obedience
diffusion of responsibility due to diffusion of responsibility
eg kitty genoveve
58
social impact theory ao1 number giving
increased number giving increased obedience
demoed in asch
h/e psychosocial law of diminishing returns, increasess at a smaller rate each time
59
social impact theory ao1 immediacy
closer proximity, increased obedience
demoed in milgram 10 (telephonic)
60
2 strengths of social impact theory
supported by milgram- telephonic variation obedience went from 65% to 47.5%
supported by asch- confederates giving wrong answer increased, obedience increased at a diminshing rate
61
2 weaknesses of social impact theory
reductionlist- doesnt consider complexity of active mind, assumes we are passive reciever
descriptive rather than explanatory- says when we will obey but not why, cognition is not considered
62
what is my social psych key question
how can knowledge of social psychology be used to explain destructive obedience in society, such as in a prison setting like the attrocities commited at abu ghraib
63
what is abu ghraib and what happened
a us military ran prisoner of war camp in iraq
in 2004 pictures were leaked to the press showing the attrocities at abu ghraib. images of torture , bodies stacked on top of each other, murder and rape, in photos soldiers smiling with thumbs up.
64
why is abu ghraib seen as an issue for psychology to explain
the issue is that soliders would not normally behave like this in their everyday life and when they were asked why they behaved like this they replied because they were told to by higher ranking officers
65
how can agency theory explain abu ghraib
soldiers in agentic state
deffered responsibility after being given order to break down soldiers for interogation
surrendered free will
acting against concience
in denial- thumbs up
66
how can zimbardo explain abu ghraib
would argue the soldiers experienced deindividualisation and lost there personal identity.
gained collective identity of us military soldiers, behaved in a way they thought a soldier would
67
what is prejudice
a predisposed negative attitude towards others based on stereotypes
68
social identity theory ao1- social categorisation
place yourself in a social group based off of shared norms and values and characteristics
your group is in group and everybody else is the out group
69
social identity theory ao1- social identification
actively adopts the identity of the group
- behaviour eg accent
- appereance eg uniform
70
social identity theory ao1- in group conformity
we compare our group against other groups
well favour our group against other groups to preserve self esteem
eg by complementing our groups
71
social identity theory ao1- out group hostility
to maintain and boost our self esteem we need to make the out group look bad so we actively ridicule them
therefore resulting in prejudice
72
2 strengths of social identity theory
- supported by tajfel: 64 british school boys, found that boys would favour their group by giving them the most points and give others the least points
- practical apps: to reduce prejudice in education dont use sets
73
2 weaknesses of social identity theory
- other explanations: eg doesnt account for the degree of threat impacting prejudice, therefore group membership cannot be the sole reason for prejudice
- reductionlist: POTMES ET AL argued that individual characteristics determine social identity rather than social identity determines individual characteristics
74
social classic study
sherif et al
75
aim of sherif
to investigate what factors lead to groups to become hostile towards each other and how this hostility can be reduced. specifically to see whether the boys can be manipulated into conflict via competition and that this competition can be reduced by working together.
76
sherif sample
oppurtunity sample of 22 11 year old boys from Oklahoma
split into two groups: eagles and rattlers
parents payed to incentivise not to visit
77
sherif procedure
in group formation- kept seperate and engaged in team bonding eg swimming
frictional phase- tournament eg tug of war, winners got given a trophy. both groups were put in frustrating situations where they thought the other group were wrong, eg late to picninc beleived other group ate their food
integration phase- watvhed movies and dinner together. had to fix the water tank
78
sherif findings
in group formation- "us" and "them"
frictional phase- name calling of "sissy", burned each others flags, rattlers stole eagles trophy
integration phase- in dinner they had a food, each shared task led to reduced hostility, rattlers shared $5 they won to buy drinks for everyone
79
sherif conclusion
groups formed quickly with hierarchies and leaders
with each competition in group solidarity increased and so did out group hostility
presence of two groups without competition does not produce prejudice
hostility is reduced when the groups work towards a superordinate goal
80
2 strengths of sherif et al
ecological validity- summer camp was a familiar environment for the 22 11 year old boys
practical apps- found that competition is contributing factor to prejudice so competition should be reduced in society
81
2 weaknesses of sherif et al
population validity- all 11 year old boys from oklahoma
protection from harm- burnt the flags
82
RCT ao1- group formation
formation of an in group and an out group can lead to intergroup conflict between the two groups
83
RCT ao1- limited resouce
each group has its own interests and goals to achieve
however when the two groups are competing for a limited resource it causes inter group conflict
84
RCT ao1- real conflict
the real conflict results in in group solidarity and out group hostility
thus the competition results in each group becoming prejudiced towards each other
85
RCT ao1- superordinate goal
however to reduce a conflict you need a superordinate goal. neither groups can achieve it seperately but they achieve it together
this reduced hostility and prejudice
86
2 strengths of RCT
practical apps- treaty of versailles used to reduce conflict between uk and germany in ww2
supported by sherif- eagles and rattlers competed in tug of war to get a trophy which led to them calling each other sissy
87
2 weaknesses of RCT
too simplistic- struch and schwatz studied levels of intergroup hostility and prejudice among religious groups in israel, there was more prejudice from those who identified strongly with their religious groups
opposing evidenve- tyerman and spencer found that when scouts who already knew each other competed their was no prejudice, therefore competition only has a dramatic effect when they dont know each other
88
adorno explain prejudice
- authoritarian personality have rigid views
- will be prejudice to inferior
89
alazharani and kaplowitz explain prejudice
comparing collectivist (saudi) and individualistic (usa)
- collectivist more in group favouritism and out group derogotism, prejudice
90
katz and brady explain prejudice
most americans described african americans as ignorant and jews as shrewd, h/e this was in 1933
91
doty explain prejudice
when the usa were under threat they had higher f scale scores
92
two strengths of individual differences to explain culture
doty supports adorno
practical apps, screen for f scale and educate
93
two weaknesses of individual differences to explain culture
sherif opposes adorno- limited resources
reductionlist
94
define quantitative data
data can be counted or measured in numerical values and is objective, uses operationalised data
95
define qualitative data
data represents information that isnt represented by numbers, descriptive, can be converted to quantitativbe
96
what is a questionairre
a written self report technique where participants are given pre set written questions to respond to
97
what is an open question
no alternatives provided and ppants respond in any way that they'd like
98
what is a closed question
fixed answers which the respondent can choose from, limiting responses
liekert scales can be used
99
2 strengths of questionairres
large sample sizes
standardised
100
2 weaknesses of questionairres
biased sample- people who return
subjective interpretation
101
when would you conduct a wilcoxon
ordinal/interval
difference
matched pairs/repeated measures
significant if observed is less than critical
102
aim of my social practical
investigate in group favouritism by looking at ageism to see if young people have different attitudes towards different age groups, compare young peoples attitudes to people there age compared to older people
103
procedure of my social practical
oppurtunity sample of 15 16-18 y/o
wrote a questionairre investigatig young peoples attitudes towards young and old people
10 q : 8 closed (liekert) 2 open
standardised instructions on questionairre
debreif after
104
findings of my practical
mean attitude 12.06 to young, 12.4 to old
SD of 2.1: not spread
105
conclusion of practical
young people dont favour in group
106
2 strengths of practical
eco v
standardised
107
2 weakness of practical
pop v
researcher bias
108
