Social Psychology

Question 1

What did Deutsch and Gerard suggest

Answer 1

Dual process explanation
Informational and normative social influence

Question 2

What was Sherif’s autokinetic effect study

Answer 2

Dot of light projected on screen appeared to move but doesn’t actually
1- indiv guess how far it moved
2- group guess how far
3- indiv guess again (guesses on avg moved closer to group guess)

Question 3

Situational Conditions in Milgram’s study

Answer 3

Lego people touch remote uniforms
location proximity touch remote uniform

Question 4

Rank and Jacobson’s study
Limitation of leg authority

Answer 4

Phoned nurses as a doctor using a real name of known drug
able to consult each other before, role of social support
16/18 nurses disobeyed.
- limitation of legit authority

Question 5

What was Hofling’s study
Link to rank + jacobson study
limitation of leg authority
r+j lmitation alone

Answer 5

fake doctor name - call nurses said administer above recommended dose
21/22 nurses obeyed
> limitation of legitimacy of authority - more nurses obeyed fake doctor name than real in rank + jacobson study (2/18) H - able to confer in r+j
BUT nurses may have thought it was just a doctor they didnt know

Question 6

What is Normative social influence

Answer 6

Desire to be liked
Conform due to need to be liked/ belong to group
Privately disagree

Question 7

What is Informational social influence

Answer 7

Occurs in ambiguous situation - don’t know what else to do so conform
Desire to do right - majority view likely correct and allow to fit in - assume ppl know more

Question 9

3 factors important to conformity (Asch)

Answer 9

Group size - curvilinear rel, 1 confed 5% conform, 3 confed 30% conform
Unanimity - dissenter cause pp to behave independently, conform fell by 75% when not unanimous group
Task difficulty - more difficult conformity increase, ambiguous (information SI)

Question 10

Limitations and support of Asch research study

Answer 10

• Artificial task, overt, demand characteristics, trivial, no reason to conform, lack ext val
• Pps American male, low population validity, other research suggests women conform more, culture Smith and Bond
• Task difficulty support : Lucas maths task, COUNTER - conformity more complex, low confidence conformed more, indiv diffs
• Ethics, deceive naive pps w confeds and told was test of perception H - little harm on pps

Question 11

Types of conformity, Kelman

Answer 11

Internalisation - change priv+pub beh, permanent
Identification - value aspect of group idntify w it, pub change opinions to be accepted
Compliance - go along in public not change priv opinion, gain social approval

Question 12

Explanations for conformity , Deutsch and Gerald

Answer 12

Dual-process theory: to be liked or right
1 - Informational SI : Who has better info, ambiguous, cognitive > internalisation
2 - Normative SI : gain social approval, emotional > compliance

Question 13

Research support NSI and ISI

Answer 13

NSI: interview Pps Asch> conformed afraid of disapproval - priv answer, conform fell to 12.5% no group pressure > desire not to be rejected
ISI: Lucas, maths task, pps conformed ambiguous situation, easy question less conform as less ambiguous
COUNTER - NSI or ISI in situations e.g dissenter in Asch > reduce NSI less social pressure or reduce ISI other social info, operate together
ISI : Jenness beans in jar, priv , group + Sherif autokinetic study

Question 14

Indiv diffs effect conformity NSI

Answer 14

nAfilliators need affiliation (to be connected) more likely to conform NSI
situational pressures not fully explain

Question 15

Milgram research procedure

Answer 15

40 US males volunteers, paid $4.50
controlled obs pp teacher, couldn’t see learner, gave shock when learner gave wrong answer, increments of 15v to 450v

Question 16

Milgram research findings/ affects on pps

Answer 16

All pps 300v, 65% 450v
pps experienced ‘sweat’ ‘tremble’ and 3 had ‘uncontrollable seizures’
follow up questionnaire 84% glad participated
conclude : germans not diff to americans in obedience

Question 17

Zimbardo stanford prison experiment procedure

Answer 17

mock prison setting, 21 male students, random assign to prisoner or guard
prisoners: wore caps cover hair, numbers no names, apply for parole to leave
guards : wooden club, handcuffs, reminded of power
de-individuation

Question 18

Zimbardo findings

Answer 18

Guards harsh, prisoners rebelled in 2 days, harrassed prisoners + used extinguisher
Prisoners psych health fell ‘8612’ released
one prisoner hunger strike, guards force fed
Ended after 6 days meant to be 14
> Social roles strong influence on beh

Question 19

Evaluation of Zimbardo experiment

Answer 19

+ control, select pps H - lack population val
- lack realism ‘cool hand luke’ > COUNTER - 90% convos about prison life, 416 believed was real
- Zimbardo exagg power of social roles on beh emphasising brutality, but 1/3 guards fair, 1/3 help prisoners (personality/ dispositional factors)
- Social identity theory alternative exp - idntify w role to act brutal explains why 1/3 brutal

Question 20

Low internal validity, documentary, Sheridan and King ,SIT, Ethics

Evaluation of Milgrams research

Answer 20

+ french doc rep findings, thought contestants of pilot episode TV show 80% 460v
- Play acting pps, low internal validity, Perry: tapes of pps, 1/2 believed shocks real 2/3 of these disobedient - demand char
- COUNTER - Sheridan + King puppies: 54% male, 100% female gave fatal shock real shocks H - shows gender diffs milgram ignored
- Social identity theory : pps identified w aims of study, disobeyed when prod not rel to aims (blind obedience)
- Ethics : deceived + seizures H - used debrief

Question 21

Situational variables of Milgram’s experiment

Answer 21

From 65%
Location : run down office 47.5%
Proximity, Same room : 40%
Touch proximity : 30%
Remote : 20.5%
Uniform : everyday clothes 20%

Question 22

Research support for situational variables, Bickman

Answer 22

Field exp - oufits in street: jacket + tie, milkman, security guard
Asked public to perfrom tasks e.g pick up litter
2x likely obey security than jacket + tie > effect of uniform

Question 23

Cross cultural replication of Milgrams exp - obedience

Answer 23

Dutch pps 90% pps obeyed : say stressful things to unknown confed who wants job
proximity : experimenter diff room obedience fell
> generalisable
COUNTER - not cross cultural : only 2 non-western replications - western similar notions abt role of authority

Question 24

Low internal validity of Milgram exp

Answer 24

pps aware was faked, especially in variations (manipulate variables) e.g member of public - response due to obedience or demand characteristics

Question 25

Dangers of situational perspective to obedience

Answer 25

Offers excuse for evil beh offensive to holocaust survivors also, milgram ignored dispositional factors

Question 26

# Agentic state Situational explanation to obedience

Answer 26

Agentic state : person not take responsibility for actions, acts as 'agent' for someone else, experience 'moral strain' and powerless to disobey

Question 27

Explain the agentic shift

Answer 27

From autonomous state (independent, beh according to own principles + responsible) to agency (perceive other as authority figure - hierarchy in society)

Question 28

What are binding factors when acting as an agent

Answer 28

aspects of situation allow person to ignore/ minimise damage of beh e.g. shift blame to experimenter in Milgram study

Question 29

What is legitimacy of authority (situational exp to obedience) and how can it become bad

Answer 29

social structure hierarchy > ppl in certain positions hold legitimate authority as is agreed by society - grants them power to punish (destructive authority) e.g prods in Milgram's study cause pps to behave against consciences

Question 30

Research support agentic state Milgram study

Answer 30

Milgram study : when experimenter claimed responsibility, pp went through more often, pps perceived no longer responsible, act as 'agent' to experimenter

Question 31

Agentic state as a limited explanation - study against

Answer 31

Not explain some findings : Rank + Jacobson - 16/18 nurses disobeyed to give excess drug - doctor authority figure but nurses remained autonomous > agentic shift only account some situations

Question 32

German reserve police battalion, Mandel limitation of agentic shift

Answer 32

Men shot civilians without direct order (beh autonomous), not engage in agentic shift due to legitimate authority Factor beyond leg auth contributed to their actions Leg auth not exp all situations of obedience (obedient to expectations not actual orders)

Question 33

Blass and Schmitt support leg authority

Answer 33

- showed clip of milgram study to students > blamed experimenter, leg authority

Question 34

Legitimacy of authority explain cultural differences

Answer 34

16% Female Aus, 85% german pps 450v due to diff structures leg authority accepted at diff levels

Question 35

Leg authority not explain disobedience when clear authority figure

Answer 35

rank + jacobson some pps in milgrams disobeyed despite recognising experimenter authority > innate tendencies / dispositional factors e.g personality ignored > more/less obedient pps

Question 36

Real world crime of obedience support leg authority comp to artificial study

Answer 36

My Lai Massacre > US army clear hierarchy, Rank + jacobson artificial experiment

Question 37

Dispositional explanation to obedience

Answer 37

Adorno - authoritarian personality : respect + submissive to authority, rigid opinions view society as weaker > likely to obey

Question 38

Origins of authoritarian personality

Answer 38

dev in childhood, harash parenting, conditional love, child fears punishment so displaces hostility feelings to others perceived as weaker (scpaegoating)

Question 39

Adorno's research

Answer 39

2000 US, studied unconscious attitudes towards racial groups ; F scale measure authoritarian personality, found Authoritarians conscious of status + respect it correlation : authoritarianism + prejudice

Question 40

Elms and Milgram support F scale, authoritarian personality obedience

Answer 40

Fully obedient pps from Milgram study, scored higher than comparison 20 disobedient, link authoritarianism + obedience COUNTER - obedient pps had unexpected characteristics of authoritarians - no unusal levels punishment - link complex, unlikely predictor

Question 41

Authoritarian personality limited explanation

Answer 41

Cannot exp ob beh in majority of country pop - pre war Germany - anti-Semitic, racist obedient - not all ppl authoritarian diff personalities - SIT better expl, identify w anti semitic state, realistic

Question 42

Flawed evidence from F scale

Answer 42

Response bias , select agree to be authoritarian - demand characteristics. Putting answers they think researcher wants

Question 43

What factors of social support cause people to resist conformity and be disobedient

Answer 43

Unanimity is important, if others don't conform, pressure to conform decreases e.g Asch - not conform act as model Milgram: 65-10% when disobedient confed joined, challenge legitimacy of authority

Question 44

Types of Locus of control and effects of social support/ resistance

Answer 44

Rotter: continuum Internal- control action external- outside of their control High internal more likely to resist as base decisions off own beliefs

Question 45

Real world research positive effects of social support

Answer 45

'teen fresh start USA' prgenant teens to stop smoking resist peer pressure, has buddy (mentor) provided social support > less likely to smoke

Question 46

Evidence that dissenting peers support resisting obedience

Answer 46

PPs told to help oil company run smear campaign pps could discuss, higher levels resistance than Milgrams, no discussion ~(social support) 88% disobedient - peer suppport vause disobedience

Question 47

Replication of Asch style study by Allen + Levine

Answer 47

Dissenter had good eyesight, 64% pps refused to conform no dissenter, 3% pps resisted unanimity related to conformity

Question 48

Research support LOC link to resist obedience

Answer 48

Holland repeated Milgrams exp. and measured pps internal and external LOC More internal resist highest shock than external

Question 49

Twenge contradictory findings link between LOC and resistance AND - Rotter - depends on situation for LOC

Answer 49

over 40yr period pps became more resistant but more external in beliefs. Rotter - LOC not important factor, LOC affects beh in only new situations, if experienced situation before do same thing as before regardless of LOC

Question 50

What is minority influence and three main processes

Answer 50

small group influence beh, lead to internalisation 1 - consistency : **synchronic** = all say same thing, **diachronic** = say same thing over time 2 - commitment : extreme activities draw attention, augmentation principle - majority value cause 3 - Flexibility : not rigid, adapt snowball effect, minority becomes majority **Social cryptoamnesia** - ppl forget how change occurred

Question 51

Moscovici support importance of consistency in minorities + wood support

Answer 51

blue/green slide study group 1 confeds consistent said green, more pps agreed than in inconsistent confed group Wood: meta analysis 100 similar studies found consistent minority most influential

Question 52

Research support Minority influence involves deeper processing

Answer 52

Martin : group 1 heard minority view, group 2 heard majority view, both groups exposed to opposing view, group 1 less willing to change opinions > deeply processed + enduring effect COUNTER - real world majority/minority diff -power/commitment - in studies minority simply smaller group

Question 53

Artificial tasks in minority influence studies

Answer 53

Moscovici's slides not important compared to real world e.g jury decision, less motivated give correct answer, lack ext val

Question 54

Minority influence not actually powerful, figure for consistent minority Moscovici

Answer 54

8% agreement consistent minority - rare + not significant found more likely to agree when wrote answers privately > not cause internalisation

Question 55

Example of social change from minority influence

Answer 55

African-american civil rights movement 1950/60, marches, augmentation principle rosa parks, snowball effect martin luther king attention of gov