Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Year 12 Psychology > Social Psychology > Flashcards

Social Psychology Flashcards

1
Q

Claim of Agency theory

A

obedience is a result of individuals being in an agentic state, displacing responsibility

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Components of Agency theory

A

agentic state
autonomous state
agentic shift
moral strain

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Supporting evidence for agency theory

A

Milgram original study, ppts blamed authority for telling them to shock the learner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Opposing evidence for agency theory

A

doesn’t support individual differences and why some people don’t go through an agentic shift

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Different theory for agency theory

A

Social impact theory, explains how authority impacts individuals through strength, immediacy and number

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Application for agency theory

A

Explains Nazi Germany and Adolf Eichmann who claimed he was just following orders, blaming his authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Claim for social impact theory

A

the greater strength and number, and closer the immediacy, the more likely an individual is to obey

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

components of social impact theory

A

strength
immediacy
number

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

define strength

A

authority

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

define immediacy

A

distance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

define number

A

total number of sources and targets

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

supporting evidence for social impact theory

A

Hofling- 95% of nurses obeyed a doctor over the phone to give double the recommended drug to patient

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

opposing evidence for social impact theory

A

doesn’t explain individual differences and why some people aren’t affected as much by authority compared to others

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Different theory for social impact theory

A

Agency theory- explains the shift from autonomous to agentic state

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Application for social impact theory

A

more authority in larger gatherings to promote social control

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Aim of Milgram original

A

how far people would go in obeying an instruction from an authority figure if it involved harming someone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Procedure of Milgram original

A

volunteer sample

paid $4.50

sample between 20-50

from new haven area

confederate was always learner, real ppt was always teacher

15 volt increments, shocked every time got word pair wrong

given 4 verbal prods

315V leaner went silent

debrief at the end

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Results of Milgram original

A

65% went to 450V

3 had seizures

everyone went to 300V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Conclusion of Milgram original

A

ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by authority, even if it means killing someone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

Telephonic instructions aim

A

the effect of proximity to authority figure

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

telephonic instructions procedure

A

ppts given order to shock learner through telephone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

telephonic instructions results

A

22.5% went to 450V

many lied and said they shocked learner when they didn’t

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

telephonic instructions conclusion

A

the greater the distance, the less obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

rundown office block aim

A

investigate situational factors affecting obedience, the effect of the status of the environment

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

rundown office block procedure

A

procedure ran in rundown office block in Bridgeport rather than Yale

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

rundown office block results

A

48% ppts went to maximum 450v

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

run down office block conclusion

A

the lower the status of the environment, the less obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

ordinary man aim

A

to investigate situational factors affecting obedience, the affect of status/authority of the individual giving the orders

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

ordinary man procedure

A

experimenter is a confederate pretending to be ppt who was ‘randomly’ allocated the role through drawing straws

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

ordinary man results

A

20% ppts went to 450V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

ordinary man conclusion

A

the lesser the status, the less obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

what was Hofling’s study

A

doctor called 22 nurses to give more than recommended dosage to patient. 21/22 obeyed

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

what was Bickman’s study

A

confederate dressed in normal clothes, milkman uniform or security guard uniform. asked people to pick up litter. more obedience when dressed as guard

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

situational factors affecting obedience

A

status and authority

proximity

35
Q

individual differences affecting obedience

A

authoritarian personality

external locus of control

gender

36
Q

evidence that there is no gender difference in obedience

A

milgram found similar rates of obedience (66%/65%)

37
Q

evidence that there is a gender difference in obedience

A

Sheridan and king- puppy study- all 13 females shocked to full voltage. 7/13 shocked until end

38
Q

cultural factors affecting obedience

A

individualistic

collectivist

39
Q

define individualistic culture

A

behave independently and resist compliance. value needs of the individual over needs of the group

40
Q

define collectivist culture

A

behave as a collective group and value the needs of the group over the individual

41
Q

claim of social identity theory - Tajfel and Turner

A

prejudice is a result of formation of groups in society

42
Q

components of social identity theory

A

social categorisation

social identification

social comparison

43
Q

define social categorisation

A

seeing yourself as part of a group

44
Q

define social identification

A

overtly identifying with the group you are a part of

45
Q

define social comparison

A

comparing the in and out-group. we degrade the out-group to boost the in-group self-esteem

46
Q

supporting evidence for social identity theory

A

Jane Elliots blue/brown eyes- groups degraded each other and turned their eye colour into an insult

47
Q

opposing evidence for social identity theory

A

sherif robbers cave- the two groups of boys only showed prejudice after being introduced through competition e.g. tug of war

48
Q

different theory for social identity theory

A

realistic conflict theory- prejudice is a result of direct competition between groups

49
Q

application of social identity theory

A

to reduce prejudice, encourage intergroup contact and will let them get to know the out-group

50
Q

claim of realistic conflict theory

A

prejudice is a result of direct competition between groups in society

51
Q

components of realistic conflict theory

A

intergroup conflict

limited resources

superordinate goals

52
Q

define intergroup conflict

A

real conflict experienced between the groups lead to prejudice

53
Q

define limited resources

A

a real or perceived lack of resources that the groups compete for

54
Q

define superordinate goals

A

goals that can only be achieved by cooperation between groups reduces prejudice

55
Q

supporting evidence for RCT

A

sherif robbers cave- two groups fought for limited resource e.g. pocket knives

56
Q

opposing evidence for RCT

A

Jane Elliot- found that mere categorisation of groups caused prejudice

57
Q

different theory for RCT

A

social identity theory- categorisation is enough to cause prejudice

58
Q

application for RCT

A

explains why there is prejudice against immigrants- jobs are a limited resource

59
Q

aim of Jane Elliot

A

whether prejudice would occur as a result of dividing her students into different groups based on eye colour

60
Q

procedure of Jane Elliot

A

divided her class into blue and brown eyes. blue eyed group told they were superior and were allowed lunch break earlier and were allowed to use the water fountain. later in the week, the brown eyed were treated favourably.

61
Q

results of Jane Elliot

A

children degraded those in the other group, friendships were split

62
Q

conclusion of Jane Elliot

A

social categorisation can lead to prejudice and discrimination

63
Q

individual differences affecting prejudice

A

authoritarian personality- submissive to authority and harsh to those seen as lower status to them

64
Q

cultural factors affecting prejudice

A

collectivist culture

individualistic culture

65
Q

situational factors affecting prejudice

A

conflict- e.g. sherif robbers cave, competition such as baseball

66
Q

aim of sherif

A

whether superordinate goals and cooperation would lead to a reduction of prejudice amongst boys at a summer camp

67
Q

procedure of sherif

A

22 11 year old boys

from middle class protestant background in Oklahoma

parents paid $25 for Childs participation

stage 1- boys split into 2 groups and bonded by hiking and swimming. named themselves the Eagles and Rattlers

stage 2- two groups introduced through competitions e.g.tug- of war and baseball to win pocket knives and medals

stage 3- two groups brought together and completed joint activities such as meals. they completed goals such as fixing a water tank and a broken down camp bus

68
Q

results of sherif

A

stage 1- developed own group norms e.g. Eagles and Rattlers

stage 2- verbal and physical aggression e.g. name calling and burning a camp flag. only 7% intergroup friendships

stage 3- eating and watching films together isn’t enough to reduce hostility. cooperative activities reduced prejudice. 30% had intergroup friendships

69
Q

conclusion of sherif

A

introduction of superordinate goals that require cooperation between groups can reduce prejudice

70
Q

generalisability of sherif

A

small sample of only 22 11 year old boys

ppts all from same background, could be raised to be prejudice

71
Q

reliability of sherif

A

as its a field experiment there is limited control over extraneous variables

there was a 3 stage procedure meaning it can be replicated

72
Q

application of sherif

A

why there’s prejudice against immigrants as jobs are a limited resource

73
Q

validity of sherif

A

high ecological validity as procedure took place in a natural environment

the groupings in the experiment do not reflect everyday group behaviour as groups are normally based on interests

74
Q

ethics of sherif

A

boys subject to psychological and physical harm e.g. physical fights and name calling

75
Q

aim of burger

A

whether changes in society and culture influence obedience

76
Q

procedure of burger

A

volunteer sample

paid $50 for participation

took place in screening process and were taken out if they had knowledge of psychology

another screening process with 2 clinical psychologists investigating anxiety and depression

sample of 70 males and females

baseline- milgrams procedure

highest voltage 150v

took place at Santa Clara uni

modelled refusal condition- second confederate dropped out at 90v and real ppt asked to take their place

77
Q

result of burger

A

70% ppt shocked to full 150v in baseline

63.3% ppts shocked to full 150v modelled refusal

78
Q

conclusion of burger

A

changes in culture and society have not affected the likelihood that individuals will obey an authority figure

79
Q

generalisability of burger

A

large sample of 70 and had males and females, more generalisable

excluded those with prior knowledge of psychology which may limit the generalisability of results to wider population

80
Q

reliability of burger

A

standardised procedure e.g. verbal prods

extraneous variables controlled by lab experiment

81
Q

application of burger

A

used to explain Nazi Germany and the case of Adolf Eichmann who claimed he was ‘just following orders’

82
Q

validity of burger

A

lacks ecological validity as the tasks lack mundane realism and doesn’t reflect everyday obedience

ppts with knowledge of psychology removed so demand characteristics were counteracted

83
Q

ethics of burger

A

max voltage was 150v which isn’t enough to kill someone

had right to withdraw and were reminded of this, but the 4 verbal prods were still there

Year 12 Psychology (17 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions