Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology Semester 1 > Social Psychology > Flashcards

Social Psychology Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
AP® Psychology flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards Psychology 101 flashcards
1
Q

Milgram’s aim was to study

A
  • obedience that is willingly assumed in the absence of threat of any sort, obedience that is maintained through the simple repetition by authority that it had the right to exercise control over the person
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Experimental set up:

A
  • Advertised about learning and memory
  • Created a scenario in the Laboratory
  • Allocated two roles of teacher and learner (participants are always learner)
  • Want to find out if people learn better with punishment when they make mistakes
  • Learner has to learn pairs of associated words. Two words that go together and remember them
  • Teacher punishes by electric shocks if wrong
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Experimental procedure:

A
  • Teacher helps strap learner into the chair

- Teacher gets a sample shock of 45v: to make it convincing and also trying to make it as realistic as possible

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

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Delivering the shocks

A
  • Ranged from 15-450
  • Graded reactions from ‘learner’: 75-105= minor grunt 120+ = “very painful”
  • Hesitated= Graded instructions to continue
  • No shocks were actually delivered
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Results

A
  • 62.5% continued to the highest level (450v)
  • Average maximum shock= 368 volts
  • 79% of those who go beyond 150v go all the way to 450v
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Variations (Psychological proximity of learner)

A

a) heavy pounding on wall
- only sound by learner in the other room

b) heard crying and shouting
- in the other room

c) in the same room
- can see their reaction when they receive shock
- see the pain

d) had to force hand onto shock plate
- can see the pain they are in
- can feel the resistance in their arm

  • If in the same room = less likely to shock to 450v
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Proximity of authority

A
  • One version they had the experimenter on the other end of the phone
  • No longer under direct surveillance of the authority figure
  • Obedience to go all the way to 450v dropped down to 21% (over the phone)
  • Often participants would lie to the experimenter and say they had given the shock when they hadn’t
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Location

A
  • Basement of the university = 65%

- Hotel = 48%

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

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Interpreting the results (are people just unpleasant)

A

i) free choice over shock
- only 2/40 exceeded 150v
- 28 never went beyond 75v

ii) a) experimenter calls a stop, learner says keep going
- you listen to the authority figure

b) when you arrive you and someone else are both the teacher then experimenter leaves
- you start talking and ‘fake’ teacher implies they shock after every mistake but only 20% do it all the way to 450v

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

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Observations

A
  • Not psychopaths (do not enjoy & show stress)
  • Many obeyed = unlikely to be due to personality characteristics
  • Suggested its to do with peoples understanding of the way they should behave in that situation
  • Shows people don’t just listen to anyone
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Explanation 1

A

Tempting to talk of ‘unthinking obedience’
absorbed with procedure:
- see self as unthinking extension of technical apparatus in which overlook own role/responsibility
- focused on the task that they become less aware of the shocks
Agentic state: agent of the experimenter

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

Milgram obedience to authority experiment

Explanation 2

A
  • Unthinking
  • Need to look at point of view of individual actor and their understanding of context: science role of social beliefs around authority
  • Perceptions of competence: Experimenters start arguing: reduces conformity
  • Norms of politeness
  • Gradual increments
  • Feeling of uncertainty: ask what would others do
  • If have rebel to model: maximal obedience reduced to 10%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Reicher, Hasiam & Smith (2012)

A
  • Argue Milgram’s results are not ‘unthinking obedience’

- It is active identification with the experimenter and his mission: “happy to help”

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

Reicher, Hasiam & Smith (2012): Variants

A
  • Took Milgram’s study and asked (contemporary) participants how much the variant emphasised identification with the experimenter and identification with the learner
  • Found this predicted Milgram’s original data
  • Help explain when you get obedience and when not
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Reicher, Hasiam & Smith (2012): ‘Engaged followership’

A
  • Behaviour depends on experimenter’s ability to convince participants they were contributing to a progressive enterprise
  • Implies willingness to preform unpleasant task depends on authority making these tasks seem virtuous rather than vicious
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

Milgram’s experiment: Ethics

A

Informed consent?
- when people were taken part in the experiment they were told all the details

Participants rights to withdraw compromised
- when people said they didn’t want to take part anymore the experimenter told them to continue

Anxiety/damage?

  • 80% said they were glad to have taken part
  • 1% were sorry they done the experiment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Slater et al (2006): Milgram’s experiment

A
  • Virtual reality
  • Learner ‘responded’ as a human
  • Measured teachers’ phycological reactions (e.g. akin conductance levels)
  • Even though teachers knew learner did not exist/ no shocks they showed signs that implied they say her as real
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Burger (2009): Milgram’s experiment

A
  • The 150v Juncture
  • Learner screams to stop, most pause
  • Burger argues that you can ethically replicate Milgram’s study up until 150v
  • Can predict how people would behave if they were asked to continue above 150v
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

Burger (2009): Replication of Milgram’s experiment: Key issues

A
  • Do you stop before 150v or not

- If you start to read the next set of numbers after 150v there is a good chance you’d carry on till 450v

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

Burger (2009): Milgram’s experiment replication results

A

Milgram

  • Stopped at/before 150v = 17.5%
  • Continued after 150v = 82.5%

Burger

  • Stopped at/before 150v = 30%
  • Continued after 150v = 70%
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

Burger (2009): Criticisms

A

Use of laboratory research

  • You as the experimenter have control over the environment (merit)
  • Easy generalise behaviour to another social context (limits)
  • Opportunities for non-laboratory research
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

Hofling et al (1966): set up

A
  • Hospital policy: written orders before drugs to be administered
  • ‘Dr Hanford’ phones ward to check for ‘Astroten’ (fake drug) in cabinet
  • Label: 5mg capsules, Usual does: 5mg Max daily: 10mg
  • Dr says give 20mg and will do the paper work later (against the rules)
23
Q

Hofling et al (1966): Asked nurses what they do in this situation

A
  • 21 out of 21 said they would refused
24
Q

Hofling et al (1966): results

A
  • 21 out of 22 prepared to give drug when this experiment was actually carried out
25
Q

Hofling et al (1966): results show

A
  • That you can do research in a field setting

- That what people say they will do and what they actually do can be very different

26
Q

Allport (1924): Groups

A
  • ‘Group’ is a convenient shorthand fiction
    > no such thing as a group (can’t touch it)
    > Did not deny people behave differently when close/proximal
  • Groups involve distinct processes
  • Drew from behaviourism:
    >i) different stimuli in the environment
    >ii) greater number of stimuli (more people)
27
Q

Social psychology

A
  • Only individual psychology applied to the more complex stimulus conditions of the social environment
28
Q

Allport’s focus

A
  • Individual attributes

- If we take care of the individuals, psychologically speaking, the groups will be found to take care of themselves

29
Q

Allport’s criticism

A
  • Misses the concept of social norm
    > socially shared ways of looking at the world
    > not reducible to individuals in groups
    > prescriptive (one ought to behave in a certain way)
    > Group processes involve conformity to social norm
    > Social influence relates to the processes whereby norms form, maintain, or change
30
Q

Sherif (1935)

A
  • Looked at how individuals judgements change due to exposure to others judgements
  • Looked at influence processes in term of conformity to norms
    > group norms emerge through interaction
    > Shared way of ordering the world
31
Q

Sherif (1935) experiment

A
  • Subjects to judge how far a light moved in a dark room (laboratory)
  • Used the ‘autokinetic’ effect = vison illusion
  • Far side of the room you’d see a dot
  • Told the participants that they will stare at the dot and after a while it will start move
32
Q

Sherif (1935) experiment conditions

A
  • 1) First judge movement alone, then later in groups
    > other people gradually came into the room (people just like you)
    > Asked the measurement on your own and then with others
    > Estimation of how far from a distance
  • 2) First in group, then alone
33
Q

Results

A
  • 1) First judge movement alone, then later as a group
    > initially, a personal norm around which their estimates were all different
    > In a group phase, conformed to a common position - a group norm (listen to others)

2) First in groups, then alone
> Developed a group norm which then persisted when they made their judgements alone
> wanted to see if people left the room would they change their mind

34
Q

Sherif’s conclusions

A
  • Judgement represent conformity to group norm
  • Product of information = shared
  • Provides framework for interpretation of reality
  • Unaware of being influenced
  • ‘Internalised
    > continued to use it and associated with group as a whole
  • In some studies they changed the members of group one at a time and found group norm continued
35
Q

Asch

A
  • Wanted to show that if objective reality was ascertainable nobody would submit to influence
  • Line judgement task
36
Q

Asch: Procedure

A
  • Come to a laboratory and sit and look at a series of lines (3)
  • Asked which line A,B,C matched comparison line X (it was very obvious) in the company of others
  • These others are in on the experiment
  • You give your judgement after others
  • Done 18 times
37
Q

Asch: Stooges to respond

A
  • On 6 trails the stooges gave the correct answer (the first 2 and 4 others throughout the session)
  • On 12 trials all gave the same and wrong answer
  • Subjects errors = measure of conformity
38
Q

Asch Results

A
  • Overall error rate (measure of influence) = 37% (swayed in judgement)
  • Not very subject made errors but only 25% didn’t make a mistake
  • 33% conformed on half or more
39
Q

Deutsh and Gerrard (1955): Dual Process Theory ( two process that people can be influenced)

A
  • From Sherif and Asch studies they came up with:
    > Informational influence
    > Normative influence
40
Q

Informational Influence

A
  • Occurred in Sherif’s study
  • Reflects need for information about reality
  • Need information you don’t have
  • Subjective uncertainty/ lack of confidence
  • Private acceptance
41
Q

Informational Influence - Subjective uncertainty

A
  • i) differently of directly testing reality leads to uncertainty
    ii) leads to dependence on others for valid information
    iii) conformity to others perceived to provide evidence about reality
42
Q

Informational Influence: Private acceptance

A
  • Accepts what others say and agree privately

- Views have been moulded when around others group norms even when you’re on your own ( like a police officer)

43
Q

Normative Influence

A
  • Occurred in Asch study
  • Mediated by desire to be liked and accepted
  • > individual ‘goes along’ to ‘get along’ (e.g. to avoid rejection)
  • Occurs when group has rewards
  • Public compliance (not private acceptance)
44
Q

Normative Influence: Group awards

A
  • i) the power of others to reward/punish creates need for approval and fear of being different
    ii) therefore, under conditions of surveillance
    iii) one will tend to comply with their expectations
45
Q

Contemporary research

Turner (1991)

A
  • Groups are important in self-definition
  • Identify with groups (football teams etc)
  • Trust fellow group members
  • Psychological connection
46
Q

Turner (1991): Referent informational influence

A
  • We expect to agree with fellow members
    > agreements lead to confidence
    > disagreements leads to uncertainty
47
Q

Contemporary Research

A
  • Explores how expectation to agree with other group members impacts our judgements
48
Q

Platow et al (2005) - Comedy

A
  • Watch comedy (in laboratory)
  • Hears others laugh
  • Impact on behaviour depends on if they are an in-group or out-group
  • If they are in-group you laughed/smiled more rather than if they were out-group
  • Expected to agree with in-group so their behaviour is more relevant to you
49
Q

In- group

A
  • You identify with
50
Q

Out- group

A
  • Don’t identify with
51
Q

Platow et al (2007) - Ice (procedure)

A
  • Science students held hand in icy water for as long as they could
  • Confederate posed as either a science or arts student who had done the experiment earlier
  • They told the participants that it was easy the second time
  • Then held hand in water for a second time and Galvanic skin response was measured (stress/arousal)
52
Q

Platow et al (2007) - Ice results

A
  • Reassurance from the in-group member showed less physical arousal than the first time
  • Out-group members reassurance showed no effect
53
Q

Platow et al (2007) - Ice results (why)

A
  • Expected to agree with in-group members (not out-group members)
  • Trust in-group members more

Psychology Semester 1 (7 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions