Social Psychology Flashcards
Describe Milgram’s 1963 original study of obedience AIMS
Study into destructive obedience investigating if an ordinary person would obey orders from an authority figure to harm a stranger.
Describe Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience PROCEDURE
- Confederate (person being shocked) and participant drew straws to determine who the learner and teachers were (it was fixed though)
- experimenter wore a grey lab coat and gave instructions
- took place at Yale in 2 rooms with and electric shock generator (15V to 450V) and a room for the learner to sit
- teacher told by experimenter to administer a shock for every incorrect answer to questions (responses we’re pre set) but increase the voltage each time
- if teacher refused to administer shock experimenter read a script of prompts encouraging them to continue
Describe Milgram’s study of obedience 1963 SAMPLE
All American white males
Volunteer sample
Ages 20 - 50
Paid $4.50 for participation
Told that the study was a human learning experiment
Describe Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience RESULTS
- 65% of participants obeyed to 450V
- 14 stopped before 450V
- 100% obeyed to 30V
- participants showed signs of nervousness, swear, trembles and stutters
Describe Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience CONCLUSION
People will follow orders from authority figures to harm others
- some other factors may affect obedience (later researched in variations)
Describe the aim procedure and conclusions of Milgram’s ordinary man gives orders variation (ex 13)
Aim: does experimenters appearance affect obedience
Procedure: experimenter give basic instructions and then is ‘called away’ the ordinary man (who participants think was a normal man part of experiment) suggests first then insists that the voltage should be increased after any incorrect answers
Results: 20 didn’t obey the normal man but 4 went to max 450V
65% obedience decreased to 20%
Conclusion: The appearance of the person giving orders affects obedience to follow orders must perceive a legitimate authority figure
Describe the rundown office block variation of Milgram’s study (ex 7)
Aim: see if the image of the institution affects obedience
Procedure: location moved from Yale uni to an office building in city of Bridgeport same procedure as the original was followed but 3 rooms were used
Result: obedience decreased from 65% in original variation to 48%
Describe the telephonic instructions variation of Milgram’s study of obedience
experiment 10
Aim: see if proximity to the authority figure affects obedience
Procedure: vary distance between the participant and the experimenter to stop them forming a relationship. Instructions were first given by experimenter in person and then the rest were given over the phone
Results: obedience dropped to 22.5% some participants said to experimenter that they administered shocks but they didn’t
Conclusion: easy to disobey the orders from someone when they aren’t giving the orders face to face
Situational factor
How does proximity affect obedience?
Increased proximity between the person giving and receiving orders increases dissent
Evidence:
Telephonic instructions variation
Situational variables
How do cues of legitimate authority affect obedience?
Both the setting where obedience should occur and the clothing/ appearance of person giving orders affect obedience.
Evidence:
Rundown office block (ex10)
Bickman (1974)
Situational variables
How does title and status affect obedience?
Hofling 1996
Hoffman (1996)
AIM: more realistic study field study into obedience in the hospital
METHOD: 22 real nurses and a fake Dr Smith, he calls nurses and follows a script asking nurse to prescribe a 20mg dose of drug astrofen (max dose is 10mg) to patient ‘Mr Jones’. If nurses obeyed they’d be breaking the rules by accepting orders over the phone giving double than max dose and giving and unauthorised medicine
Results: 95% obeyed
Conclusion: people are very unwilling to question authority
Bickman (1974)
aim, method, results, conclusion
AIM: field experiment in New York to see if uniforms affect obedience
METHOD: 3 actors dressed in either normal clothes, as a milkman or as a security guards. The actors asked passers by to do things for them like pick up a bag off the street
RESULTS: people were most likely to obey the security guard and least likely to obey the normal clothes actor
CONCLUSION: appearance and perception of a legitimate authority figure makes people more likely to obey orders
What was the AIM of Burger (2009)?
replicate the findings of Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience in an ethical way, test findings and make comparisons
What was the PROCEDURE of Burger (2009)?
- participants were split into two condtions, the experimenter was a white man mid 30s and the confederate was a white man mid 50s
- experimenter followed a script and participants were told it was a study into the effect of punishment on learning
- signed consent form (could keep their payment of $50 if they withdrew)
- participants drew fixed lots w confederate to decide who was teacher and who was learner (this was fixed)
- there was a chair, table and intercom box as the confederate was being strapped in to the chair they mention that they have a heart issue
- wrong answer = electric shock (wrong answers pre decided) shocks only went up to 150V
- prerecorded sounds played for the confederate (learner) responses to different shocks, e.g. 75V small grunt, 150V loud ‘get out’
What were the FINDINGS of Burger (2009)?
- 70% went to carry on after 150V
- little difference between genders
- in modelled refusal (where another ‘teacher’ starts experiment and refuses to give shocks at 90V the participant is then told to continue it) 63.3% carried on
What was the SAMPLE of Burger (2009)?
29 men and 41 women aged 20 to 81 who replied to an add
- screened out anyone who was familiar with Milgram’s work or psychology or anyone who would react negatively
- 70 participants total paid $50 for 2 45 min sessions
What were the CONCLUSIONS of Burger (2009)?
found similar results to Milgram, there might be personality factors in obedience but he can’t clearly say what they are.
- screening process may have affected the results
- 1 person refusing didn’t mean that another person would, power of the situation on obedience
- even though participants went to 150V couldn’t assume they would go to 450V.
Explain Milgram’s agency theory
- what is it
- evidence to support it
- strengths and weaknesses
moral strain from order given motivates person to move to an agentic state so they displace responsibility.
autonomous state is when a person acting of their own will and taking responsibility for their actions
- evidence = Milgram’s 65% obedience due to agentic state, ordinary man gives orders and Hofling 1996
S - takes into account situational variables- explains historical things like holocaust
W - doesn’t take into account individual differences - difficult to measure
- explains historical things like holocaust
Explain social impact theory (Latane 1981)
- what is it
- evidence to support it
- strengths and weaknesses
strength = power of authority, cues of legitimate authority immediacy = proximity to authority figure, recency number = no. of sources to targets, sources of impact i = f(SIN)
- evidence =Hofling (1996) and Bickman (1974), Milgram(1963), disobedient confederate variation
S - mathematical equation
- alot of evidence to support
W - doesn’t take into account of individual differences
- reductionist
What is authoritarian personality theory?
how does personality affect obedience
Adorno (1950) suggested that an high authoritarian personality (measured using the f scale) is associated with high levels of obedience.
Elms and Milgram (1966) tested this, split ppts into a defiant and obedient group and measured their level of authoritarian personality using the f scale
- people who administer more shocks = higher authoritarian personality
personality slightly affects obedience but doesn’t take in into account how individuals may be different
How does gender affect obedience?
Suggested that gender affects obedience due to societal stereotypes that women are more gentle and obedient than men
Milgram found that there was no gender difference in the number of people that obey instructions in his original study (still 65%)
Burger 2009 found no gender differences in his replication of Milgram’s 1963 study into obedience
Kilham and Mann = found that obedience was higher in men 40% compared to women where 16% administered shocks but this comparison to milgram can be critisiced due to procedural difference
Blass (1991) = meta analysis found no gender differences in obedience
What is social identity theory ?
Tajfel and Turner (1979)
suggests that our social identity is who we are and it is based on the groups that we identify with.
in group favouritism occurs due to group membership and this can lead to discrimination
What are the stages in social identity theory?
SOCIAL CATEGORISATION
- an individual sees themselves as part of a group
SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION
- the individual identifies with the group and takes on more of the group behaviour and norms
SOCIAL COMPARISON
- the individuals self concept is wrapped up with how they view they in group, to maintain their self esteem they view the in group to be superior (in group favouritism)
IN GROUP FAVOURITISM can lead to prejudice and discrimination
What evidence is there to support social identity theory ?
TAJFEL ET AL (1971)
- minimal group study + klee and kandinsky boys favoured in group when allocating money to members of their in group and members of the out group
LEVINE ET AL (2005)
- natural experiment to see if football fans would help a person wearing their rival teams shirt when they fell more than they would help someone wearing their team shirt
Man U and Liverpool
What are the aims of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?
- test the theory that prejudice and discrimination can occur between groups without any history of competition
- generate a situation where group members act in relation to other groups
What is the procedure of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?
group allocation based on dots
PPTS = 64 boys, 14-15 years old from Bristol split into 8 seperate groups of 8 all boys knew eachother
- establish in group categorisation + formation stages
- had to judge the number of dots that were flashed onto a screen in a lecture hall
- record their estimate on a score sheet
- boys where then told that they were divided into groups based on if they were overestimators or underestimators
( they were really randomly allocated) - boys used matrices to allocate money to members of in group and out group
What is the procedure of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?
group allocation based on painting preference
PPTS = 48 boys split into 3 seperate groups all boys knew eachother
- establish in group categorisation + formation stages
- boys were shown 6 Klee paintings and 6 Kandinsky and they had to express their preference
- boys where then told that they were divided into groups based on if their painting preference
- boys used matrices to allocate money to members of in group and out group
- maximum joint profit = largest reward to both groups
- maximum difference in profit
What were the findings of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?
group allocation based on dots
- in group/ out group decisions = 9/14
gave more money to their own in group
in group favouritism
What were the findings of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?
group allocation based on painting preference
- maximum joint profit didn’t guide choices
- boys chose maximum profit for their in group over it (gave more to their in group)
What were the conclusions of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?
- out group discrimination is present and easily triggered only need an in group and out group
- no need for conflict to cause prejudice
- act according to social norms so in favour of the in group
- teams in schools may not be a good idea
What is realistic conflict theory?
Sherif (1966)
suggests hostility between two groups of equal status occurs due to competition over a scarce resource which causes inter-group conflict leading to prejudice
What is prejudice
- negative beliefs and attitudes to an out group
Give examples of a scarce resource?
- jobs
- territory
- food
- water
What is a superordinate goal?
where 2 groups work together towards a mutually beneficial goal
What evidence is their to support realistic conflict theory?
Sherif et al. (1954/61)
- robbers cave experiment (classic study)
Dollard (1938)
- prejudice against German immigrants in a town increased as jobs grew scarce
What are the aims of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?
CLASSIC STUDY
- produce groups norms and measure their effects on the perceptions and judgements of those involved
- inter group conflict and cooperation
What is the procedure of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?
CLASSIC STUDY
location = robbers cave national park (summer camp)
STAGE 1 = form two groups and set up group norms and hierarchies (form in groups)
STAGE 2 = 2 groups introduced via competition tournament (tug of war) to see if it led to friction
picnic situation where the other group got there first and ate all the food
STAGE 3 = superordinate goals introduced ( broken water pipe) groups have to work together and see if it leads to reduction of friction
Who are the participants of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?
CLASSIC STUDY
22 boys protestant families 11 years old screened to eliminate difficulties matching process based on IQ and sport split into 2 groups
How was data collected in Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?
CLASSIC STUDY
observation =each group observed for 12 hours a day
sociometric analysis = note the friendship patterns
experiment = collect beans and estimate
tape recordings = ask boys to use adjectives and phrases to describe their own group and out group
What are the findings of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?
CLASSIC STUDY
STAGE 1 = both groups named themselves ( eagles and rattlers) both had a recognised leader and there was existence of out group hostility, groups developed similarly
STAGE 2 == rattlers more excited to compete, eagles changed their leader
1st contact = some name calling, burning each others flags negative attitudes to out group members
STAGE 3 = hostility remained, first they stayed in the their own groups but reduced friction from superordinate goal increased cooperation and friendships changed
What are the conclusions of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?
CLASSIC STUDY
- matched participants ruled out individual differences
- groups developed hierarchies and group norms
- leadership structure formed
- leader follower relations, in group formed
- strong inter-group hostility
- contact between groups isn’t enough to reduce hostility must introduce superordinate goal
How does personality affect prejudice?
Adorno, increased anger and hatred towards parents is displaced onto to others in the form of prejudice
COHRS ET AL. 2012 - high openess = less prejudice - low agreeableness = high prejudice - RWA (right wing authoritarianism) = correlates w prejudice -
How does culture affect prejudice?
SIT AND RCT and ideological attiutdes tend to account for prejudice across all cultures
multiculturalism = pro diversity assimilation = against diversity adopt to group norms
GUIMOND ET AL. 2013 = cultural norms affect society
