Social Psychology

Question 1

Describe Milgram’s 1963 original study of obedience AIMS

Answer 1

Study into destructive obedience investigating if an ordinary person would obey orders from an authority figure to harm a stranger.

Question 2

Describe Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience PROCEDURE

Answer 2

• 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

Question 3

Describe Milgram’s study of obedience 1963 SAMPLE

Answer 3

All American white males

Volunteer sample

Ages 20 - 50

Paid $4.50 for participation

Told that the study was a human learning experiment

Question 4

Describe Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience RESULTS

Answer 4

• 65% of participants obeyed to 450V
• 14 stopped before 450V
• 100% obeyed to 30V
• participants showed signs of nervousness, swear, trembles and stutters

Question 5

Describe Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience CONCLUSION

Answer 5

People will follow orders from authority figures to harm others

• some other factors may affect obedience (later researched in variations)

Question 6

Describe the aim procedure and conclusions of Milgram’s ordinary man gives orders variation (ex 13)

Answer 6

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

Question 7

Describe the rundown office block variation of Milgram’s study (ex 7)

Answer 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%

Question 8

Describe the telephonic instructions variation of Milgram’s study of obedience

experiment 10

Answer 8

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

Question 9

Situational factor

How does proximity affect obedience?

Answer 9

Increased proximity between the person giving and receiving orders increases dissent

Evidence:

Telephonic instructions variation

Question 10

Situational variables

How do cues of legitimate authority affect obedience?

Answer 10

Both the setting where obedience should occur and the clothing/ appearance of person giving orders affect obedience.

Evidence:

Rundown office block (ex10)

Bickman (1974)

Question 11

Situational variables

How does title and status affect obedience?

Hofling 1996

Answer 11

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

Question 12

Bickman (1974)

aim, method, results, conclusion

Answer 12

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

Question 13

What was the AIM of Burger (2009)?

Answer 13

replicate the findings of Milgram’s 1963 study of obedience in an ethical way, test findings and make comparisons

Question 14

What was the PROCEDURE of Burger (2009)?

Answer 14

• 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’

Question 15

What were the FINDINGS of Burger (2009)?

Answer 15

• 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

Question 16

What was the SAMPLE of Burger (2009)?

Answer 16

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

Question 17

What were the CONCLUSIONS of Burger (2009)?

Answer 17

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.

Question 18

Explain Milgram’s agency theory

• what is it
• evidence to support it
• strengths and weaknesses

Answer 18

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

Question 19

Explain social impact theory (Latane 1981)

• what is it
• evidence to support it
• strengths and weaknesses

Answer 19

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

Question 20

What is authoritarian personality theory?

how does personality affect obedience

Answer 20

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

Question 21

How does gender affect obedience?

Answer 21

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

Question 22

What is social identity theory ?

Tajfel and Turner (1979)

Answer 22

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

Question 23

What are the stages in social identity theory?

Answer 23

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

Question 24

What evidence is there to support social identity theory ?

Answer 24

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

Question 25

What are the aims of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?

Answer 25

• 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

Question 26

What is the procedure of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?

group allocation based on dots

Answer 26

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

Question 27

What is the procedure of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?

group allocation based on painting preference

Answer 27

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

Question 28

What were the findings of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?

group allocation based on dots

Answer 28

• in group/ out group decisions = 9/14
  gave more money to their own in group
  in group favouritism

Question 29

What were the findings of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?

group allocation based on painting preference

Answer 29

• maximum joint profit didn’t guide choices

- boys chose maximum profit for their in group over it (gave more to their in group)

Question 30

What were the conclusions of Tajfel et al. (1970/71) minimal groups studies?

Answer 30

• 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

Question 31

What is realistic conflict theory?

Sherif (1966)

Answer 31

suggests hostility between two groups of equal status occurs due to competition over a scarce resource which causes inter-group conflict leading to prejudice

Question 32

What is prejudice

Answer 32

• negative beliefs and attitudes to an out group

Question 33

Give examples of a scarce resource?

Answer 33

• jobs
• territory
• food
• water

Question 34

What is a superordinate goal?

Answer 34

where 2 groups work together towards a mutually beneficial goal

Question 35

What evidence is their to support realistic conflict theory?

Answer 35

Sherif et al. (1954/61)
- robbers cave experiment (classic study)

Dollard (1938)
- prejudice against German immigrants in a town increased as jobs grew scarce

Question 36

What are the aims of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?

CLASSIC STUDY

Answer 36

• produce groups norms and measure their effects on the perceptions and judgements of those involved
• inter group conflict and cooperation

Question 37

What is the procedure of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?

CLASSIC STUDY

Answer 37

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

Question 38

Who are the participants of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?

CLASSIC STUDY

Answer 38

22 boys
protestant families
11 years old
screened to eliminate difficulties 
matching process based on IQ and sport
split into 2 groups

Question 39

How was data collected in Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?

CLASSIC STUDY

Answer 39

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

Question 40

What are the findings of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?

CLASSIC STUDY

Answer 40

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

Question 41

What are the conclusions of Sherif et al. (1954/61) robbers cave experiment?

CLASSIC STUDY

Answer 41

• 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

Question 42

How does personality affect prejudice?

Answer 42

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
-

Question 43

How does culture affect prejudice?

Answer 43

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