Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

Psychology > Social Psychology Questions > Flashcards

Social Psychology Questions Flashcards

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

Define agentic state.

A

When a person follows the orders of an authority figure. (1)

They may experience moral strain if it goes against their conscience. (1)

Or

Acting as an agent for another (1) /
Give up their free will (1) / they see themselves as agents of another (1)

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

State a reason why a person would disobey the order of an authority figure using agency theory.

A

• willing to accept the consequences (autonomous state)

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

State a reason why a person would obey the order of an authority figure using social impact theory.

A
  • distance of authority figure
  • status (high/low) amount of authority
  • momentum of compliance (starting with small tasks)
  • personal responsibility (giving responsibility to someone else)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Explain one individual difference that may impact obedience

A
  • authoritarian personality (more obedient)
  • locus of control (external= obedient, internal = dissent)
  • empathy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Identify 1 variation study of Milgram.

A
  • experiment 13 ordinary man gives orders
  • experiment 7 telephonic instructions
  • experiment 10 rundown office block
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

State the aim of one variation study of milgram.

A
  • experiment 7: to see if distance has an impact in authority and compare the impact of this on obedience levels
  • experiment 10: to see if the environment can have an impact on obedience
  • experiment 13: to find out and compare the difference in obedience when given instructions from an ordinary man rather than authority
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Evaluate the contemporary study in social psychology.

A

Burger 2009:

  • replication of milgram
  • giving shocks to an innocent

+ ethics: debriefing, right to withdraw, minimum stress, consent, deception was needed, 45vt sample (less than milgram)

+ reliability: standardized procedure

  • ecological validity: laboratory setting
  • generalizability: not applicable to other cultures
  • lacks mundane realism: not something done in everyday life (electrocution)

• got similar results as milgram

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

State one aim of the study by Sherif et al. 1954-1961

A
  • To investigate whether in-group and out-group conflict can be produced in groups with no prior relationships
  • investigate intergroup relations over a period of time with experimentally induced situations introduced
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Describe the procedure of Sherif et al.’s experiment.

A
  • 3 stages
    1. in-group cooperation task: create the in-groups through activities designed for in-group formation
    1. Groups brought together to compete: groups brought in contact during competitions and orchestrated situations to trigger frustration
    1. Superordinate goals introduced to reduce in-group hostility: conflict resolution trough superordinate goals to ensure cooperation between groups. Example: fixing water tank, manage food and sleeping gear, starting a broken-down camp bus
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Describe the participants of the study carried out by Sherif et al. 1954-1961.

A
  • 22 boys
  • 11 years old (one 12 year old)
  • normally adjusted
  • middle class
  • protestant families
  • schools in Oklahoma
  • 22 out of 200 kids selected
  • boys not previously acquainted
  • parents got fee of 25$ for them NOT to visit
  • divided into 2 groups of 11 boys according to educational and athletic ability
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What where the results concluded in the study Robbers Cave Experiment by Sherif et al. 1954-1961.

A
  • strong in-group indentities formed
  • negative out-group bias through competition
  • reduction of hostility through superordinate goals
  • research supports realistic conflict theory that prejudice could be brought through competition of sources
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Describe the 3 different stage results in Robbers Cave Experiment by Sherif et al. 1954-1961

A

Stage 1:
• formed own norms and rules (Group Identity)
• name for each (Rattlers and Eagles)

Stage 2:
• sings of hostility
• became territorial
• fighting, name calling, aggressive behavior
• in-group favoritism + negative out-group bias
• self report their friends = 93% in-group

Stage 3:
• no name calling
• boys mingling
• reduction in hostility
• harmony did not persist
• reassessed friend choice = increased out-group friendships
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Explain a strength of the study by Sherif et al. 1954-1961

A

• validity: the study has high ecological validity as it is representative of a real-life situation (1) he used a boy scout camp in America, realistic for the boys in the study (1)

  • natural environment
  • natural behavior
  • reliability: high level of control + careful planning
  • staff only permitted to intervene if risk to safety
  • validity: boys were unaware of the experiment
  • supporting evidence: supports social identity theory (competition is not necessary to create prejudice)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Explain one weakness of the study by Sherif et al. 1954-1961

A
  • generalizability: low because of age, social stand, education, culture, gender
  • ethics: introduced aggression (burned flag)
  • validity: boys were aware of the study - demand characteristics
  • validity: boys were naturally competitive
  • ethics: encouraging intergroup conflict + hostility
  • ethics: encouraging physical conflict

• decreased influence of individual differences

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

State the Ethical issues in Robbers Cave Experiment.

A

Weaknesses:
• no consent from boys
• deliberately induced prejudice
• placed in dangerous situations

Strengths:
• consent from parents

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

Explain how gender may impact obedience.

A

Gender does not impact obedience (1) Milgram found out, there is no difference in the levels of obedience between males and females (1)

17
Q

Evaluate social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice.

A
  • social identity theory explains prejudice as a result of in-groups and out-groups
  • social categorisation where they decide which group they belong to
  • social comparison is perceiving the in-group as better than the out-group
  • social identification when the individual behaves in accordance with the norms and values of groups
  • supporting evidence: Tajfel 1979
  • contradicting evidence: Sherif et al. - result of inter-group conflict, not social comparision
  • applicability: reduce prejudice in society
  • individual differences: authoritarian personality more likely to have prejudice (Adorno et al.)
18
Q

Explain how individual differences can affect prejudice.

A

• authoritarian personality are hostile to those they see as inferior - more likely to be prejudice against others (Adorno) (Cohrs et. Al)

19
Q

Explain how culture may have an impact on obedience.

A

Milgram’s experiment was replicated in different countries but variation is more a product of the employed procedures than real cultural variation.

Culture has no known impact on obedience.

Psychology (13 decks)

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