Social Psychology Questions Flashcards
Define agentic state.
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)
State a reason why a person would disobey the order of an authority figure using agency theory.
• willing to accept the consequences (autonomous state)
State a reason why a person would obey the order of an authority figure using social impact theory.
- distance of authority figure
- status (high/low) amount of authority
- momentum of compliance (starting with small tasks)
- personal responsibility (giving responsibility to someone else)
Explain one individual difference that may impact obedience
- authoritarian personality (more obedient)
- locus of control (external= obedient, internal = dissent)
- empathy
Identify 1 variation study of Milgram.
- experiment 13 ordinary man gives orders
- experiment 7 telephonic instructions
- experiment 10 rundown office block
State the aim of one variation study of milgram.
- 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
Evaluate the contemporary study in social psychology.
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
State one aim of the study by Sherif et al. 1954-1961
- 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
Describe the procedure of Sherif et al.’s experiment.
- 3 stages
- in-group cooperation task: create the in-groups through activities designed for in-group formation
- Groups brought together to compete: groups brought in contact during competitions and orchestrated situations to trigger frustration
- 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
Describe the participants of the study carried out by Sherif et al. 1954-1961.
- 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
What where the results concluded in the study Robbers Cave Experiment by Sherif et al. 1954-1961.
- 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
Describe the 3 different stage results in Robbers Cave Experiment by Sherif et al. 1954-1961
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
Explain a strength of the study by Sherif et al. 1954-1961
• 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)
Explain one weakness of the study by Sherif et al. 1954-1961
- 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
State the Ethical issues in Robbers Cave Experiment.
Weaknesses:
• no consent from boys
• deliberately induced prejudice
• placed in dangerous situations
Strengths:
• consent from parents
Explain how gender may impact obedience.
Gender does not impact obedience (1) Milgram found out, there is no difference in the levels of obedience between males and females (1)
Evaluate social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice.
- 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.)
Explain how individual differences can affect prejudice.
• authoritarian personality are hostile to those they see as inferior - more likely to be prejudice against others (Adorno) (Cohrs et. Al)
Explain how culture may have an impact on obedience.
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.
