SOCIAL - STUDIES Flashcards
classic study: Sherif (1954-1961)
AO1:
AIM: to see how in-group behaviour developed to include related out-group hostility (the effect of competition) and how friction could be reduced
IV: whether the atmosphere was competition or cooperation
DV: the number of friends identified in the out-group
SAMPLE: 22 11 year old boys from Oklahoma, USA. All with similar capabilities
CONTROL OF EVs: all boys were the same age, all from middle class, white, Protestant families
PROCEDURE:
->STAGE 1 - GROUP FORMATION) ppts were divided equally into 2 groups, each group arrived separately and took part in non-competitive games such as tent-pitching and campfire building (2 ppts went home due to homesickness)
->STAGE 2 - FRICTION PHASE) the groups wee brought together in competitive games (such as tug of war and baseball) to win points for their team
->STAGE 3 - COOPERATION PHASE) the groups were brought together and encouraged to cooperate by watching movies together, but the superordinate goals (eg. mending the broken down bus) were introduced
FINDINGS:
->stage 1) the groups bonded, named themselves “Rattlers” and “Eagles”, stereotypes emerge
->stage 2) prejudice began to be expressed verbally, referring to their in-group in favourable terms and calling the other team names (“stinkers” and “braggers”), R’s ransacked E’s cabin, E’s burned R’s flag
->stage 3) superordinate goals led to hostility decreasing, the boys even insisting on riding the bus home together
CONCLUSION:
->competition = hostility & in-group solidarity and out-group prejudice
->superordinate goals = decrease hostility
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability
–>the sample was narrow and only included American males, all from white, Protestant backgrounds, lower-middle class families from Oklahoma. This makes the sample both ethnocentric and endocentric
–>the findings are not representative of the wider population
R->(strength) high inter-rater reliability
–>there was a standardised procedure (3 stages) and the ppts were observed by multiple “camp staff” who were actually experimenters throughout the whole expt
–>therefore, multiple people can compare and confirm results, increasing the accuracy and reliability
A->(strength) the use of superordinate goals to reduce prejudice can be used IRL
–>Aronson (1961) used the “jigsaw technique” in a mixed race classroom; each child got part of a whole assignment and success was dependent on everyone doing their bit
–>inter-racial liking increased, as did the overall performance of ethnic minority students
V->(weakness) low internal validity
–>self-report method was used when ppts were asked who their friends were. 93% said they had friends in their own group, however there may have been social desirability bias to not let their team down
–>therefore, decreasing the validity of their findings
E->(strength) the study is mostly considered ethical
–>although prejudice was created within the groups, it was reduced by the end of the study through the phase 3 superordinate goals. Also, ppts had the right to withdraw, as 2 ppts went home due to homesickness in stage 1
–>therefore, the study is overall ethical
contemporary study: Burger (2009)
AO1:
AIM: to replicate Milgram’s study in a more ethical way, to investigate whether ppts would still obey an authority figure today
IV:
DV: the highest voltage ppts would administer to the “learner”
SAMPLE: 70 ppts, both men and women, aged 20-81, recruited through a volunteer sample and paid $50 for taking part (paid before study started)
CONTROL OF EVs: ppts were screened for anxiety and drug dependency, and any ppts who had taken more than 2 psychology classes or had heard of Milgram were removed from the study
PROCEDURE:
(BASELINE PROCEDURE:)
->1) this expt was a replication of Milgram’s variation 5 expt, the experimenter was a white man in his 30s, the learner was a white man in his 50s. The ppt only received 15v shock
->2)the teacher (ppt) reads out 25 multiple choice questions, the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the chosen answer, if incorrect, the teacher must administer a shock, starting at 15V and increasing in 15V increments
->3) the learner says they have a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter says the shocks aren’t harmful. At 75V he starts making sounds of pain, at 150V he says he wants to stop, complaining about chest pain
->4) if the ppt continues to 165V, the expt is terminated (Burger saw 150V as the “point of no return”)
(MODEL REFUSAL PROCEDURE:)
->1) a second confederate joins as a second “teacher”
->2) the confederate teacher delivers the shocks with the ppt watching
->3) at 90V the confederate says “i don’t know about this” and refuses to continue
->4) the experimenter tells the ppt to take over
->5) [continues as baseline expt]
FINDINGS:
->BASELINE: 12 ppts stopped at or before 150V, 70% continued past 150V
->MODEL REFUSAL: 11 ppts stopped at or before 150V, 63.3% continued past 150V
->no significant gender differences were found
CONCLUSION:
->Burger’s findings support Milgram’s findings: ppts blindly obey authority figures
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability
–>ppts consisted of a self-selected volunteer sample, meaning they were highly motivated to do the task. There is also a risk of demand characteristics. Ppts were screened and turned away accordingly
–>therefore, the sample is not representative of everyone in the wider population
R->(strength) high reliability due to SP
–>the teacher (ppt) reads out 25 multiple choice u=questions to the learner (confederate), if they answer incorrectly a shock of 15V is administered, increasing in 15V increments. The learner says he has a “slight heart condition” but the experimenter says the shocks aren’t harmful, at 75V they start making sounds of pain, at 150V they complain of chest pains and say they want to stop. If the ppt continues to 165V, the expt is terminated as Burger saw 150V as “the point of no return”
A->(strength) the findings can be applied IRL
–>the conclusions drawn from this study suggest that people will blindly obey instructions given by an authority figure. This can explain why the soldiers in WW2 obeyed inhumane orders from Hitler
V->(weakness) low ecological validity
–>the artificial nature of the task and setting allow Burger to have high control over the procedure, but the act of administering shocks to a learner in a word pair task is a highly unrealistic scenario that would not happen in daily life
–>therefore, the study has low mundane realism and is not representative of real life
E->(strength) Burger’s study made lots of ethical improvements from Milgram’s
–>psychological harm was minimised as ppts were screened so that those who would find the situation too distressing were removed from the study. The experimenter was a clinical psychologist who could quickly spot and react to the signs of distress and no time passed post-expt before the ppt was introduced to a healthy confederate and was debriefed
named study: Milgram (1963)
AO1:
AIM: to investigate how far a person would go to obey an authority figure
IV:
DV:
SAMPLE: 40 males (aged 20-50), all from New Haven, volunteer sample who believed they were taking part in a memory test. All ordinary people, eg. postal clerks, teachers, salesmen, engineers, labourers
CONTROL OF EVs: lab expt = high control
PROCEDURE:
->1) 2 “ppts” (1 ppt, 1 confederate) draw roles from a hat (roles were rigged so ppt would always be the “teacher”)
->2) both get taken into a room with a chair and a shock generator, ppt gets 45V shock to “prove” it’s real
->3) teacher (ppt) reads out multiple choice questions to a learner (confederate), who uses a buzzer to indicate their answer
->4) if the answer is incorrect, the teacher must administer a shock, starting at 15V, increasing in 15V increments, up to 450V
->5) at 300V the learner stops reacting to questions, only showing a pain response
->6) when a ppt refused to continue, 4 verbal prods were given to reinforce authority (such as, “you MUST continue”, “the experiment requires that you continue”)
RESULTS:
->all ppts went up to 300V, 5 dropped out at 300V
->by 375V, 15 ppts had dropped out, 65% of ppts continued to 450V
->14 ppts showed nervous laughter, 3 even had seizures from the distress
CONCLUSION:
->people will blindly obey authority figures, even if it goes against their own morals
AO3: EVALUATION
G->(weakness) low generalisability
–>the sample was both ethnocentric and endocentric as the ppts were all males from New Haven in America. It was also a volunteer sample, meaning the ppts were all highly motivated to do the task
–>therefore, it is not representative of how women or people from other countries may react
R->(strength) highly reliable due to SP
–>the roles were rigged and the learner followed a script (eg. stop responding at 300V), all ppts were given the 45V shock, and went up in 15V increments, upon ppt refusal to continue 4 verbal prods were given
–>therefore can be replicated to test for consistency, and WAS replicated by Burger who found the same results
A->(strength) has IRL application
–>the findings suggest that people will blindly follow instructions from an authority figure, even if it goes against their own morals. This could explain why the soldiers followed Hitler’s barbaric orders in WW2
–>therefore, has practical application
V->(weakness) low ecological validity
–>Milgram’s study was a lab expt conducted in an artificial setting with an artificial task: you would not get asked to deliver questions and shock the learner if incorrect in an everyday scenario
–>therefore, we can’t say that people would react the same in real life, making the findings invalid
E->(weakness) the expt was highly unethical for a multitude of reasons.
–>there was no protection from physical or psychological harm as ppts were given a 45V shock, and three ppts were so distressed that they had seizures. Fully informed consent could not be gained as they thought they were taking mart in a memory test. They were also deceived as they did not know they weren’t actually causing the confederate harm
–>this study was so unethical it caused ethical guidelines to be put into place
milgram’s variations
variation 7: telephonic instructions
AO1:
AIM: to see the effects on obedience when instructions are given from a distance
PROCEDURE: same as baseline expt, but with proximity changed. Experimenter gives starting instructions but then must leave the room and gives the instructions over the phone from another room
RESULTS: obedience fell to only 9/40 complying to 450V
CONCLUSION: obedience decreases as distance between ppt and authority increases
AO3: EVALUATION
->high gen: more realistic task
->high reliability: SP
->application IRL: Hoffling’s nurse study (21/22 complied)
->low validity: lab expt, artificial setting
->unethical: ppts deceived, etc
variation 10: rundown office block
AO1:
AIM: to find out if obedience would drop in a less prestigious setting
PROCEDURE: same as baseline but with a location change. OG expt took place at Yale University (v prestigious) whereas this expt took place in the industrial city of Bridgeport
RESULTS: 48% obedience compared to 65% baseline, ppts were generally more relaxed, some showed skepticism
CONCLUSION: still obedient but not as much in less prestigious location
AO3: EVALUATION
->high gen: less prestigious setting more realistic
->high reliability: SP
->application: job/office setting allows us to learn more about boss/employee relationships
->high eco val: natural setting
->unethical: more ethical than prev variations, but still deception
variation 13: ordinary man
AO1:
AIM: does obedience depend on the person giving the orders, or the way the orders are worded?
PROCEDURE: 3 ppts, 2 confederates, follows same procedure as baseline but voltage increments are never specified (confed. 1 suggests 1v increments), experimenter leaves room due to phone call, seems eager to get expt done and tells ppts to continue w/o him
RESULTS: only 20% continued to 450v, 69% did not interfere w/ ordinary man but 5/16 ppts physically challenged him (did not see him as authority)
CONCLUSION: we become passive in the face of authority, but judge the ordinary man’s actions
AO3: EVALUATION
->low gen: sample only consisted of men
->high reliability: SP
->application IRL: soldier actions WW2
->low eco val: unrealistic task
->unethical: no protection from harm- 5/16 physical fights
