strengths and weaknesses of social approach Flashcards
2 strengths of milgram’s baseline study of obedience x2
- replicability
- ethics (debriefed + right to withdraw)
what did milgram and his colleagues think the pp’s would do (%)
1/1000 would go to 450V
weakness of Milgram’s baseline study of obedience x2
- lacks ecological validity
- not generalisable to women, ethnic minorities, ages above 50+, and people outside of new haven
strength of variation 7 telephonic instruction
- application to school teachers, must make sure they are present in room
weakness of variation 7 telephonic instruction
- lacks ecological validity
strength of variation 10 run down office block
- ecological validity (town of Bridgeport in Connecticut
weakness of variation 10 run down office block
- demand characteristics, pp’s may have guessed nature of experiments due to cues
strength of variation 13 ordinary man gives orders
- ethical considerations (debriefed and pleased at the end of experiment)
weakness of variation 13 ordinary man gives orders
- quite artificial as learner had to go considerable lengths to persuade teacher to continue shocking even while the experimenter was gone.
strengths of burger 2009 x2
- generalisable due to diverse sample
- ethical considerations (45V -> 15V real shock test) + 2 step screening process decreasing excessive stress
weaknesses of Burger (2009) x2
- lacks task validity (abnormal to be ordered to shock someone if they get work pair wrong)
- only partial replication of Milgram’s study, can only assume pp’s would’ve shocked higher after 150 V based on milgram’s results.
strengths of agency theory x2
- supported by Milgram’s baseline as pp’s knew what they were doing was wrong but continued to do it anyway
- application to society, make the military question orders that are morally wrong to them
weaknesses of agency theory x2
-other explanations of obedience e.g. legitimate power in higher positions/coercive power ability to punish = suggests cause of obedience is more complex than theory suggests
-individual differences doesn’t explain why some obey and some don’t e.g. 35% did not obey to shock to 450V
strengths of social impact theory x2
- theory is supported by Latane’s observation such as finding that people will tip more when given an individual bill than a shared bill = explains how number affects obedience.
- application: predict behaviour in social situations e.g. school = immediacy of teacher in class
weaknesses of social impact theory x2
- limited in prediction e.g. 2 equal football teams in strength and number
- over simplifies the nature of human interaction ignoring individual differences e.g. some are more resistant to social impact than others = not a good measure of human behaviour and interaction
strengths of robbers cave experiment x2
- ecological validity
-reliable as boys were matched based on sporting ability and IG so individual differences wouldn’t effect attitudes/judgements = cause and effect can be drawn
weaknesses of robber’s cave experiment x2
- not generalisable to other cultures, children with less sporting ability, adults
- no informed consent, boys didn’t know they were part of a study
strengths of realistic conflict theory x2
- supported by robbers cave experiment: when boys competing against each other they noticed hostile attitudes
- application can help explain discrimination against ethnic minorities e.g. white ppl in US 70s saw black ppl as a threat to life styles, goals, jobs rather than attitudes formed at childhood
weaknesses of realistic conflict theory x2
- boys were hostile before competition introduced = social identity theory
- tyerman and spencer english boy scouts, boys knew one another b4 and were friendly during competition = more about context/situation than competition
strengths of social identity theory x2
- supported by sherif’s study which showed 2 boy groups being hostile to each other b4 competition
-application to tackle prejudice (create 1 big group)
weaknesses of social identity theory x2
- competing theory with RCT
-underestimates importance of individual differences, some ppl more in favour of in group over out group depending on personality/culture , that emphasise collectivism + cooperation, these cultures are less likely to demonstrate prejudice = cant generalise every group of ppl and how they will react to certain situations.
