Supporting Studies Flashcards
Supporting evidence for social impact theory
Sedikedes and Jackson- uniform (increased strength), obedience rose from 35% to 58%. When immediacy was decreased, obedience fell from 61% to 7%.
Milgrams variations support.
Support for agency theory
Milgram - 100% to 300v, 65% to 450v when under an authority figure.
Support for situational factors
Milgrams variations-
Immediacy/proximity of authority figure- telephonic instructions variation 7, obedience fell to 22.5%, some lied about their deviation from shock level.
Prestigious setting/unfamiliar- office block variation 10, obedience fell to 47.5%, 2 refused to give lowest shock of 15v.
Uniform/perception of legitimate authority- ordinary man variation 13- fell to 20% (16/20 disobeyed), 5 used physical force, 68.75% did not interfere with ordinary man’s actions of flicking the switch.
Support for authoritarian personality
Adorno- 2000 college students from America, 5 point likert-scale, found high score on the f scale led to high authoritarianism, all shared similar traits.
Elms - reviewed the obedient group in Milgram’s classic study and found that they were less close to their fathers during childhood- supporting authoritarian personality is a result of childhood.
Support for locus of control
Oliner and Oliner- interviewed 406 Germans who sheltered Jews from Nazis, was found they all had high internal locus of control- supports the idea these are more likely to be disobedient towards authority figure.
Rejecting evidence for locus of control
Blass- reviewed studies with LOC and found there was no clear link between LOC and level of obedience- may just signify the level of responsibility you take for the consequences of your actions.
Rejecting evidence for gender and obedience
Burger rejects- replicated milgrams study, stopping at 165v with experimenter interjection and have the confederates verbal protests at 150v, found no significant difference between women and men so concluded gender did not affect obedience.
Supporting evidence for gender affecting obedience (S+K)
Sheridan and King- replicated Milgram except used a puppy as the learner who was visible to the ppts and was given real shocks. Found 100% of females were fully obedient, whilst 54% of males were obedient so gender does affect levels of obedience.
Supporting evidence for gender affecting obedience (K+M)
40% of Australian male students obeyed compared to 16% of the females— giving maximum shock in a replication of milgram’s study. Found that due to ppts being paired with people of their gender they suggested that women were more likely to form an alliance and oppose the experimenter.
Rejecting evidence for gender affecting obedience (B)
Conducted a meta-analysis of nine studies, only KM was significant. Concluded no gender difference in obedience, only in emotional responses.
Supporting evidence for culture and obedience
Kilham and Mann- 450v shocks 28% in Australia (individualist culture). Edwards (1969) found obedience of 87.5% in South Africa (collectivist culture). Low obedience rating would indicate that ppts were rebelling against the authoritative orders. Ppts from South Africa have been brought up to respect authority, disregarding their own beliefs so culture does affect obedience.
Rejecting evidence for culture on obedience
65% of his American ppts administered the highest shock level of 450v- therefore showing that individualistic cultures can have high levels of obedience too so there is no significant effect.
Supporting evidence for RCT
Sherif- when competition between groups, rattlers out group friendships decreased to 6.4%, and when superordinate goals were introduced, out group friendships rose to 36.4%- showing how they can reduce prejudice.
Supporting evidence for social identity theory
Sherif- stage one. Stage two- bean collecting task- underestimate the outgroup- so shows social comparison (negative aspects).
Tajfels minimal groups study- minimal groups of boys aged 14-15 from Bristol allocated more points to boys they viewed as part of their own group- showing in group favouritism.
Supporting evidence for contact hypothesis
Pettigrew and Tropp found that it reduced prejudice 94% of the time
Rejecting evidence for contact hypothesis
Sherif et al- when boys were paired together to eat lunch, food fight broke out- so prejudice increased.
Supporting evidence for authoritarian personality (prejudice)
Adorno- found those who scored highly on the f scale all shared traits of hostility towards minorities, supporting that it led to prejudice.
Supporting evidence for agency theory and social impact theory
Hofling, nurses received staged phone call from doctor- instructed fatal drug overdose, obeyed 95% of time.
Supporting evidence for SDO
Guimond and Damburn- maintenance of hierarchy is one of the most important goals for individuals in all societies and that SDO mediates the relationship between ingroup position and prejudice, showing high SDO= prejudice.
Supporting evidence for culture affecting prejudice
Minard- 80 white American miners friendly to black miners below ground compared to 20 above ground- so social norms of prejudice towards certain groups can change.
Roger’s and Frantz- immigrants in Zimbabwe more prejudiced towards black population the longer they stayed in the country- so social norms can be assimilated and affect prejudice.
Rejecting evidence culture as reason for prejudice
Al-Zahrani and Kaplowitz= Saudi people- collectivist culture- reported more in group favouritism and negative out group bias than American people- an individualist culture- so collectivism increases prejudice instead of lowers it.
