Topic 1 Social - Classical & Contemporary Studies

Question 1

What is the classical study called in topic 1 social?

Answer 1

Sherif et al (1954/1961)

Question 2

What is the aim of The Robbers Cave Exp?

Answer 2

To study whether conflict between groups could be diminished if they worked together on superordinate goals

Question 3

What is the sampling of The Robbers Cave exp?

Answer 3

• Sample: A group of 22 white, 11 year old boys from the USA - they were matched
• Spent 3 weeks at a summer camp
• Randomly divided into 2 groups: gave themselves team names; Rattlers & Eagles
  [EXTRA]:
• Parents & children’s doctors gave full consent for participation - but the boys were unaware of them being observed

Question 4

What is the procedure (stages) of The Robbers cave exp?

Answer 4

Stage 1: Ingroup formation

- The 2 groups did not know about each others existence
- The 2 groups were kept separate from each other & were encouraged to bond through engaging in shared activities (hiking, swimming, etc)

Stage 2: Group conflict

- 2 now-formed groups now came into contact with each other
- A series of competitive activities they did (tug of war, baseball, etc) were awarded with a trophy
- Resulting in name verbal & physical attacks; name calling, stealing prizes, burning other teams flag

Stage 3: Conflict resolution

- Arranged situations to reduce the conflict between both groups
1. Did non-competitive activities; watching movies & sharing meals together - however did NOT reduce hostility
2. Did superordinate goals - required for both to work together (as the resources were important to everyone); fix water supply which had stopped flowing & pushing a truck REDUCED hostility

Question 5

What are the results (stages) of The Robbers cave exp?

Answer 5

Stage 1:

• Both groups given themselves names; ‘Rattlers’ & ‘Eagles’
• Social norms created within groups, Rattlers; tough, swore & Eagles; anti-swearing, cried

Stage 2:

• When they found out about each other → wanted to play a baseball game → hostility increased
• Name-calling, fights, trashed the other group’s cabin, took the other possessions, burnt the other flag

Stage 3:

• Hostility reduced through both groups fixing the water pipe & pushing the truck

Question 6

What is the conclusion?

Answer 6

• Groups developed group norms & leaders
• When two groups meet for competition → ingroup solidarity & intergroup hostility increases
• Overestimate the abilities of their own group & minimise the outgroup
• Social contact no enough to reduce prejudice but a series superordinate goals are effect to reduce it

Question 7

What are the strengths for The Robbers Cave exp?

Answer 7

Matching

- Carefully matched the two groups → White, American, Boys, Protestant, Middle class
- Allocated the boys in specific 2 groups in terms of personalities, skills & interests (by interviewing them)

Setting/Field Experiment

- Natural setting with natural tasks, baseball, fixing water pipe/truck
- So natural behaviour is displayed → High ecological validity

Question 8

What are the weaknesses for The Robbers cave exp?

Answer 8

Sample/Matching → reduced validity

- 2 boys from Eagles went home due to homesickness → now Eagles has 9 boys whilst Rattlers has 11 boys →Rattlers an unfair advantage
- Reducing Internal Validity

Generalisability
- Cannot be generalised to other cultures, adults, girls, collectivistic countries (America is an individualistic country) as sample is limited & small → 22 white American boys

[EXTRA]:
Gina Perry (2004)
    - Later interviews after the study → boys saw tape recordings & a counsellor took out a gun shooting two snakes (Rattlers name took their influence from)

Question 9

What is the contemporary study called in Topic 1 social?

Answer 9

Burger et al (2009)

Question 10

What is the aim for Burger (2009)?

Answer 10

Partially replicating Milgram’s experiment 5 to make it more ethical and compare his findings with Milgram’s findings to see if Milgram’s conclusions today are still true

Question 11

What is the Baseline Condition in the procedure for Burger (2009)?

Answer 11

Baseline condition:
- The procedure replicates Milgram’s variation #5 on his baseline study. The experimenter is a white man in his 30s & the confederate (learner) is in his 50s.
- The script resembles Milgram’s but the test shock that the participant receives is only15V
rather than Milgram’s painful 45V.
- The participant/teacher watches the learner being strapped into the electric chair and then sits at the shock generator in an adjacent room.
- Teacher reads out 25 multiple choice questions and the learner uses a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the answer is wrong, the experimenter directs the teacher to deliver a shock, starting at 15V and going up in 15V intervals.
- Learner indicates he has a“slight heart condition”
but the experimenter replies that the shocks are not harmful.
- At75V,the learner starts making sounds of pain.
- At150V, the learner cries that he wants to stop and complains about chest pains.

Question 12

What is the Model Refusal Condition in the procedure for Burger (2009)?

Answer 12

• A second confederate pretends to be a teacher & delivers the shocks whilst participant watching
• At 90V, confederate turns to the participant saying “I don’t know about this” & refuses to go on
• Experimenter tells the participant to take over the delivery shocks

Question 13

What are the results for Burger (2009)?

Answer 13

70% continued after 150 volts (compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s Variation 5)

Question 14

What is the conclusion for Burger (2009)?

Answer 14

• Milgram’s results can still be applied today - as people are still influenced by situational factors to obey an authority figure, even if it goes against their moral values
• Empathy didn’t make a difference to obedience, which goes against what Milgram thought and what Burger expected
• Burger also compared men and women but didn’t find a difference in obedience. Women were slightly less likely to obey in the “model refusal” condition but this was not statistically significant.

Question 15

What are the strengths for the Burger (2009) study?

Answer 15

Replication of Milgram’s study
- Replicated the procedure (only small changes due to ethical reasons) → Burger results can be compared to Milgram’s results → reliable

Ethical

- Improved ethical issues by;
- telling participants they can withdraw anytime
- Reduced the test shocks from 45V to 15V & stopped the study at 150V
- Experimenter was a trained clinical psychologists that can tell if someone is distress - so can stop the experiment when this happens
- Approved by University Ethics Panel

Standardised Procedure

- Highly controlled Lab exp - All participants conducted at the same setting, same verbal prods given, paid $50, screening procedure
- Reliability as results can be compared and replicated due to similar findings of all participants & same procedure of Milgram’s

Question 16

What are the weaknesses for the Burger (2009) study?

Answer 16

Ethical
- Even though changes were made for ethical reasons → there is still ethical issues; deceived his participants (shocks weren’t real), the learner cries were a tape recording, learner & second teacher were confederates, distressed participants

Standardised Procedure
- Lack ecological validity → Lab exp → artificial → not natural →setting is unfamiliar to participants → participants may behave in a different way to the orders → cannot be generalised → reduces external validity