1
Q
Practical issues- General
A
Milgram Thematic analysis Lab experiment Field Experiment Interviews Questionnaires
2
Q
Development Over Time- General
A
- Individual explanations i.e. Authoritarian- Agency
- Agency- Social Impact
- Authoritarian- Multiple personality theories
- Milgram- Burger
- Realistic conflict theory- Social Identity theory
- Sherif tells us about super-ordinate goals
3
Q
Nature/Nurture- General
A
- Blass (2012) found little difference between obedience cross-culturally which suggests that a nature explanation underpins obedience to a certain extent.
- Culture i.e. individual or collectivist, assimilative and multi-cultural show that nurture is an issue
- Milgram’s variations show differences in obedience and conformity as a result of proximity and status which can, to an extent, be used to reduce situations result in blind obedience.
- Agency theory shows the environment (presence of an authority figure) are evidence of nurture’s influence
- Social Impact Theory suggests the number of sources and targets can influence obedience in group situations, therefore the environment can play a significant role.
- Social Identity Theory is about how the groups you’re in effect your behaviour (nurture)
- Social psychology explains human behaviour through the influence of groups and personality.
- Humans have evolved to be social beings (which is why social groups/interactions are so influential)
4
Q
Reductionist- General
A
- Ignores biological factors which could cause behaviour by focusing on the situation
- Ignores individual factors like authoritarian personality which influence obedience/prejudice focusing instead on situational factors only
- Agency only looks at the presence of the authority
- Whereas, Social Impact Theory has multiple factors which influence obedience
- Impact theory reduces the process of obedience/influence down to a simple formula
- Initially we just had Authoritarian personality as an individual cause of obedience/prejudice but now we have multiple explanations i.e. big 5, Locus of control- which make
- Lab experiments in social eliminate EVs and try to focus on the impact of one variable and are therefore reductionist (in an attempt to be scientific)
- Milgram reduces the complexity of obedience down to a simple version of a situation used in his research
- The same could be said of Sherif
- Social Identity theory is reductionist by looking at prejudice as being a 3 stage process (delineating it into categories of behaviour) which occur in a set order
- RCT only looks at competition as a factor
5
Q
Psychology as a science- General
A
Social
• Milgram and Burger both use Lab experiments which:
• Were objective and empirical (% giving shock)
• Controlled due to artificial setting
• Internal validity- didn’t know the purpose reducing DCs
• Testing hypotheses- about situation and obedience
• Reductionist in what they were measuring (electric shocks % is not all obedience could be seen as)
• Reliable- because of standardisation
• However social can also use field experiments (See Sherif)
• Social also uses questionnaires/interviews to try and study personality factors which are less empirical and objective
• Social theories like Impact and Identity are reductionist by breaking down into stages
• All 4 theories are reductionist in their views of what causes behaviour ignoring other factors
• All can be studied with testing hypotheses and falsifiability
6
Q
Ethics- General
A
- Consent (informed)- Not in Milgram, Burger because they thought it was on punishment and learning not obedience…also not in many of the little studies like Sedekides & Jackson
- Deception- Not in Milgram, Burger because they thought it was on punishment and learning not obedience AND confederate
- Confidentiality- not really an issue in experiment but we don’t really know who they were
- Debrief- yes but not instantly in the case of Milgram (whereas Burger was)
- Withdrawal- Yes but with prods (so maybe not), Burger made sure they knew about it 3 times…they also didn’t know they were in a study therefore can’t withdraw
- Protection from harm- no, real shocks and stress- however Burger did reduce both of these (and did the filtering to remove anyone who might be unduly stressed)- some studies like Sedekides and Jackson used no physical pain
7
Q
Social Control- General
A
- Agency theory/Milgram/ Burger- can increase/decrease authority on people to change obedience (uniforms, hierarchies etc)
- Personality- We could use this to fill ranks in army/ certain parts of society with authoritarian people to increase obedience
- Impact theory- Create situations (with SIN) to increase/decrease authority on people to change obedience (uniforms, hierarchies etc)
- Identity theory- Create divisions and stereotypes to create prejudice (the media/government could do it), forced break down group boundaries to reduce prejudice (though Sherif showed that mere contact wasn’t enough you needed super-ordinate goals)
- Realistic Conflict theory- Competition (or perceived competition) can be used to drive prejudice- something the media does
- Super-ordinate goals can be used to reduce prejudice i.e. charity fun raising, community projects in areas of low integration
8
Q
Usefullness- General
A
- Social psychology helps our understanding of how prejudice occurs with the formation of in-groups and out-groups. Social identity theory does not consider the role of personality (for example, RWA), which has been linked to prejudice so may have limited help when trying to explain and/or reduce prejudice.
- Agency theory can help us explain why people are obedient/increase obedience via uniforms etc however, Milgram’s study is low in generalisablity and ecological validity etc so might not be that useful
- RCT tells us how to cause and reduce prejudice (through competition and super-ordinate goals) and therefore we can use that usefully in society however, based on research like Sherif which isn’t generalisable
- Social Impact theory- can help us explain why people are obedient/increase obedience via uniforms etc however, Milgram’s study is low in generalisablity and ecological validity etc so might not be that useful
- Burger is useful because it tells us Agency theory is still an issue even with a more recent culture and applies to women making it more useful for our understanding
- Personality theories might be useful because they highlight factors we want to look for in people to help stop them being prejudice…however we might not be able to influence prejudice so maybe that’s not as useful
9
Q
Socially Sensative- General
A
- Social psychological research has shown little cultural differences in obedience (for example, Blass, 2012) so this could encourage a diffusion of responsibility for blind obedience and may increase harmful acts in society.
- Research (for example, Cohrs et al., 2012) suggests personality factors such as RWA and SDO are indicators of prejudice which could lead to screening the population for people with those traits so could lead to racism.
- Situational theories like Agency and impact theory might result in the view that obedience isn’t the individual’s fault and therefore this could be social sensitive i.e. explaining away the actions in Abu Ghraib prison
- Research suggests personality factors such as Authoritarian personality are indicators of obedience which could lead to screening the population for people with those traits so could lead to prejudice.
- The research about culture and prejudice i.e. assimilative, multi-cultural, individual and collectivist could be socially sensitive as it suggests everyone from that culture is more likely to be prejudice
- Looking at situational factors related to prejudice i.e. group existence, competition, super-ordinate goals could be socially sensitive because they remove blame from people for their own actions
- Burger could be said to reduce social sensitivity because it found no difference between men and women and therefore removes the stigma on male’s being more likely to inflict violence/obedience
10
Q
Culture & Gender- General
A
- Milgram’s research was only on males and therefore agency theory might not apply equally to women
- Burger however showed that women had equal levels of obedience
- Burger was looking for differences between the genders and so wasn’t guilty of beta bias (whereas other theories like personality could be)
- Milgram V8 showed the same thing
- Milgram and Burger both in the US/individual country and therefore might not apply to a collectivist culture
- Procedure i.e. shock generator might be ethnocentric
- Nothing particularly gender bound in the procedure
- Different cultures i.e. collectivist culture might have different levels of obedience
- Though meta-analysis by Blass indicated little cultural difference
- Prejudice also varies across culture i.e. assimilative culture vs multi-cultural ones
- RCT seems to apply in many places around the world i.e. US and middle east therefore might not be effected by culture
- Social Identity theory might apply even more in collectivist cultures since they’re focused on group identity
11
Q
Comparison of Themes- General
A
- Social Psychology theories share the themes of situational causes of behaviour….this differs from the themes the other approaches believe in
- Nurture could be seen as a theme- this is something this approach shares with Learning as a key one (and differs from Biological)…however Social does look at nature because they found little cultural difference in obedience (Blass)
- Authoritarian, SDO, Big-5, Locus of Control etc look at personality as a theme
- Research has looked at cultural differences in obedience and prejudice…cultural differences could be a theme (shared with both Child and Clinical topics)
- Agency theory and Social impact theory both focus on the theme of authority
- Impact however talks about immediacy and number too (Milgram’s variations looked at this too i.e. variation 7- telephone)
- Social Identity and Realistic Conflict theory both focus on group dynamics as a source of prejudice
- This is even true when reducing prejudice by creating a bigger group with shared goals
- Realistic conflict theory looks at competition and conflict as a theme (especially over resources)- which might be shared with evolution
- Authoritarian & SDO etc look at personality as a theme
12
Q
Practical issues- Sherif
A
- Field experiment/summer camp- high eco V and mundane realism with tasks
- Matched on sporting ability and IQ- reduced PVs
- ‘Opportunity sample’- all similar characteristics
- Recording, observation, experiments, sociometric data- Triangulation, quant and qual
- Didn’t know about study- reduces DC (some claim they might have)
13
Q
Development Over Time- Sherif
A
- Repeated multiple times with different results
- Tells us mere contact didn’t work we needed super-ordinate goals
- Still use Field experiments to study prejudice
- Still using similar methods of measurement
- Conflict causes prejudice
- RCT- Social Identity (we could see issues before conflict began)
14
Q
Nature/Nurture- Sherif
A
- Social Identity Theory is about how the groups you’re in effect your behaviour (nurture) as we saw in the boys groups
- RCT- scarce resources and zero-sum game etc are displayed in the experiment and shows the effects of nurture
- Super-ordinate goals reduced the conflict and this shows the effect of environment
- Rivalry, competition etc might come from evolution (think fighting over resources)
- Males are often more competitive than females but this could be due to factors of nature or nurture
- The results might have been different in another culture- the effect of nurture…or the same (so nature).
15
Q
Reductionist- Sherif
A
- Ignores biological factors which could cause behaviour by focusing on the situation
- Ignores individual factors like authoritarian personality which influence obedience/prejudice focusing instead on situational factors only
- Initially we just had Authoritarian personality as an individual cause of obedience/prejudice but now we have multiple explanations i.e. big 5, Locus of control- which make
- Sherif uses a field experiment which is probably less reductionist
- Sherif reduces the complexity of prejudice down to a simple version of a situation used in his research/ one variable
- Purposefully chose white males to eliminate any pre-existing prejudice which is a reductionist way to look at this
- Social Identity theory is reductionist by looking at prejudice as being a 3 stage process (delineating it into categories of behaviour) which occur in a set order
- RCT only looks at competition as a factor
16
Q
Psychology as a science- Sherif
A
- Falsifiable- his theories about competition and superordinate goals could have been unsupported showing it is unfalsifiable
- Reductionist- simplifying prejudice down to this situation about similar boys in competition and measuring name calling
- Testing hypotheses about competition and superordinate goals
- Field experiment so less control i.e. EVs could be a factor
- Some things could be objectively measured i.e. bean counting task but others were qualitative in nature i.e. observations and audio analysis and so might be subjective
- Behaviour can be measured empirically i.e. name calling…but prejudice and friendship might be harder
- Some tasks/procedures were standardised and therefore replicable i.e. tasks given
- Was repeated 3 times over the years with different results
- Boys didn’t know the true purpose to eliminate DCs however some argument the counsellors antagonised/egged them on
- Boys were all very similar to eliminate EV of pre-existing prejudice
17
Q
Ethics- Sherif
A
- Consent (informed)- Children and didn’t know so no (but parents knew they were in a study, but not what about)
- Deception- Yes, about true purpose of summer camp and camp counsellors
- Confidentiality- not really an issue in experiment but we don’t really know who they were
- Debrief- not to the best of my knowledge
- Withdrawal- They didn’t know so couldn’t withdraw (but 3 did for homesickness)
- Protection from harm- Causes prejudice, name calling and fighting etc.. and gave knives
18
Q
Social Control- sherif
A
- Identity theory- Create divisions and stereotypes to create prejudice (the media/government could do it), forced break down group boundaries to reduce prejudice (though Sherif showed that mere contact wasn’t enough you needed super-ordinate goals)
- Realistic Conflict theory- Competition (or perceived competition) can be used to drive prejudice- something the media does
- Super-ordinate goals can be used to reduce prejudice i.e. charity fun raising, community projects in areas of low integration
- However, it is based on small sample, set location/summer camp setting, all males etc etc so maybe these things wont apply in other situations and it won’t be socially controlling (mix these counterarguments in with the points you’re making…not all in one place)
- However, maybe it would be even more socially controlling because it might work even more with pre-existing prejudices etc
19
Q
Usefullness- Sherif
A
- Prejudice is a problem for society so Sherif will help us by reducing it
- Violence and aggression caused by competition i.e. Israel and Palestine can be a real problem for the world
- Social psychology helps our understanding of how prejudice occurs with the formation of in-groups and out-groups.
- However, does not consider the role of personality (for example, RWA), which has been linked to prejudice so may have limited help when trying to explain and/or reduce prejudice.
- RCT tells us how to cause and reduce prejudice (through competition and super-ordinate goals) and therefore we can use that usefully in society however, based on research like Sherif which isn’t generalisable
- High in ecological validity therefore useful for our understanding
20
Q
Socially Sensative- Sherif
A
- Researching prejudice in general might be socially sensitive as it could become upsetting
- It is socially sensitive because it focuses on situational factors such as competition which causes prejudice which suggests that those who are prejudice are not culpable for their own behaviour
- Socially sensitive because certain groups (media for example) could introduce competition, separate groups etc to cause prejudice
- Socially sensitive because of the social control aspects of super-ordinate goals
- Sherif didn’t look at the following therefore possibly less socially sensitive:
- Research (for example, Cohrs et al., 2012) suggests personality factors such as RWA and SDO are indicators of prejudice which could lead to screening the population for people with those traits so could lead to racism.
- The research about culture and prejudice i.e. assimilative, multi-cultural, individual and collectivist could be socially sensitive as it suggests everyone from that culture is more likely to be prejudice
21
Q
Culture & Gender- Sherif
A
- Sherif et al. (1954/1961) used only males in his research which may not apply to females
- Sherif experienced both Turkish and American cultures so may have interpreted the findings with a more varied understanding of cultural differences
- However, Sherif was still likely to have interpreted his findings using an individualist outlook so may be ethnocentric/Eurocentric
- Sherif et al. (1954/1961) used cooperative tasks such as collecting beans and tug of war which may be applicable to both individualist and collectivist cultures
- Sherif et al. (1954/1961) was carried out in an American state park so implications about reducing prejudice through cooperation may only be representative of US/Western culture
- Prejudice also varies across culture i.e. assimilative culture vs multi-cultural ones
- RCT seems to apply in many places around the world i.e. US and middle east therefore might not be effected by culture
- Social Identity theory might apply even more in collectivist cultures since they’re focused on group identity
22
Q
Comparison of Themes- Sherif
A
- Social Psychology theories share the themes of situational causes of behaviour
- Authoritarian, SDO, Big-5, Locus of Control etc look at personality as a theme…this is ignored in Sherif
- Social Identity and Realistic Conflict theory both focus on group dynamics as a source of prejudice…Rattlers and Eagles (they also made sure the boys were all similar to avoid pre-existing groups)
- This is even true when reducing prejudice by creating a bigger group with shared goals…the super-ordinate goals like fixing the water tank
- Realistic conflict theory looks at competition and conflict as a theme (especially over resources)- which might be shared with evolution
Social
flashcards
Decks in class (12)
# Cards
