PLANNED questions

• Evaluate the ethical considerations of research within social psychology:

  AO1

  • Research into social psychology should consider ethical guidelines such as consent, protection of participants and avoiding deception- BPS guidelines
  • Participants should give their informed consent which may reveal the true nature of the study
• Evaluate the ethical considerations of research within social psychology: 


  AO3:

  • Milgram 1963 deceived participants because if they knew the aim of the study they would have not acted in a naturalistic way- if they were aware the shock were fake they would not have experienced moral strain - reducing validity of results
  • BUT
  • Burger 2009 found similar findings whilst treating participants in an ethical way- he took the shocks to 150v and lowered the test show to 15v and screened those emotionally unstable
• Assess how individual differences (personality and gender) affect obedience.

  AO1:

  • Personality refers to a set of traits that remain stable over time and can differ from each individual
  • The authoritarian personality posses characteristics such as obedience to authority and believing in strong traditional values- also represent a high locus of control
  • Gender differences can be linked to stereotypes and preconceived ideas which affect ones behaviour
  • Masculinity and feminine traits may be desired from a young age due to socialisation- women are seen as more obedience due to being risk averse compared to men
• Assess how individual differences (personality and gender) affect obedience.

  AO3:

  • Adorno found that high F (facist sale) scores indicate higher obedience to authority
  • FILL IN
• Evaluate social impact theory as an explanation of obedience

  AO1:

  
  

  • States that social force changes peoples behaviour.
  • Social force is made up of strength-power of person influencing , immediacy-how close person is to you and numbers- more sources putting pressure on the targets.
  • Force is increased if it is directed at a single person putting pressure on them to obey which is known as diffusion of responsibility where the more targets the less influence there is.
• Evaluate the social impact theory as an explanation of obedience:

  AO3:

  • In support Sedikides and Jackson 1990 fild experiment found that obedience failed when confederate dressed in a t shirt and shorts but succeeded in uniform
  • suggesting the strength is important for targets to obey authoirty
  • BUT
  • This explanation can be argued reductionist as it doesn't explain personality differences in obedience to authority- not a fully credible explanation
  • Findings such as Adorno state that those with authoritarian personality obey orders to authority more than others
• Evaluate Burger in terms of reliability and validity.

  AO1:

  • Aimed to test obedience levels- of they were same as in 1960s in an ethical way
  • Procedure involved two conditions- base condition that resembled Milgrams variation 5 but testing shock is only 15v, multiple choice questions read out and if answered wrong teacher delivers shock starting at 15v up to 150v
  • learner indicates has a slight heart condition
  • Refusal condition- a second confederate pretends to be another teachers with participant watching - at 90v confederate stops and tells participant to take over
• Evaluate Burger in terms of reliability and validity.

  AO3:

  • The same prods ( standardised) allowed Burger (2009) to accurately replicate the procedure each time to test the reliability of the obedience findings.
  • The context of the laboratory to test obedience was artificial an unnatural to the participants giving the findings low ecological validity for real life obedience- limiting its usefulness
• Evaluate the use of questionnaires for research in social psychology.

  AO1:

  • Questionnaires gathers self report data from participant which could relate to prejudice
  • There are different types of questions that can be used such as - closed ended questions (standardised) are used to gather quantitative data such as likert scales for prejudicial attitudes
  • Or open ended questions can be used enabling a participant to expand their answers - giving an explanation - qualitative
• Evaluate the use of questionnaires for research in social psychology :

  AO3:

  • questionnaires is self report data which may the subject to social desirability and demand characteristics where participants give false ideas on topics such as prejudice - appearing more favourable
  • Cohrs 2012 used standardised questionnaires to test personalities such as RWA increasing the reliability of the data
• Assess how far culture can influence prejudice

  AO1:

  • Culture incorporates the values and ideas within social norms of a group or people within a society
  • Individualistic cultures emphasise individualism within the group compared to collectivist cultures that value the importance of community
  • Links to intergroup prejudice are negative attitudes about different cultural groups and intragroup prejudice are beliefs within a culture about different subcultural groups
• Assess how far culture can influence prejudice :

  AO3:

  • Adorno et al.’s (1950) concept of authoritarian personality claims that specific characteristics may result in hostility to people of a different race, social group, age, sexuality, or other minority group, so prejudice may be a personality difference and not due to culture.
  • Tajifels minimal groups experiment was replicated by Wetherell findings that in fact indigenous children were more generous that there white new Zealand class mates suggesting that prejudice differs on the type of culture and SIT is ethnocentric
• Discuss the social psychology key question

  AO1:

  • why did the holocaust happen?
  • an act of genocide that took place during ww2 by Hitler and Nazi regime - killed 6 million jews
  • which teachers society about the consequences if we follow orders from higher authority figures when distressed to do so
• Discuss the social psychology key question

  AO2:

  • can be applied to Milgram's research- he found people are willing to obey orders even if consequences are fatal (100% to 300v)which the germans also did. Milgram found in his variation 13 less people obeyed when the experimenter appeared of less authority
  • Members of German population has transferred into an 'agentic shift' when joining nazi army, following orders from those of higher authority no longer acting self directed
  • competition arised in Germany as living conditions became very low( limited resources)- this increased hostility between one another, made it easier to blame the jews offering a solution
  • three stages of social identity theory explain the ways that Germany became taken over by Hitler
  • categorisation- howling who is jewish
  • identification-following orders from nazis
  • comparison-germans are 'better' than jews
• Evaluate agency theory as an explanation of obedience:

  AO1

  • we have two states that enable us to function on our own or with others
  • autonomous state is self directed behaviour
  • when we meet others we judge if they are of higher on the social hierarchy which determines the extent to which they have authority
  • changing to agentic state which is called the agentic shift
  • becoming an agent of acting in behalf of authority figure leading to obeying orders that may cause moral strain
• Evaluate agency theory as an explanation of obedience:

  AO3

  • Milgrams 1963 research found that 100% of participants would administer a shock of 300v to a confederate for them answering incorrect on a word task.
  • This shows that people do enter an agentic state obeying authority causing harm on others
  • BUT
  • Rank and Jacobsons 1977 study found refuting evidence that 16 out of 18 nurses failed to obey orders from a doctor to administer an overdose of valium
  • Shows that despite doctors being members of authority the nurses remained autonomous
• Evaluate social identity theory

  AO1

  • it explains that prejudice arises from two groups without any other factor being present- 3 stages
  • social categorisation- this is the ingroup which we see ourselves belonging to and outgroup is anyone not in this
  • social identification- automatically perceive everyone else you meet as either part of your ingroup or outgroup, whilst adopting ingroup attitudes
  • social comparison- individual makes comparisons between ingroup and outgroup, essentially viewing your social identity as superior to others leading to prejudice
• Evaluate social identity theory

  AO3

  • supported by Tajfels minimal groups experiment which found that 15 year old boys that were separated into two groups presented ingroup favouritism and discrimination as they allocated more points to their ingroup
  • therefore, social categorisation id enough to trigger prejudice and this evidence highlights its credibility
  • HOWEVER
  • This explanation of prejudice is arguably reductionist. Variables such as personality are not taken into account which Cohrs found correlates with prejudice, therefore this explanation does not fully explain prejudicial behaviour as it ignores situational factors
• Evaluate realistic conflict theory

  AO1

  • States that prejudice arises due to competition
  • when two or more groups are striving for the same goal prejudice and hostility intensifies
  • negative interdependence occurs when it is important for both groups to reach the goal but only one can
  • produces a conflict of interests and groups will obstruct others chance of achievement
  • which is highlighted even further with limited resources such as food
  • can all be reudced thorough superordinate goals
• Evaluate realistic conflict theory

  AO3

  • Supported by Sherifs robbers cave study where boys experienced negative interdependence as only one would reach the prizes which escalated violence and conflict reduced with superordinate goal given
  • provides evidence that the theory is a credible explanation of prejudice as hostility increased and decreased in the two groups of boys
  • BUT
  • The alternative explanation social identity theory suggests that prejudice can occur without competition which was represented in Tajfels minimal groups
  • Boys treated those differently on the basis of group formation and being 'not like me'