social psychology

• realistic conflict theory states that conflict may arise between groups due to competition for resources, dominance or land
• field experiments are done in everyday setting for the participants to be more natural and realistic
• ROBBER CAVE EXPERIMENT (sherif et al 1954):

  • AIM: investigate whether competition for resources produce intergroup conflict
  • METHOD: field experiment
  • PROCEDURE: 22 boys, 11-12 year olds, white & protestant from oklahoma city, 2 groups: eagles vs rattlers based on athletic and educational ability, 3 stages: develop attachment, competition e.g tug of war, cooperation e.g fixing the water pipe or bus
  • CONCLUSION: conflict lead to prejudiced attitudes and discriminatory behavior, super ordinate goals resolved this and reduced negative out-group bias
• RCE EVALUATION:

  • STRENGTHS:
  • real world application, can be used to explain and resolve conflict
  • field experiment = high ecological validity
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • boys were aware of recording equipment = demand characteristics
  • tyerman & spencer: states that it isn't natural for strangers to meet and compete, more likely that there is a history
  • not generalisable, no girls were used or older ppts
• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: realistic conflict theory

  • ember & ember 1912 - found that in tribes, intergroup hostility increases during periods of famine or natural disasters
  • aronson et al 1978 - introduced cooperation in classrooms, levels of competition decreased via jigsaw technique
• LIMITATIONS: realistic conflict theory

  • boys were hostile prior to the introduction of organised competition in the study itself - suggests competition may not be necessary?
• personal identity is our own unique qualities, personality and self-esteem
• social identity is the attributes of the group we belong to
• when our social identity is favorable, the personal identity of group members are positive
• in-group favoritism is seeing our own group members in a positive light
• negative out-group bias is seeing all members of a different group as all the same and in a negative light
• tajfel and turner (1979) states that the presence or perception of the presence of another group is enough to lead to prejudice
• TAJFEL ET AL (1971) EXP 1:

  • AIM: to test whether grouping is enough for prejudice
  • METHOD: lab experiment
  • PROCEDURE: 64 boys from bristol, aged 14-15 years old, assigned into 8 groups, asked to estimate the no. of dots on a board, then split into another 4 groups based on accuracy of estimation, asked individually to assign rewards to themselves via a matrix
  • RESULTS: significant in-group and negative out-group bias
• TAJFEL ET AL (1971) EXP 2:

  AIM: to test whether grouping is enough for prejudice

  METHOD: lab experiment

  PROCEDURE: 48 boys, arranged into groups of 16, asked about their preferences of each painting, categorised based on the matching of preferences, presented with another matrix

  RESULTS: boys consistently favored their own group = in-group favoritism
• SUPPORTING EVIDENCE: social identity theory

  • cliadini et al 1976 - observed US football scores and students, more likely to wear the team shirt after the team won, aswell as referring to "us"
• CRITICISM: social identity theory

  • weatherell 1982 - new zealand polynesians, favored the out-group due to collectivism and cooperation culture
• conformity is yielding to group pressure and doing what others are doing due to acceptance from peers
• obedience is compliance to real or imagined demands of an authority figure
• MILGRAM (1963):

  • AIM: investigate how far a person will go in obeying an instruction
  • METHOD: lab experiment
  • PROCEDURE: 40 ppts, 20-50 years old, all male, paid $4.50 to take part, new haven area, asked to administrate shocks, increase 45V each time, max = 450V, 4 PRODS GIVEN
  • RESULTS: 65% went to 450V, 100% went to 300V
  • CONCLUSION: people tend to obey orders if they recognise authority is morally based
• MILGRAM 1963 EVALUATION:

  • STRENGTHS:
  • objective quantitative data obtained = scientific credibility = can be falsified
  • it was replicated 19 times, different factors changed which would possibly influence obedience between 1961-1962 = highly reliable
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • lab setting, artificial task = lacks mundane realism
  • 40 male volunteers = lacks representation = not generalisable to other populations or females
• MILGRAM NO.7 (TELEPHONIC INSTRUCTIONS):

  • RESULTS: 22.5% continued to 450V
  • STRENGTHS:
  • same procedure used in all the studies, high internal validity, any difference can be said to be caused by one variation
  • milgram varied physical presence in the other variations = backs up his clam in this experiment
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • not a natural situation, participants built a relationship over the phone with the experimenter = demand characteristics
  • participants believed the shocks weren't real
• MILGRAM NO.10 (RUNDOWN OFFICE BLOCK):

  • RESULTS: 48% continued to 450V
  • STRENGTHS:
  • adds validity due to the change in setting
  • controls were the same = comparisons can be made
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • clearly still a lab experiment = obedience didn't fall as much
  • verbal prods and generator = still makes participants question how real the situation is
• MILGRAM NO.13 (ORDINARY MAN):

  • RESULTS: 20% CONTINUED TO 450V
  • STRENGTHS:
  • controls remained the same = comparisons can be made
  • ppts believed that the accomplice was another participant = reduce authority
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • scientific apparatus = authority still remained in the situation, still took place in yale
  • artificial surrounding = lacks validity
• ETHICS:

  • consent
  • deception
  • confidentiality
  • debriefing
  • right to withdraw
  • protection from harm
• milgram suggested that society is hierarchical in structure and nature, also the fact that obedience in authority provides stability
• autonomy is acting on one's own free will
• agency is when one acts as an agent for another
• agentic shift is when our autonomous state starts to act on behalf of an authoritative figure, against our own free will
• moral strain is when we act against what we think is just and moral due to being in an agentic state
• AGENCY THEORY EVALUATION:

  • STRENGTHS:
  • hofling et al - 21/22 nursers obeyed doctors orders and exceeded dosage
  • explains real life cases, e.g my lai massacre, individuals tried for their war crimes after following orders as defence
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • can't explain individual differences e.g culture, gender and personality
  • agentic state is hard to define or measure
• bibb latane (1981) suggested that the actions of others have great impact on our behaviour
• the target is the person being influenced and the source is the inlfuencer
• STRENGTH: how important the source is perceived to be
• IMMEDIACY: how close the source is in proximity to the target
• NUMBER: how many sources there are in comparison to the target
• psychosocial law states that increasing the no. of sources increases the influence of the target, however the effect becomes leveled off

  • berkowitz & milgram 1969 - confederates looking up at the 6th floor, passers started to imitate them
• division of impact is when there are more targets than sources, meaning the sources have less impact
• SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY EVALUATION:

  • STRENGTHS:
  • it can help predict behavior under certain conditions
  • mathematical formula can be used if no. of people, immediacy and strength is known to calculate likeliness of targets to obey
  • WEAKNESSES:
  • ignores the influence the target my have on the source
  • ignores what would happen if 3 groups of equal number and strength meet
  • ignores individual differences - personality
• FACTORS INFLUENCING OBEDIENCE:

  • proximity, status of authority, personal responsibility
  • internal locus of control - believe you are responsible
  • external locus of control - believe their behavior is beyond control, due to fate
  • authoritarian personality - F scale, deep respect for authority, submissive to those in authority
  • empathy - high levels = less obedience
  • culture - individualistic, collectivism
  • gender - women and men equal in obedience, women had higher levels of anxiety
• BURGER (2009):

  • AIM: find the same results as milgram 1963
  • METHOD: lab experiment
  • PROCEDURE: 70 ppts, men and women, they were screened for psychology knowledge and history of drugs or anxiety, increased by 15V each time, 165V max
  • RESULTS: in the baseline condition 70% went above 150V and in the MRC 63% went past 150V
  • CONCLUSION: results remained the same as milgram's study