Social Psychology – Edexcel AS Psychology – Flashcards

Aims: To see if people would go against moral strain and obey orders from a perceived authority figure and electrocute someone. To see if the Germans had a basic character flaw that allowed the Nazis to commit the atrocities of WW2. Procedure: 40 white american men paid $4.50 to participate in an experiment on what they thought was 'punishment and learning'at Yale University. They drew roles in a rigged draw, with the participant always being the teacher, and the confederate always being the learner. The teacher saw the learner strapped in and electrodes attached. The teacher received a 45v shock to convince them the task was real (although they were the only person in the study who was unaware that it was fake). Word pairs game was played, each wrong answer meant the teacher shocked the learner with voltages ranging from 15v to 450v, each time increasing by 15v. 5 prods were given to encourage them. Pre-recorded responses were played at specified voltages. Results: 3 participants had seizures. 100% of participants obeyed to 300v 65% of participants obeyed to 450v Nervous laughter, nail biting, sweating. Conclusion: People will go against moral strain and obey a perceived authority figure.

Generaliseability: :( Only white men used so egocentrically biased. :( Only used a small sample so not representative. :( Used oppurtunity sampling. :( No women used so only generaliseable to men. Reliability: :) Standard procedures used. :) Used same 5 prods each time. Application: :) Results can explain why US troops in Abu Ghraib obeyed higher status personnel and subsequently went against moral strain to harm innocent Iraqis as participants in Milgram's study did. Validity: :) Lab experiment, high control, cause and effect established, high IV. :( Lab experiment, artificial setting, low EV. :( Paid to participate, and they knew it was an experiment for prestigious Yale University so may have made them more obedient, low IV as not measuring what we think. Ethics: :( Protection from Harm - participants subject to immense stress of potentially killing someone. :( Informed Consent - did not know what the study would entail. :( Deception - participants did not know they were being studied, did not know that the experiment was on obedience. :( Confidentiality - video of study released years afterwards.

Telephone Instructions... Aim: To see if the proximity/presence of an authority figure affected obedience. Procedure: As with original, except instructions and prompts were given via telephone not face to face. Results: 22.5% went to 450v Conclusion: The presence of an authority figure has a significant impact on obedience.

Rundown Office... Aim: To see if setting affected level of obedience. Procedure: As original, except it took place in a backstreet office block in downtown Bidgeport under the name of 'Bridgeport Research Assosciates' Results: 47.5% obeyed to 450v Conclusion: Setting does have some influence on obedience, although this study alone is not enough to prove it.

Plainclothes Experimenter... Aim: To see if people would go against moral strain and obey if the authority figure did not match their perception of authority. Procedure: As original, except experimenter leaves, and confederate teacher encourages the participant to continue. Results: 20% of participant went to 450v Conclusion: Whether the authority figure matches our perception of authority plays a big part in whether we obey or not.

Aims: To see if people would obey today the same way they did in Milgram's study nearly 50 years ago. To see if gender influenced obedience. To see if personality influences obedience. Procedure: BASE CONDITION: Participants screened. (First time for prior psychology knowledge and mental health, the second time to determine their personality). Participants paid £50 and told they could withdraw. The 70 Participants were a mix of race, age and gender. Rigged draw saw participant was always the teacher. Saw confederate learner strapped in and electrodes attached. Participant received a 15v shock to convince them it was real. Participant then taken to a separate room and did a word pairs game, each wrong answer they delivered a (fake) shock to the confederate learner going up in 15v increments ranging from 15v to 450v. 4 prods were used. Experiment stopped at refusal to continue or at 150v. Standard prompts and pre-recorded responses were used. MODELLED REFUSAL: As above, except participant saw a confederate teacher withdraw, and were then asked to continue. Results: 70% in base condition would have continued to 450v 63.3% in modelled refusal condition would have continued to 450v No significant difference in obedience between genders. No significant difference in obedience between personalities (High desire for control were more keen to obey, high empathic concern were more reulctant but ultimately obeyed to the same extent. Conclusion: Obedience is part of society and the human condition and not something that changes significantly over time. The effect of personality on obedience is unclear. There is no effect of gender on obedience. Norm information does not have a significant effect on obedience.

Generaliseability: (: Large sample (: Both genders present in sample (: Multiplicity of ethnicities present in the sample. Reliability: (: Standard procedure (: Standard responses and prods at set points. Application: (: Results can explain why US soldiers at Abu Ghraib went against moral strain and obeyed the commands of the authority of personnel of higher rank, and harmed innocent Iraqi prisoners. Validity: (: Lab experiment. high control, cause and effect established, high IV :( Lab experiment, artificial setting, not representative of real life, low EV. :( Volunteers participants knew they were in a study, and were paid for participation, so demand characteristics due to obligation to continue, low IV. Ethics: :( Protection from Harm - Although improved from Milgram, still subjected participants to moral strain and anxiety. :( Deception - Participants did not know it was they who were being studied, did not know the experiment was about obedience, and did not know the entire situation was fake.

Gender: No significant difference on obedience or prejudice. Personality: Unclear on effects on obedience, does have an effect on prejudice. Situational Factors: More prestigious a setting, the more obedient. Social threat increases prejudice. Proximity: Increases obedience Culture: Affects obedience. Multicultural societies are less likely to be prejudiced. Status of Authority: More obedient to higher status. Some personalities are prejudiced to those of different status. Responsibility: If an individual is not held responsible, they are more obedient.

Right Wing Authoritarian: Rigid in thinking, traditionalist, agressive to those seen as inferior and obedient to those who are superior. Believes there need to be rules in society for people to obey and to keep it functional. Obedient and Prejudiced. Social Dominance Orientation: Believes that a hierarchical class system is required to keep society functional. Prejudiced and obedient. Open: Individual, open minded and open to new experiences. Less obedient and less prejudiced. Agreeable: Easily influenced by individuals or social norms. This causes high levels of obedience and can easily cause prejudice. Internal Locus of Control: Hold them self responsible, motivated, driven, less influenced by others. Less obedient and less prejudiced. External Locus of Control: Credit success to luck, look for excuses for failure, not motivated, easily influenced by others. High obedience and highly prejudiced.

Due to different traditions, social/political structures, norms and socialisation different cultures have drastically different obedience levels. For example Kilham and Mann found that Australians has an average obedience of 28% whereas Edwards et al. found that South Africans had an average obedience of 87.5%.

Suggests that we need to be obedient to keep society functional, and that obedience is socialised in us from a young age by parents and teachers. Suggests that we shift from the autonomous state (responsible for our actions) to the agentic state (not responsible, and follows the orders of an authority figure). Being in the agentic state, and not responsible for our actions, means that we go against moral strain and obey orders.

Evidence: Milgram's own electric shock studies provide evidence. Application: Can be applied to why US troops in Abu Ghraib harmed innocent Iraqi prisoners, as soldiers shifted from the autonomous state to the agentic state when obeying order from higher rank personnel. Strengths and Shortcomings: Doesn't explain why people don't obey. Agency is a non-measureable concept, as we are unable to tell when we are agents of authority or not, meaning it is not a scientific theory. Alternative: Social Impact Theory suggests that we obey based on immediacy, strength and number.

Suggests that we are most likely to obey when the strength, immediacy and number of the people sharing the same order/attitude. Strength: How important the group is to the individual Immediacy: How close the group are to the individual in both proximity and relationship Number: How large the influential group is.

Evidence: Milgram's Variation studies show that the presence and encouragement of somebody else increases obedience. Application: Can be used to explain why US troops harmed innocent Iraqi prisoners of war because the number of others doing the same was high, they were a close knit unit and everyone in the group was doing it. Strengths and Shortcomings: Oversimplifies human behaviour. Theory has predictive validity. More of a description of obedience than an explanation. It can be seen in real life and is measurable. Can't explain what would happen if two equal sized groups impacted on eachother etc. Alternative: Milgram's agency theory suggests we have been conditioned to shift from the autonomous state to the agentic state in order to reduce chaos in society.

Aims: Aimed to see if prejudice could be created between two groups. Aimed to see if prejudice could be reduced by working cooperatively towards a superordinate goal. Procedure: 22 11 year old Christian, middle class boys from America were split into two groups - 'the Rattlers' and 'the Eagles'. They were collected separately and taken to Oklahoma Robbers Cave scout park. In the first stage the two teams were unaware of the other groups presence and group hierarchies and norms formed. In the second stage conflict was introduced and the two teams competed for prizes, with nothing for the losers. Also, situations where one group benefited by the other group losing out (such as one group being late for a picnic meaning the first group ate everything). In stage 3 the two teams had to work together towards a superordinate goal (such as pulling a truck out of mud) in an attempt to reduce prejudice and hostility. Qualitative data gathered by observation. Results: At the start only 6.4% of participants had friends in the other group, by the end of stage three this increased to 36.4%. In Stage one group hierarchies, norms and leaders were established. In stage two simply the presence of the other group caused hostility and prejudice. Competition worsened this. This lead to name calling, symbolic violence, raids and eventually a fight had to be broken up. In stage three cooperation broke down prejudices and lead to friendship between the in- and out-groups. Conclusion: There does not need to be conflict for prejudice to occur. Conflict worsens prejudice. Cooperation reduces prejudice.

Generalisability: :( Ethnocentrically biased sample. :( Age biased sample. :( No females in sample. :( Socio-economic bias. :( Small sample. Reliability: :( Field experiment so no control over extraneous variables so cannot be replicated exactly the same again. :) Standard procedures. :) Matched pairs reduces participant variables. Application: :) Can be applies to Abu Ghraib as the results can explain why US troops were hostile towards innocent Iraqi prisoners of war, and they were the out-group so simply their existence caused prejudice. This was worsened by the fact they were at war. Validity: :( Field experiment, no control over extraneous variables, low IV. :) Field experiment, natural setting, high EV. :) Less chance of demand characteristics. Ethics: :( Protection from harm - was it right to arouse hostility in the children, especially when it lead to violence? :( Deception - Got informed consent from the parents, but children did not know they were in an experiment or that they were being observed etc.

Suggests that prejudice can occur without any conflict. Three stages: Social Categorisation (Where you identify as a member of a group, and see others as members of an out-group, Social Identification (When you internalise the norms of the group, adopting the identity of the group) and Social Comparison (Where you see the in-group as favourable and the out-group as unfavourable). This stage is where hostility and prejudice occurs. Describing the out group as unfavourable and the in group as favourable increases self esteem.

Evidence: Sherif shows that conflict can lead to prejudice between and in- and an out-group. Jane Elliott's Blue Eyes/Brown Eyes experiment shows there does not even need to be conflict for prejudice to occur. Application: Can be applied to why US troops harmed innocent Iraqi prisoners of war, as the US in-group harmed the Iraqi out group to increase their self esteem. Strengths and Shortcomings: Does not explain why there is not conflict between some groups, such as the Arab-Israeli cooperation. Alternative Theory: Realistic Conflict Theory suggests competition is necessary for conflict to occur.

Where a situation makes you feel vulnerable, and this leads to prejudice.

Why did US Soldiers in Abu Ghraib continue to harm Iraqi Prisoners of War, even through they knew it was wrong?

A prison of was is where captives of the opposing military are taken and held captive. Before the Iraq war, during Saddam Hussein's rule it was an infamous prison for political prison famed for torture, executions and terrible living conditions. Soldiers mentally and physically abused Iraqi PoWs by being hostile towards them, beating them. Soldiers humiliated Iraqi PoWs by putting them on leads, stripping them, putting bags over their heads. Soldiers tortured Iraqi PoWs with dogs, sleep deprivation, being tied up and left, being attached to fake electrodes and told they would be electrocuted if they lowered their arms. Lynndie England became a worldwide symbol of US Military shame after a picture of her with an Iraqi on a leash was leaked.

Agency Theory - suggests US troops acted in that way because they were agents of higher rank military personnel. Social Impact Theory - suggests that US troops acted as they did due to the number, immediacy and strength of those and the behaviour around them. Social Identity Theory - suggests that the US troops were hostile to the Iraqi out-group to increase their self esteem. Realistic Conflict Theory - suggests that the US troops' hostility was worsened by the Iraq war. Milgram (1963) shows that people will obey an authority figure even if it goes against moral strain. Sherif shows that prejudice is worsened by conlfict. Burger shows that those with high desire for control are more keen to obey, and harm people. RWA personality arises from strict military backgrounnd and these are personalities most likely to be prejudiced and obedient.

Aims: Aimed to see if gender influence obedience. Procedure: Questionnaire, 5 males 5 females, 16/17 years old, opportunity sampling. Self report data. Qualitative data collected in open questions, quantitative data collected in closed questions such as likert scale, yes/no questions etc. Results: Obedience score for males was the same as females. Conclusion: Gender does not have any influence on obedience.

Generalisability: :( Small sample. :( Ethnocentric bias. :( Socio-economic bias. :( Age bias. (: Equal split of males and females. Reliability: (: Used standard procedures. (: Same questions for all participants. Application: (: Can explain why both male and female soldier abused innocent Iraqi PoWs in Abu Ghraib, as neither males nor females were more or less abusive due to the lack of gender difference in obedience. Validity: (: Predictive validity from the results of Burger's study and Milgram's variation. ): Interpretation bias of qualitative questions. ): Self report data means answers are prone to socially desirable characteristics. Ethics: :) All guidelines adhered to.