Social Psychology
- Created by: naomi_brightt
- Created on: 26-04-19 15:02
View mindmap
- Social Psychology
- Content
- Theories of obidience
- Agency Theory: 2 opposing states; agentic and autonomous
- + Milgram and Burger did lots of research + can warn those in power how much power their words/ideas have
- - lacks ecological validity, not everyone obeys - ignores other factors
- Social Impact Theory: 3 principles that effect levels of influence; strength, immediacy and no.of sources
- + helps to predict when people are most likely to obey
- - no individual differences - sees the individual as passive
- Agency Theory: 2 opposing states; agentic and autonomous
- Milgram's Studies
- Experiment 5; baseline study; shock for incorrect word pairs, 65% went up to 450v and everyon eobeyed up to 300v
- - was an all male group of participants - stress was intentionally caused
- + Milgram did variations of his studies + other studies have found very similar results
- Experiment 7; telephonic instructions, instuctions and prods given over the phone, 22.5% gave the 450v shock
- Experiment 10; rundown office building, the same as experiment 5, sparsely furnished room, 48% gave 450v shock
- Experiment 13; ordinary man gives instructions, the learner comes up with the idea of punishing with a shock, 20% gave 450v shock
- Experiment 5; baseline study; shock for incorrect word pairs, 65% went up to 450v and everyon eobeyed up to 300v
- Factors of obedience and dissent
- Situational factors; immediacy of experimetor, physical location etc
- Individual difference and personality; high external locus of control, authoritarian etc
- Gender; women were more empathetic
- Culture; ignores the way people were brought up, may explain some stereotypes
- Theories of obidience
- Agency Theory: 2 opposing states; agentic and autonomous
- + Milgram and Burger did lots of research + can warn those in power how much power their words/ideas have
- - lacks ecological validity, not everyone obeys - ignores other factors
- Social Impact Theory: 3 principles that effect levels of influence; strength, immediacy and no.of sources
- + helps to predict when people are most likely to obey
- - no individual differences - sees the individual as passive
- Agency Theory: 2 opposing states; agentic and autonomous
- Theories of prejudice
- Social Identity Theory; 1st, categorisation (us and them), 2nd, identification (try to fit the group norms), 3rd, comparison (we put the other group down)
- Tajfel et al. accurate/inaccurate and Klee and Kandinsky
- - group focus - doesn't explain how groups can live side-by-side for some time
- + explains a wide range of real-life situations
- Realistic Conflict Theory; when fighting for finite resources, negative prejudices occur, can be reduced by introducing a superordinate goal
- + explains segregation + explains how to possibly decrease the conflict
- - ignores other factors of prejudice
- Sherif et al. Robbers Cave
- Factors effecting Prejudice
- Individual differences and personality; authoritarian personality etc.
- Culture; brought up in a mono-cultural society etc.
- Social Identity Theory; 1st, categorisation (us and them), 2nd, identification (try to fit the group norms), 3rd, comparison (we put the other group down)
- Factors effecting Prejudice
- Individual differences and personality; authoritarian personality etc.
- Culture; brought up in a mono-cultural society etc.
- Theories of obidience
- Methods
- Questionnaires
- Quantitative data; numerical data, good for exact comparison but results are limited
- Qualitative data; information about qualities, provides depth and detail but less people can be studied
- Open questions; no preset answers, allows participants to elaborate but much more difficult to answer
- Closed questions; there are preset fixed answers, easy to analyse and answer but can only gather limited results
- Fixed choice; yes or no
- Likert scale; ranking an aswer with an unsure option
- Ranked scale; rank a list of options
- Issues; social desirability, give an answer they think is right and the questionnaire needs to not be too complicated
- Interviews
- Structired interview; typically uses closed questions, easy to administer but the data can be superficial and lack depth
- Semi-structured interview; a set of questions that you aim to ask, allows respondent freedom to express their views much more but the open questions are hard to analyse
- Unstructured interviews; has a loose research aim, provides detailed and valid results but hard to replicate and analyse
- Researcher effects; interviewers characteristics may influence a respondent, you need to be careful who interviews who
- Hypotheses
- Alternative; a clear, precise statement predicting results
- Null; a default prediction that the results are due to chance
- Sampling techniques
- Random; everyone has an equal chance of being selected, consent has to be given which can become unrepresentative
- Stratified; dividing the target itno important subcategories, garuntees representative results
- Oppurtunity sampling; selecting people that are available, limited control
- Volunteer; people choose to partake in the study, no control over who volunteers
- Questionnaires
- Studies
- Contemporary Study
- Evaluation
- Contemporary Study
- Key Question
- Explanation
- Discussion
- Practical Investigation
- Basics
- To see if people who have an authoritarian personality are also 'agentic' in obeying an authority
- "Participants who report themselves as authoritarian tend to see themselves as agentic" "There will be a difference between older participants (40+) and younger participants (16-35) in how much thye see themselves as authoritarian/agentic"
- Procedure
- Basics
- Content
Comments
No comments have yet been made