UNIT 1 PSYCHOLOGY SOCIAL

evaluate generalisability of Milgram
volunteer sample =more likely to be obedient, 40 ppts may make anomalies alter it, time locked? no women at first, but after v8 found men=representative
1 of 216
evaluate reliability of Milgram
replicable (Burger), standard procedures (prods, tape recorded responses from Mr Wallace), Gina Perry says only standard procedures for 1st, improvised rest
2 of 216
evaluate applications of Milgram
increase obedience in schools etc, might explain My Lai Massacre and why people obeyed Hitler (Adolf Eichmann)
3 of 216
what happened at the My Lai massacre?
US soldiers in 1968 killed 800 in Vietnamese village, obeying orders from Lt Calley, Lt Calley said he was only following orders from above
4 of 216
evaluate validity of Milgram
artificial task, lacks ecological validity, Gina Perry says ppts suspected set up but visible distress filmed by Milgram suggest otherwise
5 of 216
evaluate ethics of Milgram
ppts deceived and gave no informed consent, prods made withdrawing difficult, understanding obedience justifies means
6 of 216
who proposed Realistic Conflict Theory?
Sherif
7 of 216
what is the classic study for social psychology?
Sherif
8 of 216
what is the contemporary study for social psychology?
Burger
9 of 216
how does RCT say prejudice occurs?
conflict of interest/competition of resources between groups
10 of 216
how can prejudice and hostility be reduced? (RCT)
superordinate goals
11 of 216
what are the strengths of RCT?
highly credible research w/ face validity to back it up, superordinate goals can be used to reduce discrimination, stop children arguing
12 of 216
what are the weaknesses of RCT?
the robbers cave study was carried out on boys so not generalisable to adult/girls, Tajfel and Turner contrast RCT -prejudice=natural, Robbers cave lacks ecological validity
13 of 216
what does RCT suggest?
there is a real reason for group conflict/prejudice that ignores the irrational side to human nature
14 of 216
in what year did Milgram do his study?
1963
15 of 216
what did Milgram tell his ppts the study was about?
memory
16 of 216
how many ppts were in Milgrams original study?
40
17 of 216
what were the aims of the original Milgram study?
to find out to what extent people would obey a figure of authority, also create baseline data
18 of 216
what happened in the Milgram study when the ppts arrived?
"random" assignment of teacher and learner, learner strapped into chair connected to shock generator and given shock every time answers incorrectly to teachers question
19 of 216
who played the learner in the Milgram study?
Mr Wallace - stooge
20 of 216
who played the experimenter in the Milgram study
Mr Williams - stooge
21 of 216
who played the teacher in the Milgram study?
volunteer
22 of 216
how were the shocks delivered to the learner in the Milgram study?
increasing 15V each time, in reality all were fake
23 of 216
what was the shock generator labelled from in the original Milgram study?
slight shock to danger shock
24 of 216
what happened at 150V in the Milgram study?
learner demands to be let out from experiment
25 of 216
what happened at 270V in the Milgram study?
learner screams
26 of 216
what happened at 300V in the Milgram study?
learner answers no more questions and makes no more noises
27 of 216
what are the 4 prods of the Milgram study?
please continue, the experiment requires that you continue, it is absolutely essential that you continue, you have no other choice you must go on
28 of 216
what did people predict would happen in the Milgram study?
only 4% of people would go to 300V and 1 in 1000 would give highest shock
29 of 216
what are the results of the Milgram study?
all obedient to 300V, 65% went to 450V
30 of 216
what factors influence obedience?
urgency, no communication, setting, a sense of agency
31 of 216
what are the criticisms of Milgram?
volunteers had sense of obligation, deception, possible harmful long term effects, prods stopped withdrawal, poor adequacy of debreif
32 of 216
how did Milgram justify ppt anxiety?
called it "momentary excitement"
33 of 216
how did Milgram justify deception in his study?
it was necessary for the experiment
34 of 216
how did Milgram justify the prods questioning ppt right to withdraw
35% did leave, therefore prods just discourage leaving
35 of 216
what are strengths of Milgram?
all experiments standardised, qualitative and quantitative data makes it credible and scientific
36 of 216
what are weaknesses of Milgram?
samples were not representative, volunteers have a vested interest, Gina Perry says ppts did not believe they were in an experiment, lacks ecological validity
37 of 216
what happened in variation 13a of Milgram?
confederate (writing down times) suggests swapping places and gives shocks, ppt bystander, 69% ob. all 16 protest, 5 try to restrain confed. people more willing to be bystanders
38 of 216
what happened in variation 10 of Milgram?
destination moved from Yale to run down office in Bridgeport, nothing relates to Yale, drop to 48% ob. (not sig.) ppts did show more doubts and questions
39 of 216
what happened in variation 13 of Milgram?
Mr Williams called away, 2nd confed. "writing down times" says to increase voltage of shock each wrong answer, 20% ob. -> status of authority figure matters
40 of 216
what happened in variation 7 of Milgram?
experimenter gives instructions but leaves the room, any challenges experimenter calls up, all prods over phone, some ppts give lower shocks as thought not observed, 22.5% ob. physical presence matters
41 of 216
what happened in variation 5 of Milgram?
script changed, Mr Wallace has heart condition, at 150V started to complain more about chest pain, more ppts dropped out, those who passed 150V went to 450V, 65% ob. used as baseline for Burger
42 of 216
what does Milgram say society is?
hierarchial
43 of 216
how are we taught obedience?
through socialisation
44 of 216
what is the name for the group of people that teach us social norms?
socialisers
45 of 216
what are the 2 states we live in
agency and autonomy
46 of 216
what is the agentic state?
where you do something you wouldnt otherwise do, instructed to you by an authority figure, and blame the authority not yourself for it
47 of 216
what is the autonomous state?
when you behave as you normally would and take responsibility for all of your own actions
48 of 216
what is the switch from autonomous state to agentic state called?
agentic shift/ moral strain
49 of 216
why do we switch to the agentic state?
because someone in a position of power has told us to do something
50 of 216
what does moral strain do?
give feelings of anxiety and distress
51 of 216
how does the shift into agency relieve moral strain?
responsibility is displaced to authority figure
52 of 216
why does moral strain make a person feel anxious?
they consider behaving in a way that contradicts the obedience they have been socialised to show
53 of 216
in what year did Burger do his study?
2009
54 of 216
what were the aims of the Burger study?
to see if you can replicate Milgrams study, to investigate personality variables like empathy and locus of control in obedience
55 of 216
what is the IV of the Burger study?
base condition compared with model refusal condition
56 of 216
what is the DV of the Burger study?
shocks given
57 of 216
what is the sample of the Burger study?
70 men and women aged 20-80
58 of 216
how did Burger recruit his sample?
through adverts in a newspaper and online
59 of 216
what type of sample did Burger have?
volunteer
60 of 216
how did Burger reduce his initial sample size down to 70?
screened them dropping those who heard about Milgrams exp, attended 2 or more psych classes, had anxiety issues or drug dependency
61 of 216
what voltage test shock did Milgram give ppts?
45
62 of 216
what voltage test shock did Burger give ppts?
15
63 of 216
what happened at 75V on the Burger study?
learner indicate pain
64 of 216
what happened at 150V on the Burger study?
learner says he wants experiment to stop
65 of 216
how far did the Burger experiment go (in shocks)?
150
66 of 216
what did the experimenter do if the ppts wanted to move past 150V in the Burger study?
end the study
67 of 216
what variation did Burger also do with the Milgram studies?
model refusal
68 of 216
what happened in the model refusal condition of Burger?
2nd confed, pretends to be teacher, naive ppt watching, at 90V confed, says "I dont know about this" and refuses to go on, ppt continues, 63.3% do
69 of 216
how is Burger different to Milgram?
investigate individual differences with a questionnaire looking at empathy and locus of control, 2 step screening process, told ppts 3x can withdraw and exp. =clinical psychologist so can react to stress, only 15V sample, only goes up to 150V
70 of 216
why did Burger only go up to 150V?
because in the Milgram variation (5) he was copying, all that went past 150V went to 450V
71 of 216
what were the results of Burger?
70% in baseline went past 150V, 82.5% in Milgram -> not statistically different
72 of 216
did Burger find empathy to impact obedience?
no
73 of 216
did Burger find locus of control to impact obedience?
yes - if high, stopped at 150V or earlier
74 of 216
what are the conclusions of the Burger study?
Milgrams results are still important, model refusal and empathy do not change anything (contradict Milgrams thoughts about empathy)
75 of 216
evaluate generalisability of Burger
sample of 70 reduces anomalies, both genders and wide age range=v. generalisable, did exclude lots of people from the final sample which may alter results
76 of 216
evaluate reliability of Burger
replicates Milgram, follows script where needed, filmed it all to give inter rater reliability
77 of 216
evaluate applications of Burger
can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, authority figures to wear symbols of authority and justify it with reference to greater good, test locus of control for disobedient?
78 of 216
evaluate validity of Burger
lacks ecological validity, ppts fully paid in advance so we know that pressure made them obey, not money, all based on assumption to continue all the way after 150V - what if not true?
79 of 216
evaluate ethics of Burger
2 step screening to screen out ppts who might have a negative reaction to study, told they could withdraw 3 times in writing at any point in study, only 15V sample shock, no time in between end and debriefing, experimenter=clinical psychologist-help
80 of 216
what did Bickman and Milgram do in 1969?
got 1-15 confeds. to look at 6th floor of building in NY, Milgram filmed ppts that joined in - more people joined in when bigger numbers, but effect levelled off after got v big
81 of 216
who proposed social impact theory?
Bibb Latane
82 of 216
what does social impact theory state?
we are influenced by actions of others, (targets and sources), social influence impacted by strength, immediacy and number of sources compared to targets
83 of 216
what is a source in social impact theory?
the person doing the influencing
84 of 216
what is a target in social impact theory?
the person being influenced
85 of 216
what is strength in social impact theory
determined by status, authority or age
86 of 216
what is immediacy in social impact theory?
determined by proximity between target and source and presence of buffers that could be barriers to distance
87 of 216
what is number in social impact theory?
how many sources and targets there are in the situation
88 of 216
what does social impact theory say will happen if number, immediacy and strength increase?
obedience increase - but effect will level off
89 of 216
what is the divisional effect of social impact theory?
proposed by Latane and Darley in 1970, says number of targets to be impacted on affects impact of source - one person is more likely to obey than a group of people
90 of 216
what are weaknesses of social impact theory?
oversimplifies human nature, doesnt account for differences in people, a static theory not dynamic (doesnt explain the interaction), limited as cannot predict what would happen if groups equal
91 of 216
what are strengths of social impact theory?
it can be observed in daily behaviour
92 of 216
what are strengths of agency theory?
Milgrams ppts showed moral strain, also blame experimenter for behaviour, explains Adolf Eichmann etc and real life situations (face validity) backed up by Hofling
93 of 216
what are weaknesses of agency theory?
doesnt explain individual differences and free will, hard to pin point agentic shift, Milgram ppts should have relaxed when fully agentic but didnt, doesnt explain disobedience
94 of 216
when did Asch do his studies?
1950's
95 of 216
what did Asch study?
conformity
96 of 216
what did Asch do in his study?
gave a standard line and asked people to say which line was the same length, all but 1=actor, would normally answer correctly until 5/6th round when all gave same wrong answer
97 of 216
what did Asch find?
75% conformed at least once, 33% conformed about half the time, 25% conformed nearly every time
98 of 216
evaluate validity of Asch?
possibility of demand characteristics, low ecological validity
99 of 216
evaluate objectivity of Asch?
high -you can see who conforms and who does not
100 of 216
evaluate reliability of Asch
high- repeated many times and got similar results
101 of 216
what strengthens conformity?
if you feel insecure/incompetent, group has 3+ people, group unanimous, admire the group status, no prior commitment or response, group observes behaviour, culture encourage respect
102 of 216
in what year did Sherif do his study?
1954
103 of 216
how many previous studies did Sherif do?
2- both failed
104 of 216
what was the aim of the Sherif study?
to find out what factors cause 2 groups to develop hostile relationships and see how it can be reduced, see if 2 groups can be manipulated into conflict through competition, test RCT
105 of 216
what was Sherifs sample?
22 boys aged 11
106 of 216
who gave consent in the Sherif study?
parents
107 of 216
what did Sherif do to stop the parents visiting?
paid $25 as an incentive not to visit
108 of 216
how many groups did Sherif put the boys into?
2- equally matched and didnt know about each other
109 of 216
what is the IV of the Sherif study?
phase of study
110 of 216
what is the DV of the Sherif study?
boys behaviour and attitude
111 of 216
how did Sherif keep the boys separate?
arrived on separate busses and kept at separate sites
112 of 216
how many hours did observers spend with boys each day in Sherif study?
12
113 of 216
what did the observers do in their time with the boys in the Sherif study?
did not influence decision making
114 of 216
what was phase 1 of the Sherif study?
ingroup formation
115 of 216
what was phase 2 of the Sherif study?
friction phase
116 of 216
what was phase 3 of the Sherif study?
integration phase
117 of 216
what happened in ingroup formation in the Sherif study?
boys kept separate from each other, encouraged to chose group names, tasks for boys to accomplish (e.g. treasure hunt). discover other group and ask for baseball competition, 2 Eagles left for homesickness, sociometric data about how boys rate friend
118 of 216
what were the 2 groups of boys called in the Sherif study?
Eagles and Rattlers
119 of 216
how long did the ingroup formation phase last in the Sherif study?
5-6 days
120 of 216
how long did the friction phase last in the Sherif study?
4-6 days
121 of 216
how long did the integration phase last in the Sherif study?
6-7 days
122 of 216
what happened in the friction phase of the Sherif study?
boys brought into contact with each other in competitions, prizes for winners (trophies and knives), scores rigged to keep tensions high, orchestrated situations boys find frustrating-believed other group caused it, stereotypes recorded about groups
123 of 216
what happened in the integration phase of the Sherif study?
conflict resolution, aimed to bring groups together, mere contact (shared dinners) didnt work, superordinate goals did work
124 of 216
what are the results of the Sherif study?
the boys needed little encouragement to be competitive, requested baseball match, us and them language
125 of 216
how did the boys interact with each other in the Sherif study?
name calling, Eagles burnt Rattlers flag, Rattlers night raid-turning over beds and stole comics, Eagles launched own raid with bats, Rattlers stole Eagles prizes, 2 sides met for fight, 93% friends in own group only
126 of 216
what did the Sherif study reveal about mere contact?
it did not work - boys had a food fight
127 of 216
how do we know that the superordinate goals reduced tension in the Sherif study?
the Rattlers shared the $5 they won to buy soft drinks for both camps, at end of friction phase, 6.4% outgroup friendships for Rattlers, 7.7% Eagles. end of integration phase outgroup friendships 36.4% Rattlers and 23.2% Eagles
128 of 216
what were the conclusions of the Sherif study?
strong ingroup identities initially formed, introduction of competition generates negative outgroup bias, RCT supported, mere contact is ineffective, hierarchies est. quickly
129 of 216
what is the main finding from the Sherif studies?
intergroup conflict is inevitable with competition but is reduced through superordinate goals
130 of 216
evaluate generalisability of Sherif
22 is small sample, anomalies? ppts screened for troubled backgrounds, might not apply to girls or adults, "all american" type boys dont represent all, time locked?
131 of 216
evaluate reliability of Sherif
observers w/ boys for 12 hours of the day (cant see all), quantitative data for comparison between phases, tape recorded conversations and multiple raters=inter rater reliability, some standardised procedures but some not
132 of 216
evaluate validity of Sherif
many different research methods (observe, tape record, tests), high ecological validity (even fake tasks feel real) no control group, unrealistic features (counsellors not intervening, only when boys ready to fight), Michael Biling
133 of 216
what did Michael Biling say about the Sherif study in 1976?
the experimenters were a 3rd group of the study with the most power
134 of 216
evaluate ethics of Sherif?
boys consent but not informed, no debriefing, deception (over lots-water pipe etc), risks and danger, parents gave presumptive consent on boys behalf, withdrawal (2 went home for homesickness), typical summer camp events? no greater harm than normal
135 of 216
why do people like to be in groups?
being accepted by others gives feelings of belonging, affection and attention
136 of 216
why do people conform?
avoid feelings of discomfort and ridicule if singled out, fear of embarrassment and rejection from group, need for acceptance and approval of others
137 of 216
what is the dispositional explanation of obedience?
people with authoritarian personalities are more likely to obey
138 of 216
what are the 3 key identifiers of a person with an authoritarian personality?
ethnocentrism, obsession with rank and status, respect and submissiveness to authority figure
139 of 216
what did Middendorp and Meleon find in 1990?
people who are less educated are more likely to be authoritarian
140 of 216
is an authoritarian person likely to be prejudice?
yes
141 of 216
what is ethnocentrism
belief that ones own ethnic group is superior to another
142 of 216
what 3 traits of an authoritarian personality are linked to prejudice?
ethnocentrism, conservatism, anti democratic
143 of 216
what is conservatism
belief in tradition and social order, with a dislike for change
144 of 216
what is anti democratic?
views that oppose the fair election of government and majority rule
145 of 216
what is the difference between prejudice and discrimination?
prejudice is an attitude, discrimination is an action
146 of 216
what components is prejudice associated with?
affective (emotion), behavioural (actions), cognitive (mind)
147 of 216
define stereotype
an overgeneralised belief about someone or something typically based on limited information
148 of 216
define inter group conflict
conflict experienced between different groups
149 of 216
define intra group conflict
conflict experienced in the same group
150 of 216
define discrimination
actively excluding an individual or group from things they are entitled to
151 of 216
define superordinate goals
goals that can only be achieved by co-operation of all group members together
152 of 216
define social norms
unspoken rules that people conform to, if not conformed to then there is a negative impact
153 of 216
what is the difference between explicit social norms and implicit social norms
explicit norms are spoken or written rules for behaviour, implicit norms are unspoken and unwritten rules
154 of 216
define obedience
the act of doing as you are told and following instructions from a person in a position of authority
155 of 216
define conformity
a change in belief or opinion in order to fit in with a group
156 of 216
what is an example of an implicit social norm?
look forward in an elevator
157 of 216
what is an example of an explicit social norm?
school dress code
158 of 216
define hierarchial
a system of organisation that is ranked from top to bottom
159 of 216
define socialisation
the process by which we learn the rules and norms of society through socialising agents
160 of 216
define moral strain
experiencing anxiety because you have been asked to do something that goes against your moral judgement
161 of 216
define social influence
when a persons behaviour, attitudes and emotions are affected by those of another
162 of 216
who proposed social identity theory?
Tajfel
163 of 216
what does social identity theory say?
people need a positive self image and personal identity, being in a group gives social identity, if social identity favourable then positive personal identity (vice versa), people will compare groups->favouritism to ingroup, negative bias to outgroup
164 of 216
what does social identity theory say all members of an in group will be viewed as
heterogeneous
165 of 216
what does social identity theory say all members of an out group will be viewed as
homogenous
166 of 216
what study supports social identity theory?
minimal groups -Bristol School Boys
167 of 216
what are strengths of social identity theory?
explains friendship groups (all about perception, change perception to reduce prejudice), supported by Tajfel's study, explain discrimination when no competition
168 of 216
what are weaknesses of social impact theory?
negative application (Nazi), Tajfel study has demand characteristics and lacks ecological validity, there are gaps in the theory (why do people cling to their social identity)
169 of 216
what is the conformity theory of prejudice?
once norms of prejudice and discrimination have been established in a society, they will be reinforced by conformity, "non conscious ideology" is when prejudice is so accepted in community it becomes an unquestioned norm
170 of 216
what is scapegoating theory of prejudice?
socially frustrating conditions lead to aggression which needs to be displaced, blame is allocated to a scapegoat (usually minority or outgroup that cannot defend itself), accounts for fluct. in prejudice over time, (Dollard frustration agg. theory)
171 of 216
what is stereotyping in prejudice?
categorising people into groups based on visible cues, assuming all members of the group share the same characteristics, it is an inbuilt cognitive process where you exaggerate sim. and diff, between groups, often derogatory and lead to discrim.
172 of 216
what did my experiment look into?
how obedient people are
173 of 216
what was my research question?
are 6th form students in SGS obedient
174 of 216
what was the sample in my study?
16 students from SGS (equal girls and boys)
175 of 216
what sampling technique did I use?
opportunity
176 of 216
how many closed questions did I use?
4 (three likert scale, 5=most obedient answer, one rating scale)
177 of 216
what is an example of a closed question in my study?
(likert scale) i always do what I am told to by parents and teachers
178 of 216
how many open questions did I ask in my study?
1
179 of 216
what was the open question in my study?
what would you do if you were asked to punish someone for committing a crime that they had not done?
180 of 216
what were the findings of my study?
mostly balanced ob. max. possible score=25, mean score=12.8, highest score=18, lowest score 7 (5=lowest possible)female mean=14.5, male mean 11.5
181 of 216
evaluate generalisability of my study?
sample of 16 implies anomalies alter it, 6th form students not generalisable to wider public, mix of boys and girls
182 of 216
evaluate reliability of my study?
standard questionnaire,
183 of 216
evaluate reliability of my study?
standard questionnaire, same script for all, 2 raters giving scores
184 of 216
evaluate validity of my study?
low ecological validity, high internal validity, face validity, demand characteristics?
185 of 216
evaluate ethics of my study?
informed consent, no deception, debriefed
186 of 216
what was the key question?
how can social psychology help us understand the causes of ethnic cleansing?
187 of 216
how does agency theory explain ethnic cleansing?
a person obeys when in agentic state and will ethnic cleanse even if not normal for them, because authority person has responsibility (Adolf Eichmann "I was just following orders")
188 of 216
how would the Zimbardo experiment explain ethnic cleansing?
where there is pathology of power, people will obey immoral orders, as seen in WW2 when Hitler was in control
189 of 216
how would social identity theory explain ethnic cleansing?
where there are groups there will always be prejudice, this is more so when the groups have strong contrasting opinions such as the Yazidi-ISIL genocide (contrasting religious views)
190 of 216
how would realistic conflict theory explain ethnic cleansing?
where there is competition for resources there will be prejudice and conflict, as seen in Myanmar where the Rohingya are competing for equal rights such as health care
191 of 216
how would social impact theory explain ethnic cleansing?
when there are more people in the cleansing group, they are more likely to obey doing something immoral as they have a greater number, as seen in the Myanmar genocide, where the Rohingya are the minority and are been suspect to attack from big groups
192 of 216
in what year was the Zimbardo experiment carried out?
1969
193 of 216
in what year was the Zimbardo study published?
1971
194 of 216
what was the sample of the Zimbardo study?
24 men, decided to be a guard or a prisoner by flipping a coin (12 in each category)
195 of 216
how much were the volunteers in the Zimbardo study paid each day?
$15
196 of 216
what happened to the guards in the Zimbardo study?
they were made to feel special in military style clothing, mirrored glasses and equipment, drew up prison rules
197 of 216
what happened to the prisoners in the Zimbardo study?
arrested the night before by the police, blindfolded, hosed down, ankle chain, given numbers not names
198 of 216
what did the prisoners do in the first night of the Zimbardo study?
rebell
199 of 216
which prisoner was the first to break down in the Zimbardo study?
8612
200 of 216
how did the guards in the Zimbardo study treat the prisoners?
degrading, made one say he loved another, made one clean the toilets with his hands
201 of 216
what happened on the 5th day of the Zimbardo study?
Zimbardos gf looked around, she hated it, experiment ended on day 6
202 of 216
what is the term for the abuse of power demonstrated by the guards in the Zimbardo study?
pathology of power /power without restraint
203 of 216
evaluate validity of the Zimbardo study?
David Eshelman, a guard, admitted to showing demand characteristics, distress was real, guards had no training and prisoners not actual criminal so low ecological validity
204 of 216
evaluate reliability of the Zimbardo study?
was not repeated and due to individual aspects it would be hard to do so
205 of 216
evaluate objectivity of the Zimbardo study?
opinion and interpretation about what they were doing, but some of it was filmed
206 of 216
in what year did Hofling do his study?
1966
207 of 216
what was the aim of the Holfing study?
to conduct a realistic study of obedience and see if people knowingly break rules when instructed to by authority
208 of 216
what proportion of the control group in the Hofling study said they would obey the hospital rules in the scenario given?
31/33
209 of 216
what happened in the Hofling study?
in public and private hospitals on a night shift, nurses received call from a dr who they know on staff but hadnt met, call followed script, asked to give ASTROTEN to patient, staff psychiatrist nearby to report if did
210 of 216
what rules would administering ASTROTEN break in the Hofling study?
dose to be given=too much, medication orders must not be given over the phone, medication unathorised
211 of 216
how did Holfing make sure that no patients would actually be harmed in administering ASTROTEN?
replaced it with placebo drug
212 of 216
what were the findings of the Hofling study?
all phone calls brief, nurses show little/no resistance, several sought reassurance dr would arrive promptly, 95% started giving medication
213 of 216
how did the nurses in the Hofling study justify giving medication to patients?
they had similar orders in the past and doctors got cross if not followed
214 of 216
what are the conclusions of the Hofling study?
people will break rules if ordered to by authority
215 of 216
evaluate Hofling?
high ecological validity (real life), broke ethical guidelines of deception, possibility of long lasting trauma, time locked? standard script, control group for comparison
216 of 216

Other cards in this set

Card 2

Front

evaluate reliability of Milgram

Back

replicable (Burger), standard procedures (prods, tape recorded responses from Mr Wallace), Gina Perry says only standard procedures for 1st, improvised rest

Card 3

Front

evaluate applications of Milgram

Back

Preview of the front of card 3

Card 4

Front

what happened at the My Lai massacre?

Back

Preview of the front of card 4

Card 5

Front

evaluate validity of Milgram

Back

Preview of the front of card 5
View more cards

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Social resources »