2545282
Beschreibung
Karteikarten von kristinelesc, aktualisiert more than 1 year ago
|
Erstellt von kristinelesc
vor mehr als 9 Jahre
|
|
| Frage | Antworten |
| Tajfel | LO: Humans have a social self, Social identity theory. In-group/out-group Intergroup discrimination 64 schoolboys 14-15 yrs UK 1) groups of 8, then divided in sub-groups at random but told they were under/overestimating or highly/poorly accurate Asked to give reward (money) to others, were told whether they were in- or out-group Found that most gave money to their own group members (even though they didn't know their identities) 2) groups of 16, shown paintings and told they preferred either Klee or Kadinsky, filled out reward booklets (like in 1) Found that most important factor in their choices was maximising the difference between groups Conclusion: out-group discrimination is easy to trigger, we have norms for behaviour that include discriminating out-groups. |
| Festinger (1956) | LO: Errors in attribution, research methods, ethical considerations. "When prophecy fails" Followed a UFO cult who thought the world would end and they would survive if they believed in the prophecy 20. December they waited for a spacecraft. Festinger + team did a covert participant observation (pretended to be part of the cult, they did not know they were being studied) 4 observers - how committed were the people in the cult? Foot-in-the-door (level of commitment), would they change their behaviour when the world didn't end? Observers had to take notes when they were alone (memory - reliable?) Cognitive dissonance: when it didn't happen, they would feel anxiety BUT would justify (say they saved the world) to keep up self-esteem Limitations: ethics, measuring, reliable observation (memory) |
| Bandura - "Bobo doll" | LO: Social and cultural environment affect behaviour (principle), social learning theory Would children imitate aggression, would they imitate same-sex behaviour? 72 children (36b, 36g) 3-5 yrs - 3 groups based on aggression (evaluated by parents etc) Group 1 observed aggressive model (bashing Bobo doll), group 2 observed non-aggressive model, group 3 control (no model). Some watched same-sex, others opposite sex. Were taken in a room with a Bobo doll. Groups 1 were more aggressive than groups 2 and 3 (showed SLT), girls were more likely to be verbally aggressive, boys were physically aggressive. Conclusion: children learned aggressive behaviour through observation (social learning theory). Evaluation: precise control of variables, replicable BUT low eco. validity, unethical, how to measure aggressiveness |
| Asch's paradigm | LO: Human beings are social animals (principle), research method, cultural dimensions, situational/dispositional factors, conformity Aim: pressure from group can affect conformity. 1 participant placed in a room with 7 "fake participants", asked to perform a visual test (lines of same length) - obvious answer. All answered out loud, participant was near the end of the row and all the others said the wrong answer on purpose. (+ control group) Most participants conformed and gave the obvious wrong answer, in the control group almost no one gave the wrong answer. Evaluation: biased sample (all males), low eco. validity, ethical |
| Lee | LO: errors in attribution "Game show" Participants (students) randomly assigned role of game show host, participants or audience members. They performed a fake game show, then audience was asked to rate the people's intelligence. They rated the host as most intelligent, even though they knew everyone randomly got a role. They attributed the host's performance to dispositional rather than situational factors. Evaluation: biased sample (only students) who are used to seeing teachers etc. as authorities - but this represents real life |
Möchten Sie mit GoConqr kostenlos Ihre eigenen Karteikarten erstellen? Mehr erfahren.