8481949
Descripción
Fichas por Poppy Boyfield, actualizado hace más de 1 año
|
|
Creado por Poppy Boyfield
hace más de 7 años
|
|
| Pregunta | Respuesta |
| Psychology- Paper 1 | Psychology Paper 1 |
| Social Influencers | Social Influencers |
| Conformity | -where the behaviour of an individual or small group is influenced by a larger group/ majority |
| Types | -Internalisation -Compliance -Identification |
| What is internalisation?? | where they go along with the majority and believe in their views too, you've accepted and internalised therefore are one of them |
| What is compliance? | -Where you go along with majority but don't share their beliefs -do it to just appear normal. Normative social influences. |
| What is identification? | where they conform to what is expected of them, to fulfil a social role -changing behaviour to fit specific role in society (e.g a nurse) |
| Main study? | Asch (1951) -looked at Normative social influence |
| Procedure? | -lab experiment with independent measures design -Groups of 8, 7 confederate, real P was always 7th -Each P did 18 trials, 12/18 were critical trials -Critical trials- confederates gave the wrong answer -Had 3 lines, one different to the rest -There was control group |
| Results? | -Control group gave the wrong answer of 0.7% of time -Critical trials conformed to the majority 37% -75% conformed at least once - some P's stated "they didn't believe their answers, but didn't want to look different" |
| Conclusion? | - Control group showed that the task was easy to get right -however, 37% were wrong in critical trials -Therefore conformed due to normative social influence |
| Evaluation? | -Lab experiment= good control -minimises extraneous variables -Lacks ecological validity- doesn't reflect RW -Ethics- deceived the participants |
| Asch's for situational factors | -Group size = the bigger the more influential with only 2 confederates the p's only conformed 14% in critical trials when there were 3, they conformed 32% -Unanimity/ Social groups -Task difficulty- when the task was more difficult conformity increased due to them being less confident |
| Gender may affect conformity | Until mid-1970's the dominant view was females conform more than males -Eagly and Carli 1981= differences were inconsistent. Clearest difference was when there was group pressure Eagly 1987= men and women have different social roles. Women are more conform with group harmonies and likely to agree with others. Assertiveness and indepedence are valued male attributes. |
| Conformity to social roles- | - Are behaviours that society expects from you - People hold different positions in society such as teenagers, grandparents, managers and priests ect. -these expectations are held by society. When we accept the roles we internalise these expectations. |
| Main study? | Zimbardo et al 1973 |
| Procedure? | -Male students recruited to act as guards or prisoners in mock prison. -Randomly given a role -Pr's were then 'arrested', were took the prison and given a number -Guards were given their uniforms and mirrored sun glasses. |
| Results? | -Guards tried to assert their authority over the prisoners, but Pr's stuck together. -Prisoners then became more passive and obedient, while guards invented nastier punishments -the experiment was abandoned early as Pr's were distressed |
| Conclusion? | -Guards and prisoners adopted their roles quickly -Zimbardo claimed it showed social roles can influence our behaviour -seemingly well-balanced men became unpleasant and aggressive in the role of the guard. |
| Evaluation- | - Controlled observation= good control variables -Artificial environment- cannot be generalised -Gender bias- Beta - Observer bias- Z took part -Ethical issues- right to withdraw, psychological harm |
| Social Roles evaluation | - Real world= studies can help |
| A follow-up study? | BBC prison study |
| Procedure? | -controlled observation in mock prison# -15 male volunteers -randomly assigned to 2 groups -5 guards, 10 prisoners -had daily tests on depression and stress - |
| Results? | Guards failed to form united group and identify with role -they didn't always exercise their power and said they felt uncomfortable with the inequality -In first 3 days, prisoners tried to act in a way which would promote them to guard -the unequal system broke due to the unwillingness of guards and strength of prisoners -Was abandoned by advice from ethics committee as some P's showed stress |
| Conclusion? | -P's did not fit into their expected social roles -Suggested roles are flexible |
| Evaluation? | Prisoners were a strong group= contrast of Z's study -It was made for TV- could be criticised as played up -Artifical situation -Ethics were good. |
| Obedience | Acting in response to an order, usually from a authority figure |
| Main study | Milgram 1963 |
| Procedure? | -Lab experiment -40 men (volunteer sample) -received payment -Experimenter wore a lab coat -Each P was introduced to confederate -Drew to see who was teacher and who was learner (fixed) -Confederate was strapped to chair and connected to 'shock generator'. -Switches ranged from 15 volts (slight shock) - 450 volts (XXX). -P taught the learner word-pairs -when learner got one wrong they were given a shock which increased. -At 300v confederate banged on wall and made no further responses -if P's hesitated the Experimenter told the p's to continue -Debriefing was a interview, questionnaire and meeting the learner again |
| Result? | 26 (65%) administered the 450v and none stopped before 300v -Most P's showed obvious distress, like sweating, groaning and trembling. |
| Conclusion? | -Ordinary people will obey to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against own conscience. |
| Evaluation? | - Internal validity= it is possible the P's didn't believe they were giving the shocks and were going along with experimenters expectations -Ecological validity= did a task which is unlikely in everyday life, but was a lab exp -Ethical issues= they were deceived; didn't have informed consent, weren't informed of the right to withdraw and were promoted to continue. However, weren't ethical guidelines then so he didn't breach any |
| Milgram identified which situational factors? | -Presence of allies- when there were 3 teachers (1 p, 2 con) the real P is less likely to obey if others refuse -Proximity of victim= 65% dropped to 45% with learner in same room and 30% when P had to put learner's hand on shock plate -Proximity of authority= when experimenter gave promise by phone obedience dropped 23% -Location of experiment= when told it was private company and was moved to a run down office obedience dropped to 48% |
¿Quieres crear tus propias Fichas gratiscon GoConqr? Más información.