Social Approach

emilyyoung212
Mind Map by , created almost 6 years ago

Unit 1 - The Social Approach

118
7
0
Tags
emilyyoung212
Created by emilyyoung212 almost 6 years ago
Research Methods
emilyyoung212
Multi Store Model and Memory
s42099
Psychology research methods flash cards
eharveyhudl
Ionic Bonding
Evangeline Taylor
NSI Course
Yuvraj Sunar
Memory Key words
Sammy :P
Memory Quiz- Psychology (AS)
Grace Fawcitt
Research Methods Quiz- Psychology (AS)
Grace Fawcitt
The Approaches
Emma Chell
Social Influence Quiz- Psychology (Version 2)
Grace Fawcitt
Social Approach
1 Key Assumptions
1.1 Influence of other individuals
1.1.1 How other people affect our thoughts, feelings and behaviours
1.2 Influence of groups and culture
1.2.1 How groups/culture around us affects our thoughts, feelings and behaviour
2 Milgram (1963)
2.1 Aim
2.1.1 To measure how obedient participants would be when ordered to give electric shocks to innocent person
2.2 Sample
2.2.1 40 adult male volunteers, advertisement in newspaper
2.3 Procedure
2.3.1 Participants told they were taking part in a study on the effect of punishment on learning. In a fixed lottery participant always given role of teacher and the stooge was the learner. Participant read out word list and had to shock learner when they gave a wrong answer. Shocks ranged from 15v to 450v - no shocks were actually given. Learner went silent at 315v. If teacher refused to continue 'prods' used to encourage them. Obedience measured by how far the participants went.
2.4 Results
2.4.1 100% went up to 315v, 65% went up to 450v
2.5 Conclusion
2.5.1 Obedience due to situational factors rather than deviant personality
2.6 Variation Studies
2.6.1 Leaner could not be seen/heard - 100% went to 450v
2.6.2 Learner could be seen and heard - 40% went to 450v
2.7 Evaluation
2.7.1 Strengths
2.7.1.1 V.reliable - participants thought experiment was real so behaviour was real
2.7.1.2 Has experimental validity
2.7.2 Weaknesses
2.7.2.1 No ecological validity
2.7.2.2 No population validity - only used American adult males
2.7.2.3 Broke ethical guidelines - protection of participants, withdrawl, deception, consent
3 Meeus and Raaijmakers (1985)
3.1 Aim
3.1.1 To test obedience where harm would be done
3.2 Procedure
3.2.1 Based on Milgram's study. Participants ordered to harass a job applicant (a stooge) to make them nervous while sitting a test
3.3 Results
3.3.1 92% obeyed, most said they thought it was wrong (moral strain)
3.4 Conclusion
3.4.1 People will obey an authority figure even if they think it is morally wrong
3.5 Evaluation
3.5.1 Strengths
3.5.1.1 Ecologically valid
3.5.2 Weaknesses
3.5.2.1 Ethical guidelines broken - deception, protection of participants
3.5.2.2 Carried out in a lab setting - contradicts ecological validity
4 Agency Theory (Milgram 1976)
4.1 Proposed that we have evolved to obey authority
4.2 Two social states:
4.2.1 Autonomous state - we act independently, have free will
4.2.2 Agentic state - see ourselves as agents those in authority, don't believe we are responsible for our actions, surrender free will
4.3 Moral strain - occurs when we are asked to do something we know is morally wrong
4.4 Evaluation
4.4.1 Strengths
4.4.1.1 Helps to explain moral strain
4.4.1.2 Has support from studies like Milgram and Holfing et al
4.4.1.3 Could help protect against being destructively obedient
4.4.2 Weaknesses
4.4.2.1 Not everyone obeys authority
4.4.2.2 Could be used as an excuse for bad behaviour
5 Predjudice
5.1 Usually negative pre-judgement towards a person/group based on appearance
6 Discrimination
6.1 Acting on prejudice feelings
7 Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1970)
7.1 The act of being placed into a group will lead to prejudice against other groups
7.2 Happens in 3 stages:
7.2.1 1. Social categorisation - we categorise ourselves and others into different groups
7.2.2 2. Social identification - we identify with a certain group and adopt behaviours of this group
7.2.3 3. Social comparison - we compare our group to others; must compare well to help self-esteem
7.3 Evaluation
7.3.1 Strengths
7.3.1.1 Supported by Sherif et al
7.3.1.2 Explains real world behaviour
7.3.2 Weaknesses
7.3.2.1 Simplifies complex human reactions
8 Hofling et al (1966)
8.1 Aim
8.1.1 To find out what happens when a nurse is given orders which go against professional standards
8.2 Sample
8.2.1 22 nurses in two hospitals, third hospital used as a control
8.3 Procedure
8.3.1 Boxes of placebo capsules labelled '5mg of Astrofen' placed on wards, indicated that 5mg was normal dose and 10mg was max daily dosage. While nurses were alone on the ward they got a phone call from an unknown doctor calling himself 'Dr Smith'. Instructed them to give a patient 20mg of Astrofen as he was in a hurry and would be over to sign prescrption later
8.4 Results
8.4.1 21/22 nurses complied, 11/22 didn't notice the dosage, 10 did but gave it anyway
8.5 Conclusion
8.5.1 Nurses obeyed the 'doctor' because they thought he was a legitimate authority figure
8.6 Evaluation
8.6.1 Strengths
8.6.1.1 High ecological validity
8.6.1.2 High experimental validity - nurses thought it was real
8.6.2 Weaknesses
8.6.2.1 Low reliability
8.6.2.2 Broke ethical guidelines - consent, deception, protection of participants
8.6.2.3 Low population validity - only female nurses from USA
9 Sherif et al (1961)
9.1 Aim
9.1.1 To see whether it's possible to create prejudice between similar groups
9.2 Sample
9.2.1 22 boys split into two groups
9.3 Procedure
9.3.1 Neither group knew each other. Did a series of tasks in order to bond as a group. Told about other group after first week. Felt the other group had invaded their territory which led to prejudice. Both groups made to compete for prizes - strong prejudice and discrimination resulted.
9.4 Results
9.4.1 Strong 'in-group' preference shown, 93% only had friends in their own group
9.5 Conclusion
9.5.1 Once group identities had formed introducing competition led to discrimination and prejudice
9.6 Evaluation
9.6.1 Strengths
9.6.1.1 High ecological validity
9.6.1.2 High experimental validity
9.6.2 Weaknesses
9.6.2.1 Broke ethical guidelines - consent, deception, protection of participants, withdrawl
9.6.2.2 Low population validity
10 Obedience during conflict
10.1 Soldiers trained to obey orders from authority
10.1.1 How far should this be used as an excuse for carrying out atrocities?
10.2 My Lai Massacre, Vietnam 16th March 1968
10.2.1 26 US soldiers massacred the village of My Lai, killing between 350-500 women, children and old men
10.2.2 Soldiers charged with murder but only one was convicted
10.2.2.1 Lt. William Calley the leader of the 1st Platoon
10.2.2.1.1 Defence was that he was only obeying orders from superiors

Media attachments