Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
37 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Moral strain |
Anxiety originating from going against judgment |
|
|
Social influences (3) |
Strength, immediacy, number (social impact theory) |
|
|
Strength influences (3) |
Status, authority, age (social impact theory) |
|
|
Agency theory evidence (2) |
Milgram's shock studies Hofling- 21/22 nurses followed stooge dr's orders |
|
|
Milgram participants |
160, volunteer sampling, chosen from replies |
|
|
Milgram Telephonic study |
22.5% obedience, some lied and some refused |
|
|
Rundown office block |
Fell to 48% |
|
|
Ordinary man |
Normal clothes/person, resulting in 20% obedience |
|
|
Social impact theory evidence |
Milgram variations Milgram 'looking at sky' study |
|
|
Personality + obedience (3) |
Locus of control (Gupta- obedient had external locus) Authoritarian personality (Milgram- obedience had higher f-score) Empathy (Burger- empathy lead to protest but not dissent) |
|
|
Gender + obedience (2) |
Milgram- found little difference Blass- obedience similar 10 studies |
|
|
Obedience + Culture |
Hard to measure Shanab and Yahya- 62.5% despite collectivist |
|
|
Individualist |
Act independently, are resistant to conformity |
|
|
Collectivist |
Behave as a collective, obedience needed for stability |
|
|
External vs Internal locus of control |
Responsible and less influenced vs behaviour out of their control and more influenced (Gupta) |
|
|
F-scale |
Produces fascism score, submissive to authority and harsh to subordinates |
|
|
Stereotype |
Over generalised belief about someone or a group |
|
|
Discrimination |
Treating one person or group differently in an unfair way |
|
|
Superordinate goals |
Goals achieved by cooperation of all group(s) members |
|
|
Realistic Conflict evidence |
Sherif robbers cave |
|
|
Social identity theory (3) |
Categorization of people Identification with in-group Comparison to out-group |
|
|
Social identity evidence |
Tajfel painting study |
|
|
Tajfel |
48 boys categorised into fake groups based on painting preference, had to reward groups. In-group favouritism shown |
|
|
Personality + prejudice |
Authoritarian personalities (hostile to those below e.g. outgroups)- Adorno |
|
|
Culture + prejudice (3) |
Different laws may impact Kleugel- collectivism more tolerant Fujimoto + Hartel- collectivist more intergroup prejudice |
|
|
Predictive validity |
Extent to which result can predict |
|
|
Split-half method |
Question split to ensure results reliability |
|
|
Central tendency measures |
Mean, median, mode Produces average score for comparison |
|
|
Skewed distribution |
Where values do not confirm to normal distribution |
|
|
Nominal data |
Data forms discrete categories |
|
|
Ordinal data |
Data is rankings as opposed to scores |
|
|
Measures of dispersion |
Range Standard deviation Shows spread of scores |
|
|
Thematic analysis |
Recording themes and patterns in data |
|
|
Sherif procedure (4) |
24 11/12 year olds In-group forming Competition Superordinate goals |
|
|
Burger |
70 volunteer sample Forcibly stopped at 150 volts Base line- 70% vs 82.5% Modelled refusal- 63.3% |
|
|
Key question |
How can we alleviate bullying and prejudice using psychological knowledge? |
|
|
Key question facts |
Various types, effecting many people (1 in 3) Impacts into later life Lead to damage |
