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;
10 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
- 3rd side (hint)
|
Social identity theory study (prison) |
Zimbardo 22 male subjects selected based off mental stability, maturity and social ability. Randomly assigned role of prisoner or warden. Prisoners signed a consent form that suspended some of the human rights during the experiment but said they would be paid per day. Were 'arrested' by real police and driven blindfolded to the 'prison' where they were stripped and dresses in prisoner uniform. Lived as if they were actual prisoners. They displayed passivity and dependence, depression and anxiety. They were released after 6 days. All but 2 prisoners said they would forfeit the money if they could leave early. Loss of personal identity, learned helplessness. Wardens- put on costumes with correct props. Worked 8 hours a day and given no specific instructions. Asked to keep order and use no physical violence. Displayed huge enjoyment of power, lead to abuse of power and dehumanizing prisoners. Some worked extra time with no extra pay and were disappointed when experiment ended. Punished prisoners for no reason. Lived as if they were actual prisoners. They displayed passivity and dependence, depression and anxiety. They were released after 6 days. All but 2 prisoners said they would forfeit the money if they could leave early. Loss of personal identity, learned helplessness. Prisoners signed a consent form that suspended some of the human rights during the experiment but said they would be paid per day. Were 'arrested' by real police and driven blindfolded to the 'prison' where they were stripped and dresses in prisoner uniform. Lived as if they were actual prisoners. They displayed passivity and dependence, depression and anxiety. They were released after 6 days. All but 2 prisoners said they would forfeit the money if they could leave early. Loss of personal identity, learned helplessness. Wardens- put on costumes with correct props. Worked 8 hours a day and given no specific instructions. Asked to keep order and use no physical violence. Displayed huge enjoyment of power, lead to abuse of power and dehumanizing prisoners. Some worked extra time with no extra pay and were disappointed when experiment ended. Punished prisoners for no reason. Wardens- put on costumes with correct props. Worked 8 hours a day and given no specific instructions. Asked to keep order and use no physical violence. Displayed huge enjoyment of power, lead to abuse of power and dehumanizing prisoners. Some worked extra time with no extra pay and were disappointed when experiment ended. Punished prisoners for no reason.
|
Zimbardo- give info about prisoners and wardens |
|
|
Prison experiment evaluation |
The experiment affected all ps behaviour. Environment causes prisoners to act violently? Supports SIT- development of identity in social groups. Low ecological validity, lab experiment and overt observation. Reliability- experiment not repeated until years after and showed different results. Only studied American males. Ethics- signed consent forms but no clear identity on procedure. Induced aggression in subjects, created discrimination and violence. Wardens showed aggression even when they thought they weren't being watched. |
|
|
|
Social identity theory |
Henri Tajfel- a person's sense of who they are is based on membership to social groups. We have several 'social selves'. Social categorisation- the process of classifying people into groups based on similar characteristics. It gives rise to in-group/out-group bias- leads to social identification. Self esteem maintained by social comparison. Positive distinctiveness- people move towards anything their in-group represents- more bias. |
Tajfel Social categorization In-group out-group Self esteem
|
|
|
SIT evaluation |
Testable, with empirical evidence, demonstrates that people fit into social groups to boost self esteem and creates in-group comparison (applicable) Research is ethnocentric- mostly done in America and is androcentric so not generalisable or representative of global population. Strengths: creates social norms for people to belong and relate to, helps understand conformity behaviors, assumes inter group conflict isn't needed for discrimination to occur. Weaknesses: artificial research, reductionist (interaction with environment not considered), personal identity stronger than group identity in people with high self esteem. Can't explain violent behaviour towards out group. |
TEACUP strengths vs weaknesses |
|
|
SCT evaluation |
Testable with empirical evidence, applications- can possibly explain why certain children are more aggressive than others and the implications of tv. Research is ethnocentric- mostly done in in us and Canada. Only non-western research was done in St helena. Not androcentric as done on boys and girls. Can help predict which children may be more likely to act violently. Psychologists studying the aggression of children when tv was introduced to St helena found no increase in antisocial behaviour. |
|
|
|
Social cognitive/learning theory |
Bandura's theory- observing and imitating others as children acts as a short cut to learning through personal experiences. This is called observational learning and leads to the modelling of behaviour. The behaviours are observed by adults close to the child like parents and teachers and then imitated- often in inappropriate circumstances. They eventually learn to match the behaviour with the appropriate circumstance which is identification. They model most likely to influence us are those who are similar to us, the attractiveness of the model and the status of the model. Vicarious reinforcement- can be indirect. Mediating cognitive factors- influence of thought, an individual may have learned a behaviour and chosen not to copy it. Factors include: attention- can't learn if your not interested in the behaviour, retention- can they remember and recall the information, motivation- the reasons for copying the behaviour, and self-efficacy- self-belief in chance of success. Reciprocal determinism- we are influenced by and influence the environment. |
|
|
|
Lassie study- SCT |
Sprafkin, Liebert and Poulos (1975) studied 6 year olds. 2 groups watched an episode of Lassie, one where a boy risked his life to save a puppy, and one where no one helped a dog. Other groups saw the Brady Bunch instead (control) after watching episode they were given chance to help distressed puppies. to help puppies they had to stop playing a game to win a prize. Children who watched rescue halled for an average of over 90 secs but other programmes averaged under 50 secs. |
Dogs |
|
|
Bobo dolls |
Bandura (1961) 3-5 year old children observed adult male models act aggressively towards a Bobo doll by kicking, throwing, punching and hitting it. One group saw the adult praised for their bahaviour, and rewarded with sweets. One group saw the adult getting punished and a control didn't see anything happen to the adult. The children were given their own Bobo doll to play with. The first and control groups were equally aggressive but the group who saw the adult get punished were much less aggressive. |
|
|
|
Evaluating Bobo dolls |
If findings are accurate, children could be impacted by the violence they were exposed to. Lack of confidentiality-children were filmed. Not informed consent from children only their parents. Naturally, their children would have been more /less predisposed to aggression. |
|
|
|
SIT- tajfel |
Tajfel (1970) - schoolboys 14-15 and divided them into groups by telling them everyone in their group showed a preference to one painting out of several. They were actually randomly assigned. They were given the task of assigning points from a book of tables. Each one offered different points to a point of anonymous boys which was converted to money- 10 points is 1p. When allocating points to 2 out-group or 2 in-group members they were fair, but when there was knew of each, there was in-group favouritism. If the boys had to choose between max joint profit and max difference, they chose max difference even if it meant their ingroup got less as they were still better than the outgroup. Out-group discrimination is easily triggered even though there was no need for competition. |
|
