The Dummies Guide to the Pyschodynamic approach



80010-19812000The Dummies Guide to the Social approachSummaryDefinition and key termsAgentic state, autonomous state, moral strain, in-group, out-group, social categorisation, social identification, social comparisonMethodologySurvey method: including questionnaires and interviews.Quantitative and qualitative data.Sampling – volunteer, random, opportunity, stratificationValidity, Reliability, Generalisability, Objectivity/subjectivity, credibilityDemand characteristics, ContentObedience – Agency theory, Social impact theory, Milgram’s main study and THREE variations, with evaluation and ethics. Burger.Factors affecting obeidencePrejudice – Social Identity theory, Realistic conflict theoryFactors affecting prejudiceTwo studies in detailBurger (2009) and Sherif (1961)Key QuestionHow can knowledge of social psychology be used to reduce prejudice in situations such as crowd behaviour or rioting?PracticalOpen/closed questions, likert scale, descriptive statistics, measures of central tendency, construct validity, social desirabilityKEY ASSUMPTIONSAssumptions are the underpinning beleifs and ideas that support an area of psychology. Social psychology examines how individuals interact with each other and how people behave in groups.social situation:Culture and society and the situation we are in help to shape our behaviour. E.g. our culture affects our view of what we think. What we are exposed to and the social situation we find ourselves in can influence how we behave. Social roles:We are affected by how others see us and by the roles we are allocated. Social roles have expectations attached to them and people act in accordance with their social role. Social roles determines obedience. This happens at all levels. Individuals have an influence over us through e.g. social power, obedience.interaction between individuals:Individuals interact with others and affect one another’s behaviour. We behave in ways that benefit societybeing a member of a group:We describe ourselves as belonging to a group. (sister, friend, student etc). Groups are prejudice against each other, peer groups copy one another and crowds can become unruly.OBEDIENCEObedience is a form of social influence, eg when a person obeys instructions from someone else, usually a perceived authority figure. We are socialised to obey, obedience prevents accidents and creates an orderly society, without obedience there would be challenges to social order resulting in chaos and war. When someone does something because they have been instructed to, even though they may disagree with it is obedience. Rejecting the demands from the authority figure is known as dissent. AGENCY THEORY - MilgramThe authority figure produces the agentic state but it is the participant who is in the agentic state. The authority figures takes on responsibility for the participants actions, so allowing the participant to carry on giving the shocks, as the consequences of his actions are no longer his responsibility. Milgram proposed that people are capable of shifting between 2 different states: autonomous state, in which they see their actions as voluntary and in which the conscience is fully operative; agentic state, in which people see themselves as being agents of others and in which individual conscience does not operate. Moral strain. Doing something that goes against our principles but seems to be for the greater good. Ie soldiers at Abu Ghraib.Milgram sees people are being trained in a agentic state from an early age. At school a child is encouraged to show organisationally appropriate behaviour for the general 'good' of the class and the authority of the teacher must be respected. Milgram claimed similar mechanisms are reflected throughout other social institutions. Milgram suggest that the agentic state manifests itself through a number of mechanisms. One of these is tuning, the person becomes 'attuned' to orders from superiors and requests from people who are not superiors don't matter as much. In his study the requests from the 'learner' were not heeded! Another mechanism is redefining the meaning of the situation so that they can accept the situation. In his study the participants redefined the pain they were causing as 'not dangerous' because this was how it had been defined by the experimenter. A further mechanism is that people no longer feel responsible for their actions. Instead, they feel responsible to the higher authority. This, according to Milgram is how ordinary people can undertake tasks that involve killing, murdering or torturing other people.Milgram’s variations show that obedience is a product of the situation (situational) not their personality (dipositional).Evaluation: Strength: evidence from Milgram’s variationstudies, evolution has lead to a social system of leaders and followers, social roles, evolutionary the autonomonous person should survive, other explanations for obedience in Milgram’s expt.Strength: explains a wide range of social behaviours, going to work, going to war, dissenting etcStrength: Milgram’s study provides evidence because the ppts showed moral strain (anxiety) when giving an order. When debriefed many said that their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter and that they didn’t want to do it suggesting they were acting agentically.Strength: supporting study (Gupta 83) found evidence for the shift of reponsiblity to the experimenter. Obedient males accepted 27% of responsiblityLimitation: doesn’t explain indiviual differences in why some may not obey an authority figure, suggesting other factors involved eg. some people are very charasmatic leaders and can elicit obedience regardless of their position of authority.Limitation: Theory is too vague, eg There is no physical evidence that such a states exists. For example there are no Brain scans or e.e.g.’s that show when a person is or isn’t in the agentic state.468630030289500 MILGRAM (1963) ObedienceAim: test the levels of obedience that ppts would reach when told to give electric shocks. (Germans are different hypothesis)Method: Laboratory expt. at Yale UniversityParticipants: 40 male volunteers each paid for their service.Procedure: confederate was ‘learner’ in a supposed memory test, Ppt was ‘teacher’ who was told to give electric shocks of increasing severity as learner kept making mistakes, ppt faced a shock generator and thought they were giving real electric shocks. Verbal prods given to continue.Results: 100% ppts gave 300v, 65% ppt gave the highest 450v, many ppts showed distress.Conclusion: Volunteers were willing to shock another person simply because they were told to by someone in authority even when uncomfortable about doing so.Evaluation: lead to further research, cause and effect claimed, ethical considerations, unethical, not valid as was a laboratory experiment. Well-controlled procedures mean that the study is replicable and can be tested for reliability. Main issues: PPts were volunteers, PPts were deceived and not given right to withdraw, experimenter was in the room, study was in a university.VARIATIONS:Milgram changed one variable at a time to see what the effect was.Variations Obedience Rate(Those going to 450 volts)Experiment 10: (situation) Venue moved to seedy offices in nearby town47.5%Experiment 13: (status) ordinary man giving orders20%Experiment 7: (proximity) Experimenter instructs and prods teacher by telephone from another room20.5%Expt 7: Was the presence of an authority figure influencing Milgram’s participants? – if they were concerned about impressing the experimenter it could explain why they were so insensitive to the ‘victim’.Initial instructions given and experimenter left the room.Obedience dropped sharply, several administered lower shocks than required and never told the experimenter. 22.5% obeyed compated to Milgram’s original (65%)Participants could resist better when not having to confront the experimenter face to face therefore the physical appearance of an authority figure was an important forceExpt 10: Were the people obedient because of the context of the situation? – Post interviews with Milgrams participants indicated that they were in awe of the prestigious status of the university and had confidence in the integrity, competence and purpose of the experiment.Relocated in a run down comerical building which adds better valdiity than a universityParticipants were less tense even though researcher had sufficient ‘authority’Obedience slightly lower (47.5%) therefore if harmful and destructive commands are to be perceived as legitimate they must occur within some sort of institutional structure.Expt 13: How much power does the experimenter hold? - is it the command or is it the status of the command? 3 subjects (2 confederates) arrive at the lab and drawing is riggedA telephone call takes the experimenter away (without mentioning which shock levels to use)One confederate suggests administering a shock one step at a time after each mistakeCompliance drops (despite insistance). 20% went to the max shock level suggesting that the presence of an authority figure (lab coat or person giving orders) leads to high obedienceEVALUATIONSTRENGTH: Milgram’s variation experiments were all highly standardised and controlled. Each ppt experienced the same (verbal prods, feedback etc). Everything was kept the same except for the variation in IVBoth quantiative and qualitative data was made making the research credible in terms of being scientificLIMITATION: small samples and not representative of generalpopulation. They were all recruited by advertisment resulting in a volunteer sample suggesting they could be more compliant or authoritarian in character. During debrief there were a variety of reasons why people obeyed (not one overriding factor) .A criticism is that ppts didn’t really believe they were shocking and just playing along with the game which would affect validity. However Milgram claims that observing the anxiety displayed (moral strain) is evidence that they were acting agentically.ETHICAL ISSUES Deception and Informed consent: Ppts gave consent to a study about learning therefore did not knowo the true aims of the studyRight to withdraw: Verbal prods used to keep the ppts obeying so they couldn’t leaveCompetence: Milgram asked opinion of colleagues, he was not expecteing to find high level of obedience (3%) so wasn’t intending it to be so stressful Debrief: ppts were fully debriefed, introduced to the ‘victim’ to show no harm was donePpts were paid volunteers suggesting a contract was made making it difficult to pull out.Confidentiality: names were not publishedProtection from Harm: if ppt became distressed observers stepped in to stop the studyDissent and resistance to obedienceObedience is useful for society, it keeps society ordered so that things such as economy, infrastructure etc can run smoothly. However it also may need people to be autonomous such as not obeying ‘bad’ orders and sticking to a moral code. 14 out of 40 ppts resisted orders in Milgram’s study.People resist more when;They can see the victim (proximity)If they are involved directly in giving a punishment (holds hand on shockplate)The setting doesn’t fit the authority (run down offic block)Orders are given remotely (phone)Someone else is seen to reist (peers rebel)Orders are confusingBURGER (2009) ‘Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today?’Burger, using an experiment very similar to Milgram’s, found that 70% of subjects would continue to administer the seemingly painful but fake shocks, even after hearing a subject’s cries for mercy and stopping. Several additional steps were taken to ensure the welfare of participants.1. A two-step screening process to exclude any individual who might have a negative reaction to the experience. 2. Participants were told at least three times (twice in writing) that they could withdraw from the study at any time and still receive their $50 for participation. 3. a sample shock was administered (with their consent) so they could see that the generator was real and could obtain some idea of what the shock felt like. However, a very mild 15-volt shock was administered rather than the 45-volt shock Milgram gave his participants. 4. the study stopped at 150 volts. Knowing how people respond up to 150 volts allows us to make a reasonable estimate of what they would do if they go any further and would avoid exposing them to intense stress.5. Debriefing was immediate and within a few seconds of the study’s end, the learner entered the room to reassure the participant that he was fine.6. The experimenter who ran the study also was a clinical psychologist who was instructed to end the study immediately if he saw any signs of excessive stress. Sample – 29 Men, 41 Women. Aged 20-81, mean age 42.9. Self-Selected Sample. Recruited from Adverts in the local newspaper, online listings, flyers in libraries, farmers markets, coffee shops, and community centres. Worded similar to Milgram’s Study. Participants were promised $50 for two 45 mins sessions.Bseline condition: Used script similar to original studyNo participant was allowed to contiue after 150vModel refusal condition: 2 confederates used. The draw was rigged and participant was assigned ‘teacher’.Both teachers sat next to each other with confederate on left (teacher 1) and participant of right (confederate 2). Confederate went first and showed no signs of hesitating until 75volts.After first prompt pushed chair back and asked real participant to continue.Findings:Numbers and (Percentages) of Participants who Stopped and Who ContinuedBehaviourBase ConditionModelled Refusal conditionMilgram’s Original experimentStopped at 150 volts or earlier12 (30.0)11 (36.7)7 (17.5)Continued after 150 volts28 (70.0)19 (63.3)33 (82.5)Conclusion:the same situational factors are around today – ie it is the SITUATION that leads to obediencestopped at 150v but felt that some would continue onto 450vit is not a lack of empathy that leads to obedience but rather personality factors but he is unable to pinpoint any in particular.Evaluation:Strength: Replicating the procedure of Milgram’s study gives it good reliability and credibility, and results could be ligitimately comparedStrength:recruited a more diverse sample of ages and ethnicity so better generalisability but difficult to generalise findings from a lab study into real world scenarios such as the holocaust.Strength: Burger acknowledged the ethical concerns of Milgram’s study and took measures to ensure the well being of the participants. (screening, 15v shock, 3 reminders to withdraw, clinical psychologist on hand)Weakness: lab expts lack validityWeakness: only a partial replication, (didn’t go beyond 150v) so cannot be certain if they would/would not go to 450vFACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCEPersonality - Follow up study on ppts were asked ‘who was responsible’? Dissenting ppts: Dissenters are more resistant to authority and more likely to take personal responsibility for their actions Blamed themselves (48 %), Blamed the experimenter (39 %), Blamed the learner (12%) Obedient ppts: Obedient people are more likely to be influenced by an authority figure, Blamed the learner (25%)Rotter (66) - People with INTERNAL locus of control tend to believe that they are responsible for their own actions and are less influenced by others. People with an EXTERNAL locus of control believe that their behaviour is largely beyond their control but due to external factors such as fateAdorno: An authoritarian personality is typically submissive to authority but harsh to those seen as subordinate to themselvesF-scale questionnaire used on Milgrams pptsThe higher the score the more obedient they wereMore submissive to authorityLess likely to withdraw from the studySituationAlso known as the foot-in-the-door techniques where by getting someone to do a small request, you make it harder for them to resist a larger request. The PPts had already given lower-level shocks so it became harder to resist demands to increase those shocks. We are taught from an early age by parents, teachers, bosses to obey - it is normal and expected of us.CultureCollectivists cultures – cooperation and compliance is important for stability of the group. Non-Western cultures (collectivist) are considered more obedient due to tradition and respect to their families compared to Individualistic cultures who emphasise the ‘I’. Individualistic cultures – behave independently and resist conformityCross cultural studies have found varying obedience levels – higher in Holland, Austria and Germany but lower in Britain and Australia. The different procedures make comparison difficult however.Gender Milgram found that females were virtually identical to males in their level of obedience (65%), 27.5 %breaking off at the 300-volt level. Yet their rated level of anxiety was much higher than males for those who were obedient. This was also found in Burger’s (2009) replication of the experiment.Blass (1999) found that obedience between males and females were consistent across nine of the studies. Kilham and Mann (1974) in a direct replication of Milgram’s experiment in Australia found females to be far less obedient (16 per cent) than male participants (40 per cent). SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY – Latane 1981We are constantly exposed to other people’s behaviour and opinions therefore other people’s behaviour and opinions will have an impact on your attitude and behaviour. The likelihood that a person will respond to social influence will increase with Strength: how important the influencing group of people are to you (status, authority, age)Immediacy: how close the group are to you at the time of the influence attempt (proximity, distance, buffers)Number: how many people there are in the group. (sources, targets)The more people giving the message and the message is strong (given by an expert) then the greater the impact. This fits with Milgram’s findings – more obedience if the experimenter was an authority figure than if an ‘ordinary man’.The multiplicative effect (number) – the number of social forces that increase the number of social influences increase. Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (69) - one and 15 confederates congregated on the street and craned their necks to look up at the sixth floor of the university building, passers-by who also stopped and craned their necks to look up.The divisional effect – individuals feel less accountable as the number of people present increases. A lone person is more likely to help someone in need compared to a group of people; there is a diffusion of responsibility similar to a divisional effectIndividuals are passive receivers of other’s behavioursMainly ignores individual differencesPredicting behaviour in unusual circumstances is usefulApplication of principles can be observed in everyday behaviour Cannot predict what will happen if two equal groups impact on one another (who is the source/target in football matches?)Target and source interactions cannot be explainedCOMPARING SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY AND AGENCY THEORYSIT is not a theory of obedienceSit is more of an explanation as it involves a formula that works in all group situationsBoth theories can explain Milgram’s findingsFACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCEPersonality: Rotter (66) Locus of ControlPeople with INTERNAL locus of control tend to believe that they are responsible for their own actions and are less influenced by others. Dissenters are more resistant to authority and more likely to take personal responsibility for their actions.Blamed themselves (48 %) Blamed the experimenter (39 %)Blamed the learner (12%) People with an EXTERNAL locus of control believe that their behaviour is largely beyond their control but due to external factors such as fate. Obedient people are more likely to be influenced by an authority figure.Adorno (50) Authoritarian PersonalityAn authoritarian personality is typically submissive to authority but harsh to those seen as subordinate to themselvesF-scale questionnaire used on Milgrams pptsThe higher the score the more obedient they wereMore submissive to authorityLess likely to withdraw from the studyEmpathyEmpathy is the ability to sense other people’s emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else might be thinking or feelingIt is believed that people who have high levels of empathy would be less likely to harm another person at the instructions of an authority figure. Burger (2009) found that although people who score high on empathy were more likely to protest against giving electric shocks, this did not translate into lower levels of obedienceGenderMilgram used predominantly male participants in his experiments, although he did conduct one experiment (Experiment 8) which involved 40 female teachers. Previous research had indicated that females were more compliant than males, yet traditionally we think of women as less aggressive.This contradiction would be played out in an experiment that commanded both compliance and aggression. Milgram found that females were virtually identical to males in their level of obedience (65%), 27.5 % breaking off at the 300-volt level. Yet their rated level of anxiety was much higher than males for those who were obedient. This was also found in Burger’s (2009) replication of the experiment.Sheridan and King (1972) adapted Milgram’s experiment to involve a live puppy as a victim that received genuine shocks from college student participants. They found that all 13 female participants were much more compliant and delivered the maximum levels of shock to the puppy compared to men.However, in a review of 10 obedience experiments, Blass (1999) found that obedience between males and females were consistent across nine of the studies. The study that did not show a similar male/female obedience level was conducted by Kilham and Mann (1974) in a direct replication of Milgram’s experiment in Australia. They found females to be far less obedient (16 per cent) than male participants (40 per cent). Although this could have been a result of male teachers being paired with male learners and female teachers with female learners. Perhaps the females joined together against the situation in an alliance to react against the demands of the aggressive male experimenter. It seems that very little, if any, gender differences in obedience, despite traditional beliefs that females would be more compliant than males.CultureMilgram’s work has been replicated in different cultures. It is suggested that if obedience is in our nature then we would expect to find obedience universally. Collectivists cultures – cooperation and compliance is important for stability of the group. Individualistic cultures – behave independently and resist conformity. Non-Western cultures (collectivist) are considered more obedient due to tradition and respect to their families compared to Individualistic cultures who emphasise the ‘I’.Italy 85%Spain50%South Africa87.5%Jordan73%Austria80%Australia28%UK50%There were some differences in obedience levels, obedience is found across cultures suggesting that it universal and possibly an evolved trait that supports survival. However, cultural influences and differences in procedures are not explicit in the results.SituationAll ppts went to 300v. it is unlikely that peersonalityw as responsible for this finding. Milgram suggests it is the situation not the disposition of the individual that results in obedience which is supported in the study in a run down office and the removal of an authority figure. Burger’s study also found that obedience drops as the situation changes. PREJUDICE Prejudice is when people hold stereotypes and they affect their attitudes. Usually involves negative hostile attitudes towards a particular group. Discrimination is when a prejudiced attitude leads to prejudiced actions.Stereotype is a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members. Stereotypes are not necessarily emotionally laden and do not necessarily lead to discrimination. Discrimination is the behavior or actions, usually negative, towards an individual or group of people, especially on the basis of sex/race/social class, etc.SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY – Tajfel and Turner 1979Prejudice arises simply from there being two groups. Membership of an in group influences how we perceive our in group and perceptions of out groups. Our in-group gives us self esteem and identity, so to enhance this we see out-groups negatively. Social identity is how a person sees themselves in relation to their group membership. Groups are classified into ‘us’ and ‘them’.There are 3 processes involved in becoming prejudiced against out-group members.Social categorisation – being part of a groupSocial identification – overtly identifying with group membership, taking on the norms of group members in they way they dress, talk, behave etc.Social comparison – people see their in-groups as more superior and better than the out-group which enhances self esteemThere are different causes of prejudice which can arise from genuine competition of resources or a release of emotional tension, Tajfel suggests that there are two main featuresAttitudes of prejudice towards an out-groupDiscriminatory behaviour towards the out-groupEvaluation: Strength: Social identity theory explains a whole host of social phenomena, ranging from racism and class conflict to a sense of togetherness we get from following a football club or band. Significantly, social identity theory provides at least a partial explanation for the tendency for people to discriminate in favour of people from their own country and against those from other countries. Strength: There is clear evidence from the minimal group studies (Tajfel 70) that being part of a group is sufficient to lead to prejudice against people not within that group. E.g. football violenceStrength: Social identity explains a wide range of phenomena and can be applied to a range of social and cultural situations. Eg Lalonde (92) found that a hockey team who knew that another hockey team was doing better did not admit that the other team was a better team, instead said that the other team used ‘dirtier’ tactics. (In group favouritism)Weakness: Not all cultures show equal bias towards in-groups.Weakness: Social identity theory does not explain individual differences in prejudice. A closer look at the results of the minimal group studies shows wide variations in the degree to which people discriminate against the out-groupREALISTIC GROUP CONFLICT THEORY – Sherif (1966)Sherif (1966) proposed that prejudice often results from conflict between two groups. Whenever there is more than one group in competition for resources there will be prejudice and discrimination. This is known as realistic conflict theory. When two groups compete for the same goal and resources are limited there will be winners and losers, competition will be more fierce and conflict can last a long time. This was shown in the famous Sherif et al (1961) “Robbers Cave experiment “ In contrast if two groups work together in order to achieve the same goal then it is likely that they will co-operate with each other and that prejudice will not be present.Evaluation:Strength: Robber’s cave study is valid, well planned and used good controls and helps to explain conflict in everyday environmentStrength: Andreeva (1984) found similar results in Russian schoolboys. Strength: The theory accounts for the strength of the hostility and makes sense because people can be hostile in real life when they feel threatened by competition.Weakness: all boys, white American middle-class 12 year olds so can’t generalize, groups hostile before games began so perhaps formation of groups itself caused prejudice/ethnocentrism. Weakness: Tyerman and Spencer (1983) claim that prejudice does not result if those in competition have already formed friendships. Weakness: The theory does not account for the origin of the prejudiced attitudes. It explains how prejudice results when competition is introduced to groups who hold such attitudes, but it needs to be considered in combination with SIT theory to account fully for how the attitudes develop in the first place. In real situations such as Palestine-Isreal it is rare that there is only conflict over one clear resource. Often there is more to it such as religion.SHERIF et al ((1954/61) ‘Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robbers Cave experiment’A special remote summer camp in Oklahoma, Robbers Cave State Park USA.Aim To study informal groups and observe the natural development of group organisation and attitudes. To see if competition will create hostility.Method Field experiment468630022860000Participants 22 white, 11 year old boys with average-to-good school performance and above average intelligence with a protestant, two parent backgroundProcedure – (Stage 1) formation of groupsBoys were kept separate from each other and encouraged to bond. They quickly established their own cultures and group norms and chose names. The Eagles and the Rattlers.(Stage 2) group competitionCompetitive activities were organised to deliberately create friction between the groups. At first the prejudice started with name calling or taunting, as the competition wore on the Eagles burned the Rattlers flag, the Rattlers ransacked the Eagles cabin and stole private property. The groups became so aggressive that they had to be physically separated.(Stage 3) Group cooperationActivities were staged so that they had to work together to achieve the goals. The exchange of insults abruptly stopped. Several pairs from opposite sides made friends. Conclusion - the mere existence of groups is enough to cause prejudice and discrimination. There is a lot of evidence that when people compete for scarce resources there is a rise in hostility. Hostility can be reduced through cooperation and teamwork.Evaluation – Strength: Good controls, careful sampling and breifing of obsevers so that the same procedures could be followed meaning cause and effect conclusions could be drawn.Strength: several data collection methods and the findings agreedWeakness: They did not give consent, they were deceived as they did not know the true aim nor were they protected from physical and psychological harm. Weakness: Gender bias as only white, middle class 11yr old boys used therefore hard to generaliseWeakness: It was all-artificial in the sense that two randomly assigned groups do not equate to rival inner city gangs or rival football supporters. However it has high ecological validity because it was a field experiment.FACTORS AFFECTING PREJUDICEPrejudice is complex, a prejudiced person may not act on their attitude.? Therefore, someone can be prejudiced towards a certain group but not discriminate against them. An extreme example of prejudice and discrimination would be the Nazi’s mass murder of Jews in the Second World War, or the killings of Catholics by Protestants and Protestants by Catholics.Personality: Adorno: authoritarian personality is more likely to be;hostile to people inferior to themselves, particularly minority groups or out-groups. rigid in thinking and intolerant to change. submissive to authority and obedient to those in powerHarsh and unaffectionate parenting, they had to be respectful to their parents, while learning they could be cruel to those who are weakAuthoritarians frequently project their anger and aggression onto othersTherefore the more open and agreeable a person is the less prejudiced they will beCulture:Cultural norms and values are learned, people pick up on the norms and values within their society. If a country is multicultural then people are less prejudiced. Prejudice will occur if the culture has;Existing social norms that legitimize prejudiced practiceHas strict religious regimens or laws that endorse prejudiceHave event that trigger prejudice towards another groupKatz and Braly (33) investigated national stereotypes about other cultures and suggest stereotpyes persist over timeClark & Clark (47) showed that African american children were convinced that it was not desirable to be black choosing to play with white dolls rather than blackPettigrew (98) found similar influencing factors that affect prejudice in netherlands, UK, france and W Germany)Cross cultural comparisons of prejudice is hard to measure. They do not suggest that one type of culture is more prejudiced than anotherSituation:Levels of prejudice in society rise and fall over time (Brown 95) but personality is stable over time which means changes in prejudice seem to be down to the situation. This could explain why prejudice coming from a scarcity of resources fits into this idea.Allport suggests ways of reducing prejudiceMaking contact oftenWork towards a common goalCooperation and learn from one another (multiculturalism)Acknowledge authority of each groupReducing prejudiceCo-operation – introduce activitites to have a shared goal eg picking up litterEqual status contact – treat everyone on a level plaing field so they treat everyone equal.eg wear uniforms. No hierarchy such as prefects. Categorisation – detcategorise any groups. Encourage people to see themselves as belonging to one group.KEY QUESTIONIs it relevant in today’s society? Explain using research and/or theories from the social approach as covered in this specification? Put forward a for/against argument for the key question? Plausible explanations for the key question? (Theories and studies)How can knowledge of social psychology be used to reduce prejudice in situations such as crowd behaviour or rioting?Describing the question: Most people would agree that prejudice exists and needs to be reduced. Reasons can be moral or economic or to encourage cooperation between groups. Prejudice occurs when people hold stereotypes and let those stereotypes affect their attitudes. When a prejudiced attitude leads to prejudiced actions, this is called discrimination. e.g. scapegoating. Rioting is crowd behaviour that is out of control – such as looting in shops or setting cars alight. In Tottenham Aug 2011 a crowd gathered in response to a shooting of Mark Duggan, they became violent and began rioting. Buildings were set alight, shops were ransacked. There were people hurt, (both rioters and police) with inevitable costs for society both financially and emotionally.The question is how such behaviour can be reduced so that these ‘costs’ to society can be addressed. Crowd behaviour is something that society wishes to control. Applying concepts from the social approach: Social identity theory – identification of in-group and outgroup. Suggests that people think of the ingroup as being superiror because it enhances self esteem and see the outgroup as inferior which leads to prejudice and hostilityrealisitic conflict theory – is about competition. The looting of shops and stealing of goods shows competition for resources in times of economic hardshipReducing prejudice – have the groups work together towards a superordinate goal (better able to explain the uniting of football fans when supporting a national team)Crowd rioting can be calmed if the crowd had to work towards a goal, eg saving the neighbourhood from complete destruction, after the rioting the whole community came together to clean up.Superordinate goals -Aiming for common goals reduces prejudice, Evidence from Sherif et al (1961) Robber's cave study illustrates how this is effective in reducing prejudice. The boys prejudice was reduced when they had to work together to free the camp bus and restore the water supply. After the super-ordinate goals the number of boys which had friends in the other group increased from 7% to 30%. Equal status contact- Desforges et al (1991) found if individuals from diff groups come in contact relationships improve but if experience bad this reinforces stereotypes, Deutsch & Collins (1951) studied housing projects and found less segregration in integrated housing. Redrawing boundaries (decategorisation)-Incorporating in-group and out-group, Turner (1991) pointed out that when the boys in Sherif et al (1961) study worked together, it could be said that they redrew the boundaries between the 2 groups, and became one in-group. So incorporating others into the in-group can reduce prejudice. Gaertner at al (1993) did and experiment to test this and found that when 2 groups became 1 to solve a problem, the individuals spoke more positively about each other than when they had been in 2 separate groups. Other studies: Deschamps (1977)Issues and debates – A levelEthicsNo ethical guidelines in 50’s and 60’s, a such no direct replication of these studies is possible today without significant modificaton. Research into prejudice and obedience raises issues of protection from harm and right to withdraw but are necessary to create conditions in which these topics can be studied.Practical issues of design and implementation of researchDemand characterisitcs: - if they are aware of the study their behaviour wont be naturalDeception is used to disguise the aims and prevent demand characteristics from occuringReductionismSherif believes it is not possible to explain prejudice at a dispsitional level, to understand prejudice research should include both lab and field studies to encompass society as a wholeComparison with another explanationSIT and RCT use different themes and concepts toexplain prejudicePsychology as a sciencemethodology includes lab and field experiments anere variables can be controlled and carefully manipulated to establish cause and effect relationships. Social psychology is criticised for studying human social behaviour in a vacuum which lacks validity in such a complex social world.Culture and genderEvidence suggests there is no difference in gender regarding obedienc but is rather a product of social circumstances but could be due to prsences of male orientated researcher. Differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures is useful but still not clear whether the mediating fators are social or culturalNature-nurtureIs it the situation (external factors) or disposition (personality) that drives someone to obey or be prejudiceDevelopment of psychological understandingRace theories in 1920s legiitmsed the inequalities that existed and endoresed white supremacy. A significant shift in the 60s with Jane Elliots study (blue/brow eyes) and focus changed onto group dynamics. 70s focus changed to group processes interacting with dispositional characteristics with the rise of cognitive approach to explain stereotypes. Social controlThe visibility of Police uniforms, high ranking officers, the abiity to punish offenders encourages conformity in society. Social control can be used positivly drawing on Sherif’s superordinate goals to reduce prejudice and applied in the classroom using th jigsaw technique.Using psychology in societySee key questionSocially sensitive researchPrejudice can be socially sensistive as it links to racism. Freewill Vs Determinism ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download