SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 1 Tajfel et al. (1971) Social

1
AS EDEXCEL PSYCHOLOGY 2008

• SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY UNIT 1

2
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Definition key social
psychological terms

• How other people, groups, culture society can
  influence our behaviour. Individuals with
  perceived authority or charisma can influence us,
  e.g., obedience, self-fulfilling prophecy groups
  can influence behaviour, e.g., compliance
  conformity Asch, Latane Darley (Smoke filled
  room), crowd behaviour diffusion of
  responsibility.
• Culture society can influence us our culture
  can affect our response to individuals groups,
  who we believe has legitimate authority over us
  and may also affect our general tendency for
  obedience (we may have an ethnocentric bias).
  Culture society may influence our beliefs about
  perceived attractiveness rates of anorexia may
  reflect social cultural influences.
• The power of the social situation can be very
  influential even good people will do evil
  things if they are in an evil situation

3
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY Key Terms

• Agentic state we surrender our free will
  conscience to serve the interests of the wider
  group we see ourselves as primarily the agents
  of those with power and in authority and only
  secondarily as individuals responsibility
  shifts to those in charge and we become
  de-individuated, denying personal responsibility
• Autonomous state essentially the opposite we
  feel free to act as we wish, including how our
  conscience dictates.
• Moral strain this is the result of having to do
  something we believe to be immoral in order to
  function as an agent of those with power
  authority, and so benefit society. Denial (a
  defence mechanism) is often used to avoid the
  distress associated with moral strain and having
  to do things we might normally find abhorrent.
• In-groups/out-groups in-group loyalty refers to
  our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a
  particular group group to classify others as
  either within or outside that group thinking of
  ourselves as belonging to one or more groups is
  regarded as a fundamental feature of human
  nature. We tend to judge people not in our
  particular in-group more harshly than those we
  identify with, I.e., people are either us or
  them in-group loyalty V out-group hostility.

4
Key Terms (continued)

• Social categorisation categorising ourselves as
  members of a particular group these categories
  are ones we learn to be important, e.g., Goths,
  Emos.
• Social identification Adopting the identity of
  the group to which we have categorised ourselves,
  adopting consistent behaviours with this
  categorisation, adopting the attitudes
  behaviours of the in-group to distinguish oneself
  from non-members.
• Social comparison comparing your group
  favourably to others we need to compare
  ourselves our in-group favourably to others to
  maintain our self-esteem. In out-groups are
  measured against each other, the out-group is
  devalued and the self-esteem of the in-group
  members is thus raised.

5
In depth area of study Obedience Prejudice
6
OBEDIENCE

• Obedience to allow ourselves to be directed by
  an individuals who we perceive to have
  power/authority over us. It differs from
  compliance, which means simply going along with
  suggestions or instructions without being
  directly ordered to and conformity which is
  where we adopt the attitudes behaviour of those
  around us without being directly ordered to by an
  authority figure.
• Studies of obedience, why people carry out orders
  which they seemingly find abhorrent and go
  against their moral believes and values, gained
  impetus after the destructive obedience
  demonstrated by some Nazis during World War II,
  such as the Holocaust.
• Genocide, as illustrated by the Holocaust, is the
  most obvious example of destructive obedience
  other examples of destructive obedience include
  genocide in Rwanda, Iraq and the former
  Yugoslavia, the Mi Lai massacre and human rights
  abuses in the US run military prison in Iraq
  Abu Ghraib.

7
Milgrams classic study of obedience (1963)

• Name Milgrams study of obedience
• Aim to investigate how obedient people would be
  in a situation where following orders would mean
  breaking participants moral codes harming
  another person to test the hypothesis that the
  Germans were different.
• Method procedure-Milgram advertised for 40
  volunteers (males aged 20-50) to take part in a
  study on human memory (really obedience). Each
  participant was introduced individually to Mr
  Wallace (a confederate) and told that either
  they, or Mr Wallace would be randomly allocated
  the roles of either teacher or learner. Mr
  Wallace was always the leaner who would receive
  an electric shock every time he got a memory
  question wrong (Mr. Wallace was in another room
  so could be heard but not seen). The teacher
  (the naïve/real participant) was given a small
  shock at the beginning of the experiment to
  illustrate its effects. Shocks went up in 15v
  increments up to 450v marked XXX. The
  researcher Mr Wallace followed a carefully
  scripted set of responses prompts.

• Generalisability can we generalise from
  Milgrams sample to the wider population, I.e.,
  is there population validity? Despite the fact
  that only US males were used, they were from a
  wide range of backgrounds ages furthermore,
  Milgram found very similar results with female
  participants and cross-cultural results tend to
  be similar (see table below).
• Reliability a standardised procedure was
  followed, I.e., the same script verbal prompts
  were used for each participant.
• Application to real life there are numerous
  examples in real life where we have to obey
  authority figures.
• Validity did the study have experimental
  validity? Did the participants really believe
  they were giving electric shocks? Milgram did
  his best to convince the naïve participants of
  the veracity of his research he staged a sample
  45v shock for the naïve participant, the
  equipment looked real and the cries of Mr Wallace
  seemed genuine. Ecological validity do the
  results tell us anything about real-world
  behaviour? Would the participants really behave
  as they did in the real world and not in a
  laboratory situation?

8
Milgrams study (continued)

• Results Before the research Milgram asked
  psychologists psychiatrists to estimate what
  of naïve participants would inflict shocks the
  estimate was les than 1. In reality 100 went
  to 300v 65 went to 450v. NB. Obedience is
  operationalised as going to 450v.
• Conclusion Milgram concluded that the power of
  the social situation is a powerful determinant of
  behaviour we are socialised from an early age
  to recognise authority and obey those with
  perceived power.

• Validity contd Variations of Milgrams
  experiment, e.g., when done outside a lab and in
  a run down office block, saw obedience levels
  fall, but where still very high at 48.
  Hoflings (1966) field experiment found similar
  results and later real life incidents, e.g., Mai
  Lai, support the ecological validity of Milgrams
  study. Sheridan King (1972) conducted a
  procedural similar studies to Milgrams on
  puppies, participants thought they were shocking
  puppies similar results were obtained.
• Ethics Participants were deceived but that was
  necessary to ensure experimental validity, but
  this meant they could not give informed consent.
  However, participants were fully debriefed at the
  end 84 said they were glad or very glad they
  had taken part, only 2 said they were sorry to
  have taken part 74 claimed to have learned
  something of personal importance. Withdrawal was
  made difficult, but in real life situations it is
  often not easy to disobey follow your
  conscience, so it was important to make
  withdrawal hard to simulate real life.

9
Milgrams study (continued)

• Ethics contd Participants were put under a
  great deal of stress and caused much distress,
  but they did not have to administer the shocks
  and could, in reality, withdraw whenever they
  wanted. Moreover, Milgram consulted experts
  before the research no one predicted the level
  of obedience obtained. Finally, the wider
  benefits to society might be considered to
  outweigh the costs to the individual
  participants a cost-benefit analysis.

10
Variations of Milgrams original study

• Prestige the experiment was moved from Yale
  university to a rundown office block obedience
  levels dropped to 47.5.
• Responsibility when the participant was not
  directly responsible for the shocks, I.e., they
  simply had to read the paired words someone
  pressed the electric shock button, obedience rose
  to 92.5. When the teacher (naïve participant)
  had to hold the learners hand on the electric
  shock plate obedience dropped to 30.
• Buffer if the learner teacher were
  together in the same room so that the teacher
  could be seen heard, obedience dropped to 40.
  When the learner could not be seen or heard,
  all the participants went to 450v.

• Personal control when participants were allowed
  to choose their own shock level they always
  choose the lowest.
• Witnessing disobedience where a participant saw
  another participant refuse to beyond
  administering 150v, only 10 then obeyed the
  experimental instructions carried on to 450v.
• NB., these variations in the social situation,
  and their impact on the levels of obedience,
  illustrate how powerful the social situation is
  in determining human behaviour.
• NB., the evaluative points applied to Milgrams
  original study basically apply to the variations.

11
Ethical issues the study of obedience

• Studies of obedience often involve deception,
  preventing participants giving informed consent,
  but this is often necessary to ensure
  experimental validity.
• Participants may experience significant distress,
  not least because they may find out quite
  negative things about themselves, I.e., they are
  prepared to obey cause harm to others.
• Withdrawal is sometimes made difficult to
  simulate the effects of obedience in real life
  situations but participants can be fully
  debriefed afterwards.
• The benefits of the research to wider society may
  outweigh the psychological emotional costs to
  the participants, i.e., finding out why even good
  people do horrible things in order to understand
  why atrocities are committed prevent them from
  happening in the future.

12
Milgrams agency theory

• Milgram argued that general tendency to obey
  those we perceive to have authority is a
  mechanism to ensure a stable society. To run
  smoothly, complex societies require us to obey a
  vast range of social rules keeping to these
  rules means that we have to give up a certain
  amount of our free will.
• To enable us to give up a degree of our free will
  we have evolved 2 states autonomous agentic
  (see the definitions of these terms above).
• We are socialised from an early age into
  developing the capacity for the agentic state.
  This process starts in the home, continues in
  school and into the workplace to maintain order
  in different social situations we give up our
  free will and obey parents, teachers employers
  (people often put the needs of their employers
  above their own, e.g., they work longer than
  their contracted hours, take work home, sacrifice
  family quality of life for their jobs).
• We use this agentic state to avoid moral strain
  when we do things against our conscience we
  believe we have little choice as we are acting as
  agents of authority figures.

13
Evaluation of agency theory

• It has face validity (on the surface it seems to
  explain human behaviour in many situations,
  school, the workplace, armed forces etc.)
• There is a lot of experimental support for it,
  e.g., the studies of Milgram Hofling.
• A study by Blass (1996), where participants saw
  extracts from the original Milgram study, showed
  that these participants blamed the researcher for
  what the naïve participants did, i.e., they
  accepted that these naïve participants were the
  agents of the authority figure, in this case, the
  researcher.
• A study by Bushman (1988) varied the
  authoritativeness of the authority figure, when
  the authority figure had more authority/status
  (e.g., a uniform) obedience was more likely. We
  are more likely to become agents when perceived
  level of authority increases.
• When participants are reminded of their potential
  for autonomy, e.g., they see someone else
  disobey, obedience levels drop.
• Not everyone in the Milgram study gave up their
  autonomy and entered into the agentic state this
  theory cannot explain individual differences in
  levels of obedience (see authoritarian
  personality to explain personality differences in
  obedience).

14
Evaluation of agency theory (continued)

• The obedience alibi David Mandel argues that
  agency theory lets people off the hook for
  their heinous actions, I.e., it gives
  concentration camp guards an excuse for their
  deplorable behaviour I cannot be held
  personally responsible for my actions, I was only
  obeying orders. This might have some validity
  in some cases but should be treated with caution.
• Circular argument it cannot be defined
  independently from obedience people obey
  because they are in an agentic state, but are in
  an agentic because they obey. Circular arguments
  have limited explanatory value because you
  simply go around in circles!
• Personality (charisma) it doesnt take into
  account personality variables obedience, some
  people might be naturally more predisposed to
  obey, whilst some people can get others to obey
  them even when they have little or no authority
  over them, it is simply the force of their
  personality (charisma) which elicits obedience.
• There are other explanations of obedience, e.g.,
  French Raven (1959) Social Power theory. This
  theory states that different people in different
  social situations have different types of social
  power Reward, punishment (coercive), legitimate,
  expert charismatic power. Milgrams researcher
  had some of these types of power.

15
Cross-cultural studies of obedience

• Studies of obedience carried out across cultures
  find similarly high levels of obedience to those
  found by Milgram. This shows that we are, by
  nature, social beings, heavily influenced by our
  social environment setting the power of the
  social situation.
• However, cross-cultural studies of obedience
  often use different methodologies, so like is not
  always being compared with like.
• In an Australian study, Kilham Mann (1974), the
  learners had long hair may have been
  perceived as more or less deserving of electric
  shocks as a result. Also, in this study female
  students were asked to shock another female (in
  Milgram, the learner being shocked was always
  male).
• Hamilton Sanders (1995) presented participants
  from US, Japan Russia with scenarios where a
  crime was either an individuals idea or the
  order of a superior. Little responsibility was
  attributed to the person who acted criminally
  under orders, but that reversed when they acted
  on their own volition. However, cultural
  differences emerged US participants attributed
  more personal responsibility to individuals
  acting criminally under orders than did the
  Japanese Russian ones thus obedience might be
  deduced to be more important in Japanese
  Russian culture than US culture, I.e., obeying
  even criminally wrong orders might be seen as
  appropriate more in Japan Russia than in US.
• Finally, most obedience research involve studies
  that were conducted in western industrialised
  nations, so universal conclusions about human
  nature cannot necessarily be drawn (see table
  below).

16
Cross-cultural replications of Milgrams
obedience research
17
Meeus Raaijmakers (1985) Administrative
Obedience carrying out orders to use
psychological-administrative violence

• Name Meeus Raaijmakers (1985)
• Aim To test the concepts of obedience
  illustrated by Milgram by in a more up-to-date
  way in a culture more liberal than 1960s US
  1980s Holland. Would obedience still be high if
  psychological, as opposed to physical, harm was
  to be applied?
• Method 24 naïve participants took part in what
  they thought was a job interview that required
  the applicant being able to tolerate stress. In
  1 condition an experimenter sat in with the naïve
  participant who was to interview the applicant (a
  confederate or stooge, much like Mr. Wallace in
  the Milgram study). The naïve participant was
  told to cause the applicant stress being making a
  series of graduated cutting comments to the
  applicant, with 1 being the most innocuous
  least offensive to 15 being the most offensive.

• Generalisability adults from the general
  population, not just students, so is therefore
  more representative and so generalisable, and the
  results are consistent with other studies done in
  Europe, so arguably there is good population
  validity.
• Reliability well-controlled, standardised
  statements, I.e., from 1-15 generating
  quantitative data which can be objectively
  easily analysed interpreted. The study
  supports the findings of Milgram Hofling the
  high levels of obedience found in this study can
  be explained by the non-physical nature of the
  abuse required to be obedient.
• Application to real life psychological abuse is
  far more common in the real world than physical
  abuse, especially in the workplace.

18
Meeus Raaijmakers (continued)

• Validity researchers maintained that ecological
  validity was high, arguing that the type of abuse
  depicted in the study was more common in society
  than the physical abuse depicted in Milgrams
  study and therefore more realistic. However,
  experimental validity was still quite low because
  the scenario is still quite extreme and bizarre.
• Ethics although the level of distress
  experienced by the naïve participants might be
  less than in Mlgrams study, not giving electric
  shocks so no physical harm was thought to being
  perpetrated, it might still be distressing for
  the participants because they are seemingly
  causing mental stress to another person. The
  experiment also required a high level of
  deception to work. There was no lie about the
  reality of the shocks as in the Milgram study
  so consent was more informed however, deception
  was still used, the interviewee was an actor, but
  deception necessary for experimental validity.

• 1 your answer to question 9 was wrong
  15according to the test it would be better for
  you to apply for lower functions. The applicant
  would show increasing levels of distress as the
  offensive comments progressed up the scale to 15.
• Results In the experimental condition, where the
  experimenter sat in on the interview, 22/24 (92)
  of participants made all 15 stressful comments.
  In the control condition, where the naïve
  participant was alone, none did. Rates of
  obedience were higher than in the Milgram study.
• Conclusion Even in a liberal culture like the
  Netherlands, people obeyed an authority figure
  were prepared to abuse a stranger
  psychologically. People are even more willing to
  abuse people emotionally under direct orders.

19
In depth area of study prejudice
discrimination
20
Prejudiced Attitudes
21
PREJUDICE Social Identity Theory (minimal groups)

• Social identity theory states that simply being
  in a group, or perceiving that you are in a
  group, is enough to create in-group loyalty
  out-group hostility.
• Social identity theory the process of
  generating in-group loyalty out-group hostility
  is made of 3 features
• SOCIAL CATEGORISATION
• SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION
• SOCIAL COMPARISON
• (SEE DEFINITIONS OF THESE TERMS ABOVE)

22
Social Identity Theory (continued)

• Social identity theory is illustrated by the
  research carried out by Tajfel (1970).
• Participants were placed in groups according to
  minimal criteria whether or not they liked the
  same paintings, or, when estimating the number of
  dots on a screen, they were under or
  over-estimators. In reality the participants
  were allocated to groups entirely randomly.
• A member of each group was then given the same
  task to perform.
• Members of each group then had to allocate
  rewards to the people performing the simple task.
• Despite the fact that the task being performed
  was the same for the individuals from each group,
  both groups decided to reward the member of their
  own group more highly than the member of the
  other group.
• There was no direct competition between the 2
  groups and what members of each group thought
  they had in common with each other was minimal,
  i.e., liking the same painting, or being an
  under/over-estimator.
• Nevertheless, members of both groups were
  prepared to discriminate in favour of the member
  of their particular group presumably because
  this increased their own social
  standing/self-esteem by the process of social
  comparison.

23
Evaluation of Social Identity Theory

• The theory has a certain amount of face validity
  as it can successfully explain many aspects of
  real-world behaviour be applied to a wide range
  of social situations, e.g., football teams,
  racism, Emos/Goths.
• There is great deal of empirical, scientific
  research which supports the theory, e.g., the
  research carried out by Tajfel, to an extent
  Sherif (1961), as the boys immediately developed
  strong in-group loyalty out-group hostility
  when they knew there was another group of boys in
  the woods.
• The theory has useful applications because it
  can explain how prejudice discriminate
  originate, it can also be used to reduce
  prejudice discrimination, i.e., by preventing
  in-groups from forming, mixing up social groups,
  trying to prevent social categorisation
  identification.

24
Evaluation of Social Identity Theory(continued)

• Some contemporary research into minimal groups
  suggests discrimination prejudice is more
  complex. E.g., Dobbs Crano (2001) showed that
  where individuals perceived that their in-group
  was in the majority there was much less in-group
  favouritism out-group hostility than when they
  perceived their in-group was in the minority,
  (then the situation reversed) I.e., more likely
  to be anti-English if you are Welsh or Scottish
  than the other way around, because Welsh
  Scottish people are the minority in the UK.
• Social Identity Theory cannot explain individual
  differences in levels of in-group loyalty
  out-group hostility not everyone in a particular
  in-group will have the same level of loyalty
  towards the in-group hostility towards the out
  group (authoritarian personality theory may
  explain individual differences in prejudice
  better).
• Finally, people may have all sorts of complex
  reasons for identifying with each other, not just
  minimal reasons based on social
  standing/self-esteem, e.g., shared cultural
  history, shared histories of conflict battles
  for resources.

25
2 studies in detail from social psychology
26
Hofling et al. (1966) Experimental study in
nurse-physician relationships

• Name Hofling et al. obedience in a natural
  setting
• Aim To investigate nurse-physician
  relationships, I.e., investigate effects of
  authority on obedience in a natural environment
  (a hospital)
• Method field experiment 12 graduate nurses 21
  student nurses asked to fill in a questionnaire
  about how they would act in the experimental
  situation. 22 nurses from 2 separate hospitals
  took part in experimental condition. While alone
  on a ward they were asked by an unknown doctor
  over the phone to break 4 hospital rules.

• Generalisability although the study only
  involved nurses, and nurses might conceivably be
  more inclined to obey doctors, the nurses in the
  study were simply those on duty at time, not
  specifically chosen. Also, nurses are not a
  particularly unique set of people, therefore, the
  study might be considered fairly good in terms of
  population validity.
• Reliability the study was run 22 times with
  similar results, and the procedure was
  standardised. However, a field experiment has
  limited control over extraneous variables, so
  reducing reliability, I.e., the nurses might have
  been very tired, or overworked that particular
  day, so reacted unusually without thinking,
  I.e., not how they would normally react, but
  Hofling did have an observer on the ward to
  ensure that conditions were right for the
  experiment to proceed.

27
Hofling et al. (continued)

• Method contd 1 Give an over dose of a drug
  Astroten 5mgto a patient (it was really a
  placebo). 2. Instructions were given over the
  phone, not in person. 3. The particular drug
  was unauthorised for use on that specific ward.
  4. The instruction was given by an unfamiliar
  voice. The doctor used a written script to
  standardise the procedure all conversations
  were recorded. Results were operationalised
  thus nurse complies goes to give drug
  consistently refuses to give drug goes to get
  advice becomes upset call lasts longer than 10
  minutes.

• Application to real life this was done a in a
  real world environment and the negative effects
  of nurses obeying inappropriate instructions from
  doctors is very real important.
• Validity the study has very good ecological
  validity because it was done a real hospital with
  nurses who were unaware they were taking part in
  a study it demonstrated real behaviour nb.,
  the difference between the questionnaire results
  7 actual behavioural results. It also has
  experimental validity as the nurses were not
  aware they were in an experiment so behaved
  naturally, there were no demand characteristics
  so experimental validity was high, participant
  behaviour was not for the benefit of the study or
  the researcher.

28
Hofling et al. (continued)

• Results results of questionnaire10/12 graduate
  nurses 21/21 student nurses believed no one
  would give medication. Results of experimental
  condition21/22 started to give the medication,
  calls were brief, only 11 nurses were aware of
  dosage limits for drug Astroten, none were
  hostile towards the caller all admitted knowing
  what they were doing was against hospital rules
  but said it was a fairly common practice.
• Conclusion the perception of authority (in this
  case a doctor) is enough to generate obedience,
  even when this could possibly endanger a
  patients life.

• Ethics ethically the study was very dubious. No
  informed consent was obtained and the nurses were
  deceived. This was necessary for the
  experimental validity of the study to avoid
  demand characteristics but would be upsetting for
  the nurses. Although the nurses were fully
  debriefed, to offset the deception, they admitted
  to feeling shame, guilt embarrassment at their
  professional behaviour research should ideally
  leave participants feeling positive about
  themselves, or they should leave in the same
  emotional state as they entered it. However, the
  nurses were reassured that they had acted
  normally, patient care had not been affected
  they were not criticised for their conduct.

29
Sherif et al. (1961) Intergroup conflict
co-operation The Robbers Cave experiment

• Name Sherif et al. (1961).
• Aim To see if prejudice can be created between
  two very similar groups by putting them in
  competition with each other.
• Method A field experiment 22 12 year old white,
  lower middle-class protestant boys were taken to
  a summer camp in Robbers Cave national park,
  Oaklahoma. They were all very similar
  psychologically well-adjusted. They were put
  into 2 separate groups for first 5 days each
  group given tasks to perform to help them bond as
  a group given names (Rattlers Eagles). Over
  next 4 days tension was generated between the 2
  groups by staging a series of competitions
  between the 2 groups.

• Generalisability The sample was not very
  representative, i.e., all white, protestant,
  middle class young boys lacked population
  validity.
• Reliability although the boys were all tested to
  ensure they were psychologically well-adjusted
  and they were all similar backgrounds, in a field
  experiment such as this it is very hard to
  control confounding extraneous variables.
• Application to real life There are many examples
  of tension conflict over resources leading to
  prejudice discrimination, e.g., Northern
  Ireland, race riots in northern England, Israel
  Palestine. Also, how to reduce prejudice, e.g.,
  through 2 opposing groups working together to
  solve a common problem called a superordinate
  goal.

30
Sherif et al. (1961) Intergroup conflict
co-operation The Robbers Cave experiment

• Method contd Once hostility had been created
  the researchers tried to reduce it by bringing
  both groups together for joint activities and
  problem-solving tasks.
• Results A strong in-group preference out-group
  hostility was shown by each group this was
  eventually reduced by the joint problem-solving
  tasks.
• Conclusion Competition increased prejudice
  discrimination, leading to clear inter-group
  conflict however, there was some hostility
  between the groups as soon as they were aware of
  each other. Working together on co-operative
  tasks successfully, but not entirely, reduced
  prejudice discrimination between the 2 groups.

• Validity Ecological validity was high because
  they experiment was conducted in a natural
  environment, therefore, eliciting natural,
  uncontrived behaviour also there was high
  experimental validity as the boys did not realise
  their behaviour was being observed that they
  were in a experiment, so there would be no demand
  characteristics (trying to please the
  researcher). However, even before competition
  started, as soon as the groups knew of the
  existence of another group there was out-group
  hostility simply being in a group seemed to be
  enough to create this, there was no need for
  competition. The competition simply strengthened
  that hostility.
• Ethics the boys were not harmed or distressed,
  physical hostility was prevented the
  researchers endeavoured to reduce the
  discrimination prejudice at the end.

31
Sherif et al. (1961) Intergroup conflict
co-operation The Robbers Cave experiment

• Ethics contd Nevertheless, the did set out to
  deliberate create something negative prejudice
  discrimination, but do the benefits of the
  research outweigh the costs to the participants?

32
Tajfel et al. (1971) Social Categorisation
Intergroup Behaviour

• Generalisability The research has been
  replicated on many different social groups, not
  just schoolboys, as in the original studies, e.g.
  adults in Cardiff, female adults in California,
  soldiers in Germany all showed similar minimal
  group effects. Therefore, this research does
  have population validity.
• Reliability The study was easy to replicate
  because the procedure was strictly controlled
  very similar results have been obtained across
  different cultures groups.
• Application to real life In the real world we
  are very often allocated to groups based on
  minimal criteria, e.g., school, workplace. Can
  be used to reduce prejudice, e.g., merging
  in-groups out-groups.

• Name Tajfel et al. (1971)
• Aim To test whether the act of placing people
  into 2 clearly identifiable groups, based on
  minimal intra-group similarities not in
  competition, would be enough to produce prejudice
  between groups of very similar people. (NB.,
  interbetween/intrawithin)
• Method See explanation of Social Identity theory
  above. 2 versions of experiment, 1 involving
  paintings by Klee or Kandinsky, and 1 involving
  estimating numbers on a screen (being an under or
  over-estimator). The participants were initially
  placed into groups according to whether they were
  under/over-estimators, or their painting
  preference (in reality the allocation to groups
  was entirely random).

33
Tajfel et al. (1971) Social Categorisation
Intergroup Behaviour (continued)

• Method contd Participants were then given the
  opportunity to allocate points, which could be
  converted into prizes, to members of the two
  groups. The participants did not know who they
  were allocating points to, but did know which
  group they belonged to. In another variation,
  Tajfel further manipulated the experiment by
  ensuring that when participants favoured members
  of their in-group, the out-group would
  automatically get more points.
• Results The participants overwhelmingly chose to
  favour their own group by allocating more points
  to members of their own group, even when this
  meant the out-group would then get more overall
  points, therefore prizes.

• Validity The study lacked ecological validity
  because it was quite removed from the real life
  experiences of the participants, I.e., being
  asked to estimate dots on a screen, or be placed
  in a group according to painting preference.
  Furthermore, the study was carried out in a
  university setting which would be unfamiliar to
  many of the participants. Experimental validity
  may be questioned because arguably there was
  implied competition created by the forced nature
  of the choice participants had to make between
  members of their in-group or those of the
  out-group.

34
Tajfel et al. (1971) Social Categorisation
Intergroup Behaviour (continued)

• Conclusion Even when categorised into
  meaningless/minimal groups, participants still
  chose to favour members of their own group over
  members of the other group. This shows we have a
  natural tendency in social situations to favour
  people we have identified defined as being part
  of our group discriminate against those
  perceived to be members of a different group.
  One explanation of this is that by favouring
  members of our own perceived in-group, we boost
  our own self-esteem, because we are part of that
  group.

• Ethics There are no real ethical issues and the
  participants were not caused distress. As some
  of the participants were schoolboys, informed
  consent withdrawal may have been issue the boys
  had felt intimated by the adult researchers
  university setting. The research does provide
  very useful insight into the mechanics of
  prejudice discrimination and, therefore, ways
  of reducing prejudice discrimination.

35
1 key issue in Social Psychology
36
Key issues in Social Psychology destructive
obedience, cult behaviour, football/race related
violence

• All the above issues can be explained using
  ideas, concepts research from social psychology
• But how?
• What ideas research can be used?
• Agency theory
• Agentic V. autonomous states
• Moral strain
• Charismatic leadership reward/punishment
  (coercive power)
• Social Identity Theory in-group
  loyalty/out-group hostility
• Social categorisation, identification, comparison
• Self-esteem

• Soldiers who commit war crimes, football crowd
  violence cult behaviour can be explained by
• Agency theory, they become the agents of those
  with perceived authority/status/power thus
  losing their own autonomy. Moral strain is the
  result, denying personal responsibility is a
  coping mechanism.
• Some people may have charismatic, or reward, or
  coercive, or expert power which gives them an
  ability to get others to do what they want them
  to. They may have a combination of these types
  of social power, thus eliciting obedience.

37
Key issues in Social Psychology destructive
obedience, cult behaviour, football/race related
violence

• Being in the army, or a cult, or member of a
  football gang, or ethnic minority group can
  generate a strong sense of in-group loyalty
  out-group hostility.
• A strong sense of in-group loyalty is often
  fostered by the army, cults etc., and the
  processes of social categorisation,
  identification comparison can increase
  self-esteem.
• Any challenge to the in-group is also a challenge
  to members self-esteem and can be strongly
  resented.
• However, the level of in-group loyalty
  out-group hostility varies between individual
  members of a group whether the out-group is
  perceived as being in the majority or minority.

• All the above issues can be explained using
  ideas, concepts research from social psychology
• But how?
• What ideas research can be used?
• Agency theory
• Agentic V. autonomous states
• Moral strain
• Charismatic leadership reward/punishment
  (coercive power) simplistic, emotional language
• Social Identity Theory in-group
  loyalty/out-group hostility
• Social categorisation, identification, comparison
• Self-esteem
• De-individuation (Zimbardo-guards)
• De-humanisation(Zimbardo-prisoners, Milgram)
• Emotional contagion
• Conformity/obedience/power of social situation.

38
Key issues in Social Psychology destructive
obedience, cult behaviour, football/race related
violence (continued)

• Not everyone becomes an agent of perceived
  authority enters into an agentic state some
  people disobey despite the social, sometimes
  physical, costs to themselves. Agency theory
  struggles to explain this
• The concept of agency theory may provide an
  excuse for some people to commit horrible acts
  atrocities they were psychologically powerless
  to act any differently, but is this really case?
• Some conflict between groups is about competition
  for resources (Realistic Conflict Theory) or is
  the result of negative propaganda about
  out-groups so is not a naturally occurring
  social phenomena.

39
Research Methods/How Science Works Practical

• For the social approach you will need to know a
  range of scientific terminology be able to
  describe evaluate a number of different social
  psychological research methods
• Many of these terms you will need to apply to a
  short practical based on principles from social
  psychology.
• When carrying out your own social psychology
  practical you will need to keep a record of

40
Research Methods/How Science Works Practical

• How you planned it
• How you carried it out/methodology procedure
• How you analysed it
• Your conclusions
• Your evaluation of your practical.

41
Research Methods/How Science Works Practical

• Qualitative data descriptive, non-numerical
  information, such as generated by open-ended
  questions, unstructured interviews etc..
• Difficult to analyse statistically therefore to
  generalise from.
• Greater validity as provides more detail means
  answers can be explored in more depth making
  conclusions more meaningful.

• Quantitative data information is numerical in
  nature, such as generated by closed questions,
  likert scales etc..
• Numerical data only tells you how often behaviour
  occurs, not the underlying motivation for
  behaviour, reduces thoughts attitudes to
  numbers which undermines validity.
• Is reliable, as easy to repeat, easy to
  statistically analyse therefore to generalise
  from.

42
Sampling methods (a representative sample is
drawn from the target population)
43
Sampling methods (a representative sample is
drawn from the target population) continued.

• For many psychological studies the sample is
  made up of students because researchers will
  often use opportunity sampling

44
Surveys questionnaires interviews
45
Research Methods/How Science Works

• Surveys questionnaires interviews generate
  self-report data, i.e., information elicited from
  questions which relies on the participants
  reporting their own behaviour, feelings,
  attitudes etc.

46
Research Methods/How Science Works

• Before starting a piece of research a hypothesis
  has to be made a hypothesis is a testable
  prediction. Prediction of human behaviour is
  made and then tested to ascertain if this
  hypothesis, or prediction, is actually true for
  most people
• There are 3 types of hypothesis.

47
Research Methods/How Science Works Hypotheses

• Experimental hypothesis This is a prediction
  testable by means of either laboratory, field or
  natural experiment.
• Alternative hypothesis This is a prediction
  testable by means of research methodology other
  than experiments, e.g., questionnaires,
  interviews, observations, correlation studies,
  longitudinal, Cross-sectional cross-cultural
  studies.
• Null hypothesis This is NOT the opposite of
  the alternative or experimental hypothesis it
  is a rejection of it. The null hypothesis states
  that the prediction is wrong, there is no such
  effect (as had been predicted) other than effects
  produced by chance.
• E.g., Exp Hypothesis coffee makes you more
  alert Null hypothesis coffee has no effect on
  alertness, any increase in alertness due to
  chance factors.

48
Ethics research on human participants

• Introduction researchers must ensure that
  public, after taking part in research, have
  confidence in the psychology profession have a
  positive perception of psychologists. All
  participants should be treated with respect
  their dignity well-being should be safe-guarded
  at all times.
• Informed Consent participants must be made aware
  of the aims procedure of the research to enable
  them to make a fully informed decision about
  whether to take part or not. Sometimes, to avoid
  demand characteristics, participants may be
  deceived about the nature of the research, or
  they may be in a field experiment or observation
  where informed consent cannot be obtained prior
  to research. In these cases participants must be
  fully debriefed after the research. Where
  informed consent cannot be obtained presumptive
  consent can be obtained (would other people, if
  the scenario was explained to them agree to take
  part in the study themselves).
• Debriefing participants must be fully debriefed
  at the end of the research, I.e., everything
  about the nature of the research must be revealed
  to them, they must be reminded of their right
  to withdraw their results from the study given
  the chance to ask any questions about the study.
  They must leave in same emotional state as they
  arrived.
• Withdrawal participants must be made aware that
  they can withdraw at any time, even if they have
  been paid, and they can also withdraw their data.

49
Ethics research on human participants

• Competence Researchers should do research and
  make judgements only in areas appropriate to
  their area of expertise must check with
  colleagues if there is any doubt or not carry
  it out research.
• Deception wherever possible participants should
  not be deceived unless vital to preserve
  experimental validity should be fully debriefed
  at the end.
• Confidentiality unless agreed with participants
  in advance, confidentiality should be maintained,
  no personal information should be disclosed
  pseudonyms used.
• Protection from harm Participants should be
  protected from physical psychological harm
  should be exposed to no more risk than they would
  normally encounter in their usual lives.
  Participants should leave the research feeling
  positive about themselves the experimental
  experience.
• Observation participants should only be observed
  in places where public behaviour is expected.

50
Research Methods/How Science Works

• Reliability this refers to the consistency of
  data if the research is reliable we would
  expect that if it were repeated, with similar
  types of participants in similar circumstances,
  the same results would be obtained.
• Validity Does the research actually measure what
  it is supposed to measure. In psychology testing
  abstract concepts can be difficult, we rely on
  observing measurable changes in behaviour
  attitudes/beliefs however, we cannot always be
  sure that what we think we are testing is
  actually being reflected in the participants
  responses these responses may be due to factors
  other than the ones we are thinking we are
  testing.
• Subjectivity This refers to the interpretation
  of data, could participants data be interpreted
  differently, is the interpretation of data
  completely free from bias?
• Objectivity Essentially the opposite, is data
  able to be interpreted in such a way that it is
  deemed unbiased, untainted by attitudes, beliefs
  values of the researcher.

51
Research Methods/How Science Works The Practical

• Develop a hypothesis null hypothesis.
• Consider the ethics of your practical questions
  should not cause distress, embarrassment.
• Consider how you will generate quantitative
  qualitative data closed questions open-ended
  questions, questionnaire small-scale
  unstructured interview/semi or structured
  interview.
• Sampling who is your target group what type of
  sampling method are you going to use to ensure a
  representative sample, what issues are there with
  your sampling method, how big will the sample be?
• Operationalising your research how will you
  operationalise your questions variables, e.g.,
  if you are trying to measure attitudes, levels of
  prejudice, out/in-group loyalty or obedience how
  will your define measure these terms? What/who
  will you be comparing?
• Conduct a pilot study ask a very small number of
  participants the questions you wish to first to
  ensure that they fulfil the criteria you want, if
  they dont you have the opportunity to change
  them at an early stage. These responses can be
  included in your final results.

52
Research Methods/How Science Works The Practical

• Analysing the results Quantitative data look
  for numerical trends by establishing mean, median
  mode, range standard deviation.
• Analysing the results Qualitative data look for
  trends/themes in the answers given to open-ended
  questions.
• Reliability is your study reliable? What have
  you done to standardise instructions procedure
  to avoid experimenter bias ensure the research
  is well-controlled?
• Validity What have you done to ensure high
  validity avoid demand characteristics and
  confounding/extraneous variables affecting your
  results?
• Do your results support the alternative/experiment
  al hypothesis or the null hypothesis? Why? Have
  your participants been fully debriefed?