Social psychology

Agency theory

• Socialised from a young

• Agentic state

• Autonomous state

• Moral strain

• Evolved as helps group function

Autonomous state

We perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own behaviour so we feel guilt for what we do. Eg participants who left milgrams study before 450v

Agentic state

We obey an authority figure. We perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone else’s will; the authority figure commanding us is responsible for what we do so we feel no guilt. Eg participants who continued to give shocks in milgrams study because they no longer felt responsible for their actions

Moral strain

The feeling of guilt/ anxiety you get for going against your conscience when being ordered by an authority figure. Milgrams said this was because of evolution and they way we are socialised to obey hierarchy.

Strengths of agency theory

• Supported by milgrams study as participants experienced moral strain and were obedient, 65% went to 450v when ordered by an authority figure lending support for Agentic state and a strong feeling of responsibility towards the authority figure

• Allows us to better understand atrocities like the holocaust. It means if we can make people aware of their own personal responsibility we can avoid the dangers of an Agentic state.

Weaknesses of agency theory

• French and Raven suggest reward power could explain why someone would follow a command from an authority figure to receive incentives rather than authority and agentic state → suggests that perhaps obedience is not due to authority and the agentic state so this is not a complete explanation of obedience

• Many problems with milgrams research such as its small sample, only males, and low ecological validity → research isn’t valid/ generalisable

• Agency theory only looks at the situational factors so it ignores individual differences and so it is not a complete explanation of obedience

• Agentic and autonomous are states of mind that are very difficult to see and measure. There has been little brain scan evidence to show that these are true states which are measurable as existing. Similarly, it is difficult to test the idea that this behaviour has evolved.

• Autonomy may be a result of the authority figure lacking charisma rather than an individuals state

Psychological law in social impact theory

Each new person increases the impact but each additional personal has less impact than the person before them

Multiplicative effect

The impact of S, I and N when multiplied together is greater than each individual element

Divisional effect

The more targets there are to impact, the harder it is for the source as their strength is divided by the number of targets

Strengths of social impact theory

• Supported by milgrams variations. Run down office block and ordinary man variations show how when the strength of the source is compromised, the social force is lowered and people obey less. Also, telephonic instructions show how immediacy is important as when the authority figure is not in the room this also lowers the rates of obedience. → shows that the factors are credible explanations of obedience

• Supported by milgram, berkowitz & brown - had confederates looking up at a high floor on a building , the more there were looking up the more people passing by stopped to do the same, however there was a decrease in their impact supports psychological law

• Takes into account more situational factors than agency theory and has a focus on the source and the target rather than just the target → making it less reductionist

• Allows us to better understand atrocities like the Mai Li. Soldiers who were given orders over the radio did not follow orders as much as those face to face.

Weaknesses of social impact theory

• Ignores individual differences eg, authoritarian personality → isn’t a complete explanation of obedience

• Mullen conducted research reviewing studies into social impact theory and found that strength and immediacy’s effect were not consistent in their effects → impact theory might not be a credible explanation of obedience if all of the factors are not valid/ credible

• French and Raven suggest reward power could explain why someone would follow a command from an authority figure to receive incentives rather these three factors → suggests that perhaps obedience is not due to strength, number and immediacy so this is not a complete explanation of obedience

• Reductionist and deterministic to suggest that a complicated human behaviour like obedience can be boiled down to a simple formula which will then explain all situations

Aim of milgram

To test how far ordinary people go when being ordered to give electric shocks (Germans are different - holocaust)

Sample of milgram

• 40 men aged 20-50

• Obtained via volunteer sampling through a newspaper advertisement

• Paid for their time

• Told they would be taking part in a human learning experiment

• Located at Yale university

Describe milgrams experiment

• The vote was rigged so that all real participants became ‘teachers’ who had to read out word pairs, and the other participant who was a confederate would be ‘learner’ who had to learn these and be tested on

• Participants were given a 45v shock themselves

• They were then told when the ‘learners’ gave the wrong answer they had to give them electric shocks, ranging from 15 to 450v - increasing by a 15v increment each time

• If they refused verbal prods were given from the experimenter present eg ‘you have no choice you must continue’

• There was no contact with the learner up until 300v when they banged on the wall and then didn’t answer any more questions

Results of milgrams experiment

• 100% (40/40) participants obeyed to 300v

• 65% (24/40) participants obeyed to 450v

• Qualitative data was also produced - signs of distress such as nervous laughter

Conclusion of milgrams experiment

Ordinary people obey orders from an authority figure in extreme conditions even if they feel uncomfortable about doing so

Strengths of milgrams experiment

• Standardised procedures as each participant experienced the same, eg the same prods and shocks which means the procedure is replicable and has high reliability, which is an advantage because it means that similar results about obedience will be produced when repeated

• The high controls eg the learner saying the same things also mean there is increased validity, as they prevented any extraneous variables from confounding the results → they were testing what they claimed to be testing (effect of authority on obedience) making the findings more valid

• Sample contained men from varying jobs and backgrounds which raises generalisability, this makes it slightly more representative of a wider population

• Less chance of demand characteristics since the participants didn’t know the study was about obedience → less likely to change their behaviour

Weaknesses of milgrams experiment

• Participants were deceived by being told the study was about the effects of punishment on learning which means it breaches an ethical guideline

• No informed consent as they weren’t aware of the purpose of the experiment or how it would affect them

• Participants showed clear psychological harm through the qualitative data gathered such as nervous laughter

• Despite technically having the right to withdraw they did not fully due to the pressure given from the verbal prod to stay and remain in the experiment

• Lacks ecological validity as it is an artificial setting → results do not apply to a real life example of obedience

• Sample only contained males from the US and they were volunteers which makes it very ungeneralisable as the results from the study don’t apply to women (androcentric), people from outside the USA (ethnocentric) or those who didn’t apply (shared characteristics) meaning their results may not be representative of the obedience of a wider population

Aim of variation 7: telephone instructions

To see if proximity has an effect on obedience levels

Method of variation 7: telephone instructions

• 40 ppts

• Study progressed like the original one with a rigged draw, first real shock etc

• After giving the initial instructions the experimenter left the room leaving the participant with a telephone and the shock generater

• If the teachers have questions or doubts, they must phone the experimenter

• The “prods” are delivered over the telephone

Results of variation 7: telephone instructions

• Results fell from 65% to 22.5%

• They lied about increasing the voltage and continued to give low level shocks

Conclusion of variation 7: telephone instructions

Proximity to an authority figure has an impact on obedience (obedience decreases as people get further from the authority figure)

Aim of variation 10: run down office

Milgram wanted to see if changing from prestigious Yale would have an effect on obedience levels (the interviews following the original suggested it was a large factor)

Method of variation 10: run down office

• 40 participants were recruited through a mail shot

• Experiment was relocated from Yale to a small commercial office in Bridgeport

• They were told research was being conducted by ‘research associates of Bridgeport’

• Conducted in a three-room office suite in a run down commercial building which was sparsely furnished

• Rest of the procedure continued as in the original (rigged draw, prods, shocks etc)

Results of variation 10: run down office

• 48% continued to give the 450v shock

• Participants also questioned the credentials of the company

Conclusion of variation 10: run down office

Shows that perceived authority/ perceived responsibility impacted obedience

Aim of variation 13: ordinary man

To study the impact of power relations on obedience. To see whether an ordinarily dressed man giving the instructions would affect the results.

Method of variation 13: ordinary man

• 20 participants

• Three ‘participants’ (two confederates) arrived and did the rigged draw

• They strapped the learner into the chair but didn’t tell the teacher to increase the level of shock to give

• The experimenter received a phone call to leave the room. He said that the teacher should keep the learner practicing the words.

• The second confederate (who was recording stuff for the confederate) suggested increasing the shocks every time the learner got the answers wrong

Results of variation 13: ordinary man

• 20% obedience level (16/20 refused)

• The 16 participants who refused were taken into a second part. The second confederate suggested swapping places so that now they were giving the shocks and the real ppt just had to watch.

• All 16 ppts protested and 5 physically restrained the leaner. The 11 who went to 450v = 68.75%

Situational factors affecting obedience

• Momentum of compliance: start with small, trivial requests, then increase them eg, milgrams shocks increasing by 15v increments

• Proximity: the closer the authority figure, the higher the level of obedience eg, variation 7

• Status of authority figure: the authority figure needs to be perceived as legitimate in order for their authority to be affective. This was demonstrated in the variation with conflicting experiments where obeying to 450v dropped to 0%

• Personal responsibility: if responsibility is placed on the authority figure, not the participant, obedience is likely to increase. In one variation, participants signed a contract claiming responsibility for any harm within the experiment and obedience dropped to 40%

Authoritarian personality affecting obedience

• Authoritarian personality types are typically more submissive to authority figures so would be more likely to comply the requests of an authority figure

  • Characteristics include; Hostile to people seen as inferior, disapproving of weakness, intolerant of ambiguity, upholder of conventional values, obedient to people seen as superior; rigid and inflexible.

• Adorno (1950) devised the F Scale which was a questionnaire to detect authoritarian personality

AO3

• Milgram & Elms compared F scores for 20 obedient and 20 defiant ppts in one of Milgram’s studies, and found higher F values for the obedient ppts indicating authoritarian personality. Elms and Milgram concluded that the obedient participants in his original research displayed higher levels of the authoritarian personality, in comparison to disobedient participants.

• Dambrun and Vatine used an immersive video environment to replicate Milgram and suggest that individuals that display an authoritarian personality may be more obedient

Locus of control affecting obedience

• Internal LOC: believe they are responsible for their own actions, so are less influenced by others.

• External LOC: more influenced by authority figures and believe they are not responsible for their actions

AO3

• From Milgram’s experiment variations 1 to 4, participants who were obedient and disobedient were asked to judge their relative responsibility for giving shocks e.g. who was to blame (themselves as teacher, the learner or the experimenter). Those who had disobeyed, put more blame on themselves; 48% compared to the experimenter; 39% and only blamed the learner 12%.

Empathy affecting obedience

• Empathy is the ability to understand and share the feelings of another person. People with higher levels of empathy are less likely to harm another person at the instructions of an authority figure.

AO3

• Burger (2009) found that though those who scored higher on empathy protested more to giving shocks, they still gave the maximum voltage shock (150v).

Gender affecting obedience

• Individuals develop a sense of gender identity (masculinity and femininity) through socialisation. Gender stereotypes affect how we perceive ourselves and others, such as women being perceived to be more obedient. We may expect females to be more obedient than because of traditional gender roles and stereotypes.

AO3

• Milgram found similar levels of obedience when comparing male and female participants. The only difference was that females displayed a much higher level of anxiety. This was also found in a replication of Milgram’s study by Burger (2009) - gender is less of a factor in obedience than others such as culture.

• OTOH - Kilham and Mann (1974) replicated Milgram’s original study and found that females were less obedient than the male participants (16% compared to 40%)

• A03: Blass carried out a meta-analysis of 10 obedience experiments, finding that obedience across genders was similar in 9/10 of the studies.

• Sheridan and King Adapted Milgram’s experiment to use a live puppy as a victim and found that all 13 female participants were more compliant and delivered maximum shock levels to the puppy compared to men (100% vs 54%

Cultural factors affecting obedience

• Individual cultures tend to behave more independently and so we may expect less obedience as they are more likely to resist an instruction from an authority figure

• Collectivist cultures tend to behave as co-operatively, meaning compliance is important for the success of the group, meaning obedience is likely to be higher

AO3

• Smith & bond found that people who belong to individualist cultures, such as British cultures, are more likely to behave independently than those from collectivist cultures such as china

• However, bass conducted a meta-analysis looking at replications of milgrams study in many countries, they found very little difference between cultures in terms of obedience to maximum voltage

Prejudice

To make judgements about someone based on their membership of a group rather than their individual nature. Prejudice is a preconceived opinion of another person that is often based on stereotypes, for example a belief that your wife should be responsible for the domestic tasks at home

Discrimination

Treating people differently according to their group membership.

Social identity theory

• Groups cause prejudice

• Social categorisation

• Social identification

• Social comparison

Social categorisation

Seeing yourself as part of a group (in group)

Social identification

Once you have a social identity, you automatically perceive everyone else you meet as either part of your in-group or the out-group. You pay particular attention to in group members and adopt their values, attitudes, appearances and behaviour.

Social comparison

• Exaggerating differences between groups. This tends to be viewing your social identity as superior to others (to boost your self esteem). This leads to prejudice and can also lead to discrimination

• This can be either through negative out-group bias/ denigration (putting down the other group) or in-group favouritism (favouring your own group or viewing them more positively).

Strengths of social identity theory

• Jane Elliot blue eyes brown eyes - a teacher created categorisation by blue and brown eyes. Students took on behaviours of these groups and were prejudice towards the other groups including verbal and physical aggression. This demonstrates that being put into a group can affect the behaviour towards those not in that group showing the theory to be credible.

• Sherif robbers cave - boys categorised themselves as different and created strong identification (flags, names etc). This resulted in positive distinctiveness as the boys felt superior to their out-groups, shown by name calling. The strong identity eventually resulted in violence through social comparison with one group attempting to burn down the other flag, which would have been to build their own self esteem → This demonstrates that being put into a group can affect the behaviour towards those not in that group showing the theory to be credible.

• Tajfel found that Bristol school boys would consider those who had preference for a different painting as them in their out group and chose to give themselves less money as long as they had more than the out group → gives supporting evidence that groups can cause in groups and outgroups and leads to prejudice, making the theory credible

• Can explain the escalation of group behaviour to violence and indicates we need to break down categorisation and identification in order to prevent violence.

Weaknesses of social identity theory

• Assumes that the only factor is group formation. Realistic conflict theory emphasises the importance of competition between groups and how this intensifies prejudice.

• Ignores individual differences since identity theory only looks at the situational factors and so it is not a complete explanation of prejudice

• Sherif - the groups had competition present which may have caused the conflict rather than just the existence of groups. When the groups were broken down that also didn’t relieve the prejudice. This suggests that this theory may not be credible at explaining prejudice as sherif shows it may mot be a complete theory.

Realistic conflict theory

• Competition between groups causes prejudice

• Scarce limited resources

• Each try to maximise resources - zero sum

• Will be hostile, name call etc

• Superordinate goals

Intergroup conflict

Whenever there are two or more groups that are seeking the same limited resources, this will lead to conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and discrimination between the groups

Super-ordinate goals

Mutually desirable goals that cannot be obtained without the participation of two or more groups, method designed to reduce prejudice

Strengths of realistic conflict theory

• Supported by sherif robbers cave - competition for resources increased intergroup conflict. Furthermore, evidence came for superordinate goals.

• Supported by ember - found intergroup violence increased as food shortages and famine escalated

• Explains prejudice between groups such as Israel and Palestine. Not only explains what causes prejudice but also how to solve it.

Weaknesses of realistic conflict theory

• Boys were hostile towards each other in sherif before competition was introduced. This prejudice can therefore be explained better by Social identity theory and categorisation which says that the formation of a group will result in prejudice.

• Individual differences: still don't know why some people are more prejudice than others. For example, it doesn't explain how personality types and free will may affect prejudice for example there is evidence of authoritarian personality type being more susceptible to group identity over self-identity (Adorno). Therefore, it is deterministic.

Aim of sherif

To test the development of in-group behaviour to include related out-group hostility (through competition) and how this can be reduced (using a super-ordinate goal)

Procedure of sherif

• 22 boys aged 11 from Protestant Oklahoma families - they were matched on IQ sporting ability.

• Phase 1: In-group formation: They were placed in a summer camp in Robbers Cave, Oklahoma where they were divided into two groups - the groups did not know about one another at this point.

• Spent a week bonding as a group

• Phase 2: friction phase: began where they discovered each other and competitions were set up between them.

• The boys wanted to play baseball and the researchers introduced the 'counting beans' task, tug-of-war and scavenger hunting for attractive prizes, such as penknives.

• Phase 3: integration phase: This stage was designed to reduce the tension between the groups.

• They were given several superordinate goals (fixing water supply, chipping in to pay for movie, fixing broken down camp truck) where they had to work together to achieve a result.

The 4 measurements of sherif

Observation, Sociometric data, experiments and audio recording

Qualitative results of sherif

• Phase 1: Each group was given a name - Eagles and Rattlers, to further help strengthen their group identity. They maintained social control through ostracism and ridicule.

• Phase 2: The tournament started in good spirits, but soon the boys were calling each other terrible names like 'cheat', 'stinker' or 'sneak'. Soon after, name-calling, scuffles and 'raids' (e.g. stealing the other team's flag and setting fire to it), became commonplace.

• Phase 3: By the end of camp, boys were 'actively seeking opportunities to mingle, entertain and treat each other'. The boys also made far fewer negative ratings of the opposing group.

Quantitative results of sherif

Friendships compared between the end of stage 2 and stage 3

• Rattlers 6.4% vs 36.4%

• Eagles 7.5% vs 23.2%

Conclusion of sherif

Superordinate goals can help relieve prejudice in competing groups. Prejudice occurs due to competition for scarce resources.

Strengths of sherif

• The study has triangulation as there were several data collections and of each one the findings agreed, for example observations and recordings found derogatory behaviour towards each group → This makes the results about the source of prejudice more valid because the evidence supporting it comes from multiple sources

• Superordinate goals could be useful in society for reducing prejudice

• The boys didn't know they were being studied at the summer camp so should have low demand characteristics. → This makes the results about their interactions more valid in explaining prejudice because the boys don't change their behaviour.

• The study is high in ecological validity/mundane realism because it was taking place in a normal summer camp doing activities inline with that location. → This means that the results we get about the boys' prejudice from the summer camp competitions is able to explain real life prejudice situations.

• There were a number of standardised tasks e.g. the bean counting task, tug-of-war they took part in etc., so you can repeat the procedure. → This means we can repeat the experiment if needed to see if the results of competition causing prejudice can be tested for reliability.

• Gathered both qualitative and quantitative data from the tape recordings, sociometric data, observations etc. → This means we can get depth and detail on how the boys interacted and if the competition was enough to cause prejudice.

Weaknesses of sherif

• There are issues with the sample such as it being small, Androcentric and ethnocentric they are all 11, male, from Protestant Oklahoma families, and had similar IQ and sporting ability - therefore there is low generalisability. → This means the results that we gain from this sample about the cause of prejudice might not be representative of prejudice to a wider population.

• Informed consent was not given as the boys didn't know they were taking part in research about prejudice. → This means they have breached the ethical guideline (also because they are children and therefore cannot fully consent)

• There could be seen to be issues with protection from harm as the study created prejudice between the boys. → This could lead to harm both Psychologically and physically as the boys got into fights with each other.

• Sherif is a field experiment taking place in the summer camp so some extraneous variables e.g. what the counsellors said/how they interacted might influence their conflict. → This reduces the validity (and possibly reliability as it couldn't be repeated the same) of findings about prejudice because factors like their interactions with others could impact their conflict rather than just the competition between Rattlers and Eagles.

Authoritarian personality affecting prejudice

• Personality dimension that characterises people who tend to hold traditional and conventional values. Someone with an authoritarian personality may be more likely to consider groups as ‘us’ and ‘them’ and be prejudice towards people of a different social or ethnic group.

• Adorno - f-scale scores show how far respondents agree with statements to reach an objective score for authoritarian personality levels which can be tested to check for consistency

Ao3

• Lippa and arad - 155 men and 256 women assessed on authoritarianism and social dominance. Authoritarian individuals, especially men were judged to be defensive and prejudice. Socially dominant individuals, especially women, were judged to be cold and prejudice.

• OTOH - questionnaires are not valid measures of personality

Social dominance orientation

We live in a world of social hierarchies. Those who believe in social hierarchy are more likely to be prejudice towards lower status individuals because they think these are real substantial divisions which should be adhered to. People who score low on this individual trait believe in fairness and social equality and would therefore be less prejudiced towards others.

The big 5 personality traits affecting prejudice

• Openness - your degree of curiosity and creativity, high score = less prejudice

• Conscientiousness - organised and dependable, high score = more prejudice

• Extroversion - tendency to seek the company of others, high score = less prejudice

• Agreeableness - ones trusting and helpful nature, high score = less prejudice

• Neuroticism - how prone you are to psychological stress

  Ao3

• Cohrs - found that if an individual is less open to experience they are more likely to have an authoritarian personality and prejudiced. If an individual is more conscientious they are more likely to have an authoritarian prejudice and be prejudice. If an individual is less agreeable, they are more likely to be high in social dominance orientation.

• Ekehammar and akrami - found correlation between scores of openness to experience and agreeableness with likelihood of scoring highly on measurements of prejudice.

Aim of Cohrs

To examine associations between the big five personality dimensions, right wing authoritarian, social dominance orientation and generalised prejudice using self report data.

Sample of Cohrs

• Opportunity sample in Germany of neighbours and friends

• 193 in study 1

• 424 in study 2

Procedure of Cohrs

• They completed self-report questions on RWA, SDO, the big 5 personality traits and their prejudice towards homosexuals, people with disabilities and ‘foreigners’ in Germany

• They were assessed on scales (1-7 in study 1 and 1-5 in study 2)

• Their peers also completed the same questionnaires about their assessment about the main participant

• They compared the self report data to that completed by the peers about the main participant

Results of Cohrs

• Openness and agreeableness negatively correlates with prejudice

• RWA and SDO positively correlates with prejudice

• Conscientiousness correlates with RWA

Conclusion of Cohrs

• Personality does correlate with prejudice and ideological views

• Self report and peer report data can be used to validate one another

Strengths of Cohrs

• The questionnaires were standardised so all participants received the same questionnaires for the Big Five personality dimensions, Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) → researchers can retest the standardised questions increasing the reliability of the findings about personality's effects on prejudice.

• But comparing two techniques of self-report and peer reports introduces a check on this subjectivity and found agreement between the two techniques.

• Cohrs were able to test for the effects of social desirability on personality and prejudice self-report scoring as they gathered peer-report data to assess the validity of the self-report data regarding personality and prejudice.

• Cohrs did not disclose the details of the participants or peer-raters in their study. Where researchers do not disclose participant details their studies into prejudice/obedience can be carried out within ethical guidelines for confidentiality from The Code of Conduct (2009).

Weaknesses of Cohrs

• Using closed questions with rating scales prevented the participants from explaining their answers. This reduces the validity of how well the results can represent the reasons for prejudice.

• Since people were answering questionnaires about their own (and their friend's) personality and prejudice there could be social desirability. If the people lied to appear a certain way e.g. less prejudice then this would affect the validity of the findings about how personality influences prejudice. (however, the peer ratings and self ratings matching closely suggest this might not be as big an issue as it could have been)

• The study was conducted on only one culture, so population validity is an issue. It was conducted only in Germany meaning the results about prejudice we get from them might not be representative of how personality influences prejudice in other groups (because German people may be different due to some cultural/historical factor).

• The sample were opportunity from the authors neighbours and peers and so they might have shared characteristics. This means the results about how personality influences prejudice might not be representative of a wider population's relationships

• Using self-report methods introduces subjectivity as participants may interpret the questions/scales about personality and prejudice differently. This lowers the validity as different people can be rating the same questions about personality differently based on their interpretation.

Social norms affecting prejudice

• A social norm is an ‘agreed’ or ‘accepted’ way of behaving.

• Each country or social group will have their own social norms which govern what behaviour is acceptable e.g racist comments used to be more acceptable than they are now and more people would use them.

• These social norms can change over time and therefore impact on how people act and their behaviour

• This has lowered the stigma and negative attitude related to it, the social norm changed which then impacted on levels of prejudice. e.g. if you didn’t think you would be judged negatively for some of your comments you would say them more.

AO3

• Sechrist and Stangor - Selected white college students who were either high or low in prejudice toward Black people and then provided them with information indicating that their beliefs were either shared or not shared by the other students at their university. The students were asked to take a seat in a hallway to wait for the next part of the experiment. A Black confederate was sitting in one seat at the end of the row, and the dependent measure was how far away the students sat from her. High prejudice students who learned that other students were also prejudiced sat farther away from the Black confederate in comparison with high prejudice individuals who were led to believe that their beliefs were not shared. These results demonstrate that our perceptions of relevant social norms can strengthen or weaken our tendencies to engage in discriminatory behaviours

Cultural factors affecting prejudice

• Collectivist cultures place emphasis on the needs of the group rather than the individual. The responsibility one has to the in-group is characterised by a strong emotional attachment to the in-group.

• Because people in collectivist cultures perceive themselves as being interdependent with other in-group members, people are less likely to be stigmatized for, for example, physical deformity or lack of certain skills (Triandis, 1995).

• However, because of their stronger affiliation with the in-group and their sense of 'collective self', we might predict that prejudice against out-groups will be stronger in collectivist cultures than in individualist ones.

• Individualistic cultures emphasise individualism, the private self, individual autonomy and the priority of personal over collective needs.

• Multiculturalism-the existence, acceptance, and/or promotion of multiple cultural traditions within a single area e.g. many different people with different cultures, beliefs etc are able to live together without trying to change the other group. and one group is not considered to be superior.

• Assimilation- the belief that if someone from a different culture joins another one, they should adopt their views and identity. e.g. if you want to come to this area/country you have to change to be like us e.g. learn the language we speak first

AO3

• Fujimoto and Hartel identified that collectivist cultures were more likely to demonstrate prejudice than individualistic cultures.

• Guimond et al - Cultures where there is multiculturalism show less prejudice than those featuring assimilation in their culture. They found that anti-muslim attitudes were reduced when the pro-diversity policy in a country was high.

• Al-Zahrani and Kaplowitz found that in a comparison of Saudi (collectivist) and American (individualist) people, Saudis tended to show more outgroup-denigration

Cults - key question AO1

• A social group with socially deviant or novel beliefs and practice who follow a strong, living leader and make absolute claims about the leaders abilities, character or knowledge. This can be important as they make others believe fringe/dangerous beliefs

• Members of a cult are often financially dependent on it. They usually break off ties with everyone outside the cult, which means they are even more dependent on the group, making it easier to manipulate and exploit them so it is important to understand how/why these things happen to stop it occurring in society

• There have been some high-profile cases in which the members of a cult have committed collective suicide or made a similar pact. An extreme example was the People’s Temple of San Francisco, a cult whose members committed mass suicide in Guyana. The Manson family killed people on behalf of their leader Charles Manson. So, it is important as they can lead to serious real world events.

• This is a key issue for us because there are over 500 active cults within the UK. We need to be aware of what causes individuals to join and remain in cults in order to prevent the horrors that have occurred in cults previously.

Applying cults to agency theory

The cult members are in agentic state and obey the leader as they view him as an authority member and give up their free will to avoid moral strain of going against their conscience

Applying cults to social impact theory

• Strength can be seen because they view the cult leader as being an authority figure (often with divine links)

• Immediacy can be seen as an issue because they all live together and thus have an impact

• Number is important because they end up surrounded by believes which means they have a high impact

Applying cults to social identity theory

• The cult categories themselves as in group and out group and cut ties with everyone else who they see as an out group

• They may show identification by drawing the same as each other and having the same fringe beliefs which become part of their identity

• Social comparison can occur when the cult behaves negatively towards outsiders

Evaluating the issue of cults

• Bromley studied the unification church and found only 5% were still working with the church 1 year later

• Saliba reported that 90% of unification church recruits dropped out before the end of the training program. These both show that perhaps cults aren’t as big an issue as we worry about.

• Milgram and Milgrams variations support agency theory and social impact theory

• Sherif supports social identity theory

Aim of practical

To find out whether there are differences in the levels of obedience between men and women

Procedure of practical

• 24 male and female from the north east of England

• A questionnaire was created after brain storming key factors linking to obedience.

• Both likert scale and open questions were included such as ‘how likely are you to move on the train if someone asks you to’

• Once written, the questionnaire was piloted to ensure the right questions were being asked, and then, once the pilot study had confirmed the questions were appropriate they were handed out using opportunity sampling

• Once the questionnaire was completed participants were thanked for their time, and debriefed about the nature of the study

Obedience practical - mean for males and females

Male - 21.7

Female - 22.3

Obedience practical - standard deviation on obedience scores

Male - 5.57

Female - 4.46

Obedience practical analysis

• Shared obedience questions

• Calculated obedience mean for men and female

• Calculated standard deviation on obedience scores for men and female

• Thematic analysis on open questions about obedience

Obedience practical results

• Similar obedience with females 22.3 and males 21.7

• Males have a greater difference in obedience than females (sd 5.57 vs 4.46)

• Theme: fear of punishment, a lot of responses depended on situation, guilt and empathy

• People generally feel responsible for their own actions

Obedience practical strengths

• Age range at 13-46 completed the obedience questionnaire → Their results about obedience will represent a wider range of ages in the population

• Generalisable as both males and females asked about obedience → Their results about obedience will represent that of both sexes in the population

• Obedience questionnaire is very standardised as everyone had the same 10 questions on obedience → This means we could give out the same obedience questionnaire to others to see if we get consistent results

• We used Open questions about obedience which give depth and detail about obedience → This is good because you get more information/understanding about WHY people are obedient

• We did a pilot study → made sure people understood obedience questions

• Informed consent

• Right withdrawal was kept

• Confidentiality as questionnaires anonymous

• No real harm as just questions about obedience

Obedience practical weaknesses

• A weakness is we used opportunity sample of friends and family to do the obedience questionnaire so they might have shared characteristics about their attitudes → Doesn’t represent how other people who we don’t know/ aren’t friends with would feel about obedience so isn’t representative

• Our sample was 21 people all from Newcastle completing the obedience questionnaire so the sample is ethnocentric and not generalisable → Their results about obedience to people from other cultures and settings

• An issue is social desirability as people might lie to look good/ less obedient → This is an issue because the results about obedience aren’t accurate/ valid as people have lied about it

• An issue is open questions are analysed subjectively with different people finding different themes about obedience → Less valid because it is people’s interpretation/opinion about obedience

• Likert/rankings can be interpreted different

Individual differences in obedience/ prejudice

• Obedience is affected by personality

• Prejudice can have an explanation linked to personality

Developmental in obedience/ prejudice

• Obedience can be affected by gender and culture, which come from environmental effects

• Prejudice can be affected by culture, which comes from environmental effects