AS Psychology Notes Full, Study notes of Psychology

Download AS Psychology Notes Full and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

Psychology

• Psyche (Greek) - > mind, spirit
• Logy-> (^) study of

-Psychology is^ a^ pseudoscience-use^ maths^ and^ hypothesis

Chapter

1 social^

psychology

Donorma

Agentic shift-moving from autonomous^ to^ agentic when^ authority is^ seen^ as^ legitimate.

· Moral strain - Anxiety or discomfort when obeying conflicts with personal morals.

Origins of^ Obedience^ (Milgram,^ 1974) Obedience - > (^) necessary for the smooth (^) running of (^) society. Humans^ live^ in^ hierarchically organised groups. #or (^) groups to (^) function:

· subordinates must suppress personal desires.

· they carry out the orders of superiors.

Milgram said^ that^ "we^ are^ born^ with^ a^ potential for obedience, which^ then^ interacts^ with^ the^ influence of (^) society to^ create the obedient man

·Matta

I train

· (^) Mostly likely to occur alone, with (^) peers, or with (^) persons with (^) less (^) authority.

Agentic state

· (^) shift from autonomous state (^) (personal responsibility) to (^) agentic state (^) acting for (^) authority). · Authority is^ legitimate^ when^ society agrees^ they have^ the^ right^ to^ give^ orders. · In^ the^ agentic state, (^) people see themselves^ as^ agents, (^) shifting responsibility to^ authority.

canleadtobliudobedienceandharmfulacios

a Moral strain · (^) occurs due to (^) cognitive dissonance: (^) conflict between (^) "harming is (^) wrong" and "I caused harm (^). " S (^) creates mental (^) conflict but (^) usually not (^) enough to cause (^) defiance· · (^) Binding factors (social (^) pressures, fear of (^) disrupting order) (^) keep people in (^) the agentic state.

Obedience : social (^) impact (^) theory Sources and^ targets · (^) social (^) impact = (^) the influence real or (^) imagined people have on our behaviour. · Latane (^) developed social (^) impact theory to (^) explain how (^) we exist in "social (^) forcefields", constantly influencing and (^) being influenced. · sources = people exerting influence. · (^) Targets = people being influenced.

• Formula = f(SIN)
  • > (^) (strength) : (^) Authority , (^) power, status, charisma (^) of source.
  • (^1) (Immediacy) : closeness in (^) space or time; fewer barriers = stronger impact.
  • (^) N Number) : More sources= (^) greater influence.

Multiplicative and^ divisional^ effects

Multiplicative Effect :

• (^) social (^) impact increases as (^) strength (5), immediacy (1) (^) , and number (^) (N) of sources increase. · Lightbulbanalogy:
  • Strength = wattage of the bulb 100W vs FOW) ·
  • Immediacy = (^) distanceof bulb closer = brighter).
  • Number =^ more bulbs =^ more brightness. Divisional (^) Effect : · (^) When there are more targets than sources, social (^) impact is divided (^) among the (^) targets. · Each individual (^) target feels less (^) pressure to (^) change. ~ (^) Formula: (^) Impact on (^) target = f(z/SIN) Thelawofdiminishing return ·He wotedthatowegroupeeedthrepeopeachadditionalmemberhalesinfluence (^) a (^) group of se

Application to Political Influence Strengths of^ Social^ impact Theory Supporting evidence^ (SedikidesJackson, 1990 -^200 study): · visitors (^) more obedient when (^) confederate dressed as a (^) zookeeper (58%) vs casual (^) clothing (35%) - demonstrates (^) strength of source^. · obedience (^) higher when in same room (62%) vs (^) adjacent room (^) (7% )- shows (^) immediacy matter. · smaller (^) groups more obedient 12-2 visitors^ =^60 % ) vs (^) larger (^) groups (5-6 visitors =^14 %) - illustrates divisional (^) effect.

Weaknesses of SocialImpact Theory

Internal (^) validity (field (^) experimentLimitation) : · Researchers could not (^) fully control (^) group size - people in (^) larger groups (^) may naturally be less obedient. · (^) suggests group size alone (^) may not determine obedience, introducing a (^) potential confound. Immediacy may be^ less^ important^ (Hofling^ et^ al,^2966 -^ nurse^ study) : · 95 % of nurses (^) obeyed an unknown doctor (^) over the (^) phone despite the source (^) being absent. · challenges the idea that (^) physical (^) presence (immediacy) is crucial. political (^) strategies : · Leaders can increase (^) influence (^) by adopting strong, (^) persuasive communication. · (^) Face-to-face engagement is (^) more effective than media broadcasts (^) (immediacy). · (^) Addressing smaller (^) groups can maximize (^) impact due to (^) the divisional (^) effect. · (^) shows how (^) psychological research can (^) inform real-world behaviour, e. g. influencing (^) voting patterns.

Application to pilot training

Strengths of Milgram's^ study

standardised (^) procedure: same two (^) confederates used in all trials. Learner's mistakes and (^) responses were identical (^) for all (^) participants. · Experimenter's prods delivered in (^) a (^) fixed order (^) and tone. ·This means the (^) study was (^) replicable and (^) findings could be tested (^) for (^) reliability (e. g.^ Burger, 2009).

Weaknesses of Milgram's study

Not (^) fully standardised (^) (Perry, 2012) : · (^) Evidence that (^) experimenters sometimes deviated (^) from the (^) script. · In (^) one case, as (^) many as (^20) prods were (^) given before allowing a (^) participant to leave (^). · (^) suggests the (^) study may nothave been as (^) tightly controlled as claimed. Questionable Validity/Orme G Holland, 2968) : · (^) Argued (^) participants did not believe the shocks were real,just playing along. · (^) odd that the (^) experimenter didn't (^) give shocks himself or show concern (^) for the Learner. · perry's analysis of (^) film footage (^) supports this, showing (^) participants expressed doubts. · (^) weakens internal (^) validity - Milgram may not have been (^) testing genuine obedience. o bedience in the (^) cockpit (Tarnow, 2000) : · (^) First (^) officers often hesitate to (^) challenge captains due to (^) authority status. · parallels with (^) Milgram: (^) legitimate authority can (^) suppress dissent. · (^) training first (^) officers to (^) challenge captains could (^) preventup to (^20) % of crashes· · (^) Shows (^) Milgram's research has real-world value in (^) improving safety.

Obedience : (^) Milgrams's variation (^) study

New baseline^ :^ Experiment S

·gramrodudnewstnewbsw,S (^) study began · During the^ experiment, the^ teacher^ could^ hear^ the^ Learner's^ responses (all^ were^ pre-recorded)· · (^) Despite these (^) changes, 65 % of participants were (^) fully obedient, just as in the (^) original (^) study. · (^) Each variation (^) study, including this (^) one, used 40 male (^) participants.

Experiment 7 :^ Telephonic instructions

· Experimenter gave orders^ over^ the^ phone instead^ of in^ person. Onyfullyobedientincrease shocks but didn't) or (^) gave lowest shock (^) repeatedly Resistanweswhetherewphysically

pres..

ExperimentRuwdownOffice oa · participants told^ study was^ run^ by a^ private firm^ for (^) industry. · (^5) % (^) fully obedient (lower than baseline (^65) %) (^). ·participantsexpresseddoubtsaboutlegitimacyandconcernsforearner'sSafety-but obedience (^) still fairly high due^ to^ "scientific"^ framing. Experiment 13 :^ Ordinary man^ gives orders · participant arrived with two (^) confederates : one was the learner (^) (r Wallace), the other

was a recorder.

· (^) The (^) experimenter began as usual but then (^) left after a (^) fake phone call, asking them to continue the task. he

Locus of control (Julian Rotter, 1966)

**- Take less responsibility for their behavior.

• More likely to be obedient.
• Supporting study (Miller, 1975):
• Participants told to grasp live electric wires.
• Externals: Obeyed more when the experimenter was high status vs. low status.
• Internals: Obedience was unaffected by experimenter’s status. Personality factors The authoritarian personality
• High obedience and prejudice explained by a dispositional factor (personality).
• Caused by harsh parenting leads to traits like toughness, destructiveness, and cynicism.
• These traits make people submissive to authority but harsh to subordinates.
• Measured using the F-scale (F = fascism).
• Common in early 20th century Germany due to authoritarian parenting.
• By contrast, permissive parenting with unconditional love children score lower on F-scale more likely to resist destructive orders.** Factors (^) affecting obedience^ and^ dissent^ : Individual differences Internal LOC: Believe (^) they control (^) their own actions and outcomes (^). Take (^) greater (^) responsibility for their behaviour. More (^) likely to^ show^ dissent^ and^ defy orders.
• (^) External LOC : Believe outcomes (^) are determined (^) by others or chance.

Evidence for Women being more obedient —> Sheridan & King (1972):

**- Participants asked to shock a live puppy.

• 100% of females fully obeyed vs. 54% of males.
• However, the women showed strong emotional distress (crying, sobbing).
• Interestingly, men were more defiant when shocking a puppy than they were in Milgram’s study when shocking a human. Evidence for Men being more obedient —> Kilham & Mann (1974):
• Replication of Milgram in Australia.
• Overall obedience much lower (28%) compared to Milgram.
• 40% of males were obedient vs. 16% of females. Moral Reasoning (Gilligan, 1982):
• Males: guided by the ethic of justice (fairness, rules, equality, detached/objective). More likely to follow authority for the sake of obligation or the “greater good.”
• Females: guided by the ethic of care (relationships, empathy, protecting others). More likely to resist obedience if it harms someone, out of concern for the victim.** Gender

Factors affecting obedience and dissent: Situation and culture Situation Legitimacy of Authority

**- Lowering perceived legitimacy reduces obedience.

• Example: authority figure in everyday clothes (Milgram variation).
• Example: moving study to a rundown office lowered obedience. Proximity (Immediacy)
• Greater distance between authority and participant lower obedience.
• Telephonic instructions = less obedience.
• Removing buffers (e.g., learner in the same room) reduced obedience to 40%.
• Latané (1981): immediacy = closeness in time/space; barriers reduce impact. Behaviour of Others
• Presence of disobedient role models lowers obedience.
• Milgram (experiment 17): two peers refused obedience dropped to 10%.
• Shows social support influences resistance. Culture Geert Hofstede (2011): Proposed six cultural dimensions; two are relevant to obedience: Individualism vs. Collectivism
• Individualist cultures (e.g., US, Northern Europe): value personal autonomy and self-reliance may show lower obedience.
• Collectivist cultures (e.g., China, Brazil): value group loyalty and duty may show higher obedience. Power Distance Index (PDI)
• High PDI cultures: accept hierarchy and inequality; subordinates expect orders higher obedience.
• Low PDI cultures: value equality and independence more likely to resist authority.**

Situational Factors Strengths:

**- Strong empirical support that situational factors affect obedience.

• Meeus & Raaijmakers (1995): Obedience dropped from 90% (baseline) to 36% (experimenter absent) and 16% (witnessing rebellious peers). Weaknesses:
• Individual differences remain: some participants still resisted, showing that personality also matters. Applications:
• Can improve compliance with rules in real life.
• Example: Countryside rules — providing reasons/signs increases obedience (Gramann et al., 1995). Cultural Factors Strengths:
• Hofstede’s Power Distance Index (PDI) predicts obedience.
• Kilham & Mann (1974): Low PDI (Australia) 28% obedience.
• Doliński et al. (2017): High PDI (Poland) 90% obedience. Weaknesses:
• Obedience rates are similar across many countries.
• Blass (2012): Average obedience: non-US = 66%, US = 61%.
• Suggests obedience may be a universal social behaviour, limiting cultural influence.**

Social Identity Theory (SIT) Strengths:

**- Tajfel (1970) – Minimal Group Experiment:

• 15-year-old boys allocated points to ingroup vs. outgroup members.
• Showed ingroup favouritism and discrimination even when it reduced total rewards.
• Supports SIT claim that social categorisation alone can trigger bias. Weaknesses:
• Low ecological validity: Task (point allocation) is artificial; real-life discrimination has social consequences.
• Ethnocentrism:
• Wetherell (1982) replication with Polynesian children found more generosity to outgroups than Western children.
• Suggests SIT may not fully explain intergroup behaviour in collectivist or minority cultures. Applications:
• Reducing prejudice:
• Fein & Spencer (1997): Increasing self-esteem reduced anti-Jewish prejudice in students.
• Policies boosting self-esteem may help reduce societal prejudice.**

Prejudice : Realistic conflict theory Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966) Intergroup Competition

**- Prejudice arises from competition between groups for a shared goal.

• Example: Competing sports teams may develop hostility as they strive for the same championship. Negative Interdependence
• Occurs when groups cannot both achieve the goal one group’s success depends on the other’s failure.
• Leads to:
• Increased hostility toward the outgroup
• Stronger cooperation and solidarity within the ingroup Limited Resources
• Competition can be for physical resources (food, land) or symbolic resources (power, prestige).
• Scarce, tangible resources highest prejudice and conflict. Positive Interdependence & Superordinate Goals
• Prejudice can be reduced when groups work together toward a common goal that requires cooperation.
• Superordinate goals: goals that cannot be achieved by one group alone; cooperation improves intergroup relations.
• Example: Two school groups working together to decorate a common room; success requires contribution from both groups.**

Factors affecting prejudice (and discrimination): Individual differences Personality and Prejudice Authoritarian Personality (Adorno et al., 1950)

**- Developed through harsh, conditional parenting children experience hostility they cannot express toward parents.

• Scapegoating: displaced anger onto socially inferior groups (outgroups).
• Authoritarian individuals are highly obedient, value strict rules, and think in rigid “black and white” categories. Allport (1954)
• Contrasted authoritarians with tolerant types:
• Tolerant types have secure, empathic personalities due to unconditional parental acceptance.
• Authoritarians are rigid, seek cognitive closure, and may be receptive to political messages targeting fear. Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA, Altemeyer, 1988)
• Focuses on three traits: authoritarian submission, aggression, and conventionalism.
• Develops through social learning, not early parenting.
• High RWA individuals:
• Seek security via maintaining social order
• Are suspicious and hostile toward norm-defying or “different” individuals
• Conscientious but closed to new experiences Social Dominance Orientation (SDO, Pratto et al., 1994)
• Motivation to maintain ingroup dominance and hierarchical social structures.
• View the world as a “competitive jungle” must fight for limited resources.
• Traits: tough-mindedness, low agreeableness and empathy.
• More common in men; develops via exposure to inequality and competition (Sibley et al., 2007).**

Personality Strengths:

**- Strong empirical support for the link between personality and prejudice.

• Cohrs et al. (2012): RWA (+0.48) and SDO (+0.28) positively correlated with generalised prejudice.
• RWA negatively correlated with openness (-0.22), SDO negatively correlated with agreeableness (-0.40).
• Conclusion: Personality traits can predict levels of prejudice. Weaknesses:
• Malleability of traits: RWA and SDO interact with social factors.
• Levin (1996): Ashkenazi Jews’ SDO scores changed depending on whether their social identity was primed.
• Implication: SDO may be both a cause and effect of prejudice.
• Ignores social norms: RWA/SDO scales do not account for societal attitudes.
• Louis et al. (2003): Many participants rejected racial superiority but agreed with excluding asylum seekers shows social context matters. Applications:
• Reducing prejudice:
• Limit exposure to prejudiced media sources.
• Challenge worldviews promoting fear, threat, and competition (e.g., via international exchanges, school twinning projects).
• Targeting root causes of prejudice can help reduce discriminatory attitudes.**