Classics Studies Exam Revision PDF

Preview

Summary

Classics RevisionWhat is a classic study? Devine, P. G., & Brodish, A. B. (2003). Big Questions Challenging findings Demanding methods Big Impact Big Questions a. Fundamental human behaviours b. Phenomenon-driven i. Historical/social events ii. Changes in societal values iii. Paradigm shifts...

Description

Classics Revision

What is a classic study? -

1.

2. 3.

4. -

-

Devine, P. G., & Brodish, A. B. (2003). 1. Big Questions 2. Challenging findings 3. Demanding methods 4. Big Impact Big Questions a. Fundamental human behaviours b. Phenomenon-driven i. Historical/social events ii. Changes in societal values iii. Paradigm shifts in psychology Challenging Findings a. Counter-intuitive Demanding methods a. Positive: innovative, high in drama, visually appealing, easy to try on b. Negatives: not always rigorous, ethical issues Big Impact Modern Criteria for Research Success o Citations o Complexity o Multiple studies/ replications o Large sample size o Quick turnaround o Cost-efficient o Modern ethics Revisiting Classic Studies o Understanding what shaped the field o Learn from good and bad o Update o Continue the search for answers

Social 01 - Asch (1955) 1. Asch - Background a. Asch – born in Poland b. The Irrational Crowd c. The Nature of Democracy: just after WW2, bring democratic practices into relation of issues d. Earlier Research on Social Influence i. Sherif (1951) “Autokinetic effect” ii. Asch didn’t believe that people conformed slavishly to groups, and that their influence was mindless and irrational 2. Asch – the Study

a. Main Experiment: b. Results: 76% conformed at least once, 24% never conformed All P experienced puzzlement and confusion c. Interpretation: i. Independence with/ without confidence ii. Yielding: distortion of perception (P perceives it wrongly) / judgement (P assume they misunderstood the task) / action (P was afraid to be judged) iii. P tried to make sense of the situation 1. Politeness 2. alternatives (some other standards) 3. experiment – not to skew results 4. self-doubt d. Follow up: Private answer - distortion of perception/ judgement will still give wrong answers e. Replications: i. Quality of task – how clear the error is – little effect ii. Quality of group opposition 1. size (3+) 2. size – confederate: participant a. 1:16  no impact b. 9:11  derive strength from each other to protect themselves from self-doubt but unaware of this 3. unanimity – supporter wrong  supporter conforms  3. Asch – Debate and Controversy a. Minority influence – who is the minority b. Conformity bias – different from the real world (no uncertainty, nothing to gain from task, no personal relevance, no opportunity to discuss) c. Additional finding – age (younger), gender (women), culture (collectivism), decades (past) 4. Asch – Impact and Legacy a. The Group Deficit Model: two-process theories i. Physical VS social testing ii. Informational VS normative influence (conversion VS conformity) iii. All reality testing is social in certain degrees, and all influence is normative in certain degrees b. Echo Chambers

i. Online communication  information evaluated and shared based on group memberships, no communication between groups  accentuates ingroup/outgroup perceptions ii. But only 8% of people are caught in a bubble c. Pros and Cons of Group Influences i. Negatives (post-truth, rumours, fake news) ii. Positives (solidary, cultural traditions, social cohesion) d. Impact future research (e.g., Moscovici’s minority influence)

Soc 02 Milgram (1961-64): Obed 1. Milgram – Background a. Milgram i. PhD on national character – behave differently depending on culture ii. research assistant of Asch 1. Replicating research in different culture, different group, and modifying procedures 2. Make Asch’s research more humanly significant 3. Reduce difference between research and reality b. Holocaust i. Why did normal, decent, civilised people obey orders that ran counter to their values ii. Eichmann’s trail – did not appear to be a monster but simply an “uninspired bureaucrat who sat at his desk and did hid job” 2. Milgram – the Study a. Deception: “study of memory”, learner is a confederate, fake shock b. Participant: Normal, well-adjusted people c. Procedures: i. Learn word pairs – teacher administer electric shock if answer is incorrect ii. If teacher objects, experimenter responds with “prods” (e.g., “please continue.”, “the experiment requires you to continue”, “you have no choice - you must go on”, …) d. DV/ results: how far would people go i. Psychiatrist estimated 1% would go for maximum ii. 65% went to maximum voltage e. Replications: i. Replicated 24 times from 1963-85 ii. in USA, Europe, Australia, and Middle East iii. Variations: less prestigious institution, same room as learner, touching learner, experimenter absent, defiant model*** (another “teacher” walk out) 3. Milgram – Debate and Controversy a. Ethical considerations i. Right to withdraw + stress experienced ii. Good debrief/ follow-up

1. Only 10% extremely upset, majority somewhat nervous (50%) or relatively calm (33%) 2. 64% claimed not bothered by experiment at all b. Ecological Validity and Demand Characteristics i. Responding to demand characteristics, not actually deceived ii. Improve ecological validity: e.g., virtue victim (Slater et al., 2006) c. Methodological Considerations i. Burger (2009) questioned whether participants really were following orders by looking at responses to experimental prods ii. The stricter the orders (“please continue” VS “you have no choice. you must continue”), the higher disobey % iii.  not blind obedience d. Theoretical Considerations i. Does not tell us why people conform to authority ii. Milgram identify key features (but not much of a theory) 1. Reediness to relinquish (give up) responsibility 2. Entering “the agentic state” – accepting another’s definition of reality 3. Concentric fields of influence – proximity iii. Blass (2002): incremental steps + self-consistency iv. Later theories that are used to explain result 1. Social Impact Theory a. Strength (prestige), immediacy, number 2. Self-Categorisation Theory a. Identify with authority figures VS victim 4. Milgram – Impact and Legacy a. Legacy i. Better understanding of what makes people evil 1. Banality of evil – even ordinary people, simply doing their jobs, can become agents in destructive process ii. Recreating “real-world” behaviours in laboratory iii. More reflection on participant distress and research ethics b. Informed debate in multiple disciplines i. Mixed reaction from psychologists: not even an experiment – no theory or test for significance, results are subject to alternative explanations

Soc 03 Zimbardo (1971) Stanford Prisoner Exp 1. Zimbardo – Background a. Zimbardo i. Went to HS with Stanley Milgram b. Extending the Social Influence Paradigm i. “Bad Apple Hypothesis” –personality (e.g., authoritarianism) made people act tyrannically ii. More dynamic study (more participants, more interactions, more time) than Asch/ Milgram

c. US Prisons in early 70s i. High profile civil right cases (e.g., mass beatings and abuses) 2. Zimbardo – The Study a. Participants i. Male student volunteers - “healthy, intelligent, middle-class males” ii. Random assignment into prisoners and guards b. Prison i. basement of Stanford University building ii. secret cameras, secret intercom system iii. no windows or clocks, blindfolded in corridors to disorient people c. Method: i. Day 1 1. Uniform (humiliation and deindividuation) 2. asserting authority (making prisoners do push ups for punishment, count…) ii. Day 2 1. Rebellion (barricade themselves into cells with beds)  harassment & punishment. 2. “better-behaved prisoners” got privileges  raise suspicions among prisoners iii. Day 3 1. Release a prisoner due to emotional disturbance 2. Visitors are allowed under rules 3. Escape plot  harassment iv. Day 4 1. A “priest” visits and offers legal help 2. Release further prisoner v. Day 5 1. “Stand-in” prisoner on hunger strike 2. Parole board vi. Day 6 1. Parents sent lawyer  experiment stopped d. Conclusions i. corrupting nature of groups and power ii. Groups  loss of capacity of intellectual and moral judgment iii. Group  loss of personal identify and moral standards through deindividuation iv.  Bad Barrel hypothesis (situational determinism) 3. Zimbardo – Debate and Controversy a. Ethical Considerations i. No right to withdrawal from experiment ii. Distress to participants and parents b. Empirical quality i. Never published in a mainstream peer-review academic journal 1. Data cannot be scrutinised/ examined closely c. Empirical account: Participants conforming to the demands of the experimenters (nothing beyond Milgram)

i. Zimbardo’s briefed guards to be tyrannical  tyranny a result of the role of being a guard VS succumbing to the role? ii. Fake mental break-down d. Empirical account: Rather aggressive participants i. Similar newspaper ad recruited more socially dominant, higher aggression, and more narcissistic volunteers ii. A well-known troublemaker as guard e. Theoretical account: alternatives to “role” account i. Self-categorisation: not passively accept roles. Accept roles only after internalising them as a part of their social identity. ii. Social groups can have both positive and negative influence (e.g., doctor) f. Moral account: accountability of abuse i. Can a person be held accountable if conformity to a role is “natural”? 4. Zimbardo – Impact and Legacy a. BBC Prison Experiment i. Studying tyranny and resistance (go along with oppressive groups & act as a group to challenge oppression) ii. Planned interventions 1. Permeability of group boundaries 2. Cognitive alternatives iii. Stages 1. Social permeability  Low solidarity of prisoners and guards 2. The roles are fixed  prisoner’s solidarity increased but not guard’s (time? Culture? TV show? Briefing?) 3. Cognitive alternative (collaborate with guards to make their days nicer)  worked until the person is taken away 4. Power vacuum  revolt 5. Community (both prisoner and guard) flourished for a while and became authoritarian iv. Findings: 1. Low social identification. Guard’s identification lower than prisoner’s starting from day 3 2. People who made themselves guards are more authoritative since pre-test 3. Communards (people who are trying to make the system more equal) gradually increased in authoritarianism v. Interpretation: Dynamic Interactionism (bad apples create bad barrels) 1. No evidence that guards conformed blindly 2. Tyranny – a responses to group failure and powerlessness 3. Resistance – factors (e.g., impermeable social roles)  increase social identity, confidence, solidarity, and resistance b. Public consciousness c. Abu Ghraib i. Training in military to avoid people acting tyrannically ii. Bad things happened but guards can walk away free, because they are not seen as accountable

Soc 04 Sherif (1949-1954): Realistic Conflict – Robber’s Cave 1. Sherif – Background a. Norms i. Early work: Autokinetic effect – social influence  conversion (not only social pressure but changing beliefs) b. Leadership and Stereotyping i. Sherif rejected trait-based explanations of stereotypes ii. Rejected great man theory of leadership 2. Sherif – the Studies a. Three experimental field studies. b. Participants: twenty-four 11-12-year-old boys. “good” kids – academically successful, stable, white, Protestant, middle-class c. Procedure i. Choose their own friends to develop fireship networks ii. Boy placed into two groups iii. Compete for scarce resource iv. Co-operate to achieve superordinate goals (only in 1954) d. H1: Group formation  hierarchical structure i. Groups develop internal structure of leaders and subordinates ii. Group became a reference group (basis for standardised attitudes and behaviours to develop) iii. Changes in friendship choices iv. Group culture – nicknames, slogans, rituals, group name v. Group norms are enforced e. H2: Groups in competition  hostile attitudes towards outgroup i. Introducing competition for scarce resource (stage III) marked the decline in quality of intergroup relations ii. Disrespectful slurs and stereotypes iii. Negative dynamic: 1. Outgroup distancing/ derogation 2. Ingroup enhancement/ self-glorification iv. Change in leadership: the most popular/nicest  strongest v. Riads on outgroup’s cabin to sabotage plans, reclaim prizes, … f. H3: hostile attitudes overcome by cooperation in achieving superordinate goals (e.g., pooling money to rent a movie) i. Reducing friction and unfavourable stereotypes g. Conclusions: i. Group formations: 1. hierarchy and norms established. 2. Group norms regulate behaviours ii. Intergroup relations 1. Negative interdependence (zero-sum situations)  tension between groups and attachment to ingroup 2. Positive interdependence (superordinate goals)  increases cooperation and helping, decreases prejudice and tensions

3. Sherif – Debate and Controversy a. Methodological Issues i. Controlled laboratory studies VS field-based study 1. Stressful for participants, time-consuming, expensive, unable to control for variables 2. But hypotheses have been supported by follow-up work ii. Three groups – experimenters are another outgroup 1. Boys showed admiration to them 2. Permissiveness encouraged non-normative behaviour (e.g., food fight) 3. Planned frustrations b. Theoretical issues i. Realistic conflict theory 1. Is scarce resource necessary? 4. Sherif – Impact and Legacy a. The Importance of Social Reality i. Social psychological processes (leadership, conflict, prejudice) are grounded in material social reality. ii. Problems not due to psychological limitations, but are a response to material circumstances iii. Stereotyping, prejudice, hatred are social problems, not cognitive problems iv. Changing social reality, rather than looking for psychological cures, improves social relations

Soc 05 Tajfel (1971-73): Intergroup C 1. Tajfel – Background a. Tajfel: Polish, WWII i. Experienced refugees, minority grounds, prejudice caused by wars ii. Group membership rather than individuality influence how one is treated iii. The self is also social b. Realistic Conflict Theory i. Are scarce resources necessary to create competition? 2. Tajfel – The Studies a. Question: Minimum conditions for ingroup favouritism? i. No self-interest ii. No interpersonal favouritism iii. No normative discrimination iv. No realistic group competition b. Experiment: categorisation based on arbitrary criterion (over-/underestimators of dots, Klee/Kandinsky lover) …actually random  Tajfel Matrices to assign rewards to anonymous in-/out-group members i. Fair ii. Maximum joint profit iii. maximum ingroup profit

iv. maximum differentiation c. Result: compromise between fairness and maximum differentiation i. relative group gain > absolute group gain d. Conclusion: i. social categorisation is sufficient to create discrimination ii. competition negative independence (zero-sum situations) over scare resources unnecessary e. Interpretation: i. Generic competitive norm 1. Role-playing instead of categorisation  fairness 2. groups with less competitive values  less ingroup favouritism (e.g., 2 families VS 2 sports group) ii. Meaning 1. Categorising oneself into a group  gives behaviour a distinct meaning iii. Positive Distinctiveness 1. Differentiating ingroup from outgroup on valued dimensions iv. Self-esteem 1. Positive distinctiveness  positive social identity  collective self-esteem 2. But not all studies found maximum differentiation leads to higher self-esteem 3. Tajfel – Debate and Controversy a. Demand Characteristics i. Told what is expected  effect amplified b. Role of Similarity i. Similarity-attraction principle ii. Outgroup more similar  stronger need for distinctiveness  stronger ingroup favouritism c. Role of Interdependence i. Expect other ingroup members to do the same and act in terms of ingroup favouritism d. Maximum rather than minimum conditions i. Only meaningful way to achieve intergroup differentiation 4. Tajfel – Impact and Legacy a. Economic Models of Human Rationality i. Rather give less $ to ingroup than risk letting outgroup have more than ingroup b. Intergroup phenomena grounded in social relations i. Tajfel: Need to understand content of social identity. Not social categorisation  bias ii. Social Identity Theory c. Effects reproduced in field settings i. Jane Elliot’s brown VS blue eyes d. The Social Cure i. Identifying with several social groups protects physical and mental health

Soc 06 Hamilton and Gifford (1976): Illusory Co

lat

1. Hamilton and Gifford – Background a. Turn to social phenomena in the 70s i. People are cognitive misers 守財奴 ii. Social phenomena can be explained with social cognition without political/ sociological theories b. Social Cognitions i. People have limited information processing capacity ii. Avoid information overload by 1. Summarizing, selecting, generalizing information iii. Creates stereotypes 1. Negative, rigid, false beliefs 2. Create discriminations iv. Question: 1. Why negative views on minorities? 2. Why people share negative views? 3. Same cognitive mechanism? c. Illusory Correlations (Loren & Jean Chapman, 1967) i. Hamilton and Gifford 1. Pay attention to attention-demanding things a. Distinctive: novel and rare 2.  statistical infrequency bias thinking ii. Minority group + undesirable behaviours = double distinctive! 1. Attention grabbing  store in memory 2. Hamilton and Gifford – The Studies a. Study 1: Desirable > undesirable i. Group A - 18 positive 8 negative, Group B - 9 positive 4 negative ii. Measurements: Assignment task, frequency estimation, trait ratings iii. Results: 1. Assignment task – assign too little undesirable statements to A and too many to B 2. Frequency estimate – underestimate B’s desirable and overestimate B’s undesirable b. Study 2: Undesirable > desirable i. Assign too little desirable to A and too many desirable to B c.  illusory correlation: statistically inferior behaviour more frequently remembered for minority group 3. Hamilton and Gifford – Debate and Controversy a. Methodological criticism i. External validity – stereotypes are often specific rather than more positive/negative evaluation than another group ii. Mere exposure effect – exposure increase liking…but would not explain study 2 b. Conceptual criticism: skewed distribution and statistical infrequency (distinctiveness not key feature)

i. Random memory loss disadvantage small groups ii. Focus on absolute number creates overly positive/ negative impression… but it’s the double distinctive, rather than the common behaviour, that is overestimated c. Conceptual criticism: Meaning-based explanation i. The need to differentiate groups ii. Stereotypes not inherently negative… they are as flexible, complex, and adaptive as they need to be iii. Told a difference between groups before giving information  no illusory correlation effect 4. Hamilton and Gifford – Impact and Legacy a. Applied applications: further research showed White Americans overestimated arrest rate of African Americans b. Key example of social cognitive approach c. Most cited account for stereotype formation i. Robust effect but small size ii. Knowing about illusory correlation decrease them iii. But a purely cognitive explanation falls short!

Soc 07 LaPiere (1934): Attitudes and Behaviours 1. LaPiere – Background a. Common Assumption: attitudes predict behaviour i. LaPiere disagreed: questionnaires assumed an unproven association between symbolic (verbal) and non-symbolic (behavioural) response ii. France VS England: let Black person live at home? Admit non-white to hotel? 1. Both question responses and hotel policies: UK more exclusive 2. But policies are still verbal responses b. US attitudes to Chinese in 1930s 2. LaPiere – The Study a. 1930-1932 LaPiere travelled with young Chinese couple. i. Visited 251 establishments, refused service only once ii. 6 months after – questionnaire to 250 visited establishments (51% response rate) + 128 other establishments, only one visited and one other said yes b. Interpretation i. Not use questionnaire to understand behaviour: answers reflected prejudiced attitudes not behaviours ii. Why? Economic self-interest? 3. LaPiere – Debate and Controversy a. Methodological criticism i. Six-month gap ii. Attitudes and behaviour from different people (waiter VS owner) iii. LaPie...