Sherif’s Robbers Cave Study - Unit 1 The Social Approach

Aims:

-          To see if creating an in and out group situation with added conflict would create prejudice

-          To see if prejudice could then be reduced by setting a goal for both groups that required cooperation

Procedure:

-          20 boys  who were staying at the Robber’s Cave camp for 3 weeks

-          Were 12 years old and selected to be typical of their age

-          The boys were randomly divided into two groups one called the rattlers the other the eagles

-          For the first week the two groups were unaware of one another’s existence

-          The Rattlers thought they were tough and the Eagles did not allow swearing

-          When the groups discovered one another both thought that the other group was invading their territory

-          At this stage Sherif introduced conflict through a tournament between the two groups which was for a prize

-          At this stage there was a negative stereotyping of the opposite group, the in group would refer to themselves as brave, tough and friendly and the other group as sneaks and stinkers

-          The groups burned one another’s flags and raided the opposite group’s camp

-          After this Sherif tried to reduce prejudice by having the boys work together to overcome problems firstly the camp water supply failed in which they had to fix the water tank and secondly they had to work together to pull out a truck that was stuck in the mud

Results:

-          Prejudice was reduced after the two groups had to work together to overcome problems

-          Sherif posed as the camp handyman and asked the boys who their friends were in the ‘hostility’ phase and 93% had friends only in their own group whereas after the cooperation phase 30% had friends between two groups showing a reduction in prejudice

Conclusion:

-          Prejudice will occur in a situation merely where two groups are created this supports social identity theory

-          Also supports the idea that competition may also be a factor resulting in prejudice 

Social Identity Theory - Unit 1 The Social Approach

-          Says that prejudice occurs due to group membership

There are two types of group:

-          The In-group is the group we belong to

-          The out-group is the group we do not belong to

The theory says that the existence of these groups is enough for prejudice to occur

There are 3 stages in becoming part of a group they are:

1.       Social Catergorisation – When we believe we are a member of a group

2.       Social Identification – When we adopt the identity of someone who belongs to that group by acting like a member, wearing certain clothes etc

3.       Social Comparison – When we compare our own group with others often thinking our group is more superior

Hofling et al (1986) - Unit 1 The Social Approach

Obedience in a natural setting

Aim:

-          To discover whether nurses would obey an instruction which would involve breaking hospital regulations and endanger the lives of patients

-          To whether nurses were aware of how obedient they tended to be

Procedure:

-          Identical boxes of capsules were put in 22 wards of 3 hospitals in the USA

-          Capsules were placebos which contained glucose

-          The containers were labelled informing of the maximum daily dose of 10mg

-          While the nurse was on duty she would receive a telephone call from a Dr who told the nurse to give 20mg of the capsules to his patient

-          He told the nurse that he was in a hurry and that he would be there in ten minutes to sign the authorisation when he got there

-          Rules the nurse would break included giving above the maximum dosage of 10mg and only giving drugs after written authorisation is obtained

-          Within half an hour of the nurse receiving the instructions from the doctor she was debriefed by a researcher who was on hand

Results:

-          21 out of 22 nurses obeyed without hesitation

-          When questioned later 11 said that they had not noticed the dosage warning

Conclusion:

-          Although the nurses believed they would not obey a doctor unquestioningly if they were ordered to something that endangered patients and breached regulations they did do just that

-          That nurses will knowingly break hospital rules in a situation where a doctor tells them to, even if that means endangering a patient’s life

Comparing the Milgram's and Meuss and Raaijmaker's study - Unit 1 Social

For the exam you may be asked to compare Milgram’s Original study (1963) with Meuss and Raaijmakers (1986) for this you will need to consider these points:

Aim	Similar – both studies wanted to see the extent to which participants would obey an authority figure Different – One Aimed to see whether participants would administer physical punishment whereas the other psychological
Sample	Similar – Both males. Both volunteer samples Different – Different cultures
Setting	Similar – Both in University labs Different - Milgram used an artificial task, Meuss did not
Procedure	Similar – Participants were both deceived thinking they were being tested on something different Different – One caused psychological punishment, The other caused physical punishment
Results	Similar – High levels of obedience throughout Difference – Milgrams = 65%                        Meuss = 92%

Meuss and Raaijmakers (1986) - Unit 1 Social Approach

We study this theory as a comparison study to Milgram’s original study and to see if this procedure would produce similar results in a different culture (Dutch)

Aim:

-          To test obedience in the everyday situation of a job interview

-          To  see to what extent people will obey orders to psychologically abuse a job interviewee

-          To see if Milgram’s findings could be replicated 20 years later in the more liberal Dutch culture

Procedure:

-          24 Participants collected through volunteer sampling using a newspaper advert

-          They were led to believe that they were taking part in a study on stress and performance (deception ethical guideline broken)

-          They were asked to interview applicants for a job who were stooges a fake applicant like Mr Wallace in the Milgram study

-          Participants were told that the job required the ability to be able to handle stress and were told to make negative remarks to the applicants in how they were doing on the test

-          If the participants refused to continue they were prodded to continue by the experimenter

Results:

-          92% of participants obeyed the experimenter to the end and made all the stress remarks

-          There was no real opposition to the experimenter

-          96% of participants were sure they were dealing with a real situation

-          The participants were sure the applicants test scores had been affected by the stress remarks

Conclusion:

-          The level of obedience was considerably higher than in Milgram’s original study

-          Shows that it is easier  to administer psychologically harm that physical harm to someone

-          Results suggest that obedience may not vary between cultures.

Milgram’s Variation (1965

Aim:

-          To look at the affects of group pressure on obedience

Procedure:

-          Same Procedure as the original study

-          80 participants were used this time again males between the ages of 20 and 50 who were collected again using volunteer sampling

-          At YALE University again

-          Introduced to Wallace (Stooge)

-          Shown shock generator

-          3 Teachers this time only one was a participant the other two were stooges

-          Two Conditions used

1.       Obedient Stooge condition – where  both stooges shocked Mr Wallace to 450 volts and were unhappy when the participant tried not to continue

2.       Rebellious Stooge condition – Where the one of the stooges stopped at 150 volts and the other stopped at 210 volts

-          40 participants took part in each condition and a baseline condition was used to compare the results to which was the results of Milgram’s original study (1963)

Results:

Baseline Condition = 65% shocked to 450 volts

Rebellious Stooge Condition = 15% shocked to 450 volts

Obedient Stooge Condition = 72.5% went to 450 volts

Conclusion:

-          Behaviour of the stooges made a difference to the obedience rate

-          The presence of the rebellious stooges reduced obedience, as the participant felt able to refuse orders once the others had done so.

-          However the obedient stooges raised obedience levels.

Milgram’s Original Study of Obedience (1963 - Social Unit 1

Aim:

-          To look at how obedient participants would be when following orders given by an authoritive figure causing moral strain.

Procedure:

-          40 Participants between the ages of 20-50 years old

-          Collected through a volunteer sample advertised in the paper

-          Participants met Mr Wallace (stooge) and were either assigned as the ‘learner’ or the ‘teacher’

-          The study was fixed so that Mr Wallace was always the ‘learner’

-          Mr Wallace was strapped to a shock generator and placed on one side of a screen so that the participant could not see him

-          The participants asked Mr Wallace questions and were told to administer increasing electric shocks up to 450v each time Mr Wallace made an error

-          There was an experimenter in the room overseeing the operation (stooge)

-          If the participant tried not to continue the experimenter would prompt them to continue.

Results:

-          All the participants gave Mr Wallace at least 300 volts

-          65% of participants gave the maximum 450 volts to an apparently dead Mr Wallace

Conclusion:

-          Most participants were evidently stressed throughout the procedure some wept and begged in distress, some even believed they had killed Mr Wallace, showing that they thought they had no choice to continue despite clearly feeling moral strain.

-          Proves that the autonomous state exists that we will follow orders whether they cause moral strain or not because we feel that society requires it of us.