Evaluation points for Social Impact Theory

Yo,

Here you go:

And some bonus points because I'm kind:

For next lesson, use the 4 top slides to come up with 1 point for S, C, O, U, T can be done alongside S and C by mini-evaluating the S or C evidence

KOP!

Reicher and Haslam (2006) - Describe and Evaluate

Yo,

Here are the slides for the Reicher and Haslam description - use these if you need to add to your handout. Remember, you only need a brief summary for the three phases (but you will need some method and results). After are some additional evaluation points.

Describe:

Evaluation:

1. The role of television:  Were the participants simply play-acting because of the cameras? If so, why did the participants’ behaviour change at the times predicted e.g. before and after permeability? In any case ‘being watched’ is not such an unusual situation as we are all frequently watched by surveillance cameras.

There may be some evidence that social desirability played a role in changing participant behaviour. However, Reicher and Haslam predicted this, and they knew after which events these behaviours would change. So you could argue being watched lowers the validity (P), the participants were recorded all the time (Ev) and explain 

2. The role of personality: Were the ‘prisoners’ especially strong characters? The fact the participants’ ‘character’ on the relevant dimensions (e.g. authoritarianism) changed over time suggests that personality cannot explain the course of events. In addition, dominance only occurred through shared identity rather than forcefulness of character. Without support, even the strongest personalities failed. This does not suggest that individual differences are not important but that interdependence between individuals and groups is necessary for a group to become dominant.

Here is a good reliability point. Because the participants were put into matched groups (so guards and prisoners had a mix of personalities) and there was a change in their social identity, authoritarian, and compliance data then personality could not be a strong argument.

3. The reality of inequality and power: Did the participants really become engaged with the role play and thus act in a meaningful way? The prisoners expressed dislike of being locked up and being deprived of e.g. cigarettes; the guards’ conversations reflected the seriousness they felt about the role e.g. the disparity between prisoners and guards. All of this points to the engagement with the situation. If the guards were engaged, why didn’t they use their power? The answer is that they chose not to because they did not want to be authoritarian.

Here is a point about validity - the ppts in the prisoner group strongly identified with their role, they behaved like prisoners (so this is valid - 'true to life'). However, because the guards had low social identification they did not use their authority - this is a validity issue because in real prisons, officers use their authority. This may have affected the behaviour that they saw.

This website has a good description and evaluation if you want to go over it.

KOP!

File check - October half term

Yo,

People wanted the list of what needs to be completed for the October half term:

1. Class notes and hand outs organised
2. Yellow Social booklets completed (except Practical page)
3. Exam questions from Social booklet completed and submitted
4. Research methods booklet completed for social topics
5. Research methods questions for October completed and submitted

There you go, any questions just let me know.

KOP!

Milgram - Describe and Evaluate

Yo,

Description: 

Here are the jigsaw tiles for Milgram's description:

If you did not get all of the description done, I would add this to your notes. Remember to have points for the aim, method (a.k.a. procedure), results, conclusion, sample, prompts, and additional info.

Evaluation:

You should have at least 5 evaluation points from the lesson. However, here are some bonus evaluation points you can use:

"The Milgram studies were conducted in laboratory type conditions and we must ask if this tells us much about real-life situations. We obey in a variety of real-life situations that are far more subtle than instructions to give people electric shocks, and it would be interesting to see what factors operate in everyday obedience. The sort of situation Milgram investigated would be more suited to a military context." 

This is a validity issue - Milgram's situation is set up to represent obedience. However, it does not really represent everyday examples of obedience. This point has the PEE structure - identify the parts of the point that are for the Point, Evidence (from the study), and Explanation/Example.

"Milgram’s study cannot be seen as representative of the American population as his sample was self-selected. This is because they became participants only by electing to respond to a newspaper advertisement (selecting themselves). They may also have a typical "volunteer personality" – not all the newspaper readers responded so perhaps it takes this personality type to do so."

This is both a generalisability and validity point (remember, points don't have to exactly fit GRAVE). Milgram's results are not really representative of the American population (G), and volunteer sampling has it's own weakness - volunteers are more likely to comply. This means they are not necessarily behaving as they would and so lowers the validity. This point has the PEE structure - identify the parts of the point that are for the Point, Evidence (from the study), and Explanation/Example.

Both points are taken from the simplypsychology website.

KOP!

Ethics - definitions

Yo,

Here are the 4 ethical principles, with their definitions (I thought these might be important... best you have them in your notes):

Responsibility - this principle is about taking care of the ppt; avoiding harming the ppt, ensuring other researchers are being ethical, and monitoring the physical and mental health of each ppt.

Integrity - the researcher must be honest and accurate in all their dealings with others. There must be clear boundaries between the researcher and participants, and researchers must look out for and act upon any dishonest conduct.

Competence - this is about the researcher, and their ability to carry out research. They must be able and, if necessary, have the correct qualifications to carry out the research they have planned. If they are in doubt of their ability or become unable to carry on further they must make this known.

Respect - this means the researcher must be willing to explain the ethics of any study, respect the dignity of others (i.e. age, sex, culture), keep ppts anonymous (guideline - confidentiality), and privacy (ensuring ppt's data is only shared with people that should have it).

I would recommend adding these to the notes you have on the ethical guidelines.

KOP!