• Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

Explain and evaluate: Agency theory, Power of Social Roles, Social Identity theory, Realistic Group Conflict theory

Extracts from this document...

Introduction

Explain and evaluate: Agency theory, Power of Social Roles (Deindividuation), Social Identity theory, Realistic Group Conflict theory Assignment plan: 1. Explanation and evaluation of Agency theory 2. Explanation and evaluation power of Social Roles (Deindividuation) 3. Explanation and evaluation of Social Identity theory 4. Explanation and evaluation Realistic Group Conflict theory 1. Explanation and evaluation of Agency Theory Based on his findings, Milgram proposed a general theory of obedience called Agency Theory. He suggested that social rules are needed to maintain a stable society and that in order to follow them we surrender some of our free will. People in their everyday lives operate on two different levels: * as autonomous individuals, behaving voluntarily and aware of the consequences of their actions * on the agentic level, seeing themselves as the agents of others and not responsible for their action Most on the time we are free-thinking and aware of our actions. However, when presented with particularly situational cues we tend to switch into an agentic state - in which we see ourselves as the "agents of others". Consequently, we attribute responsibility for our actions to the authority figure. Milgram believed that this explained the behaviour of the participants in his study; they denied personal responsibility, claiming that they were merely "doing what they were told" What caused people to undergo the agentic state? ...read more.

Middle

The analysis of the results showed that the participants of the experiments simply 'became' the roles they played. More than a third of the guards behaved in such a hostile manner consistently, that Zimbardo described their behaviour as sadistic. This was despite the fact that the roles were assigned at random and there was absolutely no prior evidence that any of the subjects were inclined to behave as they did. Instead of protesting, some of the prisoners began to act in depressed, dependent ways, just like many real prisoners and inmates of institutions. They deteriorated into learned helplessness, becoming ever more surly and depressed. The more they acted in that way, the more they were mistreated. By the end of the sixth day, the situation had deteriorated to such an extent, with guards inventing new rules to make the prison regime more punitive, that Zimbardo called a halt. Deindividuation describes the loss of a sense of personal identity that can occur when, for example, in a crowd or wearing a mask. Deindividuation can happen as a result of becoming part of a group, such as an army or mob. Zimbardo's participants were wearing a uniform. They became members of a particular group: guides or prisoners. They acted in ways in which they might not ordinarily act, as they were normal, stable and educated people. Analysing this experiment we can see that when people become part of a group they take the attitudes and behaviour of the group. ...read more.

Conclusion

The theory has been criticised on the grounds that it presents racism as "natural" helping to "justify" it. If, as SIT implies, inter-group hostility is natural and built into our thought processes as a consequence of categorisation, then racism conceived as a form of inter-group hostility (or in-group favouritism), may also be considered natural. Tajfel never intended SIT to be seen as a justification of racism; indeed he was a life-long opponent of racism. Taken out of context SIT is easily misrepresented as an explanation and justification of racism. SIT generates a number of testable propositions. It can account for prejudice in inter-group competition but doesn't really fully explain the violence associated with some prejudice. 1. Explanation and evaluation Realistic Group Conflict Theory According to realistic group conflict theory, realistic inter-group conflict arises when two distinct groups want to achieve the same goal but only one can and hostility is a natural consequence. It suggests that competition for resources such as jobs, housing, education, etc. can increase prejudice between groups and may even lead to prejudice driven violence. This explanation of prejudice only applies to inter-group conflict, that is when one group's interests are threatened by another. When self -interest is threatened, aggression is most likely result, not prejudice. The theory doesn't explain why prejudice and economic conflict do not always occur together. It doesn't account for how we might categorise ourselves as belonging to this group or that group, nor does it account for how economic groups are created. ...read more.

The above preview is unformatted text

This student written piece of work is one of many that can be found in our AS and A Level Social Psychology section.

Found what you're looking for?

  • Start learning 29% faster today
  • 150,000+ documents available
  • Just £6.99 a month

Not the one? Search for your essay title...
  • Join over 1.2 million students every month
  • Accelerate your learning by 29%
  • Unlimited access from just £6.99 per month

See related essaysSee related essays

Related AS and A Level Social Psychology essays

  1. Peer reviewed

    Outline and evaluate the theory of deindividuation

    5 star(s)

    actions carried out is thought to be dispersed throughout, for example the London riots, shops were looted and vandalism occurred but these actions were only carried out when the rioters thought they were anonymous. The Deindividuation theory does however have weaknesses, for instance many of the experiments carried out to study Deindividuation are very unethical.

  2. How well does the classic theory of deindividuation explain the behaviour of people in ...

    Whilst within a group, the members have a collective identity and are no longer subject to individual scrutiny and associated accountability for their acts. This unaccountability frees the individual of the guilt of their actions, giving them the freedom to commit acts that violate their own personal and social norms.

  1. Were Milgram and Zimbardo unethical?

    The real 'heroes' of the experiment were those who had the courage to disobey! Criticism of Milgram's work Milgram was fiercely criticised. His results upset people - this may have been because they felt uncomfortable with what it showed about ordinary Americans.

  2. Pro and Anti Social Behaviour

    This predicts that those high in empathic concern would be motivated to learn about their acts of helping. Evaluation: - Those low in empathic joy were more interested in learning about their altruistic acts Negative-state relief model A person who feels empathy for a victim usually feels sad as a

  1. conjugal roles

    The reason why I have chosen to look at these studies is because they relate to the study I'm going to be doing which is to find if domestic labourer is shared equally between family members in middle class families.

  2. Pro and Anti Social Behaviour

    The deindividuation theory is also supported by Zimbardo (1969) who left 'abandoned' cars in New York and a small town in California. He found the 'abandoned' car in the big city was stripped and vandalised very quickly whereas the one in the small town was left alone. This suggests that the larger the group, the more anonymous the individual is and, consequently, the more extreme the antisocial behaviour becomes.

  1. Theories of Prejudice

    However, frustration can lead to a constructive attempt to remove its source or to a resigned attitude as well as to aggression. In criticism, the frustration - aggression hypothesis doesn't explain why aggression tends to be directed at one particular group, for example Asian people rather than Jews.

  2. Why do people obey? Two theories that explain obedience include: agency theory and legitimate ...

    Milgram conducted variations of the same basic procedure and found disparity in the rate of obedience. In particular, there was 48% obedience when the study was conducted in a downtown office block which suggests that the surroundings has significant affect on obedience, leading to the conclusion that its situational factors rather than dispositional factors that induces the obedient behaviour.

  • Over 160,000 pieces
    of student written work
  • Annotated by
    experienced teachers
  • Ideas and feedback to
    improve your own work