Revision Social Approach

7/30/2019 Revision Social Approach

1/22

What do I need to learn?

Content Number of marks The following key terms: agentic state,autonomous state, moral strain, in-group/ out-group, social categorization, social identification,social comparison, obedience, destructiveobedience, prejudice, discrimination

2 marks youshould define theterm and elaborateor give an example

Describe and evaluate Milgrams 1963 study ofobedience

Description 8-10,evaluation 6-8

Describe one variation on Milgrams originalprocedure (method and result)

2 marks

Describe and evaluate another study of obedience:Meeus and Raaijmakers 1985 study of obedience

Description 8,evaluation 6

Compare Milgram and another study of obedience(Meeus and Raaijmakers)

4 marks

Describe and evaluate Hoflings 1966 study ofobedience


Describe and evaluate Milgrams Agency Theory ofobedience


Describe and evaluate Tajfels Social IdentityTheory of prejudice (1970)


Describe and evaluate Sherif et als 1961 RobbersCave study of prejudice

Description 8,Evaluation 6

Describe and evaluate one contemporary issue

from the Social Approach: Using social psychologyto explain why prison guards abused prisoners inon Tier 1-A Abu Ghraib

Outline of issue 4

Application oftheories/ studies 6Evaluation 4

Describe and evaluate the survey as a researchmethod (including questionnaires and interviews)

Description 4Evaluation 4

Describe evaluate and compare qualitative andquantitative data

Description,evaluation andcomparison 4

1

Psychology Revision

Unit 1

The Social Approach


2/22

Describe, apply and assess ethical guidelines forthe use of human participants

Identify, describe, evaluate and apply samplingtechniques (opportunity, random, quota (sometimescalled stratified, systematic)

Evidence of practice the survey you carried out inclass. You must be able to:

Outline the theory upon which yourpractical is based

State your alternative and null hypothesis State the independent and dependent

variables (operationalised) Describe the ethical problems you

encountered and how you overcame them Describe the research method used and

why Describe the target population, how you

selected the sample and the justification forthis

Describe how you decided what questionsto use and why those questions werechosen

Describe how you carried out thequestionnaire and how the data was

analysed Describe the conclusions you made from

the study Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of

your study

There is a lot to learn, but it is not impossible! Use your knowledge from the CognitivApproach to help you revise:

o Revise in chunks do not try to learn too much at once it is easy to geconfused

o Deep processing is best do not simply read the information, do something witit. Spider diagrams, flash cards, post-it notes for definitions are all helpful. If yo

2

Revision Tips


3/22

know something well enough to explain it to someone else without notes theyou will be fine in the exam

o Use cues to help you remember such as mnemonics or includes pictures on youspider diagrams which can act as a visual cue in the exam

o Test yourself especially with past exam questions, you know the style oquestion that will be asked so make them up, you have my email address so yo

can email me questions that you complete and I will mark them and send themback to you with comments ([email protected])

o Use the Learning Environment there is extra information on there, includinpodcasts for auditory learners. I have also set up a revision forum where yocan post questions/ share your frustrations and I and you can answer anquestions

o It sounds obvious but read the question! If it asks for a theory do not describe study you will get no marks

o If you are asked to describe, do not evaluate and vice versao Remember to PEE!! Make your point and provide an example or furthe

explanationo When evaluating make sure the points you make are specific to that study e.g. lot

of studies lack ecological validity you need to say what this is and explain how thstudy you are evaluating lacks ecological validity (if this is the point you are making

o When describing a study remember Nasty Awful Mothers Ruin Children (Name Aim

Method Results Conclusion). This should be the first thing you write on youquestion paper as a cue to help you remember as you will not have time to plan ananswers except possibly the 12 mark essay question

o Watch out with the multiple choice questions they are not as easy as they looand can often catch people out

o Always write in full sentences never ever ever use bullet points even foevaluating and do not divide evaluation into sub headings such as strengths anweaknesses

o Use the language of the mark scheme to answer your question. When describing study use word such as the aim of the study was to, the results of the studwere

o Use connectives in your writing One strength of Social Identity Theory is Iaddition to this, the theory has been praised because of

o You will be given marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar in the essaquestion so take care on this question especially

o If you are asked to compare, refer to both things you are comparing in eacsentence.

3

Question Technique


4/22

o If a question asks you to assess something you need to weigh up the strengths anweaknesses

o If a question asks you to describe something for a parent for example, you shouluse laymens terms (language which a non-psychologist would understand).

You are just going to have to learn these terms off by heart:

agentic state: part of Agency Theory. When we are in an agentic state we follow thorders of those in authority to maintain a stable society. We behave on behalf osomeone else. When we follow orders which go against our conscience we show morastrain and deal with this by using defence mechanisms such as denial.

autonomous state: part of Agency Theory. When we are in an autonomous state wuse our free will and take responsibility for our own actions.

moral strain: part of Agency Theory. When we follow orders which go against ouconscience we show moral strain and deal with this by using defence mechanisms sucas denial.

in-group/ out-group: part of Social Identity Theory. We favour groups we belong t(the in-group) and we discriminate against groups we do not belong to (the out-group).

social categorisation: part of Social Identity Theory. We categorise people as eithebelonging to the same group as us or in a different group to us.

social identification: part of Social Identity Theory. We adopt the identity of groups wbelong to. An example would be a Liverpool fan singing Youll never walk alone.

social comparison: part of Social Identity Theory. In order to preserve our self-esteemwe need to see our own group as better so we favour the in-group and discriminatagainst out-groups.

obedience: following an order given by a person with recognised authority over you. Aexample would be a nurse following the orders of a doctor.

destructive obedience: following an order given by a person with recognised authoritover you, that is harmful or wrong. An example would be a member of the SS shooting Jewish person because their commanding officer told them to do so.

4

Key Terms


5/22

prejudice: an attitude towards another person based upon little or no knowledge of thaperson. Prejudice is often based upon stereotypes, for example the notion that all blondwomen are dumb.

Discrimination: this is behaviour towards another person based upon a prejudicebelief. An example could be not employing someone who is blonde based upon th

prejudiced belief that they will be unintelligent.

Studies of obedience:

NAME: Milgram, 1963, Behavioural study of obedience tomalevolent authority

AIM: To establish a baseline measurement of how obedientparticipants would be when ordered to give electric shocks to aninnocent victim when ordered to do so by someone in authority. He also wanted to testhe Germans are different hypothesis this was the idea that there was somethinunique about German citizens which meant they tolk part in the holocaust.

METHOD: Milgram advertised for 40 male participants to take part in a study at YalUniversity looking at the effects of punishment on learning. The participants were pa

$4.00 plus car fare. Participants completed the study individually and were introduced ta man named Mr Wallace who they were led to believe was another participant. He wain fact a confederate of Milgrams. The participant and Mr Wallace were asked to drawlots to see who would play the role of teacher and who would be the learner. Thprocedure was rigged so that Mr Wallace was always the learner. Mr Wallace was theattached to an electric shock machine with switches an lights ranging from 15 to 45volts. The higher voltages were labeled XXX. The participant was given a mild electrshock to test the equipment worked this was in fact the only real shock of thexperiment.

The participant (teacher) then went into the next room where hecould still hear Mr Wallace. The teacher then had to read aword list and test the learner (Mr Wallace). Every time MrWallace got a question wrong the researcher asked toteacher to administer an electric shock to Mr Wallace.The researcher used prompts towards the teacher such asThe experiment requires you to continue. The shocksincreased in intensity each time they were given. Mr Wallace

5

Obedience


6/22

screamed in pain, complained of a heart condition and refused to continue before goinsilent at 315 volts.

RESULTS: Milgram was shocked. He and other professionals though most participantwould stop as soon as Mr Wallace asked to be released (140v). All participants gave 30v 65% gave the full 450v and continued despite the fact that some of the teacher

displayed signs of stress when carrying out the orders.

CONCLUSIONS: The social setting we find ourselves affects our behaviour. Thresearcher was seen as a legitimate form of authority and the participants felt obliged tobey. Milgram showed that human beings will commit acts of destructive obediencwhen told to do so by an authority figure.

EVALUATION:

Strengths:o The study helped people to review their value systems and become aware o

destructive obedienceo The study had high experimental validity, which means that the participant

believed the study was real. The set up looked real, he staged a sample 45v shocwhich was given to the participant and at the end of the experiment the participantsaid that they believed that the last shocks they gave were incredible painful.

o The study is extremely reliable. He used a standardised procedure so that everparticipant experienced exactly the same situation and therefore no other variablecould have affected the outcome of the results. For example a series o

standardised prompts were used to urge the participants to continue. His study habeen replicated (repeated) many times and similar results have been found.

Weaknesses:o The study lacks ecological validity. The participants were aware that they wer

taking part in a study (even if the aim of the study was different to the one thebelieved they were taking part in) and this means that they may have believedifferently to how they would in the real world. For example, being in a study couhave made the participants feel protected from the consequences of their actions

This makes it difficult to generalise the results to explain real-life behaviouNevertheless, Hoflings study does have high ecological validity and he found evegreater obedience levels than Milgram (95%)

Lacks validity as the task of giving electric shocks to a stranger is not somethingpeople encounter in everyday life

6


7/22

o The sample used in this study can be criticised for being androcentric (all male) anit is debatable whether the results can be applied to female. Nevertheless, Milgramcarried out the same study on females and found identical levels of obedienceSince the participants all volunteered for the study it could be that it is in the naturof these individuals to be more obedient and people who are more reticent abouvolunteering could be less obedient

o Milgrams experiment has been criticised for being unethical. The participants dnot give their informed consent to take part and were deceived about the trunature of the study. However, if they had been fully informed the experiment woulhave been pointless. In addition to this, the participants were put under extremstress and prompted to continue when they wanted to stop. On the other handMilgram fully debriefed the participants and in a follow-up questionnaire, 84% saithey were glad to have participated in the study.

o Procedure may be prone to demand characteristics as participants may havguessed nature of experiment due to cues. However 80% who were surveyed sai

they believed the shocks were painful and there were also visible signs of mentaanguish, e.g. sweating, these signs cannot be faked.

One variation on Milgrams original procedure: Change in location anauthority figure

Milgram aimed to discover whether changing the setting of the experiment would affeclevels of destructive obedience. Milgram changed the location of the study from thprestigious setting of Yale University to a seedy run-down office block. The experiment supposedly conducted by a private research firm in an office suite in Bridgeport awa

from the University. It was apparently conducted by a private research company. Aother aspects such as recruitment and payment were the same as in the original study (asked to describe this study in the exam say what happened). 47.5% of the participanobeyed up to the maximum 450v shock. This shows how the environment can influenclevels of obedience. Milgram concluded that because private research firms are vieweas less prestigious than certain universities, it is easier under these conditions tabandon the belief in the experimenter's essential decency.

NAME: Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1985, AdministrativeObedience: Carrying out orders to use Psychological-

Administrative Violence

AIM: The researchers wanted to show that obedience wouldoccur with modern psychological-administrative violence as wellas with the old-fashioned violence used by Milgram in his study.7


8/22

In addition to this, they wanted to see whether high destructive obedience occurs acroscultures and over time.

METHOD: Meeus and Raaijmakers advertised in a newspaper for 39 volunteers to takpart in a study investigating stress and performance. The study took place in a universityThe participants believed that the Psychology department had been asked to selec

candidates for a job. As part of the selection procedure, each applicant was to take a teswhich would be administered by the participants. The test was vital to success for the jobif you fail the test, you lose the job. The participants were told that these were real joapplicants who had not been informed about the study, they only came to the Universitto take the test as part of their job application. The participants were asked to maknegative remarks to the applicants regarding how they were getting on with the tesThese remarks were only seen by the participant as they appeared on a screen in front othem during the study. The participants also received feedback (false) on how tense thjob applicants were getting. The participants overheard the experimenter telling thapplicants false information about the study (e.g. it would not affect their job chances

As the test / study progressed it was obvious that the applicant was getting extremedistressed and that they would fail the test (and, therefore, not get the job). Two thirds othe way through the test the applicant accused the researchers of giving falsinformation and withdrew his consent to continue. If the participants refused to continuto make the stressful remarks they were prodded to continue by the experimenter.*This study often confuses students! Remember there is no job it is a set up. Thapplicants are confederates working with Meeus and Raaijmakers who are interested iwhether the participants will make the unpleasant remarks to the applicants

RESULTS: 92% of the participants obeyed the experimenter to the end and made all thstress remarks. There was no real opposition to the experimenters. The participantreported that they intensely disliked making the stress remarks but made them anywayThe participants were convinced that the applicants test scores had been seriouslaffected by the stress remarks. 96% of the participants were sure that they were dealinwith a real situation.

CONCLUSIONS: The researchers concluded that the level of obedience in their studwas considerably higher than in Milgrams study. Furthermore, this shows that it is easie

to obey orders to use psychological-administrative violence than to obey orders to usphysical violence. This is even true in spite of the fact that the consequences of thbehaviour in this study could lead to permanent harm. Meeus & Raajmakers concludthat:The experiments on obedience by Milgram are amongst some of the most well-knowresearch projects in social psychology. Even so, Milgrams findings do not seem to havaffected mans propensity to obey orders. The level of obedience is as high as ever. Evein the Netherlands in the 1980s.

8


9/22

EVALUATION:

Strengths and weaknesses:o The task in this experiment is valid the type of violence that the participants had t

carry out was in tune with modern violence. For example, bullying is more ofte

verbal than physicalo Despite this, the study still lacks ecological validity as the scenario was somethin

that participants would be unlikely to take part in in everyday life and thparticipants were aware that they were taking part in a study

o The study is reliable as it supports the findings from other studies of obediencsuch as Milgram and Hofling

o The sample compromised of Dutch adults and could be said to be representative othe adult population in Holland. Nevertheless, the participants responded to aadvertisement in a newspaper and it could be that people who respond to advert

may be more compliant than the general populationo There are ethical problems with this research, for example, the participants wer

deceived as to the true nature of the experiment and therefore did not give theinformed consent. Nevertheless the participants were fully debriefed. In addition tthis, the participants acknowledged that they felt very uncomfortable making thremarks.

Cross-cultural comparison between Milgrams study and the study carried ouby Meuus and Raaijmakers:

Milgrams study looked at whether participants would follow orders to commphysical violence (electric shocks) whereas Meeus and Raaijmakers werinterested in whether participants would administer psychological violence (abusivremarks) Although both studies had a similar aim which was to see whether pwould obey an authority figure

The results of the studies both showed high levels of obedience, Milgram 65% anMeeus and Raajimakers 92%, the difference could be explained by the nonphysical punishments the participants had to give in M + Rs study it is unlikethat the differences can be explained by cultural differences

Both Milgrams and Meeus and Raaijmakers accept Agency Theory as aexplanation of why the participants were obedient in their studies Both studies used volunteers obtaining through an advertisement in a newspape

article and therefore the samples may not be representative of the population anthus lack population validity

The setting for both studies was similar as the research took place in a universitbuilding

9


10/22

Both studies had a stooge (confederate) in them designed to deceive the reaparticipant

Participants were deceived in both studies as they thought thestudy was on stress and performance (not obedience) and thatthe applicants were real when in fact they were just actors

Theory of Obedience:

Milgrams Agency Theory:o According to Milgram, human beings are selfish yet dislike

chaos. Therefore in order to maintain a stable society we give up our free will somof the time.

o We have two social states they are opposing and our behaviour switche

between the two.oThe autonomous state - where we take responsibility for our actions and follo

out free willoThe agentic state where we follow the orders of those in legitimate authority

We recognise authority figures because of uniform, age etcWe learn tbehave in an agentic state in school where we are socialised to accept thorders of authority figures. In an agentic state we do not feel responsible foour actions.

oPassing from the autonomous state to the agentic state is known as the agenti

shift.o Being an agent of society might have evolved as it avoids conflic

and enables smooth running of a societyo Another aspect of the agentic state is moral strain. This can be defined as th

signs of stress we show and the guilt we feel when following orders we believe arwrong. To copy with this we use defence mechanisms such as denial

Evaluation of Agency Theory:

o The theory has real-life applications to explain obedience. For example it accountsfor why so many soldiers in WWII followed orders without question; (1 mark). Thesaw themselves as agents for the person giving the orders, in this case Hitler(1mark)

o Pps in Milgrams experiment were seen to be following orders from theexperimenter and had passed over responsibility for their actions; (1 mark)

o In Hoflings experiment the nurses became agents of the doctors who were theauthority;(1mark)

10

Theories


11/22

o However, in Milgrams experiment both the task(giving electric shocks) and settingwere artificial giving it low ecological validity; (1 mark )

o Agency theory cannot explain individual differences in obedience. Milgram hasneglected the minority of participants who did not obey him; (1 mark) 35% of psdid not go up to 450v. even though Milgram supposed they were in the same stateat the start of the study as those that did obey the authority figure; (1 mark)

o The idea of an identifiable agentic state has proved very difficult to pin down; (1mark) Simply saying that someone is an agentic state because they obey and thatthey obey because they are in an agentic state is a circular argument/eq; (1 mark

Theory of Prejudice:

Tajfels, 1970, Social Identity Theory:o Tajfel argues that we are prejudiced because we hold stereotyped beliefs abou

groups to which we do not belong. Prejudice can be explained by our tendency t

identify ourselves as part of a group (in group), and to classify other people aeither within or outside that group (out group). Conflict may not even be necessarfor prejudice to occur, merely being in a group and being aware of the existence oanother group is sufficient for prejudice to develop

o Groups which we belong to are known as in-groups and groups which we do nobelong to our called out-groups

o According to Tajfel we discriminate against the out-groupo Out-group discrimination was demonstrated by Tajfel et al in their minimal group

experimento Tajfel argued that there are three social processes involved when we classif

ourselves as belonging to a groupo Social categorisation (when we classify ourselves and other people a

belonging to a particular social group)o Social identification (when we adopt the identity of the group we classif

ourselves as belonging to and internalise the norms and values of our groupthis is important for self-esteem)

o Social Comparison (where we compare our group to others,judging our own to be better, therefore preserving self-esteem)e.g. we think our team has better players/stadium and

put down the players of the opponents

EVALUATIONo The theory helps to explain why racism exists and can account for

acts of football hooliganism football fans will show in-groupfavouritism to their own team and to preserve their self-esteembecome abusive towards players and supporters of other teams

11


12/22

o The theory is supported by the results of a study carried out byPoppe and Linssen (1999). They surveyed Eastern Europeanson their attitudes towards different nationalities and found thatthey favoured other Eastern Europeans over WesternEuropeans and upheld national stereotypes, for example statingGermans as arrogant. You could also mention the Eurovision

Song Contest hereo However, a major weakness of Social Identity Theory is the fact that

cannot account for individual differences in prejudice. Platow et al(1990) showed in a version of Tajfels experiment thatindividuals assessed as competitive were more likely to display ingroup favouritism. In addition to this, not all football fans discriminate or acviolently towards supporters of other teams

o In addition to this, Tajfels experiment upon which he based his theory has beencriticised. Dobbs and Crano discovered much less in-group favouritism when

people had to justify the points they allocated to each group, this suggests in-groupfavouritism is more complex than first thoughto However this particular study (Tajfel et al) is a laboratory experiment which suffers

from low ecological validity as it is carried out in an artificial settingo There are other reasons why people become prejudiced, for example historical an

economic factors play a part and it is too simplistic to suggest that prejudice occursimply because we favour people who are similar and discriminate against thoswho are not

Obedience

NAME: Hofling et al, 1966, Experimental Study in Nurse-Physician Relationships

AIM: To investigate the nurse-physician relationship and specifically discover whethenurses would obey an authority figure (a doctor) when doing so would break their owmoral codes and hospital regulations.

METHOD: 3 hospitals in the Midwest of American were used in this field study. Onhospital acted as a control where a questionnaire was given. In 22 wards across thother two hospitals, boxes of Astroten were placed alongside other medicines. Astrotewas simply glucose, but the safe daily dosage was labelled 10mg, each capsule wa5mg. Each ward was called by a researcher calling himself Dr Smith from the psychiatrdepartment, the researchers waited until a nurse was alone on the ward and the nursselected were simply those who were on duty at the time. The doctor informed thnurse on duty that he was running late but needed the nurse to give 20mg of Astroten t

12

Key Studies

Astroten


13/22

a Mr Jones. This breached two hospital rules the nurses need written authorisatiobefore administering drugs, and the dosage was 10 mg over the recommended safamount. The experiment ended when the nurse went to get the medication, refused tcomply, asked another colleague for advice or became upset. The nurses were thedebriefed. Alongside this experiment 12 graduate nurses and 21 student nurses werasked how they would act in the same scenario.

RESULTS: Hofling et al found that 21 out of the 22 nurses in the field study obeyed thdoctors instructions, 11 of which said they had not noticed the maximum safe dosage othe bottle. None of the nurses were hostile to the caller and nearly all of the nurseadmitted they knew they were breaking the rules. In the questionnaires, 10 out 1graduate nurses and all 21 student nurses said they would ignore the doctorinstructions.

CONCLUSIONS: While nurses may believe that when faced with a moral dilemma thabreaks rules they would ignore an authority figure, when faced with the situation in realife they would do the opposite. The will knowingly break rules when asked to do so ban authority figure even when doing so could endanger a patients life.

EVALUATION:

Strengths:o The study has ecological validity. The method used was a field

study and the nurses did not know that they were taking part in anexperiment, therefore their behaviour was natural

o The study has high population validity as the nurses who took partwere simply those on duty at the time of the experiment

o The study is reliable as it supports the results of Milgram who found that people wobey orders they believe are wrong when told to do so by someone in authority

Weaknesses:o The study has many ethical problems. The nurses did not give their consent to tak

part in the study and were deceived, they also suffered from harm whereby in thdebriefing the nurses felt embarrassed that they obeyed. Most worryingly is tha

the experiment could have negatively effected the way that they behaved witanother patient which worrying about their decisiono As the study is a field experiment it lacks the high level of control employed in la

experiments. As a result other variables could have affected the nurses decision tobey. For example, if the ward was particularly busy this could have meant that thnurses were pressed for time and had to make a decision without thinking about thconsequences

o Other studies have failed to replicate the findings of Hofling (Krakow and Blass)

13


14/22

Prejudice

Name: Sherif et al, 1961, Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robbers Cavexperiment

Aim: To see whether it is possible to instill prejudice between two very similar groups bputting them in competition with each other. To see if prejudice would be reduced if thtwo groups were set a (superordinate) goal that needed their co-operation tachieve

Method: 22 12 year old boys took part in this field study which took place at a summecamp in Oklahoma USA for three weeks. All were white, American, lower-middle-clasand protestant. All were psychologically well adjusted. Two groups were created and aattempt was made to match the groups by IQ and sporting ability. They were transporteseparately in two groups to the Robbers Cave National Park in Oklahoma. At the camthe two groups lived separately, unaware of the other group. For 5 days (this was stag1), each group were given tasks to carry out together in order to help them bond. Eacgroup developed their own rules, names (Eagles and Rattlers) and flag. After a week, thgroups were gradually made aware of each other they heard the other group in thdistance and drinking cups from one group were left behind for the other group to seeResearchers observed that in-group, out-group terms started to be used. During stage 2friction between the two groups was encouraged by means of competitions between thtwo groups for attractive prizes like penknives. The researchers deliberately kept thscores close. Even before the tournament began the groups were fighting with eac

other and one group burnt the other groups flag. The prizes, when awarded were stoleby the other group. Stage 3 was designed to ease tension between the two groups. Afirst the groups were simply brought together without competition. Then the groups werbrought together to take part in joint problem solving activities. In one of these activitiethe water supply was blocked by vandals, and the two groups worked together tremove the blockage. In another activity the groups worked together to free a trucapparently stuck in mud.Results: A strong in-group preference was shown by the boys in each group, foexample in the bean collecting task the boys overestimated how well their own group ha

done and underestimated how well the other group had done. In stage 1 the boybonded with their own group and, although they had not met the other group, each grouexpressed dislike of the other. In stage 2, competition led to immediate hostility. ThEagles refused to eat with the Rattlers and when together the groups shouted insults aeach other. Both groups raided the others huts. Activities in stage 3 which just involvebringing the groups together did not reduce hostility, although the joint problem solvintasks did. Following this both groups asked to share the same bus home and thRattlers asked to spend the 5$ prize they had won on malted milks for everyone. In th

14


15/22

hostility phase, 93% had friends in their own group; however, after the co-operatiophase, 30% had friends between the two groups. This shows the reduction in prejudice.

Conclusions: Just being placed in a group and being aware of another group can leato hostility. Competition increased prejudice and discrimination, leading to clear-integroup conflict. Bringing to groups together to create one group is not enough to en

hostility, however, when groups work together on cooperative tasks that benefit both othem, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.

EVALUATION:o The validity of the findings in this study is high. The study was a field

experiment so the boys believed they were just at a summercamp and did not know anything about the experiment. Theactivities they took part in were typical of those on an ordinarysummer camp. In addition to this, participant observers were

used. This meant that their behavior was natural, thus givingthe study high ecological validity. Several data collectionmethods were used (experiments, observations, contentanalysis of tape recordings) so that the findings could becompared.

o The experiment was carefully planned and controlled. Each group was matched sthat the members were as similar as possible so that the researchers could be surthat any hostility which occurred was because of group membership and nobecause of differences between the groups.

o Can be applied to real life by helping reduce prejudice between groups in societ

through use of superordinate goalso There are ethical problems with this study. The boys were unaware they wer

taking part in the study so did not give informed consent and they were deceivedParents were informed but were forbidden to visit the camp to see if their son wahappy. Debriefing was not mentioned in a book written by the researchers so may not have taken place.

o It may be difficult to generalize the findings of this study beyond the participantused as they were so carefully selected. Young boys are a competitive group and may not be possible to apply these findings to girls or to young people from othe

cultures, particularly Asian cultures which are more collectivist.o What is often left out of the familiar story is that it was not the first of its type, bu

actually the third in a series carried out by Sherif and colleagues. The two earlie

studies had rather less happy endings. In the first, the boys ganged up on

common enemy and in the second they ganged up on the experimenter

themselves. How does this alter the way we look at the original Robbers Cav

experiment? Michael Billig argues that when looking at all three studies, Sherif'

15


16/22

work involves not just two groups but three, the experimenters are part of th

system as well (Billig, 1976). In fact, with the experimenters included, it is clear the

are actually the most powerful group. Much of the conflict between the two group

of boys is orchestrated by the experimenters. The experimenters have a veste

interest in creating conflict between the two groups of boys. It was they who had th

most to lose if the experiment went wrong, and the most to gain if it went right.

The key issue for the Social Approach is understanding why the guards on Tier 1-A in AbGhraib prison committed atrocities against the inmates of the prison. Remember that tanswer this well you need to be able to outline what the issue is and explain the issue bapplying theories, studies and concepts from the Social Approach. To help with yourevision for this you can use the sample answer that I gave you. However, the issue not something that can be learnt by rote it shows a higher level of understanding to bable to apply the knowledge that you have learnt.

You could instead, be given a question whereby an issue is outlined to you and you havto explain it using Social Psychology. For example there could be a description of violent clash between rival football fans and you would be asked to explain this e.gFootballers identify with the team they belong to and favour their own team andiscriminate against other teams.

Remember that the best answers will include evaluation. This is done by examining thquality of the explanation e.g. this is an incomplete explanation because it cannot explawhy not all football fans participate in violence against fans of other teams. See thexamples we did in class.

16

Key Issue


17/22

* for more in-depth discussion of research methods see your research methods bookleand revise the relevant sectionsFeatures of qualitative and quantitative data

Qualitative Quantitative data

Description Data in the form of words Rich detailed data (think quality) The researcher themselves gathers

the data, usually throughunstructured interviews or structuredopen-ended interviews orquestionnaires

This is usually used in the earlystages of a study

Subjective - individualsinterpretation of events is important

Data in the form of numbers Precise measured data (think

quanitity) The researcher uses tools such as

structured closed questionnaire orequipment to gather numerical data

This is usually used in the laterstages of research when theresearcher knows exactly what theyare looking for

Objective seeks precisemeasurement & analysis ofconcepts

Strengths Detailed, rich in depth data isproduced this makes it easier toarrive to more meaningful

conclusions which increases thevalidity of the findings

It is easy to analyse as averagescan be calculated and put into tablewhich is easier than generating

themes in qualitative research It is possible to analysis data todraw comparisons between groupsand to draw conclusions about thething in question

Researcher tends to remainobjectively separated from thesubject matter, this makes the datamore reliable as two researchers wget the same results when analyzinthe data

17

Research Methods


18/22

Weaknesses Qualitative data is time consumingto gather and analysis and thesubjectivity of the analysis makes itmore difficult to generalize theresults found

Due to the subjective nature of theresearch it is unreliable different

researchers may come to differentconclusions when analyzing thedata

It is difficult to draw comparisonsbetween groups or arrive at areliable conclusion about a specificthing

The reduction of thoughts andfeelings to numbers gives a verysuperficial view of the behaviourbeing researched, which maylack validity

Quantitative data is more

efficient, able to test hypotheses,but may miss detail

Reasons why quantitative data is better than qualitative data:

Easier to analyse than qualitative data because data is in numbers; this enables comparisons to bemade between groups much more easily

Produces more objective data than qualitative as involves little or no interpretation

More likely to be tested for reliability which may lead to generalisability to other situations

For example counting words in a memory experiment is more measurable than asking openquestions in an interview

Can be collected more quickly than qualitative data as tends to use closed rather than openquestions

Surveys

In our study we carried out a survey using a questionnaire with open and close(qualitative and quantitative data). The quantitative data was in the form of a likert scaleBelow details what a likert scale is, including evaluation. You should also be prepared t

discuss different types of surveys (interviews and questionnaires).Likert Scales: Used to measure attitude Responses such as strongly agree strongly disagree Responses given a value and added up to give a total score Should have 10+ questions and roughly equal positive and negative statements

Evaluation: Good for measuring attitudes The creation of the scale is subjective It is easy to score

18


19/22

Types of Interviews and Questionnaire Surveys

Name Description Evaluation

Non-directiveinterview

The person is free to discussanything

Rich in-depth data, useful in studyof one person. Difficult to replicateso unreliable but valid

Informal interview General topics are explore indepth e.g. prejudice

Detailed information provided onthe topic of interest, valid butunreliable

Structured open-ended interview

All interviewees are asked thesame open ended questions inthe same order

Easy to replicate, more reliable thanon-directive but less reliable thenclosed question. Permits goodcomparison between questions

Fully structuredinterview

A standard set of questionsasked in a fixed order, there is a

restricted number of answerse.g. Yes/No

Allows replication and comparisonbetween people. Is reliable. Quick

and easy to collect and analysedata, is less validClosed questionquestionnaire

A standard set of questionsasked on paper or computer in afixed order, there is a restrictednumber of answers e.g. Yes/No

Allows replication and comparisonbetween people. Is reliable. Quickand easy to collect and analysedata, is less valid

Open questionquestionnaire

A standard set of open endedquestions in the same order onthe paper/ computer

Easy to replicate, more reliable thanon-directive but less reliable thenclosed question. Permits goodcomparison between questions

Sampling techniques

Method Procedure Strengths Weaknesses

Random Every member of thetarget audience has anequal chance of beingselected use a randomnumber generator

Representative as theresearcher does notcontrol who is chosencan be generalized

Very difficult to do unlessthe target population isreally small

Stratified or quota The sample is aproportionalrepresentation of thetarget population. Youbreak down the targetpopulation into itsconstituent groups andrecreate a smaller versione.g. by ethnicity

If done properly this isrepresentative and theresults can begeneralized

Time consuming anddifficult to carry out as yoneed to have informationabout the whole targetpopulation

19

Use this mnemonic tohelp you remember theethical guidelines


20/22

Opportunity Participants are selectedby whoever is available atthe time of the study e.g.if you carried out anexperiment on everyonein your class

Quick and easy to carryout, likely to be ethical asthe participants will bewilling to take part

Not very representativeas the sample is likely tobe taken from a smallsection of the communitye.g. university students

Volunteer or self-

selecting sample

Participants select

themselves e.g.participants answer anadvertisement in anewspaper

Will have access to a

large variety of peoplewho will be motivated totake part, likely to beethical and participantsare keen

May be something uniqu

about volunteers whichmakes it more difficult togeneralize the results

Ethical Guidelines for Human Participants:

Consento Researchers should always obtain participants consent before carrying ou

any study on them. Observational studies should only take occur in placewhere people would expect to be seen by strangers, unless informed consenis received It is difficult to gain informed consent from the following: Adult

with learning and communication difficulties, children under 16, prisoners anpsychiatric patients. To gain informed consent from participants they shoulbe presented with a brief, detailing the general purpose of the experiment.

Confidentialityo Psychologists should maintain the confidentiality of their participants and th

data they collect from them. Participants identities should not be revealedexcept with their expressed permission. To maintain confidentialit

20


21/22

psychologists should use participant numbers and ensure other identifyincharacteristics such as handwriting are disguised. In some studieparticipants sell their stories (Zimbardos) but this is ok. In cases whermaintaining confidentiality may result in the harm of others, confidentiality cabe broken.

Debriefingo Participants should be given an explanation about the study they took part i

so that they understand fully the reasons for the research. The debrief used to reassure participants and return them to the state they were in prior tparticipation. E.g. Milgram fully debriefed all participants and introduced themto Mr. Wallace.

The Right to Withdrawo Participants have the right to withdraw from an investigation at any time

without any penalty. You can withdraw your consent retrospectively and havyour data destroyed.

Deceptiono Psychologists should avoid deceiving participants wherever possible

However, there are sometimes problems with this e.g. Milgram, and sommemory experiments

Protection of Participantso Participants must be kept safe from harm and psychologists should as

participants about any medical conditions or problems that might put them arisk. Milgram was criticised for causing his participants distress.

Giving Adviceo You should not give participants advice unless qualified to do so. Fo

example if you come across a psychological or physical problem with participant they are not aware of you should not give them advice yourselbut refer them to a specialist

Rightso Respect the rights and dignity of participants at all times, for example yo

must tale into account cultural differences

DD CC WARP

Debrief

21


22/22

Deception

Consent

Confidentiality

Withdrawal

Advice

Respect

Protection

** Put alongside this your notes for your practical you must know this off by heart for

your exam.

Above all you need to try your best. If you do not revise you will fail the exam. If youknow this booklet and your practical inside out there is no way you can fail the exam,even if there are some really tricky questions.

Good luck!!!

Documents

Revision Social Approach