The Social Approach€¦ · Web viewThe task was quite straightforward- the learner would be read a series of word pairs and then have to supply ... sheet asking about age ... because

The Social ApproachIntroduction

The social approach examines human behaviour from an environmental stand point. The approach is concerned with the many ways in which our relationships with others influence our behaviour. How other people influence individual’s behaviour and opinions, and how we, in turn, influence theirs. Furthermore as well as individual and groups influence our behaviour, but also how culture and society affect behaviour. In order to appreciate the extent of social influence, think about how many times in the last 24 hours efforts have been made to influence you. There are the overt ones- the advertisements on radio, TV, magazines and billboards, as well as via ‘junk mail’ and in shops. Then there are those from your family and friends (‘you’d better go now or you’ll be late’; ‘can you pick up a loaf on your way home’; ‘you should wear red more often, you look great in it’). Not all of this is done from self-interest (consider the last example) but is simply part of our everyday life. Of course, we do our fair share of influencing (‘how about trying out that new pub tonight?’, ‘I didn’t think much of that film’). Indeed, social influence is something we often invite by seeking the advice of others (‘does my bum look big in this?’; ‘do you think I ought to ring him?’).

Assumptions of the Social ApproachBehaviour is influenced by the situation, by our interactions with other individuals and by groups.

Our behaviour changes according to the social situation we are in - we do not behave the same way in class as we would in a night club or at home. Equally the way you behave and views you express on a night out with friends will be different from those in a business meeting.

The interaction between individuals affects one another’s behaviour. The way we look, behave and treat others all influences the way we behave. Equally how others act towards us influence our behaviour. For example the interaction between a teacher and a students will be very different compared to the interaction between 2 friends, and thus we behave differently because of this.

The group we are in can also influence us. For example, if everyone at a football match is chanting, other people join in whereas in most other situations they would not sing songs in public. Even within school or college, the particular group you are with can make each lesson completely different. Unfortunately there are some situations in which being in a crowd makes people behave very irresponsibly, even dangerously, as shown in the extreme by lynch mobs.

Behaviour is influenced by culture and by society.

The society and culture in which we are raised have a huge effect on our attitudes, values and behaviour. We are all expected to follow social norms, or rules. These differ from culture to culture and within different sections of society. For example, sex before marriage for women is not appropriate behaviour in many societies, as indeed it wasn’t in Britain until relatively recently, but nowadays such behaviour is quite acceptable in Britain.

Within society, people fill a variety of social roles. A role is a position in society that is regulated by norms. In your role as student, you are expected to complete

1

assignments and study for exams. The social roles that people have in society also affect behaviour.

We describe ourselves based on the social roles and social groups we are part of in society.

Can you provide examples of particular behaviours that are associated within different roles?

Insights about Social Psychology

For each statement, please indicate whether you think it is true or false by printing the letter T or F in the first space in front of it. In the second space in front of each statement, write a number from 1 (not at all confident) to 7 (very confident) to indicate the degree to which you feel confident in your true/false answer for that statement.

1. __ __ Social Psychology has existed as a field for only about 100 years

2. __ __ A well-designed survey that uses only a few thousand people randomly selected from a population of millions can accurately represent the opinions of the general population.

3. __ __ People tend to focus more on personality characteristics than on situational factors when explaining their own behaviour

4. __ __ Negative information about a person weighs more heavily in others overall impressions of him or her than does a positive information.

5. __ __ When people are divided into groups on the basis of obviously arbitrary criteria, such as the flip of a coin, they will favour members of their own group over members of the other group.

6. __ __ People tend to see members of other groups as more different from each other than they see the members of their own group.

7. __ __ If you are 100% sure of a correct answer to a question you will often give a wrong answer just because others around you are giving a wrong answer.

8. __ __ When told by an experimenter to administer life threatening electric shocks to someone you don’t know due to this person giving an incorrect person, over 50% of men and women will obey.

9. __ __ People usually work harder when working together on a task than working alone.

10. __ __ ‘‘Opposites attract’’ is more accurate than ‘‘Birds of a feather flock together’’

2

11. __ __ When someone is in an accident or otherwise needs help, he or she has a better chance of getting help if only one person is present than if several people are present.

12. __ __ A unanimous group of four giving the same opinion is about as likely to cause an individual to conform publicly to that opinion as is an unanimous group of 10.

13. __ __ People in West Africa and China are more likely to conform to a group norm than are people in the United States of Canada.

14. __ __ Once people have agreed to a small request, they become more likely to agree to a larger request.

15. __ __ Job interviews in which the interviewer is free to ask the job candidate whatever questions come to mind are more accurate and fair than job interviews in which the interviewer uses a standard set of questions for all candidates.

Class DataNumber correct out of 15 Score for confidence

Define the following mathematical terms and work them out for the number of correct answers and score of confidence for the class.

Mean

3

Number correct _____ Confidence score _____Median

Number correct _____ Confidence score _____Mode

Number correct _____ Confidence score _____Draw a bar graph of the means of your data

Your bar graph must include a title. Be cautious and use a pencil

4

EXAM CHECK

Define the social approach; you must refer to two of its main assumptions (6)

5

EXAM CHECK

Courtney is from Britain and has recently befriended a new girl, Amara, at school who has emigrated from Africa. They have very quickly become best friends, despite Courtney thinking that some of Amara’s behaviours are ‘strange’. Courtney has been invited to Amaras house for dinner and is a little worried that she might not fit in with her family, but is glad that Amara is going to be there as they get on so well.

6

Using 2 assumptions from the social approach, and examples to illustrate, explain how both girls behaviour could be influenced by the circumstances. (4)

Obedience

Definition: Obedience is a type of social influence and can be defined as ‘behaviour change produced by the commands of an authority’. Obedience involves doing as you are instructed to do, that is changing your behaviour to fit someone’s request or order. Usually this person is recognised to have authority over you.

7

Obedience is a necessary and essential part of living in social groups. From an early age children in every culture are socialised into behaving in ways considered appropriate by that culture. This socialisation process includes learning to obey certain people and rules. Obedience can result in compliance, obeying an order while not agreeing with the order. However obedience can also result in internalising, obeying an order while agreeing with the order. Most people think of obedience as a ‘good’ thing, a desirable habit to encourage. Often it is essential to the smooth running of society in general and within social groups. It does not take much imagination to see what the effects would be if laws were not obeyed or if people did not follow instructions at work or school.

However, there is a dark side to obedience. Suppose the authority that is commanding obedience is malevolent and the instructions given are intended to destroy the lives of innocent people? Following the genocide of World War 2, much social psychological research on obedience has concentrated on the effects of obedience to unjust commands, and it is to this research that we will now turn our attention.

The pages of history books are unfortunately full of incidences when people have committed the most atrocious acts because they were acting on the instructions of an authority rather than according to their own consciences. Adolf Eichmann, one of the most notorious of the Nazi war criminals, defended himself at his post-war trial by saying that he was simply obeying orders.

Some of the individuals who engage in atrocities are sadists, gratifying their own perverse yearnings, but the vast majority are ordinary people. As the late Stanley Milgram, a psychologist whose name will be for ever linked with research into obedience, commented ‘It doesn’t take an evil person to serve an evil system’.

Define Destructive Obedience

Define Blind Obedience

We will now look in detail at one of the most famous studies in psychology, conducted in the 1960s by Milgram to investigate and explain destructive obedience. Milgram, like many post-war social psychologists, was concerned to understand how apparently ordinary people in Nazi Germany had committed the atrocities of the Holocaust against the Jews and other minority groups. The following study was designed what factors would influence the tendency of ordinary people to obey orders.

Milgram’s Study - Video8

1. How did Milgram obtain his participants?

2. What sampling method did Milgram use to obtain his participants?

3. What was the supposed aim of Milgram’s study?

4. What was the real aim of the study?

5. Based on predictions, how did people say the participants would react? (if you can remember, quote one or more of the people asked)

6. How did the psychiatrists think the participants would react?

7. What percentage of participants went to the end (administered 450volts)?

8. What percentage of participants went to 300volts?

9. Milgram and others carried out many variations of the main study. Briefly outline as many as you can and say whether they increased or decreased obedience rates.

9

Stanley Milgram (1963) – Behavioural study of ObedienceAim: To investigate the extent to which ordinary people would follow destructive orders in a situation in which obedience could seriously harm, even kill, another individual, thereby violating their moral codes. To obey orders to give an innocent person potentially harmful electric shocks.The broad aim of the study was to test the idea that ‘Germans are different’ when they carried out orders to persecute Jews during WWII.

Procedure: Milgram placed an advertisement in a local newspaper asking for paid volunteers to take part in a psychology experiment. A sample of forty male participants took part in the original study.

On arriving at the prestigious Yale University the participant was told that he was taking part in a study of the effect of punishment on learning, and introduced to a ‘Mr Wallace’, supposedly a fellow participant but actually an confederate (a

10

Biology teacher acting as an accomplice to Milgram), a mild mannered inoffensive man. In a rigged draw the naïve participant was always the ‘teacher’ while Mr. Wallace, a confederate, became the learner. The couple were then shown the apparatus, an impressive display of 30 switches designed to deliver electric shocks of varying intensity from 15 volts to 450 volts at 15 volt intervals. The task was quite straightforward- the learner would be read a series of word pairs and then have to supply the second word when the teacher read out the first. The teacher was instructed that whenever the learner made a mistake he was to deliver shocks of increasing intensity starting at 15 volts.

The confederate was now taken into a room behind the generator in order to be strapped into an ‘electric chair’ while the participant watched. Mr Wallace, who had become increasingly nervous throughout, now expressed reservations at taking part in such a study, pointing out that he had a heart condition and asking if the shocks were dangerous. The experimenter assured him that, although the shocks may be painful, they were not dangerous. Reluctantly Mr Wallace was strapped into the chair, cream was applied to ‘prevent any blister or burn’, the participant returned to sit in front of the apparatus and the study commenced.

Mr Wallace soon began making errors and the voltage delivered to him increased quite quickly. The generator was clearly marked as follows to indicate the effect of each of the shocks.

15-60 volts slight shock195-240 volts very strong shock315-360 volts danger, severe shock425-450 volts XXX

The victim was receiving no shocks at all but the experiment was very convincingly staged, with tape recordings being played so that at various intervals screams and shouts of protest were heard from Mr Wallace.

75-135 volts Ugh (louder at 120 volts)150 volts Ugh!!! Experimenter! That’s all. Get me out of here.

I told you I had heart trouble. My heart is starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out.

165 volts Ugh! Let me out! (shouting)180 volts Ugh! I can’t stand the pain. Let me out of here!

(shouting)195 volts Ugh! Let me out of here.210 volts Ugh! Experimenter! Get me out of here. I’ve had

enough. I won’t be in this experiment any more.225 , 240 volts Ugh!255 volts Ugh! Get me out of here.

11

270 volts Agonised scream. Get me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out of here. Let me out. Do you hear! Let me out of here.

285 volts Agonised scream300 volts Agonised scream. I absolutely refuse to answer any

more. Get me out of here. Get me out. Get me out of here.

315 volts Intensely agitated scream. I told you I refuse to answer. I’m no longer part of this experiment.

330 volts Intense and prolonged agonised scream. Let me out of here. Let me out. My heart’s bothering me. Let me out. I tell you (hysterically). Let me out of here. Let me out of here. You have no right to hold me in here. Let me out! Let me out! Let me out of here! Let me out! Let me out!

As you can see, the learner protested frequently, with screams of agony and protest, culminating in an ominous silence. When the participants, increasingly disturbed by the procedure, turned to the experimenter for guidance, a series of prepared ‘prods’ were used as follows: Please continue/ please go on. The experiment requires that you continue. It is absolutely essential that you continue. You have no choice, you must go on. (If the participant was still refusing, then the study was stopped)

Findings: The results were dramatic and disturbing. Milgram had originally described the procedure to psychiatrists, college students and middle class adults. Not a single person said they would deliver the maximum shock. When asked why not, one man very assertively stated ‘because you have a choice in life, you cannot let someone tell you what to do with something that important’, while one college student remarked that ‘it’s another man in there, I wouldn’t want it done to me’. The psychiatrists estimated that only about one person in a thousand would go to the end of the scale.

12

The results, however, were very different from these predictions. Not a single participant stopped before 300 volts (40) and 65% (36) went on to the end, 450 volts.

Voltage Number of participants that

stoppedUp to 300 0300 5315 4330 2345 1360 1365 1

The stress involved in the study was immense. As Milgram commented:

‘In a large number of cases the degree of tension reached extremes that are rarely seen in sociopsychological laboratory studies. Subjects were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan, and dig their fingernails into the flesh.........A mature and initially poised businessman enter{ed} the laboratory smiling and confident. Within 20 minutes he was reduced to a twitching, stuttering wreck who was rapidly approaching a point of nervous collapse.....yet he continued to respond to every word of the experimenter, and obeyed to the end.’ (Milgram 1974).

At the end of the experiment all participants were debriefed by being told the actual nature of the study. They were introduced to Mr Wallace, the ‘learner’ and assured that he had experienced no actual shocks. They were told that their behaviour was entirely normal and, when interviewed later by questionnaire, 84% said they were glad they had taken part, 74% said they had learned something of personal importance. Only one (1.3%) person expressed regret about having taken part. A year later all participants had a follow up psycatric analysis and questionnaire and no one showed signs of long term distress.

Conclusion: Social influence is a strong determinant and the majority of ordinary people will follow destructive orders if instructed to do so by an authority figure, even if someone’s life is at risk.

13

Summary of Milgrams’ StudyMilgram’s (1963) Study of Obedience

Aim

Investigate the extent to which people would ___________ commands in a situation where their obedience could seriously _________ someone else even if it meant breaking their __________________. The broad aim of the study was to test the idea that ‘Germans are ____________ ’ when they carried out orders to persecute _________ during WWII.

ProcedureA ___________ sample of 40 males agreed to participate in a study which they were deceived into thinking was a study on the _______________________________________. In a rigged draw the naïve participant was always assigned the role of _____________ and a _______________, Mr Wallace, played the role of _____________. Mr Wallace was strapped to a shock generator, as he was the participant herd him complaining of a _______ _________________.The teacher and learner were in ______________ rooms. The teacher was to teach the learner a ______ _______________ task, each time the learner was __________ the teacher was told to administer an ______________ __________. These shocks would increase by _____ volts each time, ranging from 15 - _________ volts. Mr Wallace screamed, protested and complained that his heart was bothering him. Every time the participant wanted to ___________ they were giving a series of prepared ____________ prods: please continue, the experiment requires you to continue. Obedience was measured by how far up the generator the teacher went before ____________ to obey anymore. The participant didn’t know until the end of the experiment that the shocks were _______ real and the learners response was scripted and played via a ___________.

14

Findings________ participants (40) gave _______ volts, _______ (26) went to the end, ______ volts. There were marked effects of the participants stress including sweating, diggings their finger nails into their flesh and trembling.

ConclusionThe ________ ____________ is a powerful determinant of behaviour. The majority of ordinary people will follow destructive __________ if instructed to do so by an _________ figure, even if someone’s ________ is at risk.

Evaluation of Milgram’s Study Practical applications to society

Therefore this can help us understand historic events such as Abu Ghraib, or the holocaust, in which large amounts of ordinary people obeyed orders that required them to breach their own moral codes just because they were told to.

Standardised Procedure

Therefore it can be argued that Milgram’s study is reliable as it has been replicated in other cultures and in variations Milgram has conducted and produced similar findings.

High control – internal validity

Therefore cause and effect can be established and the study has high internal validity.

15

Lacks Population Validity – external validity Volunteer sample

Therefore the sample is unrepresentative as it only represents a certain type of person so cannot be generalised to the wider population

Ethnocentric sample

Therefore the sample is unrepresentative as it only represents one culture and so can only be generalised to the American culture and not be generalised to the wider population

HOWEVER, Meeus & Rajjimaker (1986) conducted obedience research in Holland, and found that 22/24 (92%) of their participants obeyed by giving all 15 stress remarks. Therefore suggesting obedience occurs in all cultures and you can generalise Milgram’s findings to the whole population.

Androcentric sample

Therefore the sample is unrepresentative and can only be generalised to men and cannot be generalised to the wider population of women.

HOWEVER, one of Milgram’s variation he used female participants (experiment 8) and found similar rates of obedience (65%), therefore suggesting that finding can be generalised to both men and women.

Lacks Mundane Realism – external validity

Therefore the obedient behaviour is not naturally occurring and cannot be generalised to everyday obedience

16

HOWEVER, Milgram maintains his study was valid because during the debrief the participants reported they were convinced the situation and task was real, so it was real obedience.

Lacks Ecological Validity – external validity

Therefore the obedient behaviour is not naturally occurring and cannot be generalised beyond the setting of the laboratory to everyday obedience

HOWEVER, Hofling (1966) used a field experiment and conducted obedient research on nurses in their natural environment of a hospital. 21/22 of the nurses obeyed an order given by a doctor that could potentially harm a patient. Therefore obedient behaviour can be generalised beyond the lab setting.

Demand Characteristics – internal validity

Therefore the behaviour is not natural obedient behaviour and the study has low internal validity

Conclusion is reductionist

17

Therefore Milgram’s conclusions only considers the role of the situation on obedient behaviour and not the role of innate aspects such as personality, therefore the conclusions are limited in explaining obedient behaviour.

Research the file drawer effect and write an evaluation point to criticise Milgrams research

Perry (2013) File Drawer Effect

EXAM CHECKDescribe the role of the experimenter in Milgram’s (1963) original study (3)

Give one aim of Milgram’s (1963) research (1)

18

Explain the usefulness of Milgram’s research finding for today’s society (3)

Explain 2 ways Milgram’s study can be improved (4)

19

Why do you think Milgram’s participants obeyed?

20

ETHICAL ISSUES ARISING FROM OBEDIENCE RESEARCH

All psychologists have to take account of the ethics (ie. the moral implications) of their research. Ethical issues arise in psychological research when there is conflict between the rights of the participants and the aims of the researcher. Therefore when conducting research all psychologists must follow ethical guidelines. These are a set of rules designed so that research is morally right and that the rights of the participants are being met. In not following these guidelines research will be seen to be in breach of ethics.

The BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct (2009) is based around four ethical principles: respect, competence, responsibility and integrity.

RespectPsychologists should have general respect for the dignity of all the participants within their study, this includes all different backgrounds,

21

gender, ethnicities and sexual orientation. They should maintain the privacy of their participants, avoid deception thus they can gain fully informed consent from their participants. Participants should also be given the right to withdraw.

CompetenceResearchers must be aware and follow the ethical guideline of the BPS. They should remain professional and only conduct studies for which they have sufficient experience, so participants should not be put at greater physical of psychological risk that they would encounter in their normal life. If a problem is identified with a participant, a researcher should not offer advice unless they are qualified to do so. They should seek guidance from experts and supervisors if needed.

ResponsibilityPsychologists have a responsibility to their participants and the general public. They must ensure they do not harm others, or exploit their position. Participants should be given the right to withdraw and should not be incentivised (given monetary rewards or other gifts to encourage participation in a study)

IntegrityPsychologists should be honest and fair is all their work, avoiding situations where they might be seen to exploit others or their own interests may conflict with the interests of their participants.

To avoid ethical issues the following guidelines should be followed:

Cost-Risk benefit analysisBefore conducting research the Psychologist should conduct a cost risk benefit analysis to include both short- and long-term consequences. The thinking behind ethical decisions needs to be clear, especially where time is short and/or where high levels of emotion and risk are involved. Participants should be asked from the first contact about individual factors that might reasonably lead to risk of harm, and inform research participants of any action they should take to minimise such risks.

Informed consentParticipants should give their consent to take part in the research. To be informed consent participants should fully understand what they are agreeing to do: The purpose of the study. What will be required from them, and their rights as a participant (confidentiality and withdrawal). Their decision to participate should be influenced by the power of the researcher.

A problem with gaining informed consent from participants is that it can change the way participants behave (demand characteristics) and therefore their behaviour will not be natural.

Psychologists try and get around gaining informed consent by using the following methods:

Presumptive Consent Asking members of the population, who are similar to the participants, whether they would consider the research to be acceptable

Prior General Consent Asking participants general questions before they are chosen

Retrospective consent By fully debriefing and giving the opportunity for participants to withdraw their data

22

DEBRIEFING

DeceptionThis is withholding information that might affect the participant decision to take part in the research. Participants should not be deliberately misled about the purpose of a study. This should happen only when researchers have no other way to conduct the investigation and only if participants are not likely to become distressed.

Right to withdrawParticipants should be allowed to leave the study at any time and should know that they are able to do this. They should also be able to remove their data at the end of the study if they want to.

DebriefingIf participants are aware they have been in a study they should be given a full explanation of the research as soon as possible. Thus participants should be provided with the necessary information to complete their understanding of the nature of the research. They should leave the study feeling at least as good as when they came into it.

Protection from physical and psychological harmThe risks the participants are exposed to during the study should not be greater than the risks they might be expected to face in everyday life.

ConfidentialityParticipants should not be identifiable within a study. Thus participant’s names will be anonymised and should not be published. Sometimes participants will be given a number or a pseudonym – a fake name.

Exam Check

23

A field experiment was carried out to see if environmental cues can aid recall. A student ice hockey team learned a list of 20 unrelated words in an ice rink. Half the group were then taken to a library (control group) whilst the other half (experimental group) stayed in the ice rink. Both groups then had to recall as many of the 20 words as possible.

The researchers would have followed ethical guidelines. With reference to this study, explain three ethical guidelines they would have to consider. (6)

24

Milgram and EthicsEthical

GuidelineWhat is it? How was it breached? Milgram’s Justification

Participants should fully understand what they are agreeing to do: The purpose of the study. What will be required from them, and their rights as a participant (confidentiality and withdrawal). Their decision to participate should be influenced by the power of the researcher. This is withholding information that might affect the participant decision to take part in the research. Participants should not be deliberately misled about the purpose of a study. This should happen only when researchers have no other way to conduct the investigation and only if participants are not likely to become distressed. Participants should be allowed to leave the study at any time and should know that they are able to do this. They should also be able to remove their data at the end of the study if they want to.

If participants are aware they have been in a study they should be given a full explanation of the research as soon as possible. Thus participants should be provided with the necessary information to complete their understanding of the nature of the research. They should leave the study feeling at least as good as when they came into it. Researchers should only conduct studies for which they have sufficient experience, so participants should not be put at greater physical of psychological risk that they would encounter in their normal life. If a problem is identified with a participant, a researcher should not offer advice unless they are qualified to do so.

The risks the participants are exposed to during the study should not be greater than the risks they might be expected to face in everyday life.

25

26

EXAM CHECK

Assess whether Milgram’s (1963) original research into obedience was ethical (8)

27

Situational Factors affecting obedience and dissent. Variations on Milgram’s first experiment

Milgram (1974) conducted 18 variations on his original study to determine if situational factors will increase or decrease obedience levels. In each variation study the procedure was the same as Milgram’s original procedure, but with one element changed. Obedience rates were measured by the percentage who gave the maximum shock.

EXPERIMENT 7 – Telephonic Instructions

What was the aim of this variation?

How did the procedure vary from the original?

What was the level of obedience? Was this higher or lower than the original

Why do you think the level of obedience was higher/lower? Focus on the situational factor

Other behaviours to note

28

Summary of Milgram’s Variation Study

EXPERIMENT 7 – Telephonic Instructions

Aim

Investigate is the proximity to the experimenter would influence levels of obedience. To see if the if physical distance created between the experimenter and the participant, where the experimenter gave orders over the phone, would influence levels of obedience.

ProcedureThe procedure was the same as Milgram’s original experiment. Apart from, after giving the _______________ in the lab, the experimenter __________ the room and gave further instructions, including the ________________, over the telephone.

A ___________ sample of males agreed to participate in a study which they were deceived into thinking was a study on the _______________________________________. In a rigged draw the naïve participant was always assigned the role of teacher and a _______________, Mr Wallace, played the role of _____________. Mr Wallace was strapped to a shock generator, as he was the participant herd him complaining of a _______ The experimenter gave the instructions of explaining to the teacher that they had to teach the learner a word pair task, each time the learner was __________ the teacher was told to administer an ______________ __________. These shocks would increase by _____ volts each time, ranging from 15 - _________ volts. After this the experimenter ___________ the room. Mr Wallace screamed, protested and complained that his heart was bothering him. Every time the ________________ wanted to leave they were giving a series of prepared ____________ prods: please continue, the experiment requires you to continue over the ____________________. Obedience was measured by how far up the generator the teacher went before ____________ to obey anymore.

Findings________ participants went to the end, ______ volts. There were marked effects of the participants stress including sweating, diggings their finger nails into their flesh and trembling.

29

ConclusionThe proximity of the authority figure to the person they are giving the order to will decrease the level so obedience. ________ ____________ is a powerful determinant of behaviour. The majority of ordinary people will follow destructive __________ if instructed to do so by an _________ figure, even if someone’s ________ is at risk.

A good way to evaluate studies is to use GRAVE

G – Generalisability (Population validity, Ecological Validity, Mundane Realism)

R – Reliability (Standardised procedure, Large sample size, more than on observer)

A – Application of society (How has the theory contributed to society)

V – Validity (Internal validity – demand characteristics, Cause and effect)

E – Ethics (Deception, Debrief, Protection from harm, Confidentiality, Informed consent, Competence)

Make sure you always explicitly apply the evaluation points specifically to the study you are evaluating. See the examples

below for Experiment 7.

G Lacks Ecological Validity. - Conducted is a highly controlled, artificial setting of a lab at Yale university. The setting

would have been unfamiliar to the male participants, and so participants may have behaved a different way to the orders given to what they normally would have.

- Therefore the behaviour is not naturally occurring and cannot be generalised beyond the setting of the laboratory to everyday obedience, reducing external validity.

Lacks Mundane Realism. - The task is artificial. Receiving orders over the phone to give someone electric shocks up

when they give an incorrect answer is not something that would be done in everyday life. - Therefore the behaviour is not naturally occurring and cannot be generalised to everyday

obedience, reducing the external validity. R Standardised procedure.

- All participants experienced the same procedure including the same 4 verbal prods giving over the gone by the experimenter, including please continue, the experiment requires you to continue. Also all the participants herd the same response given by Mr Wallace played via a tape recording at the same voltages.

- Therefore it can be argued that experiment 7 study is reliable as it is easy to replicate, and many variations have been replicated to produce similar findings. Thus the study is reliable.

A Practical applications to society. - Milgram found that people will obey orders over the phone. However the obedience rate did

drop from 65% to 22.5%. - Therefore this can help us understand the situational factors that contribute to obedience,

one being that an order is more likely to be obeyed if give in person than given over the phone. Thus it can help explain historic events such as the Holocaust in which large amounts

30

of ordinary people obeyed orders that required them to breach their own moral codes just because they were told to.

V High internal validity- Conducted in a highly controlled setting of a lab. All extraneous variables so we can be sure

that the manipulation of the IV, the verbal prods given over the phone, caused the change in the DV, the obedient behaviour. Also we can be sure that the distance between the experimenter and participant cause the drop in obedience levels.

- Therefore cause and effect can be established.

Demand Characteristics- Participants were aware that they were taking part in research. The men could have

guessed the true aim of the study was on whether they would obey orders given over the phone and changed their behaviour to be obedient or disobedient.

- Therefore the obedient behaviour many not be naturally occurring and the study has low internal validity.

E Right to withdraw- Participants were told at the start of the study that they could leave the study whenever

they wished. However when participants wished to leave they were given verbal prods over the phone to continue. Therefore Milgram breached the right to withdraw.

Protection from harm- Milgrams participants were stressed as they believed they were electrocuting someone,

they showed signs of this through sweating and shaking. Therefore Milgram breached protection from psychological harm. HOWEVER many participants did elevate this stress by administering lower level shocks while telling the experimenter they were increasing the shocks, or say they were giving shocks when they were not, as the orders were given over the phone.

Debrief- After his research Milgram introduced participants to Mr Wallace, told them the true aim

of obedience and did a psychological assessment. Therefore Milgram did not breach debrief and so is seen to be ethical.

DeceptionMilgram told his participants that the aim of the research was to see the effects of punishment of

learning, when in fact it was a study on obedience and to research if the proximity of the experimenter would influence obedience levels. Furthermore participants thoughts that Mr

Wallace was a participants, but in fact he was a confederate. Therefore Milgram deceived his participants.

31

EXPERIMENT 10 – Rundown office block





32



EXPERIMENT 10 – Run down office block

Aim

To investigate if the setting of where an order is given would influence levels of obedience. To see if when orders were given in a rundown office block would decrease levels of obedience.

ProcedureThe procedure was the same as Milgram’s original experiment. Apart from, the setting was ____________________ from a Lab at Yale University to a ______________ office block in down town _________________, Connecticut. Participants were led to believe that the study was being conducted by a ________________research firm with no connection to Yale.


Conclusion

33

The location of where the order is given will influence obedience levels. Private research firms are viewed as ____________ prestigious than certain universities and so obedience levels will _____________. Thus the less prestigious the ______________ the lower the levels of obedience.

Evaluation

34

35

G Lacks Ecological Validity. - Conducted is a highly controlled, artificial setting of a run down office block. As the

office block was run down, and not in full condition the setting would have been unfamiliar to the male participants, and so participants may have behaved a different way to the orders given to what they normally would have.

- Therefore the behaviour is not naturally occurring and cannot be generalised beyond the setting of the laboratory to everyday obedience, reducing external validity.

(NOTE – You can say that it has ecological validity too – as office block is a natural setting where orders would be obeyed normally)

Lacks Mundane Realism. - The task is artificial. Receiving orders in a run down office block to give someone

electric shocks up when they give an incorrect answer is not something that would be done in everyday life.

- Therefore the behaviour is not naturally occurring and cannot be generalised to everyday obedience, reducing the external validity.

R Standardised procedure. - All participants experienced the same procedure including the same run down office block

setting, the same 4 verbal prods giving including please continue, the experiment requires you to continue. Also all the participants herd the same response given by Mr Wallace played via a tape recording at the same voltages.

- Therefore it can be argued that experiment 10 is reliable as it is easy to replicate, and many variations have been replicated to produce similar findings.

A Practical applications to society. - Milgram found that people will obey orders within a run doen office block setting.

However the obedience rate did drop from 65% to 47.5%. - Therefore this suggests that the more prestigious a setting, the higher the obedience

levels. This is beneficial to today’s society as we can explain why there are high levels of obedience to people within institutional setting, and why this obedience does not always generalise outside the setting.

V High internal validity- Conducted in a run down office block, where there was high control over the setting. All

extraneous variables so we can be sure that the manipulation of the IV, the verbal prods given over the phone, caused the change in the DV, the obedient behaviour. Also we can be sure that the location of the study caused the drop in obedience levels.

- Therefore cause and effect can be established.

Demand Characteristics- Participants were aware that they were taking part in research. The men could have

guessed the true aim of the study was on whether they would obey orders in a run down setting and changed their behaviour to be obedient or disobedient.

- Therefore the obedient behaviour many not be naturally occurring and the study has low internal validity.

E Right to withdraw- Participants were told at the start of the study that they could leave the study

whenever they wished. However when participants wished to leave they were given verbal prods in the run down office block. Therefore Milgram breached the right to withdraw.

Protection from harm- Milgrams participants were stressed as they believed they were electrocuting

someone, they showed signs of this through sweating and shaking. Therefore Milgram breached protection from psychological harm.

Debrief- After his research Milgram introduced participants to Mr Wallace, told them the

Experiment 13 – Ordinary man gives



36





EXPERIMENT 13 – Ordinary man gives orders

Aim

To investigate if viewing someone as a ________________ authority figure by the way someone is dressed will influence levels of obedience. To see if when the person giving orders is dressed in _____________ clothes and not a ___________ would decrease levels of obedience.

ProcedureThe procedure was the same as Milgram’s original experiment. Apart from, the role of the experimenter was played by a man wearing ___________ clothes and not a lab coat. 4 people entered the lab, Mr Wallace, The experimenter, ____________ and a

37

second confederate dressed in ordinary clothes. The experimenter strapped the learner to the chair. After this the experimenter received a _____________ and left the room. Before he left he instructed the second confederate, the _________________, to continue with the procedure. The ordinary man gave the ________________ when needed.


ConclusionPeople dressed in ________________ clothes and not a uniform are viewed as a less _________________ authority figure and so obedience levels will _____________. Thus if the authority figure is not a legitimate authority figure the levels of obedience will be low.

Evaluation – Now you GRAVE this variation

38

Situational Factors affecting obedience and dissent

Social Contract

39

Buffers

Status of authority figure

Deferred responsibility

Location

Individual differences (Non-social explanations)

PersonalityRotter (1966) – Locus of controlA locus of control is a belief about whether the outcomes of our actions are depending on what we do (internal locus of control) or on events outside our personal control (external locus of control).

40

Rotter (1966) proposed a scale to measure a person’s locus of control. He suggested that our behaviour is controlled by rewards and punishments, and that it was these that determined our beliefs about the underlying causes of these actions. Our beliefs about what causes our actions then influence our behaviours and attitudes.

• Internal locus of control – believe they are responsible for their own actions and less influenced by others

• External locus of control – believe their behaviour is beyond their control and due to external factors such as fate. So are influenced around them

Milgram found that those who disobeyed gave proportionately more blame to themselves (48%), 39% blamed the experimenter, whereas obedient participants more likely to blame the learner (25%) more than the dissenters (12% blamed the learner). What locus of control do obedient and disobedient people have?

Adorno et al (1950)– Authoritarian PersonalityAdorno proposed that some people have an authoritarian personality. Those with this type of personality are rigid in the way that they think and are intolerant to change. They are likely to be conventional in their attitudes and conform to wider social norms. In terms of obedience they are hostile towards people who have an inferior status compared to themselves, however are obedient to people with a higher status to themselves. (We will look more closely at this theory when we look at prejudice). This is illustrated by Milgram & Elms (1966) compared the F scale scores for 20 obedience and disobedient participants – they found the obedient participants had a higher F Scale score, indicating an authoritarian personality type.

Personality trait of empathyIt has been theorised that those with high levels of empathy would be less likely to harm another person by the instructions of an authority figure and therefore less likely to be obedient to destructive orders. However in recent replications of Milgram’s experiment Burger (2009) found that although people who score high on empathy were more likely to protest against giving electric shocks, this did not translate into lower levels of obedience.

GenderEarly research (pre Milgram) had indicated that females were more compliant than males. However one of Milgram’s variations – experiment 8 – found similar obedience rates for women at around 65%, with 27.5% stopping at 300 volts. However Milgram did find that females rated their levels of anxiety at much higher compared to the males who were obedient. These higher levels of anxiety in women were also found in Burger’s (2009) replication. Nevertheless, these anxiety levels did not change the obedience rates. Sheridan & King (1972) adapted Milgram's experiment to involve a live puppy as a victim that received genuine shocks from participants. They found 13 female participants were more compliant and delivered the maximum level of shocks to the puppy compared to men. Therefore suggesting women are more obedient then men. However, in a review of 10 obedience experiments, Blass (1999) found that obedience between males and females were consistent across 9 of the studies. The study that did not show a similar male/female obedience level was conducted by

41

Kilham & Mann (1974) in a direct replication of Milgram’s experiment in Australia. They found females to be far less obedient (16%) than male participants (40%). Although this could have been a result of male teachers being paired with male learners and female teachers with female learners. Perhaps the females joined together against the situation in an alliance to react against the demands of the aggressive male experimenter. It seems that there is very little, if any, gender differences in obedience, despite traditional beliefs that females would be more compliant to authority.

CultureWithin society cultures are divided into two categorises – Collectivist and individualistic cultures.

Individualistic cultures – Such as America & Britain – tend to behave more independently and resist conformity and compliance.

• Collectivist cultures – Such as China & Israel – tend to behave as collective groups based on interdependence, meaning that cooperation and compliance is important for the stability of the group (Smith & Bond, 1998)

Thomas Blass (1999) conducted a full review of obedience research, analysing 35 years of research after Milgram’s research. All the studies used used similar methodology to Milgram. The findings are below.

Researcher Country % to 450v

Milgram (1962) US 65%

Edwards et al (1969) South Africa

87.5%

Bock (1972) US 40%

Kilham & Mann (1974)

Australia 28%

Shanab & Yahya (1977)

Jordan 73%

Miranda et al (1981) Spain 50%

Schurz (1985) Austria 80%

Ancona & Pareyson (1968)

Italy 85%

Burley & McGuiness (1977

UK 50%

However it is argued that the variation in percentage of participants who gave the full shock is more a product of the procedure employed than cultural variation. For example Ancona & Pareyson’s (1968) maximum shock level was 330 volts, compared to Milgram’s 450v. Milgram found 73% obedience in his proximity study which is more comparable to the 85% found in Italy, suggesting that 330volts was perceive to be as less dangerous. In Italy, only student participants were use, which Milgram actively avoided because of their compliant and competitive nature. A similar comparison can be made of Burley & McGuiness (1977), who used only 20 students and a maximum voltage of 225.

EXAM CHECK

42

Jonny walked into work, where his boss demanded that he take off his tie and give it to one of his colleagues to wear. a) From your understanding of the Psychology of obedience, identify 2 features of this situation that could lead Jonny to being obedient (4)

b) Jonny refused to take off his tie and did not obey his boss. Explain one factor, using Psychology of obedience, that might account for Jonny’s behaviour (3)

A contemporary study of obedience 43

Jerry Burger (2009) – Replicating Milgram: Would people obey today?

Society is a very different place from when Milgram conducted his original study in 1963. Individuals are generally more deviant towards authority figures. However, despite the large time gap between Milgram’s original study and his own, Burger believed that the obedience rates he would find in his study would be similar to Milgram’s. Milgram’s research had been heavily criticised in terms of ethics. Burger considered the ethical criticism that Milgram had endured and adapted his research so it would not encounter the same criticism. AimTo investigate obedience by partially replicating Milgram’s (1963) study to examine whether situation factors still affect obedience to an authority figure 40 years after Milgram’s research. Simply Burger aimed to answer the question ‘Would people still obey today?’.ProcedureBurger placed an advertisement in a local newspaper and local institutions such as libraries and businesses, as well as online, asking for paid volunteers to take part in a psychology experiment. Participants would be paid $50 for their timeThose who responded to the advertisement were contact by a research assistant. The respondents were thoroughly screened. First stage of screening

Participants were asked if they had been to college and if they had taken Psychology. If participants answered yes to these 2 questions they were then disregarded as they may have studied Milgram’s original study.

The remaining participants were asked about their physical and psychological health and whether they had suffered any traumatic childhood experiences. These were also excluded as the procedure may have induced excessive trauma

Second stage of screening The remaining participants were invited to Santa Clara University campus.

Two clinical psychologists gave individuals a number of scales/questionnaires to complete.

First the participants completed questionnaires that consisted of 6 questions that were created by the two clinical psychologists. These included the questions of:

o “Have you ever been diagnosed with a psychiatric disorder? o Are you currently receiving psychotherapy?o Are you currently taking any medications for emotional difficulties

such as anxiety or depression?If participants answered yes to any question they were excluded from the study

Those who made it through the above questionnaire were given the following scales to complete.

o a demographic sheet asking about age, occupation, education and ethnicity;

o the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (extent to which you experience empathy for others - might you be less likely to obey?)

o the Beck Anxiety Inventory;

44

o The Desirability of Control Scale (extent to which you like to “exercise control and to make their own decisions” - might these people be less likely to obey?)

o the Beck Depression Inventory. Participants were interviewed by a clinical psychologist to assess if they

might be negatively affected by the study. The interview was structured around the Mini International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) procedure. The MINI interview touches on psychological disorders and allowed the psychologist to identify anyone who should not be part of the study. Each interview lasted approximately 30 minutes. In total, 123 individuals took part in the second screening and 47 (38.2%) were removed from continuing with the study but were allowed to gain their money. Their exclusions and reasons behind their exclusions are unknown due to confidentiality agreements.

A total of 76 individuals were invited back a week later but six dropped out at this point, five of whom expressed awareness of Milgram’s research during the second session, leaving a final sample of 70 participants, 29 males and 41 females. They ranged in age from 20-81 years old, with a mean of 42 years.

Experiment 1 – Baseline conditionParticipants were split into two groups, with equal ratios of gender in each group. Each participant was introduced to the experimenter (who was a clinical psychologist) and the confederate before starting. Both the experimenter and confederate were selected due to their resemblance to those used in Milgram’s study. It was at this point the participant and the confederate were both give $50 and told to keep it even if they chose to withdraw from the study. Burger used a similar script to Milgram’s original study and explained the procedure of the study to the participant and the use of the electric generator. The role choice was rigged, the confederate always received the role of the learner and the participant the role of teacher. They were both asked to sign consent forms.

The learner was put into the adjoining room while the teacher was placed before an electric generator. The generator has switches that ranged from 15-405 volts. The teacher was asked to join the experimenter while he prepared the learner for the study. The participant witnessed the experimenter placing an electrode onto the learners left wrist, sealing it with paste and explain that it would ‘provide good contact to prevent blisters or burns’.

Burger followed Milgram’s procedure and asked the teacher to read out a list of 25 word pairs. The teacher was told that if the learner failed to remember the word pair after being given the first in the pair correctly, an electric shock should be administered using the electric generator in front of them. Each wrong answer would result in a stronger shock being given, increasing by 15 volts each time. At this point, the confederate revealed a problem with his heart that was detected at hospital. The participant herd the experiment tell the learner that although the shocks may be painful they are not harmful.

The teacher was shown how to use the electric shock generator and given a 15 volt sample shock. The same four verbal probs from Milgram’s study:

“Please go on” or “Please continue”• The experiment requires that you continue”

45

• It is absolutely essential that you continue”• You have no other choice, you must continue”

A pre-recorded voice feedback grunts from the learner were heard from the 75volts shock level. Throughout the procedure participants were reminded by the experimenter that they could withdraw at any time. At 150 volts, the recording stated ‘ That’s all. Get me out of here. I told you I had heart trouble. My heart is starting to bother me now. Get me out of here, please. My heart’s starting to bother me. I refuse to go on. Let me out’At this point, and after the experimenter used verbal prods, if the teacher was resistant to continuing., the experiment ended. Following the administration of the 150volt shock, the experiment was also forcibly ended at the point where the teacher read out the next instruction.

Burger decided to stop the experiment at 150volts for numerous reasons. In Milgram’s studies after the teacher pressed the 150 volt switch the learner was heard demanding to be released from the study. Burger said that “Nearly every participant paused, and most turned to the experimenter to indicate verbally or nonverbally their reluctance to continue.” On average across Milgram’s studies 79% of the teachers who went past 150 volts continued all the way to 450 volts. Burger saw 150 volts as the point of no return, so had a shock machine with switches that go all the way to 450 volts, but stop the study if and when a “teacher” presses the 150 volts switch (he or she would probably have gone all the way to 450 anyway)

On finishing the experiment, the experimenter immediately told the participant that the shocks were not real and the teacher was introduced to the learner to ensure they knew he was perfectly fine.

Experiment two – Modelled refusal conditionIn this variation, the participants followed the same procedure as the baseline condition but two confederates were used instead one. The second confederate posed as a participant, and was the same gender as the real participant. Again, the drawing of roles was rigged and resulted in a learner (confederate), Teacher 1 (confederate) and Teacher 2 (participant). Teacher 1 took the lead and began the procedure asking the questions and administering the shocks while Teacher 2 sat with him/her. At 75 volts, as scripted, Teacher 1 hesitated after hearing the learner grunt, and at 90 volts Teacher 1 stated ‘I don’t know about this’. Teacher 1 was prompted by the experimenter, but refused to carry on and pushed his/her chair back from the table. The experimenter would then ask Teacher 2, the real participant, to continue. Teacher 1 sat quietly during the rest of the study, avoiding eye contact with the real subject.

FindingsMale Female Total

Experiment 1Stopped at 150v or earlier

6 (33.3%) 6 (27.3%)

Continued after 150v

12 (66.7%) 16 (72.7%) 70.0% (28)

Experiment 2Stopped at 150v or 5 (45.5%) 6 (31.6%)

46

earlierContinue after 150 v

6 (54.5%) 13 (68.4%) 63.3% (19)

There was little difference in obedience levels between genders in both experiements. The point at which male and female participants needed the first prod was also similar. Burger then compared the results shown in Table 1.8 with the screening tests of the participants relating to empathy and control. He found little difference between those stopped and those who continued and their corresponding empathay and control scores. He did find, however, that those who show reluctance to give the shocks early on in the procedure scored higher on desitability for control in the baseline condition. No difference was found when comparing the modelled refusal condition and base condition to personality scores. ConclusionBurger concluded that his partial replication of Milgram’s procedure suggests that average Americans react to this laboratory situation today much the same way they did 45 years ago….the same situational factors that affected obedience in Milgram’s participants still operate today Time and changes in society’s culture did not have an effect on obedience levels nor did the refusal of the confederate. Burger interpreted that the high rate of obedience demonstrates the power of situational factors on obedience.

Summary of Burger (2009) – Replicating Milgram: Would people obey today?

(Summary of experiment 1)

Aim

To investigate obedience by partially __________________ Milgram’s (1963) study to examine whether ________________ factors still affect obedience to an authority figure 40 years after Milgram’s research. To answer the question ‘Would people still obey _____________?’.

Procedure

Burger obtained an _______________ sample of 70 participants, 29 males and 41 females, aged 20-81 years. Burger placed an advert in a local newspaper and local institutions such as libraries and businesses, as well as online, asking for paid volunteers to take part in a psychology experiment. Participants would be paid ________ for their time

The respondents were thoroughly ______________. Participants were asked if they had been to college and taken ___________________ and were disregarded if they answered yes as they may have studied Milgram’s study. Participants were also excluded if they had experienced _____________ before incase the procedure induced excessive trauma. The remaining participants were invited to ______________________ University campus. Two __________________ psychologists interviewed and gave individuals a number of scales/questionnaires to complete screened for traits

47

including empathy, desire for control and anxiety to control for the personality aspects affects obedience levels.

Both the _____________________ (clinical psychologist) and confederate were selected due to their resemblance to those used in Milgram’s study. In Experiment 1, the _________________ condition, the participant was introduced to the experimenter and confederate, given $50 and told to keep it even if they chose to withdraw from the study.

Burger used a ______________ script to Milgram’s original study and explained the procedure of the study to the participant and the use of the electric generator. The role choice was rigged, the confederate always received the role of the learner and the participant the role of teacher. They were both asked to sign consent forms. Burger followed the same procedure as Milgram. In a rigged draw the naïve participant was always assigned the role of _____________ and a _______________, played the role of _____________. The confederate was strapped to a shock generator, as he was the participant herd him complaining of a _______ _________________. The teacher was given a _____________ sample shock. The teacher and learner were in ______________ rooms. The teacher was to teach the learner a ______ _______________ task, each time the learner was __________ the teacher was told to administer an ______________ __________. These shocks would increase by _____ volts each time, ranging from 15 - _________ volts. From 75 volts, the confederate screamed, protested and complained that his heart was bothering him. Every time the participant wanted to ___________ they were giving a series of prepared ____________ prods: please continue, the experiment requires you to continue. Throughout the procedure the participants were reminded (3 times) that they could withdraw at any time. Obedience was measured by how far up the generator the teacher went before ____________ to obey anymore. Following the administration of the 150volt shock, the experiment was also forcibly ended at the point where the teacher read out the next instruction.

On finishing the experiment, the experimenter immediately told the participant that the shocks were not real and the teacher was introduced to the learner to ensure they knew he was perfectly fine.

Findings

Burger found that __________ (6) males and 27.3% (6) females stopped at or before 150 volts. ________% of the (28) of the participants continued after 150 volts - 66.7% (12) males and ___________ (16) females.

Conclusion

Burger concluded that his partial replication of Milgram’s procedure suggests that average _________________ react to this laboratory situation today much the same

48

way they did _______ years ago. The ________ situational factors that affected obedience in Milgram’s participants still operate today. Time and changes in society’s _____________ did not have an effect on obedience levels.

Evaluation of Burger’s study – GRAVE Burgers study

49

Identify the similarities and differences between Milgram’s original study and Burgers replication

Similarities

50

Differences

EXAM CHECK

Explain 2 ways in which your contemporary study could have been improved (4)

51

EXAM CHECKEvaluate whether research into obedience can be conducted without violating ethical guidelines (8)

52

MILGRAM’S AGENCY THEORY OF OBEDIENCEWhy are people so willing to obey? There are many theories that seek to explain obedience to authority- we will look at one of the most influential.

Milgram(1973) argued that obedience is a mechanism for a stable society, to create social order and harmony. Without obedience then society will not function properly and will be chaos and society will break down. Society has a natural hierarchal, with minimal numbers of people at the top giving the orders, and the larger numbers at the bottom obeying the orders. For example a minority within society propose and pass laws, but everyone in society is expected to obey these laws.

As we already know Milgram argues that obedience is a consequence of nurture – the situation the person is in. We are socialised throughout our lifetime to be obedient. Through nurture we are exposed to authority figures, such as teachers at school, and parents within the family to obey authority figures.

53

How are we socialised to do this?

Milgram proposed a theory to explain why people who are decent and responsible in ordinary life are prepared to obey orders even when it goes against their conscience and causes them considerable distress. He suggested that there are two distinct modes of social consciousness, the autonomous state and the agentic state.

In the autonomous state, we have free will and act according to our own conscience, in the way we believe to be right and we feel responsible for our actions. In this state, the vast majority of people behave decently towards others and would not cause them harm in the absence of provocation.

In the agentic state we are no longer independent but surrender our free will to follow orders of an authority figure. We see ourselves as an agent to those in authority. We no longer act according to our conscience. One of the important characteristics of the agentic state is that people no longer feel they that they responsible for their actions but defer to the authority figure.

People move from the autonomous state into the agentic state when confronted with an authority figure. They justify their behaviour by saying that they acted that way because they were ordered to do so (just the argument used by Eichmann and many others, in all walks of life). Milgram explained that in any society we inculcate a habit of obedience in children from a very early age. In the home and school children are expected to do as they are told. Children internalise the importance of obedience so that eventually it is obedience that comes easily and disobedience that is difficult. In the workplace, most people unquestioningly do what the organisation tells them to.

Some acts of obedience cause us to experience moral strain. Moral strain results when we have to do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority, and so benefit from society. An important aspect of the agentic state is the strategies we use to deal with moral strain. Milgram suggested that we use defence mechanisms to avoid the distress and guilt of performing acts we would normally find abhorrent. Denial was found to be particularly common in participants as they refused to acknowledge what they had done.

How do you think Agency Theory can be used to explain behaviour in everyday life?

Evaluation of Agency theory

Positives

The idea that obedience serves the function of allowing complex human societies to develop makes sense, that is, it has face validity.

Agency theory explains a great many aspects of people’s behaviour in all walks of life, and especially how ordinary decent people can go against conscience and thereby come to commit atrocities.For example…

54

Therefore the theory appears to make sense and has positive applications to everyday obedient behaviour.

The theory is supported by many studies, including those done by Milgram and the variations of this.

In Milgram’s study 65% participants obeyed the authority figure to seriously harm an innocent person.

How does Milgrams study illustrate moral strain?

How does Milgram study illustrate deferred responsibility?

Therefore Milgram’s study clearly shows people are more likely to obey the greater status of an authority figure, and supports his Agency theory.

HOWEVER Milgram’s research lacks mundane realism as the task of giving electric shocks is not something we encounter in everyday life. Furthermore the study lacked ecological validity as it was conducted in a highly controlled, artificial setting of a lab. Therefore the participants behaviour cannot be generalised to everyday obedience.

ON THE OTHER HAND in Hofling’s study…

Therefore demonstrating people are likely to defer responsibility for their actions to the greater status of the authority figure and obey the greater the status of the authority figure, even in a natural setting, as predicted by the theory.

Negatives It is difficult to prove the existence of an agentic state.

The agentic state is a state of mind, and internal mental process, and so is hypothetical construct and hard to measure. As Jarvis et al (2000) comment: ‘Simply saying that someone is in an agentic state because they obey and that they obey because they are an agentic state is circular logic’.

Therefore the agentic state cannot be empirically proved.

The theory cannot explain individual differences. Milgram has neglected the minority of his participants. 35 % of his

participants did not obey the orders . Personality type, gender and culture can all influence obedience levels.

Therefore agency theory only explains why most people obey authority but is reductionist as it does not consider the complexity of obedient behaviour and does not explain why some people refuse to follow the unjust orders of an authority figure.

55

A weakness of Milgram’s agency theory of obedience is that there are other theories that can explain obedient behaviour. When there are other theories this makes theories less powerful as an explanation of behaviour. We shall look at the social impact theory in detail.

Apply Milgram’s Agency Theory to Milgram’s original study on the next page

56

Describe of Theory Applied to Milgram’s studyMilgram argues that obedience is essential for a stable society, and we are

____________ into obeying authority figures. To explain obedience Milgram argues

there are 2 states. The _______________ state and ________________ state.

When in the ___________________ state individual has _______________ over

their behaviour, they feel __________________ for their actions and so act

according to their ___________________ – they know what is right and wrong.

When given an order by an authority figure Milgram argues individuals go through

the _______________________, where they move from the autonomous state to

the agentic state. Here individuals will __________________ their free will and to

follow orders from an authority figure. They see themselves as an

_________________ to the authority figure, thus they __________________

responsibility for their actions to the authority figure, so no longer see themselves

responsible for their actions. This means they may act against their

Milgram argued we may experience ______________________. This is when we are

given an order and have to do something we believe to be ______________ in order

to function as an _________________ to an authority figure. We use

______________________________ to avoid the distress we may feel, for example

a common one used is _________________ – this was used by soldiers in the

Holocaust as they refused to accept what they were doing.

EXAM CHECK

There has been a long running conflict between the two neighbouring countries of Ranzea and Gofani. The president of Ranzea has ordered the invasion of Gofani to take control of the country. There have been reports of soldiers from Ranzea carrying out atrocities in Gofani villages, however some soldiers have been vocal to other soldiers about their unease of carrying out these atrocities.

Using agency theory, explain why the Ranzea soldiers might have obeyed the Ranzea presidents order even when they uneasy about it (4)

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY

Bibb Latané and Wolf (1981)

Social impact theory is concerned with the changes that occur in an individual due to the presence and actions of other people. The theory considers social influence to be determined by 3 elements:

Social forces Psychosocial law Multiplication/division of impact.

Social forcesLanté & Wolf argued that the strength of influence felt by a person is influenced by 3 factors:

1. StrengthThe strength of the message being given will be determined by importance of the person giving it. The key features determining importance include status, age and gender.

2. Number

A message is stronger if it is repeated by a lot of people who are all in agreement. This equates to Moscovici’s ‘consistency.’

3. Immediacy: The message will have more impact if it comes from someone who is in close proximity to you.

The power of influence of the order give will increase when all of the above factors are at their highest. For instance if the authority figure is perceived as a legitimate authority figure, are large in numbers and are immediate to the individual then obedience is highly likely to happen. A decrease in the above factors will weakened the influence of an order.

This is illustrated by Latané in his used of a “Lightbulb” analogy. The amount of light that shines on a target may be affected by the strength (wattage), immediacy (closeness) and number of lightbulbs. Increase all these elements and the light will have more impact.

Psychosocial law – diminishing returns.

This part of the theory specifies the nature of the relationship between the size of the group and it’s social influence. The principle predicts that as the number of social forces (people) increases then the overall social influence also increases, but this increase in social influence is at a diminishing rate. That is, increasing the size of a group from one to two people results in a greater impact that adding one person to a group of 100. This is illustrated in Asch’s conformity research, the first person in the line up resulted in little conformity. Instead the largest increase in conformity occurred when the number of sources was increased from two to three people in front of the participant before they answered. Thus showing the psychosocial law.

Multiplication versus division of impact

When there are multiple people who are targeted for social impact this impact gets divided. The larger the audience, the smaller the amount of expected social impact a source will have on each audience member. Latané & Darley (1970) demonstrated the divisional effect when they researched bystander behaviour. They found that a lone person was more likely to help someone in need compared to a group of people; there was a diffusion of responsibility similar to divisional effect – each person feel less responsible for helping compared to if they were alone.

Evaluation of Social Impact Theory

Bickman & Milgram (1969)

Using a field experiment, between one and 15 confederates congregated on the street and craned their necks to look up to the sixth floor of the university building. Milgram was on the 6th floor window recording. Videos were analysed and the number of passers by who stopped to also look up were counted. They found that although increasing the number of confederates increases the number of passers by stopping, the number of passer by grew smaller relative to the size of the confederate groups

Therefore supporting the psychosocial law as the social influence had a diminishing rate.

Asch

Milgrams variations

Experiment 17 - Rebellious stooges

Experiment 7 - Telephone instructions

Theory is Reductionist.

The theory sees individuals as passive receivers of social impact, suggesting that the individual has not control over the social impact on them, and does not process any of the impact imposed on them. Everyone is different, so this theory seems to oversimplify the nature of human interaction and ignore individual differences between us. Some of us are more resistant to social impact and some more passive.

Therefore this is not a sufficient theory to explain obedient behaviour as it does not consider the complexity of obedient behaviour, or the role of the individual on their own obedient behaviour or the role of innate aspects such as personality, therefore the theory is limited in explaining obedient behaviour.

Descriptive rather than explanatory.

The theory does not explain why people are influenced by others, just under what conditions they are more likely to be influenced. Therefore this is a limited theory in explaining obedience.

A weakness of social impact theory is that there are other theories that can explain obedient behaviour. When there are other theories this makes theories less powerful as an explanation of behaviour.

Compare Milgram’s Agency theory with Bibb Latané and Wolf (1981) Social Impact theory. Comparisons include similarities and differences

Agency

Social Impact

EXAM CHECK

Gina has been told by her boss that she needs to stop taking an hour lunch and take half an hour lunch instead.

Using the social impact theory, explain why Gina will obey her boss (5)

Additional theories of obedience

You can use these to evaluate Agency theory and Social impact theory – as theories are weakened if other theories explain the same behaviour.

Social Power TheoryOne possible alternative explanation of obedience is that authority figures have different types of powers which cause individuals to obey. According to French & Raven there are 5 different kinds of power:

Legitimate power is held by those in certain roles

Reward power is held by those with certain resources

Coercive power is held by those who can punish

Expert power is held by those with knowledge

Referent power is held by those who can win power over people

Apply each of the powers above to Milgram’s participants

Charismatic leaderOther Psychologists argue that is the authority figure themselves that cause the obedience. Some authority figures have a remarkable ability to persuade people to obey their wishes. Charismatic leaders tend to establish a very clear vision of what they want to achieve and how they intend to achieve it. Charismatic leaders tend to give orders in terms of achieving a goal, so that there is a clear reason to obey them

For example in Nazi Germany…

KEY QUESTION

HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BE USED TO EXPLAIN DESTRUCTIVE OBDEINCE IN SOCITEY, SUCH AS IN A PRISON SETTING

LIKE THE ATROCITIES COMMITED AT ABU GHRAIB?

ABU GHRAIB

In the specification, it states that you must be able answer one key question of relevance to todays societ. We are going to look at blind obedience to authority in a prison setting, specifically the prison of Abu Ghraib. This has been investigated and discussed by Zimbardo who did the original ‘prison study’ at Stanford University.

Use google or one of the search engines to find the answers to the following questions.

1. What is Abu Ghraib?

2. What happened at Abu Ghraib?

3. What reasons did the soldiers give for behaving in this way? (You could use Lynndie England, one soldier who is on trial, and at least one other, as examples).

4. Outline Zimbardo’s research – Stanford Prison experiment (no more than a paragraph)

5. How did Zimbardo defend the Abu Ghraib soliders?

HOW CAN KNOWLEDGE OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BE USED TO EXPLAIN DESTRUCTIVE OBDEINCE IN SOCITEY, SUCH AS IN A PRISON SETTING

LIKE THE ATROCITIES COMMITED AT ABU GHRAIB?

Describe your key question – A01

Explain your key question (Agency theory , Social Impact Theory, Zimbrado, Milgram) A02 (theories) A03 (studies)

PREJUDICE

Definition: “An attitude that predisposes us to think, feel, perceive and act in favourable or unfavourable ways towards a group or its individual members”. This particular definition states that prejudice can be negative or positive. Strictly speaking this is accurate, but other definitions stress only the negative feelings since this is often the way in which prejudice is shown. The word prejudice is derived from the concept of pre-judging, of making an assessment of an individual or group of people will little or no accurate knowledge on which to base this opinion. Discrimination: Many people confuse prejudice with discrimination but they are quite distinct terms. Discrimination refers to the unequal treatment of individuals or groups based on arbitrary characteristics such as race, sex, ethnicity and cultural background. Often this takes the form of limiting or restricting their access to privileges or resources.Prejudice is an attitude, and like any attitude, it comprises 3 components: cognitive, affective and behavioural (remember ABC). the cognitive component is the beliefs and stereotypes we have about the

object of our prejudice. Stereotypes are beliefs about the characteristics of groups of individuals (for example, that women are emotional or that French people are lovers of food and excellent cooks). Stereotyping is the application of these beliefs when we interact with other people. Stereotyping is an inevitable part of our thinking- life would be too complicated and simply impractical if we did not make some assumptions. However, having stereotypes does not necessarily mean that we are prejudiced. In contrast to stereotypes, which involve thoughts or beliefs about a group, prejudice has an emotional component and it is to that we now turn.

the affective component is the feelings aroused in us by the object of prejudice. This is often a negative feeling, such as being frightened of all football supporters because of the belief that they are all violent. Common feelings associated with prejudiced attitudes are likes and dislikes, anger, fear, disgust, distaste and even hatred.

the behavioural component is the way we behave towards the object of our prejudice. We may go out of our way to avoid certain groups, such as football supporters. Behaviours include avoidance, verbal or physical attacks and even large scale persecution of certain groups.

Prejudice is universal and its affects are far-reaching. It takes many forms ranging from traditional hatred (eg. I hate Jews) to more subtle forms. It has been argued

that to some extent everyone is prejudiced in that they favour their own group over others and we should not lose sight of this. Nevertheless there are obviously degrees of prejudice and it is the more extreme prejudiced attitudes with which we are concerned. There are many theories that seek to explain the origin of prejudice. Wwe are going to consider two of these theories

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORYSocial identity theory is based on the assumption that that prejudice can be explained in terms of our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a group and to classify other people as either within or outside our group, to be one of the in-group or one of the out-group.In-groups are those groups to which a particular individual belongs Out-groups are those to which he or she does not belong. In order to outline social identity theory, it is useful to look at some background research conducted by the social psychologist Sherif and others. Sherif et al (1971) investigated the effects of in-groups and out-groups. In a classic study, Sherif et (1971), using British schoolboys as participants, classified them as under-estimators or over-estimators on the basis of a perception exercise. The boys were then given the opportunity to assign points, which could be exchanged for money, to members of the 2 groups. They consistently rewarded their own group members more than those of the other group, despite the fact that they personally did not gain from it and even when the overall amount of money that could be gained was more if they had been more generous to the out-group. Groups that are formed on an arbitrary basis (such as by the toss of a coin) are known as minimal groups because they share no common goals or attitudes. Yet even when people are assigned to groups on the toss of a coin, they still show in-group preferences. In addition, they rate their group as being more likable (eg. Turner 1978), and as producing higher quality work In addition, people in minimal groups tend to be more competitive towards the out-group than they would be as individuals. To explain this in-group preference, Sherif (1982) and Turner (1987) advanced social identity theory. According to this theory, a person’s identity or self-image has two parts, personal identity and social identity. Our personal identity derives from the knowledge we have of our self as an individual (I am a student; I’m hard working; I’m useless at sport). Our social identity derives from the groups with whom we identify (our family, our school, our friendship group). People’s self esteem is affected by both of these identities. We all have a need to boost our self esteem and one way in which this can be done is by identifying ourselves with successful groups. This is especially important to people who have low self esteem

from their own personal identity, perhaps because they were not greatly valued in their family or were made to feel a failure. According to social identity theory, one way to gain a good social identity and boost your self esteem is to belittle the out-groups. Unfortunately, this can often lead to negative stereotyping and prejudice, as reflected by religious fervour, racial conceit and extreme patriotism. In sum then, Sherif’s social identity theory argues that bias results from people’s motivation to boost their self-esteem through a positive social identity. It is those people with low self esteem who identify most strongly with certain groups and are particularly prone to prejudiced attitudes.

On the next page summarise the 3 aspects of the theory

.

Summary of describe Social Identity Theory

Prejudice can be explained by our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a group and to classify other people as either within this group (in-group) or outside of this

group (out-group)

1.

2.

3. Social Comparison – we compare the group we are in against other groups. We tend to judge our group favourably against other groups thus preserving our self-

esteem. To maintain and boost our self-esteem we need to make the out-group look bad so we actively ridicule the out-group. Therefore this results in prejudice.

Evaluation of Social identity theory

Tajfel (1970) When testing 64 British school boys, he found that boys would favour their

own group and consistently give members of their own groups the maximum number of points they could, and the out group the least amounts of points they could.

Therefore…

Aronson & Osherwon (1980) – Jane Elliot brown eyes blue eyes

Positive contribution to society

Reductionist Postmes et al (2005) argue that it is individual characteristics that create a

social identity not a social identity that determines an individual character.

Does not account for other explanation of prejudice The theory doesn’t account for the influence of social norms, values,

socialisation or the degree to which an individual feels threatened can contribute to prejudice attitudes.. For example if raised in a family you may learn prejudice attitudes, not develop them due to group membership

Therefore group membership may not be the sole reason for prejudice and the theory is not a full explanation of prejudice.

Cross cultural difference are not accounted for Some cultures are more tolerant of discrimination than other and have a

much greater tendency to favour in-groups over out-groups. For example some tribes encourage this out group discrimination as part of their culture.

Therefore SIT does not account for these differing practices and is not a comprehensive theory of prejudice.

A weakness of social identity theory is that there are other theories that can explain prejudice behaviour. When there are other theories this makes theories less powerful as an explanation of behaviour. We will look at Realistic conflict theory.

CLASSIC STUDYSherif et al (1961) - Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robber’s cave experiment. BackgroundSherif et al conducted many studies to investigate intergroup conflict. Each study was conducted in a boys summer camp and followed a similar format: 10-12 year old boys attending a two week summer camp would be divided into groups and made to compete against each other in a series of camp games. The first in the series was undertaken on 24 well adjusted boys attending an 18 day summer camp in the isolated Northern hills of Connecticut in 1949. The boys arrived and spent the first few days together as one group before they were divided into two groups that participated in competitive activities. The groups were housed in separate bunk houses and participated in separate group activities, such as camps out and hikes. The groups began to evolve separate identities; the groups names themselves Red Devils and Bull Dogs. Within each group, new friendships were formed and a social hierarchy began to develop; they gave themselves nicknames and made up group symbols. Their allegiance and friendships had shifted from the group to the separate groups of boys, and conflict between the groups were observed. They even rated individual members of the other groups negatively, despite being rated as best friends at the beginning of the camp. A second study was conducted in upstate New York in the summer of 1953. This time the groups called themselves the Panthers and the Pythons and the research followed a similar format to creating in-group formation and competition. However, this camp was unsuccessful because the boys suspected that the researchers were deliberately trying to create frictions between the groups, and the study was stopped. It was also not until the third in the series of experiments that Sherif and his colleague successfully attempted to reduce prejudice between the groups. It is the third experiment we look at in detail.

AimSherif was interested in inter-groups relations over a period of time. He wanted to study group formation, the effect of competition and the conditions under which conflict could be resolved. Sherif wanted to see whether two groups brought into contact with each other and competition will become hostile towards each other, and if had common goals will form a close group. Therefore to test the idea that if you create an in-group/out-group situation and then create conflict between them, prejudice will arise and if this prejudice would be reduced if the two groups were set a (superordinate) goal that needed their co-operation to achieve.

ProcedureThe setting for the third experiment was the Robbers Cave camp in Oklahoma. The study followed 3 stages

Stage one: In-group formation - in groups were created by facilitating tasks that required in-group cooperation.

Stage two: Frictional Phase - the two groups would be brought together in situations where they would have to compete against each other for goals so causing conflict.

Stage three: Integration Phase superordinate goals were introduced to encourage cooperation between the two groups in order to reduce in-group hostility. (A superordinate goal is a goal that neither group can achieve separately, but can achieve together)

Using an opportunity sample from Oklaholma schools, an initial sample of 200 boys was selected from schools in Oklaholma. The final participants were 22 middle

class, Protestant boys aged 11 (one was 12 years old). All boys were ‘normally adjusted’ and from schools in Oklaholma City. The researchers made sure that they boys were not acquainted with each other before the study. A fee of $25 was paid to parents to incentivise them to not visit the boys throughout the two week stay at the camp.The boys were divided into equally matched groups using information obtained from parents and teachers about their educational and athletic ability. Neither group knew about each other at first.

Stage one – In-group formationDuring the first 6 days of the two week camp, the two groups of boys were kept separate from each other and each group was involved in activities designed to encourage bonding and in-group formation, such as hiking and swimming. During this initial stage, researchers, who the boys thought were camp staff, observed the verbal and non-verbal communication within each group and the relationships that emerged. Sociometric data was gathered on how the boys rated each other in terms of popularity, initiative, etc.

Stage two – Frictional PhaseOver the next 4-6 days the boys were brought into contact with each other during competitions as part of a camp tournament. The tournament included a series of competitive activities (e.g. baseball, tug-of-war etc.) with a trophy being awarded on the basis of accumulated team score. It was necessary for each individual boy to contribute in the tournament in order to win points towards the tournament total. There were also individual prizes for the winning group such as a medal and a multi-bladed pocket knife with no consolation prizes being given to the "losers."Both groups were also subject to orchestrated situations that they would find frustrating and believe were caused by the other group. For example, one group was delayed getting to a picnic and when they arrived the other group had eaten their food. During this stage, stereotypes between each group were recorded, and behaviours and attitudes towards each group were noted. Stage three – Integration PhaseThe final couple of days were devoted to bringing about conflict resolution. The researchers attempted to bring the two groups of boys together in various situations, for example, in the dining hall for various mealtimes and watching a movie. Also conflict resolution was aimed through the introduction of superordinate (common) goals deliberately designed to ensure cooperation between the groups. Three problem situations were set up that could only be resolved if both groups worked cooperatively:1. Fixing the water tank which provided water to both groups2. A joint camp-over where group members’ had to work together for food and sleeping gear3. Starting the broken down camp bus that had got stuck in the mud

FindingsDuring stage one, the boys in each group formed their own set of group norms and rules that formed their group identity. They took part in various cooperative activities, and by the end of the stage had defined a name for their group; one called themselves the ‘Rattlers’ and the other the ‘Eagles’. At the end of the stage, the groups were made aware of the other’s existence and the formation of and a ’us’ and ‘them’ attitude became apparent.During stage two, the boys were beginning to show signs of hostility to the other group and persisted in demanding for competitive activities.

The Rattlers' reaction to the informal announcement of a series of contests was absolute confidence in their victory! They spent the day talking about the contests and making improvements on the ball field, which they took over as their own to such an extent that they spoke of putting a "Keep Off" sign there! They ended up putting their Rattler flag on the pitch. At this time, several Rattlers made threatening remarks about what they would do if anybody from The Eagles bothered their flag.Leaders emerged in each group to take on the challenges of the tournament and the boys became territorial. When the tournament was announced, the boys began to fight, name call and the Eagles burned the Rattlers’ camp flag. There was a strong sense of in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias, resulting in derogatory terms being used (stinkers, braggers, sissies) about the other group and a number of skirmishes and camp raids. When asked to self-report who their friends were out of all the boys, around 93% selected exclusively from their own group. Each group thought the others were ‘sneaks, smart alecks, and stinkers’, whilst their own members were ‘brave, tough and friendly’During the final stage of the study, the researchers attempted to bring the two groups of boys together in various situations. When given superordinate tasks there was a reduction.

The boys were informed by staff they could secure a movie if they collectively paid for it. The boys worked out a strategy for payment and a noticeable reduction in hostility was observed during supper the same evening.

The first main cooperative task between the Rattlers and the Eagles involved fixing of the water tank, which had been rigged by the researchers. The boys were divided up and all had a role to play to identify the cause of the camp water shortage. When the water faucet blockage had been identified, the boys were observed to be mingling with each other and no longer name calling.

The boys worked together to pull the camp bus, which was rigged by the researchers not to start.

The harmony, however, did not persist and the boys soon displayed negative out-group bias during supper the same evening., which resulted in derogatory terms being used about the other group and food being thrown.

At the end of the study, the researchers reassessed friendship choices. They found a significant increase in the number of boys whose friendships were now with the out-group compared to those choices made in stage two. In the ‘hostility’ phase, 93% had friends in their own group;however, after the co-operation phase, 30% had friends between the two groups. This shows the reduction in prejudiceConclusionSherif and colleagues concluded that strong in-group identities were formed initially, and with the introduction of competition, negative out-group bias quickly emerged. The introduction of superordinate goals had a cumulative effect in reducing negative out-group bias because it removed competition. Some hostility was observed between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other. Once competition was introduced this became more intense. This suggests that competition is a factor in leading to discrimination between groups, but that some discrimination takes place even without competition. However when groups work together on cooperative task that benefit both of them, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.

Summary of Sherif et al (1961) Robbers Cave experiment.

AimSherif aim was to investigate whether _______ groups brought into contact with each other and competition will become ______________ towards each other, and if this prejudice would be ______________ if the two groups were set a _____________________ goal that needed their ____________________ to achieve.

ProcedureSherif used an ______________________ sample, selecting an initial sample of 200 boys from schools in Oklaholma. The final participants were _________ middle class, Protestant boys aged 11 (one was 12 years old). Sherif used a _____________ experiment that had 3 stages: ________________________, ______________________ and the Integration Phase. The first stage of the procedure was in group formation. The boys were kept ______________________ from each other and each group was involved in __________________ designed to encourage bonding and in-group formation, such as ______________ and swimming. The frictional stage of the procedure happened during days _______ of the 2 weeks. Boys were brought into _________________ with each other during competitions as part of a camp tournament. The tournament included a series of ___________________ activities (e.g. baseball, tug-of-war etc.) with a ____________________ being awarded on the basis of accumulated team score. The ___________________ phrase of the procedure was during the last couple of days of camp. Also ______________ resolution was aimed through the introduction of ______________________________ deliberately designed to ensure cooperation between the groups. Three problem situations were set up that could only be resolved if both groups worked cooperatively: _____________________ the water tank which provided water to both groups. A joint camp-over where group members’ had to work together for food and sleeping gear. _____________________ the broken down camp bus that had got stuck in the mud.

Findings

Sherif found that the boys formed their own set of group ______________ and rules that formed their group identity. Calling their groups the _____________ and the ________________. The groups were made aware of the other’s existence and the formed of and a ’us’ and ___________ attitude. The two groups of boys showed hostility. The ______________ made threatening remarks about what they would do if anybody from The ______________ went close to their flag. Verbal insults were used between the 2 groups such as _________________, braggers and sissies. There was also physical _________________ between the rattlers and eagles. The hostility ________________ when the boys worked together (superordinate task) to fix the water talk and pull the bus out of the mud together. Sherif found that in the frictional stage ________% had friends in their own group. However by the end of the integration phrase 30% of the boys had friends between the two groups showing a reduction in prejudice.

ConclusionSherif concluded that strong in-group identities were formed initially, and with the introduction of ______________, negative out-group bias quickly emerged. The introduction of ________________________________ had a cumulative effect in __________________ negative out-group bias because it removed competition.

Evaluation of Sherif’s study Field experiment with high controls

Sherif ensured he had firm controls and planning at each stage. The staff were participant observers in the study so that the boys were unaware that their behaviour was being recorded as part of a psychological study, and staff were only to intervene in decision making and conflict between the groups when there was a risk to safety.

Therefore the study has high internal validity as demand characteristics were reduced, thus the boys behaviour is naturally occurring. This control was to ensure staff did not direct the behaviour of the boys. HOWEVER interviews many years later with some of the boys who had taken part in the studies indicated that the boys were aware of the audio equipment in the dining hall and the staff taking notes about their behaviour, suggesting that these boys could have been displaying demand characteristics, thus questioning the validity of the findings.

Researcher bias Unpublished research notes and interviews with the boys as adults revealed

that the researchers may not have been as independent as they were instructed to be. Many of them were reported to be actively encouraging intergroup hostility and creating opportunities for conflict (by breaking down the tents of a rival group and blaming the other group). They were also reported to encourage physical conflict by not intervening, as they should have, in skirmishes between the boys.

Therefore researchers were subjective in the way they approached situations and reported the data, reducing the validity of the findings.

No control group Sherif used a pre-experimental design; he compared the boys behaviour

before and after conditions rather than comparing the results with a control group.

Therefore this questions the internal validity of the data, as we cannot be sure the competition caused hostility as we are unaware how much hostility would have emerged between the groups when there was no competition.

FURTHERMORE, SHERIF (1970) found that the boys he studied consistently favoured in- group members over the out-group members & allocated points so there was maximum difference despite their being no direct competition between the two groups. Therefore suggesting in-group favouritism can emerge without competition, thus criticising Sherif’s findings.

What other evaluation points can you think of for Sherif’s study?

Exam CheckExplain 2 ways in which Sherif study could be improved (4)

REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY – Muzafer Sherif (1966)Sherif argued that prejudice is a consequence of intergroup conflict (conflict between groups) and this occurs when two groups are in competition for the same limited resources. Each group has its own interests and goals that it is trying to achieve. Sometimes two groups compete for the same goal, which creates realistic conflict. This results in in group favouritism and solidarity and a marked hostility towards members’ of the out-group. Thus, the competition results in each group tending to become prejudiced against members’ of the other group. However, two groups will sometimes have the same interests and be pursuing the same goal, Sherif terms this superordinate goals. A superordinate goal is a goal that neither group can achieve separately, but can achieve together. When groups need to work together for a common aim, there is a reduction in hostility and friendly relationships between members’ of the two groups. Sherif believed that intergroup hostility and prejudice can only be reduced by superordinate goals, where all members of each group need to cooperate in order to achieve the intended outcome. There seems to be prejudice when a country is under threat from other countries, or at times of great change. Realistic conflict theory suggests that when groups are in conflict, they become prejudice towards one another. This conflict is real, and groups change in the face of this conflict. They start thinking of other outside the group as the outgroup, and of themselves as the in-group. They stereotype the outgroup and behave towards them in ways that heir individual moral codes would not allow.

Evaluation of Realistic Conflict Theory Supported by Sherif’s Robbers Cave study

Positive contribution to society

Aronson et al (1978) Introduced cooperation in classrooms where competition was common. Using the jigsaw technique, students were divided into small groups that had to succeed in one group task to ensure the success of the overall class project. Aronson et al found that levels of competition decreased. Therefore this supports the idea the removal of competition and the introduction of superordinate goals decreases prejudice and increases liking between individuals.

Tyerman and Spencer (1983)

Observed scouts who already knew each other well as they competed in groups against each other in their annual camp competition. This competition did not produce hostility or prejudice.Therefore suggesting that competition only has a dramatic effect on behaviour when the groups do not know each other, an area not explored by Sherif, therefore questioning the validity of his theory

The theory is too simplisticStruch and Schwartz (1989) studied levels of intergroup hostility and prejudice among various religious groups in Israel. Perceived conflicts of interests among these religious groups led to significantly more prejudice and aggression in those individuals who identified strongly with their religious in-group than was the case in those individuals who identified less strongly. Therefore realistic conflict may need to be combined with strong in-group identification to produce powerful negative attitudes and behaviour towards an outgroup, a variable not considered in the theory.

A weakness of realistic conflict theory is that there are other theories that can explain prejudice behaviour. When there are other theories this makes theories less powerful as an explanation of behaviour. You can use social identity theory to criticise it.

EXAM CHECK

Ethnic cleansing is a term used to describe the removal of one ethnic group, usually by force, from a particular area by another ethnic group. Imagine a country where two groups of people have lived together peacefully for many years but are now in conflict, with one group wanting to remove the other group.

Using the realisitic conflict theory, explain why conflict has developed between the two groups of people (4)

Compare Sherif’s Social Identity theory with Sherif’s Realistic Conflict theory. Comparisons include similarities and differences

SIT RCT

Factors affects prejudice

Individual differences (non-social explanations)Personality

Adorno et al (1950) argued that whether a person is prejudice or not is dependent on the innate (genetic) aspect of personality. Specifically he argued that if an individual has an authoritarian personality they have specific characteristics that means they are more likely to be hostile people to people of different races, social groups, age, sexuality or other minority groups.

The authoritarian personality is some who is hostile toward people they see as inferior to themselves, particularly minority groups or people described as out-groups. They are hostile, rigid in thinking and intolerant to change. They are likely to be conventional in their attitudes and conform to wider social group norms. On the other hand, they are submissive to authority and obedient to those in positions of power. Often having experienced strict and unaffectionate parenting, they frequently project their anger and aggression onto others. This represents their upbringing because they had to be respectful to their parents, while learning from them that they would be cruel to those who are weak.

How is Authoritarian personality measured?

Initially they interviewed two American college students (Mack and Larry) about their political beliefs, how they were raised and attitudes to minorities. This helped them design a series of questionnaires (scales) that would measure the authoritarian personality; in particular levels of anti-Semitism (prejudice/discrimination against Jews, ethnocentrism (favouritism/bias to one group) and conservatism. Combined, these scales formed a personality questionnaire. In addition to the questionnaires Adorno et al reported 80 interviews (40 males & 40 females) covering information about background, beliefs, feelings towards others, and religious and political ideology. This information, the questionnaire data, clinical interviews with Mack & Larry, and Thematic Apperception Tests were amassed to produce their theory of prejudice.

The most famous is the F Scale (Fascism scale) to measure anti-democratic beliefs. This takes the form of statements assessed by a Likert scale in which respondents indicate the extent to which they agree or disagree with each statement. The F scale measure characteristics such as conventionality, submission to those in authority, aggression to those in authority, toughness, destructiveness and superstition. The scale was successful in identifying people who were likely to be prejudiced, since prejudiced people would be likely to agree with all statements of these scales. People who score highly on the F scale has often experienced a harsh upbringing, where they were punished for any misdemeanour and seldom shown affection.

However, Doty et al(1991) argues that Adorno’s research gave labels of authoritarian personality in the USA because of the high levels of international threat on the country at the time. This was tested out. From 1978 to 1982 there was said to be a high level of threat to the USA from other countries, and from 1983 to 1987 there was said to be a low level threat. Authoritarianism did seem to vary, with less when there was a lower threat. Suggesting personality is not innate, but based on events in the country at the time. The theory suggests that certain personality traits that cause prejudice are innate (genetic). A biological basis for prejudice would assume that it is fixed and not changeable, yet through history we see changes to attitudes towards minorities> For example the change in attitudes towards homosexuals and gay marriage. Such social change cannot be explained by genetics. Furthermore the theory cannot explain mass prejudice. While the authoritarian personality seems credible, and certainly explains individual

85

differences such as bullies at school or individuals with extreme political ideas, it is unlikely to be a valid explanation for wide-scale prejudice such as that experienced by the Jews during the holocaust. This would suggest that all Nazi’s would have had an authoritarian personality, which is unlikely.

Culture

Culture can have an influence on prejudice if that culture has existing social norms that legitimise prejudiced practice, has strict religious regimes or laws that endorse prejudice towards targets, or events occur that trigger prejudice towards another group. However, as social norms, laws and events are not static, but are ever changing, it is difficult to establish whether one culture is particularly more prejudice than another culture. Nevertheless the current prejudices held by one culture or society can be explored by investigating national stereotypes.

Katz and Braly (1933) conducted a questionnaire on students attending Princeton University to investigate the national stereotypes of Americans about other cultures. Giving the students a list of different ethnic groups (Irish, Jewish etc), they had to pick 5-6 traits from a list of 84 personality traits (superstitious, lazy, ignorant etc) that they thought represented each ethnic group. They found that the majority of American students classified African Americans as superstitious and ignorant and Jews as shrewd. However, they may have responded in a socially desirable way at the time, and there was no verification that these were actually their personal beliefs. Twenty years later, Karlins et al (1969) replicated the research and found that while some national stereotypes had changed, others persisted. This suggests that culture does affect prejudice, but as cultures change, so do the prejudices they hold.

Cultures can generally be classified as individualistic or collectivist based on how the culture views members of it’s own group.

Individualistic cultures are those that stress the needs of the individual over the needs of the group as a whole.

Collectivistic cultures emphasize family and work group goals above individual needs or desires.

In cultural comparison of Saudi (collectivist) and American (individualistic) people, Al-Zahrani and Kaplowitz (1993) found Saudis to self-report more in-group favouritism and negative out-group bias. Whereas Kleugel (1990) found that collectivism is associated with greater tolerance and lower racism. Therefore comparisons between cultures do not support the idea that one type of culture is more prejudiced than another. However, it should be noted that cross-cultural comparisons or prejudice are extremely hard to measure.

86

EXAM CHECK

Assess whether personality is viable explanation of prejudice (8)

87

Sampling

In order to conduct any research we need some people (or animals) to study. The participants which are to be used are called a sample. To obtain a sample researchers must first identify the target population. This is the whole group with which the study is concerned, for example, a study on "the attitudes of college students towards smoking" would have a target population of "all college students". Therefore a sample is smaller group selected from your target population.

The aim is to try and obtain a representative sample and to try to avoid using a biased sample; biased means 'not representative'. For a sample to be representative it needs to be a true reflection of your target population. For example if your target population is 100 psychology students. Consisting of 60 girls and 40 boys, for your sample to be representative your sample needs to consist of 60% girls and 40% boys. (However, as you go through your psychology course, you will not find it difficult to provide examples of very biased samples of participants being used).

How many participants should be used? This depends on several factors. The size of the target population is important. If the target population is very large (for example. all 4-6 year olds in Britain) then you need a fairly large sample in order to be representative. If the target population is much smaller, then the sample can be smaller but still be representative. The rule is: there must be enough participants to make the sample representative of the target population but the sample must not be so large that the study takes too long or is too expensive.

EXERCISE

1. What is the target population in the following studies?

a. A study of attitudes of Tory voters to NHS reforms.

.....................................................................................................................

b. An experiment to investigate the effects of separation in infant monkeys.

.....................................................................................................................

d. A study of prejudice among South African whites.

.....................................................................................................................

e. Research into the use of specially adapted cookers by blind people.

88

.....................................................................................................................

2. Define the term random sample.

3. Why aren't self-selected populations ever representative?

4. Outline the main factors governing the size of the sample psychologists use.

5. Many publications, such as Woman's Own, Psychology Today, Playboy and Cosmopolitan have done surveys on the sexual habits of their readers. Readers are invited to send in a completed questionnaire (anonymously) to the magazine. Think of at least four ways in which the sample so obtained would be biased and the results therefore not able to be generalised to the population at large.

6. An occupational psychologist wishes to find out how the employees in a firm feel about new proposals for important reorganisation with the firm. This firm consists of five departments:

a. The shopfloor workers: 60% of the workforceb. The supervisors: 10% of the workforcec. The office staff: 20% of the workforced. The buyers: 5% of the workforcee. The management: 5% of the workforce

The total number of employees is approximately 1,000. The psychologist decides to use a sample of 50.

i. How would she select a random sample from the workforce?

ii. How would she select a stratified sample?

89

iii. Which method of sampling would be better and why?

90

91

Low bias in the way participants are chosen as the researcher has no choice over who is chosen, everyone in your target population has an equal chance of being chosen. Therefore the sample is likely to be representative of the target population

Cannot be certain the sample is representative. It is difficult to ensure everyone in the target population is included in the sample, which can cause bias.

Example -

It is ethical and good if the target population is hard to locate as the participants comes to the researcher rather than the researcher seeking them out.

Can end up with a bias sample. You can get a certain type of person who volunteers to participate in research, for example in Milgrams study participants responded to a newspaper article, thus they all read the same newspaper. Normally they are more motivated to do well therefore your sample can be bias and unrepresentative of your target population.

Example -

Allows large numbers of participants to be recruited quickly and easily, therefore access to participants is not a problem

Biased sample can be generated as is only drawn from a small part of target population, of people around when the sample was being drawn, therefore the sample is unrepresentative of the target population.

Example -

Likely to be representative of the target population as all relevant groups within your target population will have been represented in the sample so conclusions about differences between those groups can be drawn.

Time consuming and expensive – relies on the researcher knowing all the required groups needed to be represented which can take a lot of time to work out and then obtain within a sample.

Example -

Avoid a bias sample, as the researcher has no choice over who is chosen, and the sample is spread evenly across the population

Sample may be unrepresentative if the systematic basis does not allow for subgroups within the population to be captured (e.g. if every 10th person is always sitting at the front of the class). Therefore it is not representative of the target population.

Example -

Sampling Methods

METHODS IN THE SOCIAL APPROACH

Data

Types of data

Define Quantitative data

Easy to analyse. Averages, percentages and other statistics can be calculated, ensuring you can draw comparisons between groups. The data can be represented in graphs and tables, which mean the research results, can be more easily and efficiently communicated with others. Therefore increasing the usefulness of the data

Produces numerical data. Gives statistical data which can be further analysed to see how far results are due to chance. Therefore this increases the validity of the data and hypothesis can be accepted or rejected.

Objectively analysed. As numerical data is produced there will be no researcher bias as the data can only be interpreted one way. Therefore increasing the validity of the data.

Uses operationalised variables. All variables are clearly defined to make it clear what is being researcher. Therefore making it easier to repeat the study and check for reliability

Quick method to conducted and analyse. Compared to qualitative data quantitative data is quick to collect, as usually closed question questionnaires will be used, and data analysis is quick as it involves numbers. Therefore making quantitative methods more practical.

Lacks validity. Produces narrow information which only focuses on small fragments of behaviour. Participants have specific responses to choose from so this reduces thoughts and feelings to numbers which gives a very superficial view of the behaviour being researched. Therefore quantitative data only say how many and not why there are these thoughts.

Analysing Quantitative dataResearch that gathers quantitative data produces numerical data in the form of raw scores. These raw scores are then analysed to highlight similarities or differences between groups.

In Psychology we use descriptive statistics: measures of central tendency (mean, median and mode) measures of dispersion (range and standard deviation). You have covered

these is cognitive psychology.

Also inferential statistics are used. Instead of describing the data, inferential statistics analyse the data to determine if the results can support the hypothesis, so were due to the manipulation of the variables by the researcher, or if they were due to chance. The inferential statitifcs we look at are:

Mann Whitney U Wilcoxon

92

Spearman Rho Chi Sqaured

Define Qualitative data

Descriptive data. This is rich, in depth and detailed information on a subject that allows the participant to express their views on the subject. Descriptive data allows In-depth analysis leading to more meaningful conclusions about the participants view. Therefore this data is high in validity.

Ecologically Valid. Qualitative data is conducted in more natural circumstances compared to quantitative data and tends to produce more realistic data as the participant can explain on their answers. Therefore producing realistic views of the participant and can be generalised to everyday life.

Can be converted into quantitative data. This allows qualitative data to produce data than can be easily represented in tables and graphs, and be statically analysed to see if the data is significant. Therefore flexible data is produced. Time consuming. As qualitative data uses open questions, data analysis time consuming, as through answers need to be read and then themes found. Therefore the method can be seen as impractical.

Difficult to draw comparisons – data may not be easy to analyse; answers may be so different that they are hard to categorise, making findings long and had to summarise and difficult to arrive at a reliable conclusion. The analyse may be subjective and open to misinterpretation, therefore reducing the validity of the data.

Researcher bias. As the researcher is analysing descriptive data they could be subjective in the way they interpret it and analyse in a way to support their hypothesis. Therefore reducing the validity of the data.

Analysing Qualitative data.

Thematic analysis is used to analyse qualitative data. The detailed data is reviewed and common themes, patterns and trends are looked for. This can be done either inductively of deductively.

Inductively thematic analysis would involve the researchers reading and rereading the data and themes would emerge from the data without the researcher imposing any of their own ideas or expectations from it.

Deductive thematic analysis would involve the researcher specifying the themes that they will look for before analysing the data.

Are the following statements more applicable to qualitative or quantitative research methodology

93

1. The aim is a complete and detailed description. 2. The researcher uses a pre-designed questionnaire to obtain numerical data 3. The researcher wishes to test a hypothesis 4. The research design emerges as the study progresses 5. The data consists of video clips 6. The researcher attempts to maintain an objective view of the subject

EXAM CHECK

Explain why it might be preferable to use a research method that produces qualitative rather than quantitative data (4 marks)

Explain why in psychology using a research method that produces quantitative rather than qualitative data might be preferable (4 marks)

94

SurveysWhat is a survey?A Survey is a means of collecting self-report data from a specific population. A survey gathers information by asking questions to a large number of people, using written questionnaires and/or through face to face interviews to investigate their views on a particular issue. There are two types of questions that can be used: open and closed questions. There are generally two types of interviews using structured or unstructured set of questions. Generally, a relatively small amount of information is collected from a large number of people.

BiasWhen conducting surveys bias can influence the way the questions are answered or the ways the research is analysed.

The ParticipantsParticipants can lie in surveys, and therefore influence the validity of the findings.

Social Desirability – Respondents might say what they think they should say based on how acceptable it is seen in society. Thus it is the tendency of respondents to reply in a manner that will be viewed favourably by others. This will generally take the form of over reporting good behaviour or underreporting bad behaviour.

Demand Characteristics - Respondents may want to help the researcher, so they give the answers they think are wanted – or they might not want to help and give different answers.

The ResearcherResearchers can influence participants answers, or can be subjective in the way they interpret data, therefore influencing the validity of the data.

Question construction – researchers can be biased when constructing the questions for a survey. They may ask leading questions where researchers ask or write questions that suggest appropriate answers. Also researchers could use Loaded words/ phrases. This is where researchers use particular forms of language that either indicate a viewpoint or will generate a particular positive or negative response. For example – ‘termination of pregnancy’ or ‘abortion’, ‘gay’ or ‘homosexual’. Both of these can lead to bias findings and decrease the validity of the data, as the participant is giving a response that is led by the researcher.

Researcher bias – researchers may influence the answers to questions – this could be in the way they ask they questions (leading), or they way they act towards the respondents. Just the presence of the researcher when questions are being answered can influence the respondents answer – for instance interviewees might give different responses to male and female interviewers.

95

Subjectivity – researchers can cause bias by interpreting results using their own views and judgement (Objectivity – there is no bias affecting the results, so findings are analysed without researchers opinions)

QuestionnairesWhat is a questionnaire?

Questionnaires involve open questions and closed questions.

Open questions are those where there are no alternatives provided and the respondent an answer the question anyway they choose.

Give 2 examples of open questions on a questionnaire investigating obedience.

What type of data does open questions yield and why?

Evaluation of open questions Qualitative data. Descriptive data is produced. This is rich, in depth and detailed information on a subject that allows the participant to express their views

96

on the subject. Descriptive data allows In-depth analysis leading to more meaningful conclusions about the participants view. Therefore this data is high in validity.

Difficult to analyse. As the researcher is analysing descriptive data they could be subjective in the way they interpret it and analyse in a way to support their hypothesis. Therefore leading to researcher bias and reducing the validity of the data.

Low response rate. As open questions require participants to expand on their answers this can put participants off and questions not to be answered. Therefore reducing the sample, making it unrepresentative.

Closed questions are those which have a fixed answers from which the respondent chooses, therefore limiting the responses that can be made.

A type of a closed question is a Likert scale. A likert scale includes more than just a yes/no response but is an attitudinal scale, in which participants rate their attitude on either a 5 point, or 7 point scale. They rate the extent to which they agree or disagree with a statement, thus indicating the strength of their attitude.

Give 2 examples of closed questions on a questionnaire investigating prejudice. One of these must be a likert scale.

What type of data does open questions yield and why?

Evaluation of closed questions Standardised questions and answers. As the questions and the answers for the questions are fixed this means every participants receives the same questions, in the same order and the same responses. Therefore this makes it easy to replicate to establish reliability.

97

Quantitative data. Produces narrow information which only focuses on small fragments of behaviour. Participants have specific responses to choose from so this reduces thoughts and feelings to numbers which gives a very superficial view of the behaviour being researched. Therefore quantitative data only say how many and not why there are these thoughts, thus lacks validity.

Choice of answers could mean different things to different respondents. If given options to choose from such as little, often, sometime. All these could mean different time frames for different participants. Also there may not be a response for participants to choose from that participants don’t agree with, so will select an answer that does not reflect their view. Therefore reducing the validity of the data.

Pilot studies

A pilot study is an initial run-through of the procedures to be used in an investigation; it involves selecting a few people and trying out the study on them. It is possible to save time, and in some cases, money, by identifying any flaws in the procedures designed by the researcher.

When using a questionnaire a pilot study should be conducted before the main scale study. This will ensure the following can be checked.

• The sample and access• The method of distribution• The wording of the questions• The layout of the questionnaire• The language used• The extent to which data obtained is what is required

Pilot study saves time and money by sorting out problems before the main survey is conducted and can sometimes even help refine the research objectives.

General evaluation of questionnairesReliability

Internal reliability this refers to the consistency of the measure itself. Often several different questions are used to test the same trait or attitude. A split half method can be used to establish if this is correct – this involves splitting the questions into two halves and comparing the findings from both halves during analysis. If all the questions are measuring the same concept, both halves should achive the same score. If they don’t this suggests the questions are measuring different concepts.

External reliability refers to the consistency of the measure. To test the test-retest method is used. This is where the same people will be given the same

98

questionnaire to complete on a different occasion. If their answers are the same or very similar, than external reliability is established.

Large sample sizes. As they are self-completed, the researcher can print large numbers of the questionnaire and dispute to a large sample. Therefore making it easy to replicate to establish similar findings. Generally the larger the sample size, the more reliable the study, as you have replicated it many times.

Standardised – The questionnaire uses a standardised questions, that I all participants are given the same questions, in the same format, in the same order. Therefore meaning the questionnaire easy to replicate to establish similar findings. They can have large sample size and use set questions and set procedures, therefore are fairly cheap and easy to replicate.

Validity

Face validity is looking at each question and deciding whether it makes sense in terms of what you are wanting to measure.

Predictive validity is whether you are able to correctly predict the same construct in the future

Concurrent validity is a way of establishing validity that compare evidence from several studies testing the same thing to see if they agree.

Can be seen as valid. There is little variation in how people are asked for the information (because there is bias set questions and set procedures), so the answers should not be affected by anything other than the opinions of the respondent. For example a questionnaire can be carried out by post, which removes any potential bias from the researcher.

Biased sample . Essentially questionnaires use a volunteer sample. People who return questionnaires may be only those who have time to do so, or have a certain personality that is more motivated. Therefore this leads to a biased sample, which is not representative of the general population.

InterviewsWhat is an interview?

Types of interviews1. Structured interview

2. Unstructured interview

99

3. Semi-Structured interview

Evaluation of interviews

Questions can be explained and explored

Valid

Researchers bias

Subjectivity when interpreting data

100

Strengths and Weaknesses of surveys in generalYou can use the evaluation points for both questionnaires, interviews and types of data to evaluate surveys overall – just remember to specific what type of questionnaire of interview you are referring to in your evaluation point.

Comparing questionnaires and interviews

Closed Question Questionnaires Unstructured interviewsReliability

Validity

Subjectivity

Your PracticalPlanning and designing a survey

Issues concerned with designing surveysThere are three main issues to deal with when carrying out a survey:

1. Wording of the questionsNeed to word them in such a way that the participants can understand what you mean. The response to the question can only be treated as valid if the participant and the researcher have a shared understanding of it. You can check this using a pilot study.

2. Choosing you sample You need to think about size and representativeness. With a questionnaire the response rate is typically low, so to get a decent sized sample many questionnaires will need to be sent out. With an interview you still need to consider representativeness – you may select an unusual person to participate and then have a problem generalising your findings beyond a sample.

3. How are you going to ask the questionsAre you going to use open or closed questions? Use a written format or face to face interviews? Constructing a questionnaire

Decide on closed questions, open questions or a mixture of both. Open-ended questions do not allow comparisons between people or statistical analysis. You

101

would not, for example, be able to say that 30% of people believe it is wrong to smack children. Open-ended questions do, however, give more information.

Avoid leading questions. A question like ‘Do you agree that students grants should be increased?’ tends to imply that the person should agree with it.

Do not ask too many questions. Make sure questions are straightforward. For example, a question such as

‘Do you disagree with the idea that we should no longer have recycling units in public car parks?’ is confusing as it contains a double negative.

Make sure the questions are not be too difficult to answer. For example, a question like ‘How many times have you been to the doctor in the last year?’ is very difficult to answer.

Do not invade people’s privacy unnecessarily. Do not ask questions that can cause embarrassment or annoyance. If it is essential that personal questions are asked the individual should be warned in advance (before the questionnaire is started), given the opportunity to withdraw then or reassured that it is alright not to answer any questions they do not wish to.

PRACTICAL – Research into prejudice attitudes

Abstract

102

AimTo investigate in-group favouritism by looking at ageism to see if young people have different attitudes towards different age groups. To compare young people’s positive and negative attitudes towards those in the same age group as themselves to people in an older age groups to themselves.

Variables

Independent Variable Operationalised

Dependent Variable Operationalised

Hypothesis

Alternative Hypothesis

Is this directional (one-tailed) or non-directional (two-tailed)? Why have you chosen this?Null Hypothesis

Method/Design/Participants

Age groups Justification

103

Target Population

Sampling Method

Sample Size (divide into how many in each group)

Questionnaire

How many questions

How many open-ended questions

How many closed questions

Standardised Instructions (this should include ethical considerations)

104

Debrief

Write your questionnaire on a separate sheet of paper.

Pilot of your questionnaire – did you make any changes? Why?

METHOD• We used an opportunity sample of

• Three of us worked together

• Each person collected results from 10 people • We briefed the participants, with standardised instructions at the top of the

questionnaire to complete the questionnaire, we then gave the participants time to answer the questionnaire

105

• After completing the questionnaire participants were debriefed

Findings

Summarise your quantitative data (fill in gaps, dlete where appropriate & expand when needed)

Found that young people had a mean attitude of ______ towards young people compared to a mean attitude of _________ towards old people. The higher the mean the more positive the attitude, therefore suggesting young people have a more positive attitude towards…….

The mean attitude shown towards young people had a standard deviation of____ . This is high/low meaning the data is widely spread out/not widely spread out around the mean. This suggests there was more variation/not a lot of variation in the attitude shown among participants.

The mean attitude shown towards young people had a standard deviation of____ . This is high/low meaning the data is widely spread out/not widely spread out around the mean. This suggests there was more variation/not a lot of variation in the attitude shown among participants.

Therefore my quantitative data supports/oppose hypothesis…..

Draw a bar graph of your means

106

Comment on your graph

Summarise your qualitative data (outline the overall themes that emerged. Give quotes to support your themes)

107

Therefore my qualitative data supports/oppose my hypothesis…

Conclusions

Do your findings allow you to reject your null hypothesis? Why/why not?

Link your findings to the theories of prejudice. Do you support or oppose the theory? How/Why?

DiscussionDid you encounter any problems with your research?

108

How could you overcome this in the future?

Evaluate your questionnaire

Generalisability

Reliability

109

Validity

Ethics

Subjectivity

WORKING OUT YOUR DATA

Quantitative Data

Record the quantitative data carefully by completing the data collection table below.

Participan In-group Out-group

110

t raw score raw score12345678910

Total

Measures of Central Tendency

Attitude of young to young

(in-group)

Attitude of young to old(out-group)

Mean

Median

Mode

Measures of Dispersion

RANGE

111

Space, to do your working out to calculate the standard deviation Participants:Participant In group raw data x - x (x – x)2 Out group x – x (x – x)2

112

raw data1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

x = ∑ =

Where means 'sum of'

is the 'mean'

is the number of data in the sample

In-group standard deviation Out-group standard deviation

Qualitative dataLook for themes in the written responses

Age Group Main Themes

113

Younger group (in-group)

Older Group (out-group)

EXAM CHECK

114

Possible questions you can get on your practical

As part of your psychology course requirements for social psychology you will have conducted a questionnaire.

1. Outline the aim/purpose of you the survey (interview/questionnaire) (2)

2. Outline the alternative hypothesis of your questionnaire and state whether it is directional (one tailed) or non-directional (two tailed) (3)

3. Explain the method of your practical research. Include how you constructed your questionnaire and how you conducted the research (8)

115

4. Outline how you analysed your data from your questionnaire. You must distinguish between the quantitative and qualitative data. (5)

5. Outline the findings of your questionnaire. You must include both your quantitative and qualitative data (4)

116

6. Outline the conclusion you made from your questionnaire study (3)

7. Outline one problem you came across when planning and or/carrying questionnaire(2)

8. Explain how you might have addressed (or did address) this problem when planning and/or carrying out the questionnaire (2)

117

9. Evaluate your questionnaire (8) (This is known as a discussion section)

118

Possible Exam Questions

ASSUMPTIONS

Define the social approach; you must refer to two of its main assumptions (6)

Courtney is from Britain and has recently befriended a new girl, Amara, at school who has emigrated from Africa. They have very quickly become best friends, despite Courtney thinking that some of Amara’s behaviours are ‘strange’. Courtney has been invited to Amaras house for dinner and is a little worried that she might not fit in with her family, but is glad that Amara is going to be there as they get on so well.

Using 2 assumptions from the social approach, and examples to illustrate, explain how both girls behaviour could be influenced by the circumstances. (4)

OBEDIENCEMilgram

Give one aim of Milgram’s (1963) study (1) Give both aims of Milgram’s (1963) study (2) Describe the procedure of Milgram’s (1963) original study of obedience, from the point

where lots were drawn to decide who would be the teacher and who would be the learner (4)

Give the findings of Milgram’s (1963) study (1) Give the conclusion of Milgram’s (1963) study (1) Describe the role of the experimenter in Milgram’s (1963) original study (3)

Explain two features of Milgram’s (1963) study that might explain why the participants obeyed (4)

Milgram’s (1963) study is widely seen as unethical. However, there are many ways in which it is ethical. Explain how Milgram’s (1963) study can be seen as ethical (4)

Explain two ethical issues with Milgram’s (1963) original study (4) Explain how the findings from Milgram’s (1963) original study of obedience might be applied

to real life (2) Explain one methodological weakness of Milgram’s original study of obedience. Do not use

an ethical issue in your answer (2) Milgram controlled situational variables in his 1963 study of obedience. Explain why this is a

strength of Milgram’s original study (2) (2014) Explain two strength of the methodology used in Milgram’s (1963) study (4) Analyse the validity of Milgram’s (1963) sample (3) Evaluate Milgram’s (1963) original study of obedience (8) Assess whether Milgram’s (1963) study breached ethical guidelines (8) Assess whether Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience was valid (8)

Milgram Variations

Experiment 7 – telephonic instructions

119

Milgram conducted many variations of his original 1963 study of obedience. One of the variations was experiment 7 – telephonic instructions.

Give one aim of Milgram’s Experiment 7 variation (1) Describe the procedure of Milgram’s Experiment 7 variation study of obedience, from the

point where lots were drawn to decide who would be the teacher and who would be the learner (4)

Give the findings of Milgram’s Experiment 7 variation (1) Give the conclusion of Milgram’s Experiment 7 variation (1) State two ways in which this variation differed from Milgram’s original study (2) Explain why the findings in experiment 7 were different to the original study. (2) Explain the usefulness of the findings of Experiment 13 to today’s society (3) Explain whether experiment 7 was valid (2) Explain whether experiment 7 was reliable (2) Explain a methodological strength and weakness of experiment 7 (4) Evaluate Milgram’s Experiment 7 variation (8)

Experiment 10 – rundown office block

Milgram conducted many variations of his original 1963 study of obedience. One of the variations was experiment 10 – rundown office block.




Experiment 13 – ordinary man gives orders

Milgram conducted many variations of his original 1963 study of obedience. One of the variations was experiment 13 – an ordinary man gave the orders.




120

Burger Give one aim of a contemporary study you have learned in the social approach (1) Describe the procedure of contemporary study you have learned in the social approach (4) Give the findings of contemporary study you have learned in the social approach (2) Give the conclusion of contemporary study you have learned in the social approach (1) Explain a methodological strength of a contemporary study you have learned in the social

approach (2) Explain a methodological weakness of a contemporary study you have learned in the social

approach (2) Explain whether a contemporary study you have learned in the social approach is ethical (4) Assess whether a contemporary study you have learned in the social approach breached

ethical guidelines (8) Evaluate one contemporary study you have learned in the social approach that has been

used to explain human behaviour (8)

Agency Theory

Describe the agency theory of obedience (4) State what is meant by the agentic state (2) State what is meant by the autonomous state (2) State what is meant by the moral strain state (2) ‘’They were upset by what they were doing and knew it was wrong’’. Milgram’s participants

were upset by continuing to do something they were disagreed with. Describe the feature of agency theory that the quote refers to (3)

Explain the difference between the agentic state and the autonomous state in Milgram’s Agency theory of obedience (3)

Explain how the agency theory can be applied to everyday life (3) Evaluate Milgram’s Agency Theory (8) Explain how Milgram’s research studies findings can be used to support the agency theory

(4) Explain Milgram’s findings using the agency theory (3)

Tom is busy with his schoolwork and revision. He is told by his teacher, Mrs Smith, to make sure he turns up to lessons early so that he can run errands for her. Mrs Smith orders Tom to do her photocopying and help prepare the classroom for her lessons.

Using agency theory, explain why Tom might have obeyed Mrs Smith’s orders even though he was busy (4)

There has been a long running conflict between the two neighbouring countries of Ranzea and Gofani. The president of Ranzea has ordered the invasion of Gofani to take control of the country. There have been reports of soldiers from Ranzea carrying out atrocities in Gofani villages; however some soldiers have been vocal to other soldiers about their unease of carrying out these atrocities.

Using agency theory, explain why the Ranzea soldiers might have obeyed the Ranzea presidents order even when they uneasy about it (4)

During Nazi Germany millions of Jews were hunted, tortured and killed by Nazi soldiers. This behaviour of persecuting certain groups in society is not isolated to Nazi Germany, but is seen in many different wars across history.

121

Discuss how agency theory explains why people are obedient in a war setting. You must make reference to the context in your answer (8)

Social Impact Theory

Describe the social impact theory of obedience (4) Explain what is meant by the psychosocial law as outlined in the realistic conflict theory (2) Explain 2 strengths of the social impact theory of obedience (4) Explain 2 weaknesses of the social impact theory of obedience (4) Explain Milgram’s findings using the social impact theory (3) Evaluate the social impact theory of obedience. Use research in your answer (8)

There has been a long running conflict between the two neighbouring countries of Ranzea and Gofani. The president of Ranzea has ordered the invasion of Gofani to take control of the country. There have been reports of soldiers from Ranzea carrying out atrocities in Gofani villages; however some soldiers have been vocal to other soldiers about their unease of carrying out these atrocities.

Using social impact theory, explain why the Ranzea soldiers might have obeyed the Ranzea presidents order even when they uneasy about it (4)

During Nazi Germany millions of Jews were hunted, tortured and killed by Nazi soldiers. This behaviour of persecuting certain groups in society is not isolated to Nazi Germany, but is seen in many different wars across history.

Discuss how the social impact theory explains why people are obedient in a war setting. You must make reference to the context in your answer (8)

Obedience – Individual differences/Situational factors

Explain features of a situation that could influence obedience levels. (4) Explain individual differences that could influence obedience levels (4) Assess whether individual differences is a viable explanation for obedient behaviour (8)

Emma was driving to work and stopped at a set of traffic lights. A polite officer opened her car door and demanded that she get out so it that he could use her car.

a) From your understanding of the psychology of obedience, identify two features of this situation that could lead to Emma being obedient. (2)

b) Emma refused to get out of her car and did not obey the police officer’s demands. Explain one factor, using psychology of obedience that might account for Emma’s behaviour. (2)

Jonny walked into work, where his boss demanded that he take off his tie and give it to one of his colleagues to wear.

a) From your understanding of the Psychology of obedience, identify 2 features of this situation that could lead Jonny to being obedient (4)

b) Jonny refused to take off his tie and did not obey his boss. Explain one factor, using Psychology of obedience that might account for Jonny’s behaviour (3)

General Obedience Explain the usefulness of obedience research to today’s society (3)

122

PREJUDICE

Explain the difference between prejudice and discrimination (3)

Social Identity Theory

Describe social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice (4) Social Identity Theory includes the concept of social comparison. What is meant by social

comparison (2) Explain one strength of the social identity theory (2) Explain one weakness of the social identity theory (2) Evaluate the social identity theory as an explanation of prejudice. You must use research in

your answer (8) Young people are getting bad press coverage for hanging around towns in groups and

wearing hoodies.

Using the social identity theory explain why teenagers might be getting negative media coverage (3)

After the release of a popular vampire film some teenagers have split into two groups. One group loves vampires (‘The Vamps’) whilst the other group loves werewolves (‘The Howlers’). This situation is causing tension and college staff are concerned about the amount of name-calling and hostility between the groups.

Discuss how social identity theory explains the prejudice between the vamps and the howlers (8)

Cady has become friends with a group of girls at school known as ‘the plastics’. Since being friends with them Cady has become mean to anyone who is not a member of the plastics. This includes excluding previous friends from her birthday party, and calling other names.

a) Using the social identity theory, explain why Cady has become mean to others (4) b) Explain one way in which the teachers could reduce this conflict between Cady and others (2)

Realistic Conflict Theory Describe realistic conflict theory as an explanation of prejudice (4) Explain one strength of the realistic conflict theory (2) Explain one weakness of the realistic conflict theory (2) Evaluate the realistic conflict theory as an explanation of prejudice. You must use research

in your answer (8)

There are concerns about possible violence at the football world cup. The final match is between Italy and Brazil. Dr Nelson, a psychologist, has been brought in to try and help the police understand what causes prejudice.

a) Using the realistic conflict theory, explain why violence may occur at the football world cup (4)

b) Using the realistic conflict theory, explain what advice Dr Nelson could give to help the police reduce the violence (3)

Sherif (1954/1961)123

Sherif et al (1954/1961) conducted research called The Robbers Cave Experiment. Give one aim of Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (1) Describe the procedure of Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (4) State two ways in which conflict was created between the groups of boys in the experiment

(2) Explain two ways in which the conflict was reduced between the groups of boys in the

experiment (3) Give the findings of Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (2) Give the conclusion of Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (1) Explain a methodological strength of Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (2) Explain a methodological weakness of Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (2) Explain whether Sherif et al (1954/1961)study is ethical (4) Explain one way in which Sherif’s findings can be used to reduce prejudice within society (2) Assess whether Sherif et al (1954/1961)study breached ethical guidelines (8) Evaluate Sherif et al (1954/1961)study (8)

Prejudice/Discrimination Identify whether the following is prejudice or discrimination (4)

o Jane believes all meat eaters are evil and don’t care about the environmento Billy is refused entry to the restaurant for wearing tracksuit bottomso Cain thinks that all American’s are uneducated and stupido Dot was not allowed to join a book club as she was told she was too youngo Mavis is rejected from an online community because of her taste in music

KEY QUESTION You have studies a key question in the social approacha) Describe your key questionb) Explain your key question

Analyse your key question in the social approach (8)

COMPARISONS Compare Milgram’s agency theory with Latane & Wolf’s social impact theory (4) Compare Milgram’s (1963) study with a contemporary study you have learned (4) Compare Tajfel’s social identity theory with Sherif’s realistic conflict theory (4)

12 MARK QUESTIONS - COMPARISONS

The laboratory experiment is used as a research method in cognitive psychology and social psychology.

Evaluate the use of the laboratory experiments as used in cognitive and social psychology (12)

Evaluate the use of experiments in terms of its validity as a research method in comparison to the use of questionnaires in psychology.

Compare the classic studies of Sherif and Baddeley (12) Compare self-report studies with experiments as they are used in Psychology (12) Evaluate the issue of reductionism in relation to the use of cognitive and social

theories in explaining human behaviour. (12)

SURVEYS/DATA/RESERCH METHODS

124

A researcher would like to investigate older people’s perceptions of teenagers. She decides to use a questionnaire to find out their views. For the questionnaire, she uses a sample of participants from an adult education centre.

o Write two closed questions that could be used in the questionnaire to investigate older people’s perceptions of teenagers. (2)

o The data gathered from the researcher’s questionnaire is quantitative. Define the term ‘quantitative data’. (1)

o The researcher collected 20 responses to this questionnaire. Describe one way that you would carry out of an analysis on this data (2)

o Explain how one research method, other than using a questionnaire, could be used to study prejudice (3)

Many parents complain that their children watch too much TV. Imagine that you have been asked to carry out a survey to see whether teenagers or their parents watch more hours of TV.o Write a directional hypothesis for your survey (2)o State which participant design would be used in your survey? (1)o Explain why the participant design used in (b)(i) is appropriate for your survey (2)o With reference to your survey into television viewing hours, explain two ethical

guidelines you would need to consider (4)o Explain why a survey would be the best research method to use for this particular

investigation (4)o Imagine you want to investigate differences between the views of older and younger

people about the football World Cup. Social psychology would suggest you use a survey for this kind of investigation. Write a plan showing how you would go about carrying out your survey. In your plan you may wish to include: • sampling • procedure • types of question (5)

Psychologists used a questionnaire to investigate whether the attitudes of local people towards newcomers (non-local) were positive or negative. They found the following results:

Participant Mean number of positive attitudes (out of 10)

Mean number of negative attitudes (out of 10)

A 3 6B 5 8C 1 5D 1 4E 5 4F 5 8G 1 4H 3 8I 5 8J 6 6Mean ratings of attitudes of local people towards newcomers

3.5 6.1

Mode rating of attitudes of local

125

people towards newcomers

Write two closed questions that could be used in the questionnaire to investigate the

attitudes of local people towards newcomers (non-local) were positive or negative (2) Write an open question that could be used in the questionnaire to investigate the attitudes

of local people towards newcomers (non-local) were positive or negative (2) Complete the table above to show the modes from the data in Table 1 (2) Give one reason why the mode is not the most useful measuring of central tendency when

this analysing data. Another descriptive statistic for this data is dispersion. There are two measures of

dispersion, explain which one is best for this data. (2) Explain another research method, other than a questionnaire, that could be used to

investigate the attitudes of local people towards newcomers (non-local) were positive or negative (2)

PRACTICAL

Outline the aim of your social practical (2) Give examples of two of the questions asked in your social practical (2) Outline one problem you encountered when planning and/or carrying out the survey

(interview/questionnaire) (2) Explain one ethical decision you made (2) Explain one control you put into place apart from standardised instructions (2) Explain how you operationalised either your IV or DV (2) Outline the abstract from your biological practical (4) Outline two problems you came across in your Learning practical (4) Explain how you might have addressed (or did address) these problems when planning

and/or carrying out the practical (4) Explain strengths and weaknesses of your survey. Your evaluation must include validity,

reliability and subjectivity (5)

ETHICS

Outline 2 ethical issues that should be considered when conducting research (4) Jenny would like to conduct research into how student’s behaviours are influenced by

different peers in a class. In a laboratory setting, Jenny is going to set up a classroom setting. There will be 2 conditions; in one condition Jenny will have 2 confederates who consistently disobey orders from the teachers. In another condition Jenny will have 2 confederates who obey all orders given by the teacher. Jenny wants to see if the behaviour of these confederates increases or decreases obedience of the participants.

Explain 2 ethical guidelines Jenny will need to consider when conducting this study (4)

Evaluate whether research into obedience can be conducted without violating ethical guidelines (8)

SAMPLING

A researcher wanted to investigate whether there the number of perceived authority figures in a room would influence the levels of obedience in males. The researchers obtained their

126

participants by asking people who were in the university building at the time of conducting the research.

a) Name the sampling technique that was used for this investigation (1)

b) Explain one limitation of the sampling technique used for this investigation (2)

c) Identify another sampling method the researcher could have used and how they would obtain their participants using this method (2)

d) Justify your choice of sampling method identified in c)

127

Documents

The Social Approach€¦ · Web viewThe task was quite straightforward- the learner would be read a series of word pairs and then have to supply ... sheet asking about age ... because