psychology

social identity theory (prej)

personal identity = own unique characteristics

social identity = determined by the different groups that we belong to

self esteem is wrapped up in our social identity

there are three phases of SIT;

1. Social Categorisation

• People divide themselves and others into groups based on shared characteristics (e.g. nationality, race, age, gender, interests).

• The groups we belong to are in-groups; everyone else belongs to an out-group.

2. Social Identification

• Individuals adopt the norms, values, beliefs, attitudes and behaviours of their in-group.

• Group membership becomes part of their identity.

3. Social Comparison

• People compare their in-group favourably with out-groups to boost self-esteem (positive distinctiveness).

• Comparisons are often biased: people exaggerate their own group's strengths and minimise the strengths of out-groups.

• This can lead to prejudice, as out-groups are denigrated (put down) to enhance the status of the in-group.

• are denigrated (put down) to enhance the status of the in-group.

In-group vs Out-group Perception

• In-group members are seen as heterogeneous (unique individuals who still share group norms).

• Out-group members are seen as homogeneous (all the same).

• This out-group homogeneity bias contributes to stereotypes and over-generalisations (e.g. assuming all members of an out-group share the same characteristics).

Agency Theory (Milgram, 1974) (ob)

• Autonomous state – An individual is fully responsible for their own behaviour and the consequences of their actions.

• Agentic state – An individual sees themselves as an agent acting on behalf of an authority figure, so responsibility for their actions is transferred to that authority.

• Agentic shift – The process of moving from the autonomous state to the agentic state when a legitimate authority figure gives orders.

• Moral strain – The psychological discomfort experienced when obeying an authority conflicts with personal morals or conscience.

• Reducing moral strain – Individuals relieve this discomfort by displacing responsibility onto the authority figure (e.g. "I was just following orders.").

• Legitimacy of authority – People are more likely to obey those they perceive as having the right to exercise power due to their social role or status.

• Role of socialisation – Through primary socialisation (parents) and secondary socialisation (teachers, schools, employers), individuals learn that obedience to legitimate authority is expected and rewarded.

Key link to Milgram: Participants entered an agentic state, transferred responsibility to the experimenter, and therefore continued administering electric shocks despite experiencing moral strain.

Milgram's (1963) Obedience Study

Aim

• To investigate levels of obedience to a legitimate authority figure, even when orders conflict with conscience.

Sample

• 40 male volunteers, aged 20–50.

• Recruited via a newspaper advertisement for a memory study.

• Paid $4.50 regardless of completion.

Method

• Laboratory experiment conducted at Yale University.

• Independent measures design.

Procedure

• Participant was always the teacher; Mr Wallace (confederate) was always the learner.

• Teacher watched learner being strapped into an electric chair to increase credibility.

• Teacher received a genuine 45V sample shock.

• For every incorrect answer, the teacher administered increasingly severe shocks from 15V–450V in 15V increments.

• Learner gave standardised (pre-recorded) responses:

  • 150V: demanded to be released.

  • 300V: banged on the wall.

  • 315V: banged again, then became silent.

• If participants hesitated, the experimenter used four standardised verbal prods (e.g. "The experiment requires that you continue.").

• Study ended when the participant refused after all four prods or reached 450V.

Findings

• 65% administered the maximum 450V shock.

• 100% reached at least 300V.

• Many showed signs of moral strain, including sweating, trembling, nervous laughter and seizures.

• Mean rating of stress for administering the highest shocks was 13.42/14.

Conclusion

• People are highly likely to obey a legitimate authority figure, even when this conflicts with their own moral values.

Evaluate Milgram's (1963) Obedience Study (GRAVE)

G – Generalisability

• Low population validity: all male, American volunteers, so findings may not generalise to females or other cultures.

R – Reliability

• High reliability due to a highly standardised procedure, including the same learner responses and four standardised prods, making the study easy to replicate.

A – Application

• Findings explain obedience in real-world settings (e.g. military, workplaces and healthcare).

• Influenced ethical guidelines and training to encourage questioning of unjust authority.

V – Validity

• High internal validity: 84% of participants believed the shocks were real, suggesting behaviour reflected genuine obedience.

• However, the laboratory setting may reduce ecological validity.

E – Ethics

• Significant psychological harm and deception.

• Participants believed they were harming another person and experienced moral strain.

• However, Milgram debriefed participants, reunited them with the learner and conducted follow-up questionnaires, with most reporting they were glad to have taken part.

---

Overall Evaluation: 8.8/10

Strongest AO3 Points ⭐

• Reliability – Highly standardised and easily replicated.

• Validity – Most participants believed the situation was real.

• Application – Explains obedience in many real-life contexts.

Weakest AO3 Points ⚠

• Ethics – Deception and psychological harm.

• Generalisability – Limited sample (40 American males).

Exam Tip

• If asked for strengths: Lead with Reliability, Validity and Application.

• If asked for weaknesses: Lead with Ethics and Generalisability.

Describe Sherif et al.'s (1961) Robbers Cave Study

Aim

• To investigate whether intergroup competition causes prejudice and discrimination, and whether superordinate goals can reduce prejudice.

Sample

• 22 boys, aged 11–12, from Oklahoma.

• Opportunity sample.

• All were White, middle-class and Protestant.

Method

• Field experiment conducted at Robbers Cave State Park summer camp.

Procedure

Stage 1 – In-group Formation

• Boys arrived in staggered groups and were unaware of each other.

• Groups bonded through activities (e.g. camping, swimming).

• Each group developed its own group identity, social norms and group name.

Stage 2 – hostility phase

• Groups competed in tournaments (e.g. baseball, tug-of-war, cleanest cabin) with prizes for the winners.

• Competition created intergroup conflict, prejudice and discrimination.

Stage 3 – cooperation (Superordinate Goals)

• Researchers introduced superordinate goals requiring cooperation (e.g. restoring the camp's water supply, pulling a truck out of the mud).

• These tasks forced both groups to work together.

Findings

• Stage 1: Strong in-group identity and different social norms developed.

• Stage 2: Increased in-group favouritism and out-group hostility, including name-calling and fights. 93% of friendships were within the same group.

• Stage 3: Superordinate goals reduced prejudice. By the end, the boys shared meals, travelled home on the same bus, and 30% of friendships were between groups.

Conclusion

• Intergroup competition produces prejudice, discrimination and in-group favouritism.

• Superordinate goals are effective at reducing prejudice, whereas social contact alone is insufficient.

Evaluate Sherif et al.'s (1961) Robbers Cave Study (GRAVE)

G – Generalisability

• Low population validity: sample consisted only of 22 White, middle-class, Protestant American boys, limiting generalisation to females, adults and other cultures.

R – Reliability

• Low reliability: behaviour in a field experiment is difficult to replicate exactly because social interactions naturally vary.

A – Application

• Findings have practical applications for reducing prejudice, showing that superordinate goals can improve relations between conflicting groups (e.g. schools, workplaces, communities).

V – Validity

• High ecological validity because behaviour occurred in a natural summer camp setting.

• However, researchers manipulated situations (e.g. creating competition), so behaviour was not completely natural.

E – Ethics

• Participants were deceived about the true aim.

• Researchers deliberately created psychological distress and conflict between the boys.

• However, prejudice was successfully reduced before the study ended.

---

Overall Evaluation: 8/10

Strongest AO3 Points ⭐

• Application – Strong real-world implications for reducing prejudice.

• Ecological Validity – Naturalistic setting increases realism.

Weakest AO3 Points ⚠

• Generalisability – Very restricted sample.

• Ethics – Deliberate creation of conflict and deception.

Exam Tip

• If asked for strengths: Lead with Application and Validity.

• If asked for weaknesses: Lead with Generalisability and Ethics.

Burger et al

Aim

• To investigate whether Milgram's findings on obedience would be replicated in modern society.

• To examine the effects of gender and personality (empathic concern and desire for personal control) on obedience.

Sample

• Volunteer sample of 70 adults (29 males, 41 females), aged 20–81.

• Recruited through flyers, newspapers and online adverts.

• Extensive screening excluded 47 participants to reduce psychological harm.

Method

• Laboratory experiment closely replicating Milgram.

• Participants assigned the role of teacher.

• Stopped at 150 V instead of 450 V because 79% of Milgram's participants who reached 150 V continued to the end.

• Ethical safeguards included:

  • Screening procedure

  • Right to withdraw emphasised

  • 15 V sample shock

  • Clinical psychologist present

  • Immediate debrief

Experiment 2

• Added a modelled refusal condition where another "teacher" refused to continue at 75 V to test the effect of social support.

Findings

• 70% continued beyond 150 V in the baseline condition.

• 63% continued in the modelled refusal condition.

• No significant gender differences.

• Empathy did not predict obedience.

• Participants with a higher desire for personal control were less obedient.

Conclusion

• Obedience remains high in modern society, supporting Milgram's findings.

• Obedience is not simply era-bound.

• Social support only slightly reduces obedience.

evalutation of burger

G – Generalisability

• ✅ More representative than Milgram: 70 adults (29 males, 41 females), aged 20–81.

• ❌ Used a volunteer sample and excluded 47 participants through screening, meaning the sample may not represent the wider population.

R – Reliability

• ✅ Highly standardised laboratory procedure (same instructions, verbal prods, voltage increments and stopping point at 150 V).

• ✅ Close replication of Milgram means the study is replicable, increasing reliability.

A – Application

• ✅ Demonstrates that high levels of obedience still exist in contemporary society, suggesting destructive obedience is not just a product of the 1960s.

• ✅ Can be applied to organisations (e.g. military, healthcare and workplaces) to develop training that encourages resistance to unethical authority.

V – Validity

• ✅ High internal validity due to the controlled laboratory environment and replication of Milgram's procedure.

• ❌ Lower ecological validity because administering electric shocks in a laboratory is an artificial task that may not reflect real-life obedience.

E – Ethics

• ✅ Much more ethical than Milgram:

  • Extensive screening of participants.

  • Right to withdraw repeatedly emphasised.

  • Procedure stopped at 150 V.

  • Clinical psychologist present.

  • Immediate debrief and reunion with the learner.

• ❌ Participants were still deceived and experienced some psychological stress.