Social psychology

SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY KEY ASSUMPTIONS

1) The effect of interaction between individuals
2) The effect of being in groups within society

3) The influence of social context on behavior and attitudes.

OBEDIENCE

A form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order from another individual, who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an order the person would not have acted in this way.

3 THINGS THAT INFLUENCE OBEDIENCE (SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY)

-Strength: determined by status/ age
-Immediacy: how close the authority is
-Number of sources: how many authority figures there are

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:

1) SIT acknowledges strength.This shows it has face validity in supporting what we see in everyday society.
2) The formula that SIT offers should be generalisable across cultures as the features they highlight are present in every culture.

WEAKNESSES:
1) SIT does not explain as to why people are influenced by other, it merely explains the conditions that need to be present for increased obedience. More of a description than an explanation
2) Does not take into account individual differences.

MILGRAM (1963)- AIM

TO INVESTIGATE THE LEVEL OF OBEDIENCE THAT WOULD BE SHOWN WHEN PARTICIPANTS WERE TOLD BY AN AUTHORITATIVE FIGURE TO ADMINISTER ELECTRIC SHOCKS TO ANOTHER PERSON in a controlled setting.

MILGRAM (1963)- METHOD

1) Volunteers were recruited for a lab experiment investigating "learning" (re: ethics: deception). Participants were 40 males, aged between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional, from the New Haven area. They were paid $4.50 for just turning up.
2) They drew straws to determine their roles - learner or teacher
3) The "learner" (Mr. Wallace) was strapped to a chair with electrodes. After he has learned a list of word pairs given him to learn, the "teacher" tests him by naming a word and asking the learner to recall its partner/pair from a list of four possible choices.
4) The teacher is told to administer an electric shock every time the learner makes a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time. There were 30 switches on the shock generator marked from 15 volts (slight shock) to 450 (danger - severe shock).

MILGRAM (1963)- VERBAL PRODS

Prod 1: Please continue.
Prod 2: The experiment requires you to continue.
Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue.
Prod 4: You have no other choice but to continue.

MILGRAM (1963)- RESULTS

65% (two-thirds) of participants (i.e. teachers) continued to the highest level of 450 volts. All the participants continued to 300 volts.
Milgram did more than one experiment - he carried out 18 variations of his study. All he did was alter the situation (IV) to see how this affected obedience (DV)

MILGRAM (1963) - CONCLUSION

Ordinary people are likely to follow orders given by an authority figure, even to the extent of killing an innocent human being. Obedience to authority is ingrained in us all from the way we are brought up.
People tend to obey orders from other people if they recognize their authority as morally right and / or legally based. This response to legitimate authority is learned in a variety of situations, for example in the family, school, and workplace.

MILGRAM'S VARIATIONS-7

AIM-To test whether the relationship between participant and experimenter would have an impact on obedience

METHOD- After giving initial instructions, the experimenter gave orders over the telephone. All the other parts of the study were the same.

RESULTS- Obedience dropped from 26 people in the first study to 9 people. However, some participants said they were increasing shocks on the telephone and only gave the lower shocks again in real life. This had gone against the purposes of the experiment.

CONCLUSION- The physical presence of an authority figure was an important force contributing to the levels of obedience.

MILGRAM VARIATION 7 EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) Same procedure was used in all his studies. This gives internal validity (only the IV affecting the DV)
2) In other variations where he tested the physical presence of the experimenter, he found the same. which supports his claims in 7.
WEAKNESSES:
1) Not a natural setting. No ecological validity.
2) Participants may not have believed they were real shocks, therefore validity may be under question.

MILGRAM'S VARIATIONS-10

AIM-To question the relationship of obedience with the context within a person is operating (University to Office Block)

METHOD-Exact same procedure as original study however the location was changed from a prestigious setting of Yale University to a run down office block in Bridgport.

RESULTS-47.5% delivered the maximum shock compared to 65% at Yale University. So it reduces, however not by a large amount

CONCLUSION- It is possible that the commands of a violent and harmful nature are legitimate they must be in an institutional structure but it does not need to be in a reputable institution.

MILGRAM VARIATION 13 EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) Procedure kept the same - reliability
2) Authority was successfully reduced as the participant saw the 'ordinary man' draw lots so assumed he was also another participant
3) Obedience falls- so it supports the idea that the study was seen by the participant as obeying an authority figure
WEAKNESSES:
1) Milgram admitted there was still a lot of authority in the experiment- e.g Yale approval and scientific equipment
2) Setting is artificial- lacks ecological validity
3) Might lack validity, if Yale set up the experiment, then the study is not about authority- rather trust

MILGRAM VARIATION 10 EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) An office block ensured ecological validity
2) The Bridgport study was kept identical to the one at Yale ensuring there were no other controlling factors. HAs internal validity
WEAKNESSES:
1) Validity may be questioned as obedience did not fall that much
2) It was still in a laboratory setting
3) Even though it had ecological validity, the task still lacked mundane realism

MILGRAM VARIATIONS-13

AIM-To investigate the influence of authority by removing the experimenter and replacing him with an ordinary man.

METHOD- Was exactly the same as the original experiment but this time, the experimenter feigned leaving to take a phone call so a 2nd confederate took charge and suggested how they should proceed, telling the participants to go up the voltages.

RESULTS- Obedience levels dropped to 20%

CONCLUSION- Status of the individual has an impact on obedience levels.

15 / 51

AGENCY THEORY 2 STATES

AUTONOMOUS- They direct their own behaviour, take responsibility, have power and their conscience is in control.

AGENTIC-They allow an authority figure to direct their behaviour, assume responsibility to that person, conscience is not in control- merely acting as agents for an authority figure.

MORAL STRAIN

Carrying out an order from an authority figure that goes against your conscience, therefore a person feels uncomfortable. E.g Nazi soldiers laughed.

THINGS THAT MUST BE IN PLACE TO ENTER THE AGENTIC STATE

-The person giving orders is perceived to be qualified to direct other peoples behaviour, seeming as legitimate
-The person being ordered must believe that authority will accept responsibility for what happens.

AGENCY THEORY EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) The findings on the variations of Milgram's study reinforce the theory because the fewer number of AGENTS the lower the obedience
2) It explains a wide range of social behaviour, e.g how normal people would have become involved in atrocities like the Holocaust.
3) Gupta (1983) studied obedience in India. 27.6% of obedient males accepted responsibility compare to 49.4% that were not obedient. This supports it as it demonstrates the shift of responsibility that occurs in the agentic state.
4) Explains REAL-LIFE situations, (like the Holocaust) where obedience was beyond what would have been expected of autonomous human beings. Agency theory believed this is due to individuals following orders which out them into the agents state and they believed uthrotiy would take responsibility for their actions.
WEAKNESSES:
1) The theory could have negative social implications as leaders could be trained to manipulate people into obedience
2) Theory does not take into account dispositional reasons for obedience like personality, such as personality.
3) The theory is more of a description rather than an explanation. Obedience is explained as obeying an authority figure, so it doesn't add much
4) Social power theory is an alternative explanation for obedience.

FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE-SITUATION

MOMENTUM OF COMPLIANCE- The task started with small and trivial requests, the teacher committed themselves to the experiment. The situation creating a binding relationship that escalated steadily.
PROXIMITY- The closer the authority figure, the higher the level of obedience.
STATUS OF AUTHORITY- Obedience levels dropped when the experimenter appeared as an ordinary man rather than a man perceived as a legitimate authority figure.
PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY- Participants would be more obedient where personal responsibility is removed and places of to an authority figure.

FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE-PERSONALITY

LOCUS OF CONTROL- It seems that dissenting individuals take more of the blame, whereas obedient people are more likely to displace the blame.
AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY- Milgram and Elms (1966) though that those who were more obedient had a more authoritarian personality. These are particularly submissive to authority (gives in) but harsh to those who are not seen to have authority.
EMPATHY- It is believed that people who have a high level of empathy would be less likely to harm another person at the instructions of an authority figure.

FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE-GENDER

IT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN GENERAL THAT THERE IS NO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GENDERS WHEN IT COMES TO OBEYING ORDERS.
However, in Milgram's original study and Burger's study, women were shown to show more distress that males.
Blass (1999) carried out meta-analysis using 10 studies and found that only Kilham and Mann (1974) showed gender differences, so the general conclusion is that there are no gender differences.

FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE-CULTURE

Culture can be divided into 2 types:
Individualistic: tend to behave more independently and resist conformity and compliance (UK and USA)
Collectivist: tend to behave as a collective group based on interdependence, meaning that cooperation is more important for the stability of the group (China and Israel)
Blass suggests that even if obedience differs between cultures, there are other factors (such as personality) that could have influenced obedience.

BURGER (2009)-AIM

AIM- To find out if the same results were gained to Milgrams 1963 study when participants were tested in 2009. He also wanted to see how personality influences obedience (like empathy and locus of control. also, whether the presence of a disobedient model would affect obedience.

BURGER (2009)- METHOD

Same as Milgram but more ethical:
-Sample shock=15V
-Aim: investigate the effects of punishment on learning
-Briefed/de-briefed

BURGER (2009)- RESULTS

70% of participants in the baseline experiment went past 150V compared to 82.5% in Milgram's variation 5. However this is not statistically significant. There was no difference in men and women when it came to obedience. Also, empathy did not make a significant different to obedience. In the modelled refusal, 63.3% continued to 150V. This was shown to not be statistically different that the base condition.

BURGER (2009)- CONCLUSION

Burger found that Milgram's results are still correct and that people are still influenced by situational factors. He makes the assumption that participants going up to 150V would be willing to go beyond 450V in Milgram's experiment. The model refusal results were not that different from the base condition, Milgram found less obedience in this condition but he used 2 rebellious models not one. Empathy did not make a difference to obedience, despite Milgrma and Burger expecting that it would but locus of control did make a difference as it suggests some people resist the agentic state.

4 ETHICAL PRINCIPLES

1)) Respect
2) Responsibility
3) Competence
4) Integrity

ETHICAL GUIDELINES- APPLIED TO MILGRAM

1)Informed consent- did consent, did not fully inform participants of what they had to do. NO.
2)Avoiding deception- had to deceive participants in his method. NO. He should have changed his method to ensure people weren't being deceived
3)Right to withdraw- he explained throughout the study they would have the right to withdraw at any time and still keep their money. YES.
4)Debriefing participants- did a thorough debrief. YES.
5)Being competent to run the study- yes, he was a trained psychologist and had others competent doing the experiment. YES.

RISK MANAGEMENT

It involves weighing up whether carrying out a study would involve too much risk. Risk is identified as the potential physical or psychological harm that may be caused by a study including things such as stress.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY- TAJFEL AND TURNER

-Is a theory of PREJUDICE
Prejudice comes from the formation of 2 groups - the IN group and the OUT group.

3 PROCESSES IN BECOMING PREJUDICED (SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY)

Social Categorisation= placing yourself/seeing yourself in a particular group

Social Identification= identifying with the in group more overtly. E.g taking on the norms and behaviours of the group

Social Comparison= seeing the in group as better than the out group

3 VARIABLES THAT CONTRIBUTE TO IN GROUP FAVOURITISM (SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY)

1) The extent to which individuals identify with the in group
2) The extent to which there are grounds for making comparisons with the out-group
3)The relevance of the comparison group in relation to the in-group

MINIMAL GROUP STUDIES

Two groups of boys were asked to allocate points to themselves and the other group. Although, the groups were completely random and there was no direct competition, the boys allocated more points to their own team, showing there can still be in-group favouritism without conflict.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) LEVINE ET AL. carried out experiments on football supporter. If a man was wearing the colours of the team they supported, they were more likely to help the person who had fallen over, rather than if they were wearing neutral or rival colours.
2) REALISTIC CONFLICT THEORY is an alternative explanation of prejudice, It says there is only prejudice with competition, therefore SIT can be seen as part of RCT.
3) It has a practical application as it can explain prejudice in society. Usually problems can be traced back to two opposing groups. This is a strength as it can help explain real life events and could help to solve social problems.
WEAKNESSES:
1) Other factors were not taken into account, The theory does not take into account how much prejudice there is in certain situations. Therefore it may be too simplistic.
2) A closer look at the minimal group studies show that individual participants differed considerably into the extent to which they showed in-group favouritism.
3) PLATOW ET AL. assessed these differences and found that those who were more competitive showed more in group favouritism.

SHERIF ET AL (1954)- AIM

To find out what factors make two groups develop hostile relationships and then to see how this hostility can be reduced. Specifically, to see if two groups of boys can be manipulated into conflict through competition and then conflict resolution by working together.

SHERIF ET AL (1954)- METHOD

22 11 year old boys went to summer camp. None of the boys knew each other, a fee of $25 went to their parent to stop them visiting.
The boys were white, middle class and protestant. They were split in 2 groups and were not aware of each other.
Stage 1= Team-building activities
Stage 2= Made aware of each other and bean experiment (the boys believed boys in their own group collected more than the others) and a tournament was set up.
Stage 3= Groups met each other and did problem-solving activities. (this reduces the hostility)

SHERIF ET AL (1954)- RESULTS

Sherif found that the boys required little encouragement to be competitive. As soon as they found out about another group in the park, they resorted to "us-and-them" language and wanted a baseball match - so the boys themselves initiated the start of the friction phase. In the integration phase, the shared films and meals deteriorated into name-called and food-fights. The shared task fixing the water pipe produced cooperation, but another food fight followed. However, each shared task led to reduced hostility. By the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they had won to buy soft drinks for everyone.

SHERIF ET AL (1954)- CONCLUSIONS

Sherif regards the study as proving his hypotheses about intergroup behaviour - especially Realistic Conflict Theory.
-The groups formed quickly, with hierarchies ("pecking orders) and leaders, without any encouragement from the adults.

-When the groups meet in competitive situations, ingroup solidarity increases as does outgroup hostility.

-"Mere presence" by itself doesn't reduce outgroup hostility.

-Friction is reduced when the two groups are forced to cooperate, negotiate and share. Sherif calls this working towards "superordinate goals"

An important conclusion from the study is that, although intergroup conflict is inevitable when competition is present, it can be reduced.

MY LAI MASSACRE

FACTORS AFFECTING PREJUDICE

ADORNO ET AL (1950)
-Authoritarian personality- people who are hostile to people of an inferior status, wanting to please those of a high status.
-It claims that authoritarians often have harsh upbringing and little affections, they have high opinions of their parents but unconsciously have hostility towards them. They project their anger and aggression onto other.
-This hostility may be passed on to minority groups.

RIGHT WING AUTHORITARIANISM

Following from Adorno's work, RWA is a strand of authoritarianism which is though to predict prejudice and discrimination. RWA refers to someone who has rigid thinking and likes rules in society.

OPEN QUESTIONS EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1)Not forced into specific answers. Data more detailed, making it more valid.
2) Questions can be interpreted by the respondent, who can talk more freely, increasing validity.
WEAKNESSES:
1) Data is difficult to analyse, because the answers are detailed
2) Averages cannot be calculated and compared or displayed in graphs or tables. Therefore it requires interpretation, increasing bias.

CLOSED QUESTIONS EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) Standard answers given, straightforward and numerical data. Averages and percentages can be calculated and graphs drawn
2) They are the same for all puts. This increases reliability.
WEAKNESSES:
1) Force the ppt to choose an answer even if it is not accurately reflecting their own opinion. This lacks validity
2) Force choice answers may mean different things for different people. "sometimes" may mean different things, this decreases validity

TYPES OF INTERVIEWS

Structured interview: Researcher has predetermined questions, no deviation, has exactly the same wording.

Unstructured interview: Researcher has certain topics to explore but no predetermined questions, used in therapy to express information freely

Semi-structured interview: Researcher has some predetermined questions but can deviate to get more detail, used in diagnosis and clinical settings

HOW TO MAKE INTERVIEWS ETHICAL

Establish rapport
Describe the project
Obtain informed consent
Conduct the interview
Ending the interview
Take notes/transcribe

QUESTIONNAIRE EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) Validity should be high as same questions are asked to every respondent. This removes researcher bias.
2) Questionnaire can be repeated to check for reliability.
3) Can obtain a large amount of standardised data relatively quickly and conveniently
4) Face validity (whether is looks as if a question is measuring what it is intending to) can be ensured by asking other professionals to review the questionnaire
WEAKNESSES:
1) If questions are closed they may not collect real-life valid data. This means the conclusions made will not be valid either.
2) They may have set procedures but this is not the case for all questionnaires. There are several differences that may reduce reliability.
3) Response rates to postal questionnaires may be quite low
4) May be issues with social desirability bias or acquiescence response set.

NTERVIEW EVALUATION

STRENGTHS:
1) Interviewer can explain questions/ add more questions, so it is not as limiting.
2) Interviews can obtain in depth and detailed data which is more likely to accurately reflect the opinion of the ppt.
WEAKNESSES:
1) When asking, interviewers may influence the answers (e.g leading questions), this is researcher bias.
2) Researcher may interpret responses which means it may be hard to maintain objectivity.
3) Hard to replicate as different questions may be asked to different respondents, so it cannot be found whether they are reliable or not.
4) May be issues with social desirability bias as the ppt may be afraid of giving their real answers incase they are judged by the interviewer.

QUALITATIVE DATA EVALUATION

GENERALISABILITY:
-Focus on 1 person or group
-Sampling is limited

SCIENTIFIC CREDIBILITY:
-Not many controls or careful measuring

OBJECTIVITY:
-Tends to require interpretation in analysis
-Subjectivity

RELIABILITY:
-Methods used not very replicable
-Unlikely to gain similar results
-Depth and detail in 1 time and place is not very scientific

VALID:
+Strong depth and detail therefore individual doesn't feel pressured into putting something which isn't representative of their own opinion.

QUANTITATIVE DATA EVALUATION

COMPARABILITY:
-Scores cannot always tell the researcher a lot

VALID:
-May not be intended what it is intended to measure
-Question may not be fully explained

RELIABILITY:
+Data gathered in a controlled way
+Easier to find trends
+Reduces researcher bias
+Usually closed questions

OBJECTIVITY:
+Little interpretation needed
-Numbers can be interpreted differently by other people

PRACTICALITY OF ANALYSIS:
+Easy to collect statistics
+Ppts can give data themselves
+More time efficient