Unit 1 - Social Psychology

What is Social Psychology?

Social Psychology is based on the idea that our behaviour is influenced by other people. Social Psychologists
research the effect of our culture on our behaviour, what happens when we join groups, why we help others,
prejudice and discrimination. The Social Approach is therefore interaction with others, and how this can change
our behaviour.

Definitions
Agentic State The state in which we give up our free will in order to serve the needs of society.
Autonomous State The state in which we have free will.
Moral Strain The unpleasant sensation resulting from pressure to obey orders to commit an
immoral act.
In-Group/Out-Group The in-group is the group of which we are a member. The out-group is another
group of which we are not a member.
Social Categorisation Classifying people, including ourselves, as part of particular groups.
Social Identification Becoming attached to groups of which we are a member.
Social Comparison Comparing our group with out-groups.
Obedience Following the direct orders of a person in a position of authority over us.

Studies:
Milgram (1963) Study of Obedience –
Aim Milgram set out to investigate how obedient people would be in a moral situation
where following orders would mean breaking participants’ moral code and harming
another person.
Procedure Milgram advertised for volunteers to take part in a ‘memory experiment’ at Yale
University. They would receive a fee of $4.50 in return. 40 participants between 20-
50 years of age (all males) took part in the study. Mr. Wallace (the stooge) was
always the learner and the participant always the teacher (although the participants
didn’t know this). The learner was strapped to a chair and wired up to a shock
generator, which was demonstrated by giving a mild shock. Each participant was
positioned on either side of the screen, in which they could not see the participant.
They were instructed whenever Mr. Wallace gave an incorrect answer to give a
shock and increase the voltage by 15V. The experimenter ordered participants to
continue even when they objected by giving verbal prods such as “you must
continue”, including at lethal voltages of 300 (Danger) and 450V (XXX). It was a
structured observation not an experiment as many people believe, it was an
independent measures group.
Results All participants gave Mr. Wallace at least 300V. 65% of all participants went the full
way to 450V. The average maximum voltage was 368.25V.
Conclusion Most participants showed distress but decided to continue. Despite this they saw no
alternate, except to obey. This is believed to be as a result of the order coming from
authority.

Variations on Milgram’s Study of Obedience (1965):

Aim To test whether the rate of obedience in the Milgram procedure would be affected
by witnessing rebellious or obedient fellow participants.
Procedure 80 male participants aged 20-50 took part in this study. They were matched for age
and occupation for those in Milgram’s original procedure. In one experimental
condition, the participant worked with two rebellious stooges. At 150V one refused
to give any further shocks and the other at 210V. In the obedient condition the 2
stooges gave shocks without protest and offered mild rebukes when the participant
expressed the displeasure.
Results 50% refused to go past 150V, and only 6/40 (15%) gave the full 450V. When using
the obedient stooge 72.5 went the full 450V.
Conclusion The behaviour of fellow participants made the difference to the rates of obedience.
The presence of rebellious stooges had a much larger effect on participants than
that of the obedient stooges; the majority felt able to refuse orders once one or both
the others had done so.

Evaluation points on Milgram (1963+1965):

For
Showed how easily people will obey without question –
explains Adolf Eichmann’s actions
Replicable design
Control of variables
Real world applications – holocaust, Abu Ghraib
Replicated by Slater et. Al (2006) a virtual reality
simulation. Here, 73.9% of participants went the whole
way – so similar results to Milgram. On this occasion it
was ecologically valid
Against
Lacks ecological validity – not real life situation –
although comparable to Holocaust
Lacks experimental validity – participants belief in study
Extremely unethical – not in accordance with BPS’
ethical guidelines – constantly deceived, no true aim,
no consent, put under harm and stress, prompted to
continue when wanted to stop (although they did have
the right to withdraw). They were given a full debrief
though.

A study of obedience from a country other than the U.S. – Meeus ad Raijmakers (1986)
Aim To investigate destructive obedience in an everyday situation of a job interview.
Specifically, to see to what extent people will obey orders to psychologically abuse
a job interviewee.
Procedure 24 Dutch people took part in this study. They were asked to interview applicants for
a job. In fact ‘the interviewee’ was a stooge, rather like Mr. Wallace (Milgram).
Participants were told that the job required the ability to handle stress and that they
must therefore cause the applicant stress during their interview. They were told to
make series of 15 cutting comments to interviewees ranging from “your answer was
incorrect” or “based on the test you would be better suited to a job of lower
functions”. The stooges showed signs of distress throughout the interview,
appearing to finish in a state of despair. In a condition an experimenter who gave
the order sat in on an interview. In a control condition the experimenter was not
present.
Results In the experimental condition, where the experimenter had given the order sat in,
22/24 participants (92% made all 15 stressful comments. In the control condition
none did. When some participants said they had not considered the questions fair,
but stress suffered by interviewees was the responsibility of the experimenter and
not themselves.
Conclusion People in an everyday situation like a job interview will generally obey orders to
abuse a stranger psychologically. Rates of obedience were higher than in the
Milgram study as we might expect, as people believed they were simply upsetting
someone rather than psychically hurting them.

Evaluation points of Meeus and Raijmakers (1986)

For Against
Ecologically valid – more likely to happen in real life Lacks experimental validity – unlikely scenario
than physical violence. Also a real-life situation
Population validity – general population, so
representative of them
Gained similar results to Milgram (1963), Slater et al
(2006), so these cultures are similar in obedience rates.
Hamilton & Sanders (1995) however actually goes
against this concept, finding that Russian and
Japanese societies have greater emphasis on
obedience
Hofling et al (1966):
Aim To see whether nurses would obey a doctor when doing so would breach hospital
regulations and endanger the lives of patients. A secondary aim was to see whether
nurses were aware of how obedient they tended to be.
Procedure Boxes of capsules labelled ‘Astroten’ were placed with other medicines in 22 wards
of American hospitals. The capsules were placebo and contained glucose and thus
were therefore were harmless to most patients. However the label identified the
max. safe dose as 10mg. A researcher calling himself ‘Dr. Smith’ from the
psychiatric department phoned each of the nurses on duty and requested that they
gave 20mg of Astroten. Although written authorisation was required before
prescribing, Smith claimed he was running late and would sign the papers later.
Meanwhile 22 other nurses who were not involved in the field experiment were
interviewed and were asked whether they would prescribe a dangerous dose if the
doctor asked them to.
Results 21/22 said they wouldn’t obey the doctors instructions, yet 21/22 of the nurses told
by telephone did give a large dose of Astroten. When questioned 11 of the nurses
said they didn’t notice the difference between the dosages, whilst the other 10 said
they had but they presumed it was safe as it was Doctors orders.
Conclusion Although the nurses believed that they would not obey the Doctor if they were
instructed to do something that breached hospital regulations when in reality they
did.

Evaluation of Hofling et al (1966)

For
The drug was placebo – it had no effect on the patient
The results showed how obedient the nurses would be
It is a field experiment and thus has ecological validity
Control group to allow comparison
Supports Milgram’s Agency Theory
Against
Unethical – did not gain the consent of the patients
beforehand, deception.
The implications of the actions of nurses could have
caused them moral strain or stress
If the patient was diabetic, glucose would have been
bad.

Sherif et al (1961)
Aim To investigate relations between groups. Specifically to see whether strangers
brought together in a group of common goals will form a close group and to see
whether 2 groups brought into contact and competition would become hostile
toward each other.
Procedure 22, 12 year old boys, all protestant, white American, lower middle class. All were
psychologically well adjusted. Transported in 2 groups to a National Park in
Oklahoma. 2 groups lived separately for 5 days (phase 1), each group was given
tasks to carry out together to achieve a bond. Each group was given a name
(Eagles and Rattlers) to strengthen identity. Over the next 4 days (phase 2) friction
between groups was encouraged by competitions for medals and knives. Phase 3
was designed to reduce friction. They were brought together, to watch films and do
problem solving activities. Had to unblock water and help dig a bus out of mud.
Results In phase 1, the boys bonded within groups and although they had not met each
other they expressed dislike. Phase 2 had immediate hostility. They refused to eat
with one another. When together they shouted insults and threatened violence.
Both groups raided huts, stole, and burnt flags. In phase 3, getting groups together
did not reduce hostility but problem-solving activities did such as unblocking water.
Both opted to share a bus home and shared the $5 prize on drinks for everyone.
Conclusion 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 heading to discrimination between groups,
but that some discrimination takes place even without competition. When they both
 worked together in cooperation tasks that benefited both, prejudice and
discrimination can be reduced.

Evaluation of Sherif et al (1961)

For Against
Field experiment – high in ecological validity Sample was small, and very narrow so is not
Suggests ways of reducing prejudice so applies to real- generalizable
life Participants were already hostile to one another before
the experiment started so hostility was already learnt
before competition

Theories
Milgram’s Agency Theory (1974)
Description Milgram proposed that our tendency to obey people in authority is a way of maintaining a
stable society. In order to live in complex societies we need social rules. Sticking to these
rules means that at least some of the time we have to surrender some of our free will.
Milgram proposed that in order to accomplish this, we have developed to social states:
 Autonomous State
 Agentic State
We are socialised into developing the capacity for the agentic state during childhood: in
school. In school we put aside our individual wishes in favour of maintaining order, and put
the good of the class as a first. It is similar with work – although most say that work is for
money and they will not go out of their way for employers – they do, and they put they
employers needs above their own. In the agentic state we come to terms with moral strain.
Milgram suggested we use defence mechanisms such as denial to cope in these situations.
This is what many Nazi’s in the Holocaust used in the trials at Nuremburg.
Evaluation of Agency Theory:
For Against
The idea that obedience serves the function of allowing The idea of an agentic state is very difficult to prove
complex human societies to develop makes sense, that Does not explain individual differences in obedience
is, it has face validity. It also neatly explains a range of e.g. Milgram studies – those who stopped earlier.
real-life situations in which people obey orders, in Does not explain findings of Hofling et al (1966).
particular orders that go against the moral code. Nurses gave different reasons for their obedience and
Explains the results of Milgram studies, in which people showed no signs of moral strain.
obey destructive orders but suffer stress as a result
There is direct support from agency theory from studies
such as Blass (1996) which show people do not see
those who obey orders as their own fault.
Explains Adolf Eichmann’s belief of his innocence and
treatment of prisoners at Abu Ghraib

Social Identity Theory (SIT):

Prejudice Making judgements about people based on their membership of a group rather than their
individual nature.
Discrimination Treating people differently according to their group members.
Description SIT is one of a group of theories that share the assumption that prejudice can be explained
by our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a group, and classifies other people as
either within or outside that group. This means we tend to make sharp judgements on
people as to whether they are ‘them’ or ‘us’. Based on minimal group experiments, Tajfel
and Turner (1979) proposed that there are 3 cognitive processes involved in evaluating
others as either one of ‘us’ or ‘them’:
 Social categorisation takes place when we categorise other people as members of
particular groups – this can be by gender, race or social class, or even football.
 We then adopt an identity of the group we have categorised – social identification.
This is where we form in-group favouritism. We tend to follow the behavioural
 norms of our in-group. Here our self-esteem is maintained by being part of a group
and to maintain this we need to compare.
 Social comparison – hostility between groups is not only a matter of competing for
resources, also competing idenitities.

Social Categorisation - Social Identification - Social Comparison

Typically when there if more than one group there is inequality between them. One
group may be larger or richer and thus be of a higher position – this group is known
as the dominant group. Inferior groups known as subordinate groups may act
together against a dominant group by collective action. There is such a thing as
group permeability which allows members of a group to move from one group to
another – as demonstrated by Reicher and Haslem (2006) – some prisoners were
promoted to guards.
Evaluation of SIT:
For Against
Clear evidence from the minimal group studies, that People show less in-group favouritism e.g. Dobbs and
being part of a group rather than competition leads to Crano (2001) than suggested by Tajfel
friction. SIT does not explain individual differences in prejudice
Evidence from Poppe and Linssen (1999) to show – e.g. why some people end up discriminating against
people show in-group favouritism the out-group
Evidence from studies – Verkooijen et al (2007) to
show people’s behaviour changes to conform with the
groups they identify with – the process of social
identification
Explains a wider range of real-life phenomena –
football team to racism (Mori Poll 2001) – 18% feel less
positive on another ethnic group and 43% know
someone with racist views

Key Issue – Genocide

Why do people commit acts of genocide, and murder huge numbers of innocent people – the Holocaust, My Lai
massacre in Vietnam, Rwanda genocide. Social-psychological ideas can be applied to these situations to help
explain them:
 In-Group favouritism + Social Identitiy – people categorise themselves as either one of ‘them’ or ‘us’.
Whenever we identify someone as part of a different group we favour ourselves. According to SIT we do
this to boost self-esteem. This means we have a tendency to put down out-groups in order to boost the
status of the in-group. It is the start of genocide e.g. Hitler labelling all Jews across Europe with an
armband and all shops being clearly named as Jewish shops.
 Obedience + Agency – Milgram has shown that people have an amazing tendency to follow other
people’s orders. Peters and Richards (1998) found people who commit atrocities believe they are serving
the wider interest of the community. They have to carry out even if it is against their moral code.

Practical
We created a questionnaire consisting of 14 questions – 10 closed – using the Likert scale, and 4 open. In the
closed questions a statement was given and the participants have to state to what degree they agreed with the
statement. In the open questions, participants were encouraged to give detailed responses. Participants took part
in the questionnaire through opportunity sampling, and different participants were used when conducting the pilot
study. The pilot study was used to see whether any of the questions were leading or unethical.

Hypothesis ‘People aged between the ages of 16-18 hold a less positive attitude towards
marriage and relationships than people aged 60+’
Conclusion Young people (16-18) hold more negative and relaxed attitudes towards the issues
related with marriage and relationships than the older population (60+) who hold a
stronger, more ‘traditional’ view.
Evaluation
 Ecologically valid – these views are shared by many, even though it is
sometimes thought to be taboo
 Sample size was small – not generalisable to population. Only 16-18 year

old students and 60+

Methodology
Unrepresentative Sampling Methods:
Opportunity Sampling
Self-selecting sampling (volunteer)
Snowball Sampling
This involves asking whoever is easily available
 Easy, fast and large sample sizes
Seeking volunteers, etiher by word of mouth or advertisement
 Useful when target population is hard to locate
This involved recruiting an initial participant who in turn recruits further
participants
 Used for very sensitive topics of research e.g. recommending
resilient participants for distressing studies
Example – Bergan-Gander & Von Kurthy study

Representative Sampling Methods:

Systematic Sampling Involves selecting everything nth person on a list, population size divided by sample
size
Random Sampling One in which every member of the target population has an equal chance of being
selected
Stratified Sampling Try to ensure as many as possible of the types that characterise the target
population are represented by the proportions of the sample

Unstructured Interviews
For Against
Useful when we are investigating something that has Can only be analysed qualitatively
not been well studied before – allows respondent to
identify the themes that we might NOT have thought of
might we have used a structured interview
Typically start with the same opening questions and
may have some common prompts
The content is very much left to the interviewer
Useful when we are investigating something that has
not been well studied before – allows respondent to
identify the themes that we might NOT have thought of
might we have used a structured interview

Structured Interviews
 Involves the respondent being asked the same questions in the same order
 Generates qualitative data

Semi-structured Interviews
 Ask the same questions of each respondent BUT they are more open questions allowing the participants
to express their views in more depth