COVERPAGE

1
 TABLE OF CONTENT

TITLE PAGE NUMBERS

Part 1 – Question A 1–2
Part 1 – Question B 2–4
Part 1 – Question C 4–5
Part 2
References

i
PART 1 (Question a)
Social psychology is the scientific study of how studies, passions, and actions are affected by
the real or imagined presence of others or by social standards. Social psychologists
commonly describe human actions as the result of the relationship between psychological
states and social situations, studying the social conditions in which studies, passions, and
actions happen, and how these variables affect social interactions. The four goals of
psychology are to describe, explain, predict, and control behavior and mental processes. Each
of these goals represents a different focus that psychologists can take when studying a
phenomenon. For example, if a psychologist is interested in understanding why people acquit
the way they do, he or she'll use explanatory goals. However, he'll use explanation as a
objective, If a psychologist wants to go further and explain why people acquit the way they
do. The objective of prognosticating and control is clear; psychologists who want to
prognosticate coming actions or change current actions use these goals. All four goals are
important in psychological study, and each provides priceless perception into human actions.
The first goal of psychology is to explain the real phenomena in which humans and animals
acquit in different situations. By describing problems, issues, or actions, psychologists can
distinguish between normal and abnormal actions, allowing them to gain a better
understanding and a more accurate perspective on human and animal actions, studies, and
behavior. To achieve this goal, psychologists use a variety of study approaches, including
reviews, case studies, realistic observances, and personality- assessment tests. Through this
scientific approach, actions can be described in detail and as objectively as possible. Once the
action has been described, the information gathered is used as a root for additional study of
the recently happening actions. Once certain actions have been described, psychologists also
try to go beyond the egregious and explain why people act the way they do. Through a series
of rigorous tests, scientific experimentation's and observances, psychology explains the
reasons behind a person's behavior. Explaining actions provides answers to why people
acquit as they do in different situations. Throughout the history of psychology, multiple
hypotheses have been formulated to explain all aspects of human actions. Although some are
classified as mini-theories (which concentrate on small aspects of human reflection and
action), most psychological studies revolve around grand hypotheses that include intricate
details to explain everything about human psychology. Some well- known hypotheses that
explain all aspects of human psychology include Pavlov's classical activity hypothesis, which
refers to a knowledge procedure in which two types of biologically potent stimulants are

1
associated together to produce a recently acquired education response from an animal or
person.
The third goal is to make forecasts predicated on how people formerly allowed and acted is
the third goal of psychology. By deconstructing old observed actions, psychological study
aims to forecast and anticipate how certain actions will reappear in the future. This will allow
psychologists to form patterns of actions and better understand the causes of people's
behavior. By breaking down qualitative data according of patterns of study and action,
psychologists and researchers can make accurate conjectures about human actions without
ineluctably understanding the mechanisms behind certain phenomena ("How psychology
aims,"). For example, when qualitative data reveal that certain scores on aptitude tests
forecast student dropout rates, that information can be used to estimate the number of
students who may drop out of academy each time. Successfully prognosticating actions is
essential to the final and most important goal in psychology, which is to control or change
actions. Finally, apart from treating mental illness and enhancing well- being, changing or
controlling human actions is a major focus of psychology (“How does psychology aim,”).
Various psychological studies of human actions are used to affect, change or control actions
using earlier collected data about human behavior. In psychology, there are several
hypotheses that deal with changing or controlling people's actions. Some broadly known
hypotheses include the health belief model, hypothesis of planned actions, diffusion of
innovation hypothesis, social cognitive hypothesis, trans-theoretical model, and social
principles hypothesis. Whether actions can be successfully changed or controlled depends
largely on one's capacity to precisely define behavioral issues, assess the underlying causes of
these problems, and develop and execute hypothesis and proof- predicated interventions.

(Question b)
In psychology, there are two main types of research known as correlational research and
experimental research. Although they partake certain commonalities, it's truly important to
understand that these types of research aren't the same thing. It's also important to be capable
to distinguish between the two, as confusion may influence in misunderstanding of the
research design and its methodologies. Correlational research is actually broad not only in
psychology but also in other knowledges. It helps measure the relationship between different
variables without breaking the process. In multiple ways, it's considered observational
research, where scientists take into account all the variables and try to figure out if there's a
relationship between them. Correlational research, in multiple cases, helps identify all
2
possible variables before anything differently can be done about them. Correlations can be
positive and negative. A positive correlation means a positive association between different
variables, and, if one of them increases, the other will also increase. A negative correlation,
on the other hand, works differently. However, it'll also reveal a negative correlation, If one
variable sees a falloff while the other is raising. The finding of low positions of
neurotransmitters, similar as serotonin and norepinephrine in patients diagnosed with clinical
depression, can be considered an example of correlational exploration. Although these
research successfully connected and measured variables, it didn't ineluctably establish a
unproductive relationship between clinical depression and low levels of serotonin and
norepinephrine. Correlation experimentations are used for forecasts, testing the validity and
dependability of results, and theoretical documentation (validity of forecasts). It's great for
testing naturally occurring variables. Correlation results are generally easy to understand and
depicted graphically.
This type of research is, possibly, the most popular in medicine, because the results of
randomized control trials (i.e. Experimentations) are broadly regarded by medical experts and
the testimony pulled through experimentations is considered top- rank, delivered that the
premises and execution of the experimentations don't have any disfigurements. Naturally,
experimental research is popular in psychology, which is considered a medical field.
Experimental research isolates and manipulates certain variables to see how other variables
are affected. Experimental research exists to establish cause- and- effect relations between
them. That's why this experimentation is so useful for testing various theories. During the
experimentation, the surroundings was rigidly controlled to exclude the personal effects of
other independent variables, as that would obscure the picture. An example of the
experimental system is the Milgram experimentation, which tested the relationship between
authority and obedience. There are several types of experimentations, the most common
being laboratory tests, field tests and natural tests. The strength of any experimental
methodology typically lies in its high perfection. Nevertheless, experimental results cannot be
considered 100 accurate due to the fact that laboratory experimentations have the chance to
distort naturally occurring processes and variables, while natural and field experimentations
can have variables that aren't taken into account, hence producing bias and deformation. Data
and conclusions predicated on the data.
Although there's a genuinely strong suggestion that certain variables are connected to others,
under the range of correlational research, we cannot draw that conclusion. An
experimentation is a type of research to determine cause and effect, while correlational
3
research can only describe the relationship between two variables. It cannot indicate that one
variable causes another variable, because these variables aren't insulated from the rest of the
system, therefore meaning that cause and effect may be caused by different variables that
aren't the range of the study. Correlation studies, occasionally, can be the only way to study
naturally being phenomena, if the experimentation is, under certain circumstances, hopeless
or unethical. For example, it's unethical to conduct experimentations on lung cancer by
asking participators to smoke cigarettes.

(Question c)
The Milgram Experiment, led by well-known psychologist Stanley Milgram in the 1960s,
aimed to test people's obedience to authority. The results of Milgram's experiment,
occasionally known as Milgram's compliance studies, continue to provoke consideration and
disagreement. The experimental procedure caused some people to sweat and fluctuate,
leaving 10% really anxious, while others burst into unexplainable hysterical laugh. What
findings are so strong that many psychologists are refuting them? The study has drawn
considerable critique with some saying its claims are exaggerated. Stanley Milgram's now
well-known experimentation was designed to test obedience to authority. What Milgram
wanted to know was how far people would go when an authority figure ordered them to hurt
other people. Many wondered after the horrors of World War II, and not for the first time,
how people could be driven to commit similar atrocious acts against one another. Not only
were they in the fortified forces, but ordinary people were forced to commit the most brutal
and terrible acts. But Milgram didn't probe extreme war situations, he wanted to see how
people would reply under fairly' normal' conditions in the laboratory. How would people bear
when told to give electric shocks to others? To what extent will people observe the dictates of
the situation and ignore their own dubieties about what they're doing? The experimental
situation in which people are originally placed is simple. Actors in Milgram's trial were told
that they were sharing in a literacy trial, that they would be given electric shocks and that
they should continue until the end of the trial. Told they would be the' schoolteacher and the
others' scholars', they sat in front of a machine with several dials labeled with adding
voltages. This is the notorious' shock machine' in the Milgram trial. The third switch from the
top is labeled" Danger Severe Shock", the last two are simply" XXX". During Milgram's
trials, every time the' learner' made a mistake, the party was instructed to deliver an adding
electric shock. Of course, the pupil kept making miscalculations until the school teacher (a
weak party) had to keep giving the electric shocks of adding intensity, and harkening to the
4
performing riots of pain until the pupil eventually shut up. The actors didn't actually admit an
electric shock, the scholars in Milgram's trial were actually an actor following a trained
script. Scholars were kept out of the view of the actors so that they had their own
hypotheticals about the pain they were causing. They were, still, left in little mistrustfulness
that towards the end of the trial, the shock was extremely painful and the pupil might lose
knowledge. As the actor’s falter to administer the electric shock, the researcher- an
authoritative figure dressed in a white lab fleece- instructs them to continue. Milgram's trial
set up that people are more biddable than you might imagine. Completely 63 percent of the
actors continued to the end- they gave all the surprises indeed with scholars screaming in
pain, soliciting to stop and eventually falling silent. These aren't especially named
viciousness; these are ordinary people like you and me who have donated for Milgram's
trials. At the time Milgram's trial was big news. And eventually Milgram explained his
decision by the force of circumstances. This is a social psychology trial that seems to show,
in fact, how important social situations can impact people's behavior. Milgram's trials sparked
a small assiduity of follow- up studies conducted in laboratories around the world. Do the
findings of Milgram's trial still hold true in different societies, in slightly different situations
and in different genders (only men in the original study)? Generally, the answer is that
despite manipulating numerous different experimental variables, people are still veritably
biddable. One exception is one study that set up Australian women were less biddable.

References
Scribbr. (-). What’s the difference between correlational and experimental research?
Retrieved from Scribbr: https://www.scribbr.co.uk/faqs/whats-the-difference-
between-correlational-and-experimental-research/
Cherry, K. (2022, May 12). How Does Experimental Psychology Study Behavior? Retrieved
from verywellmind: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-experimental-
psychology-2795784
Dean, J. (2021, June 20). Milgram Experiment: Explaining Obedience to Authority. Retrieved
from PsyBlog: https://www.spring.org.uk/2021/06/milgram-experiment.php
Dean, J. (2021, June 2). Robbers Cave Experiment: How Group Conflicts Develop. Retrieved
from PsyBlog: https://www.spring.org.uk/2021/06/robbers-cave-experiment.php

5
6