SOCIAL APPROACH

This perspective focuses on how our social environment influences our thoughts, feelings, and behavior.
Here are some key points:

Conformity (Majority Influence):

Conformity refers to changing beliefs or behavior in response to real or imagined social pressure.

Types:

Compliance: Public agreement with a group while privately disagreeing.

Internalization: Publicly and privately changing behavior to align with the group’s beliefs.

Identification: Conforming to social roles without necessarily changing personal opinions.

Social Psychology:

 Social psychology studies how interactions with others shape our attitudes, beliefs, and actions.
 Topics include self-concept, social cognition, prejudice, group processes, and more.

In summary, our social context significantly impacts our behavior and perceptions.

Main assumptions of the social approach:

• Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by social contexts, social environments and groups.

• Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by the actual, implied or imagined presence of
others.

CORE STUDY 1 MILGRAM (OBEDIENCE 1963)

The psychology being investigated includes: obedience; social pressure.

Aim

To find out whether people would be obedient to authority even if it meant physically hurting others.

Background

11 million people were gruesomely killed by Nazis. Milgram being Jewish sought to find if anyone under
a similar situation would harm or murder others under an authoritative figure's orders.

Milgram suggested a situational explanation for obedience.

Milgram had conferred with his psychology students and colleagues, and they predicted that less than
3% of participants would deliver the maximum voltage shock of 450 volts.
Research Method, Design and Stooges (confederates)

The study was a controlled observation in a laboratory setting.

The study was conducted at Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale University.

The independent measures design was implemented.

Mr William — the experimenter was a stooge. He was a 31-year-old male school biology teacher in a
coat called 'Mr William'. He wore a grey technician coat and had a stern manner.

Mr Wallace — He was a confederate/stooge, an accountant who pretended to be another participant.

He was 47 years old and he played the role of 'learner'.

Sample

Volunteer or self-selecting sampling was used. A newspaper advert had been used to recruit 40 men
aged between 20 and 50 years old. They were from a variety of educational backgrounds. They were
from New Haven.

Procedure

 Each participant was paid $4.50 for their willingness to participate.

 The participant was always given the role of 'teacher' and Mr Wallace the role of 'learner'.
 The participant was told that the study was focused on memory and learning (deception).
 The participant was given a mild electric shock of 45v to the wrist to convince them that the
shocks were genuine.
 Milgram watched through a one-way mirror.
 The learner never received any shock, but the test shock and the elaborate machine was set up
to convince the participant that they were really injuring the learner.
 Memory task involved reading pairs of words aloud to the learner to test their recognition of
words. Each mistake was given a voltage shock 15v higher than the previous one.
 The shock generator had 30 lever switches set in a horizontal line. Shocks increased by 15 volts.

Prods

o "Please continue/please go on."

o "The experiment requires you to continue."
o "It is absolutely essential that you continue."
o "You have no other choice; you must go on."
o Prods used when the subject asks if the learner was liable to suffer permanent physical injury:
"Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on."
[Followed by prod 2/3/4 if necessary.]
o Prods used if the subject said that the learner did not want to go on: "Whether the learner likes
it or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on."
[Followed by prod 2/3/4 if necessary.]
Learner

Responses were standardised. No signs of protest are heard from the learner until after the 300v shock is
administered. When the 300v shock is administered, the learner pounds on the room's wall, which is
heard by the subject. Learner stops responding to the questions after receiving the 300v shock. After
getting the 315v shock, the pounding is repeated and afterwards, no response appears for the questions,
and he is not heard from.

Teacher

Instructed to move 15v higher with each mistake and also told to announce the voltage level before
administering it. The teacher is given a preliminary series of 10 words to read to the learner. 7 answers
would be wrong, reaching 105v. A second list is given and is told to repeat the procedure and list until all
words are memorised by the learner. When the leaner pounds on the wall, the teacher turns to the
experimenter for guidance and is advised that if a response wasn't achieved within 5-10s, then to
consider it as a wrong answer. Comment made: "I'm gonna chicken out... I can't do that to a man, I'll hurt
his heart." Behaviour: sweating, shaking, nervous laughter, and smiling.

After the procedure ended, they showed signs of relief, wiped faces, sighed and shook heads. A small
minority did not seem to be stressed. They were debriefed and interviewed and met Mr Wallace to
ensure his wellbeing. As part of the interview, they were asked to rate on a scale of 0 - 14 how painful
they thought the 450v shock was.

Results

65% of 40 participants = 26 participants went to 450v.

14 defiant participants stopped early: 5 after 300v; 4 after 315v; 2 after 330v; 1 each after 345v, 360v
and 375v.

The mean voltage given was 368v. The mean estimate of the pain of the 450v shock was 13.42.

Conclusions

Situational factors that affected obedience:

o The legitimacy of the context - professional academic environment (Linsly-Chittenden Hall at Yale
University).
o The feeling of financial obligation.
o Proximity to the authority figure, and the victim.
o Personal responsibility for completing the task, and momentum of compliance.
o Authority figure (appearance + sternness)
o They would not be held responsible for any damage caused.
o Individuals are much more obedient to authority than expected.

People find that carrying out destructive acts triggers feelings of stress. This is due to a conflict between
2 important social phenomena:

i) obeying authority, and

ii) the need to avoid harming others.

Strengths and Weaknesses

1. Controlled observation makes it possible to control extraneous variables in the environment

such as age and appearance. Hence, the shock level administered did not depend on how
sympathetic the teacher felt towards different stooges.
2. The level of control and standardisation such as the same responses and prods used means that
the research was more reliable.
3. Detailed design of the shock generator and the test shock given increases validity because it
convinced participants that the shocks were real and their actions mattered.
4. The participants were all males and were from the same area. This makes results less
generalisable to the target population.
5. Milgram carefully selected participants to ensure a range of ages and backgrounds, which
allowed the sample to have greater validity.
6. An objective record of measuring the voltage levels of shocks delivered — a qualitative
measurement — was taken. Results were easily comparable, and conclusions could be easily
drawn.
7. Qualitative measurements such as detailed information on behaviour and comments was taken.
This data is more susceptible and provides a richer understanding.

Ethical Issues

• They did not give informed consent as they were told the false aim- deception.
• Deception as the chits were rigged.
• Participants were arguably denied their right to withdraw.
• Participants underwent psychological harm and distress. There may have been lasting negative
consequences as they may have been deeply disturbed by their own actions.
Application of the study

• Administrative offices - to stand up to unjust requests of bosses

• Educational institutes
• Hospitals have whistle-blowing policies to encourage the reporting of mistakes made by doctors to
protect patients.

Individual and Situational Explanation

Study shows that the majority of people will be destructively obedient if they felt that the authoritative
figure is legitimate. However, some individuals are more resistant to authority than others.

CORE STUDY 2 Perry et al. (personal space) 2015

The psychology being investigated includes: interpersonal distance (personal space); social hormones;
Empathy

AIM
This study by Perry et al. (2015) investigated the impact of oxytocin on personal space preferences in
relation to individuals’ empathy levels.
Background:
Personal space is influenced by cultural, social, and individual factors.
The amygdala, a part of the brain that processes emotions, is activated when personal space is invaded.
Oxytocin, a social hormone, can affect social behavior and empathy.

Hypothesis:
It was hypothesized that after administering oxytocin, highly empathetic individuals would prefer closer
distances, while less empathetic individuals would prefer greater distances.
Method:
The study was a laboratory experiment with repeated measures design.
Variables:
Independent Variables (IVs): Empathy level (high or low), administration of oxytocin or placebo, and two
tests involving personal distance and chair placement.
Dependent Variable (DV): Preferred interpersonal distance and chair arrangement.
Findings:
The study suggested that oxytocin might influence personal space preferences, with variations based on
individuals’ empathy levels.

CORE STUDY 3 PILLAVIN ET AL (SUBWAY SAMARITANS 1969)

The psychology being investigated includes: bystander apathy; diffusion of responsibility.
Aim:
To investigate bystander behaviour in a natural setting.
To investigate the effect of the following variables on helping:
• type of victim
• race of the victim
• model behaviour
• size of bystander group.

Background
Kitty Genovese in 1964, was assaulted near her house. 38 individuals witnessed the case, but they did
not do anything to prevent her murder. Darley and Latané (1968) said that the diffusion of responsibility
could be a reason. People would be more likely to help if they see a model do so. There is evidence that
people will help those who are similar to themselves.

Research Method, Design and Variables

It was a field experiment in a New York City subway.
Independent groups design was used as different people were exposed to different models on their
journey.

Independent variables:
• type of victim - either drunk or ill
• race of victim - either black or white
• the model behaviour - close or distant proximity and helping early or late.
• size of bystander group (naturally occurring)

Dependent variables:
• time taken for a passenger to help.
• total number of passengers who offered help.
• verbal remarks were also recorded.
Sample
o Opportunity sampling was used.
o The sample consisted of passengers travelling by subway between Harlem and Bronx on
weekdays between 11:00 AM and 3:00 PM.
o The number of passengers was estimated to be 4450 people with 45% being black and 55%
being white. There were around 43 passengers per carriage and 8.5 in the critical area.

Procedure
4 teams of student researchers from the University of Columbia carried out the study. On each trial, 2
males and 2 females boarded the train through different doors. Females were observers. The male
confederates took the role of the victim and the model.

Observer: Both females were confederates who observed and recorded data. Females sat in the area
adjacent to the immediate critical area.
Victim: The victim was played by four different men;
o 1 black and 3 white people.
o They were aged 26 - 35 years.
o They dressed in identical casual clothing — an Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, and no tie.
o On 38 of 103 trials, the victim smelled of alcohol and carried a bottle of alcohol wrapped in a
brown bag. On the other 65 trials, they appeared sober and carried a black cane.
Model:
They were white males aged 24 – 29
They were dressed informally.
They raised the victim to the sitting position and stayed with him till the next stop.

Scene
Females observed passengers and recorded the race, gender, and location of each helper. The victim
stood at the pole at the centre of the critical area. The model remained standing throughout the trial.
Each trial used the same route as it included a 7.5-minute gap between 2 stations. At approximately 70
seconds, the victim staggered forward and collapsed. He laid on the floor looking upwards. If he received
no help, the model would help him at the next stop. When ‘modelling’ helping, the model helped the
victim to a sitting position and stayed with him until the next stop.

Trials were split into 5 conditions:

1. Critical/early: the model stood in the critical area and waited 70 seconds to help the victim.
2. Critical/late: the model stood in the critical area and waited 150 seconds to help the victim.
3. Adjacent/early: the model stood in the adjacent area and waited 70 seconds to help the victim.
4. Adjacent/late: the model stood in the adjacent area and waited 150 seconds to help the victim.
 5. No model condition: the model did not help the victim until after the trial was over and the train
reached the next stop
Results
1. The frequency of helping was much higher than previously reported in laboratory studies.
The majority of helpers were males.
2. 80% of victims received spontaneous help. 60% of victims received help from more than one
person. Participants are more likely to help victims with a cane (62/65 trials) than the drunk
victim (19/38 trials). spontaneous helping was earlier for cane victims.
3. Both black and white cane victims received equal help. In drunk conditions, same-race
helping behaviour was found. Black drunk victims received less help overall.
4. Early model intervention at 70 seconds slightly received more helping behaviour than
waiting till 150 seconds.
5. The research does not support the diffusion of responsibility. In fact, 7 person groups
responded faster than 3 person groups.
6. In 20% of trials, people moved away from the critical area during the incident. A high
number of comments during the trials where help wasn’t given was recorded. More
comments were recorded during drunk victim trials.
Conclusion
1. In a natural setting, many people would offer spontaneous help to a stranger, even in a group
situation.
2. No diffusion of responsibility was found.
Factors that may determine the decision to help:
o Type of victim (people with canes are more likely to be helped rather than a drunk victim)
o Gender of helper (men are more likely to offer help)
o Similar race (more help is given to a similar race, especially for drunk victims)
o The longer the emergency continues, the less likely it is for someone to help. They would cope
with arousal in other ways.

Strengths and Weaknesses

o It was a field experiment, used independent groups design therefore, there was high ecological
validity as participants’ behaviour was natural. However, extraneous variables that influence
behaviour could not be controlled for thus, lowering validity and reliability.
o It was not certain if participants only took part once. They may suspect a set-up and show
demand characteristics by helping more, or less.
o NYC subway sample is not generalizable to the upper class, rural areas, other countries
o The sample size was large, it is likely to be representative. The sample included different
ethnicities thus, it is representative.
o There was objectivity as Quantitative measurements data collected was by the two observers.
This meant results could be cross-checked, thus it is reliable.
o Qualitative data such as the remarks and behaviour of participants helped understand thoughts
and behaviours.
 Ethical Issues:
 Participants did not give informed consent in taking part in the experiment.
 They were not debriefed.
 Participants were deceived as they may have thought that the victim genuinely requires
help. They may have suffered psychological distress from guilt or concern.
 Their comments were recorded, and this could be considered a violation of privacy.
Application to Everyday Life
It tells us the specific situational factors that may make bystanders more likely to help such as, same race
or same-sex. We can also learn that an individual is more likely to be offered help if they do not
intimidate, embarrass, or disgust the helper.