This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Social approach • Social psychologists assume people behave differently as part of a group than they would individually. • This is called de-individuation where a person becomes a group member and is no longer seen as an individual, that person becomes anonymous and the responsibility diffuses amongst the group members. • For example, people who are watching a live football match would more likely to stand up and shout at their opponents if they are in a group than if they are alone because they think they are not responsible for it. • The culture and society that we belong to determine our behaviour and beliefs. • This is due to the fact that different cultures socialise differently, as a result we will act differently to others in similar situations. • For example, it is unusual for a male to dress up a kilt in England while it is generally acceptable in Scotland because of cultural difference on clothing. 2. Obedience • How well are people following instructions from a higher authority. • For example, teachers have higher authority at school so when they ask students to wear appropriate clothing; students are more likely to obey in a classroom than if it is on the street. ETHICAL GUIDELINES 1. Consent • Participants should be fully informed with the true aim and procedures of the study. 2. Competence • Participants should not be judged by the end of the experiment that might harm their selfesteem. 3. Deception • Participants should not be deceived, however, if deceived they must receive a full and frank debrief. 4. Withdrawal • Participants should be given the right to withdraw from the research at any time. 5. Debrief • Participants should be given a thorough debrief, explaining the true aims and nature of the task that they were involved, in order to return them to the psychological state they were before the study. 6. **Protection and privacy • Participants should be protected from both physical and psychological harm. • Confidentiality; keep the participant’s details private; the psychologists should not use the man’s name in published work, but could use his initials instead. AGENCY THEORY (PROPOSED BY MILGRAM) 1. Claims • Obedience is determined by situation. • We obey orders from higher authority because of **social pressure instead of our personality. **What is social pressure: It is how powerful or legitimate of the authority is. It depends on how we are brought up and socialised to response to certain figures. 2. Components • We can either act in agentic state when we follow commands from authority, giving up our free wills and take no responsibility. • Or in autonomous state when we can follow our free wills but need to take full responsibility over it. • If we are told to do something that we would not otherwise do, the negative feeling of this unwillingness is known as moral strain but we still obey to it. 3. Supporting evidence from Millgram’s research • All participants went up to issuing 300V electrical shock to the ‘learner’ although they realised that 300V was a dangerous range. Participants were in agentic state and had given up their free wills as they were pressurised in that situation.
This suggests that.5 dollar price to take part in a memory study. which is identical to the view of the theory. Refuting evidence from Adorno’s theory and Zilmer’s research • Adorno proposed a theory that goes against the agency theory that participants would follow the order if they have obedient personality. • The participant was asked to issue electric shock to the learner if the wrong answer was given.1 • This provides support for Milgram’s theory of obedience as it suggests that situation does influence obedience due to the fact that 65% of participants obeyed to 450V when the experiment was conducted at the prestigious Yale University. • The experiment took place in Yale University. • 65% of participants issued electric shock up to 450V to the learner even though they were obviously uncomfortable in doing so. in an increasing intensity of 15V. participant met Mr Wallace who they thought was another participant. P. The participants would always be the teacher as the lots were rigged. anyone can be highly obedient in the right situation. • Thus. 7. • This suggests that if the right situation was given. starting from 15V until 450V. All other variables remained the same which shows the more legitimate the authority figure appears. the agency theory is not a complete explanation of obedience as personality does have an effect on obedience. 4. obedience dropped. • In a variation of his original study Milgram demonstrated that obedience dropped to 47% when the experiment was moved to a rundown office block. Both were then introduced the task of role-playing learner or teacher. Aim • To test if situation would affect obedience. Refuting evidence from Millgram’s study • It could be argued that 35% of P’s did not go up to 450V therefore agency is not a complete explanation of obedience as other factors such as personality and genes could have impact on obedience which are not taken into account in the agency theory. 8. even when it means hurting someone that is against their morals. • Particularly if people would still obey orders of hurting an innocent person without any reasons just because they were told to do so. 5. • This is further supported by the variations Milgram used within follow-up research because when the researcher left the room. showing how we react to orders from authority figures. MILGRAM’S STUDY ON OBEDIENCE 1. This view is strengthened by Zilmer who analysed psychometric data from Nazi soldiers and US soldiers and found that Nazi soldiers were more obedient than US just because they had an authoritarian personality in terms of their respect towards authority figure. the more likely we are to obey. soldiers had no choice and no responsibility over what they were going to do therefore they became the agents of the authority at that time even though their task involved murdering innocent people. • Because it was ordered from a higher authority. 2. Application on explaining real life incidents • The theory can be applied in explaining the My Lai massacre where the American soldiers were ordered to wipe out the entire village in Vietnam. • . 6. based on the situation. but in fact he was a confederate. Procedures • 40 participants were gathered by advertisement offering a 4. Supporting evidence from Hofling’s study • He found that 95% of nurses would obey a doctor’s orders and give a potentially fatal overdose of a ‘drug’ to a patient just because they were told to do so. Supporting evidence from Muse and Raaijmaker’s research • Cross-cultural and naïve participants would harass a job applicant just because they were told to. nurses would obey even though it involved in endangering someone. as they were normal people. supporting that the view that situation influences obedience.
in Meeus and Raaijkmkers’s study in Holland. in order to return them to the psychological state they were before the study. Also. providing support to the idea that obedience is determined by situation. scripted prods such as ‘The experiment requires you to go on’ and ‘you must continue’ were given by the researcher to encourage them to stay and see if they would obey. 10 11. 4. 6. • Follow up contacts were made to ensure there was no lasting damage to the participants. . This variation was higher in ecological validity due to the more realistic settings. hence protected from harm.2 Ethics • Participants were thoroughly debriefed about the true aims the task. 5. Low ecological validity • Participants didn’t think that the electric shocks were real because it was held in Yale University where supposed to be a civilised and safe place. Conclusion • Obedience is determined by situation. all participants showed similar behaviour which backs up the point that it was a reliably applied procedure. providing a further support to its reliability. 8. their signs of stress were showing their natural response which adds credit to the experimental validity. similar results were shown suggesting that culture does not affect obedience. High experimental validity • At the end of experiment participants said they were extremely painful. • It was an artificially set laboratory experiment. therefore cannot draw general conclusion from this study. Supporting evidence from Muse and Raaijmaker’s research (see agency theory) Supporting evidence from Hofling’s research (see agency theory) Supporting evidence from Millgram’s variations (see agency theory) • It shows that changing from Yale University to offices reduced obedience. Low population validity • All participants took part on voluntary basis which cannot represent the whole population as volunteers might be more obedient than others. • 65% of participants issued 450V to the learner. 12. Therefore agency theory is a better explanation as participants were involved in agentic state when the authority figure stated he would take over the responsibility. indicating that they believed the experiment was real. Refuting evidence from Adorno’s theory and Zilmer’s research (see agency theory) P. the more likely people would become agents for the authority and do things that they would not otherwise do. in real life. 13. 7. • However. High reliability • The use of standardised procedures ensured all participants experienced the same scripted prods which allows the study to be replicated precisely to test the consistency of findings. • All participants were recruited from a restricted area in USA. • 9.3. 14. It cannot be generalised into wider population as Americans might be more obedient than people from other countries. • The more legitimate of the authority. When the participants protested and refused to continue. Criticism • It was criticised that it was not ethical to deceive participants as they were told it was a test of punishment but in fact it was about obedience. obedience would not be measured by how willing someone was to give electric shock of increasing severity to a stranger. • However during the experiment participants did show obvious symptoms of distress such as sweating and biting finger nails. • In the experiment. However if they were not deceived their demand characteristics might have caused their behaviour to become artificial and therefore no longer be a true test of natural obedience. Results • All participants issued 300V to the learner.
Aim • To test if the changing the situation would change their obedience. 3. • Obedience showed was more natural and realistic than in a laboratory. Results • 92% of participants obeyed even though they said it was unfair and stated they did not want to do it. hence not given rights to withdraw from any stages of the experiment.5% of participants issued 450V electric shock to the learner. High experimental validity • Participants did not willingly go along with the orders they were given. Results • He found that 47. Aim • To test if participants would harass a job applicant even though they knew it was a faked interview. 2. Although participants wanted to withdraw from the experiment. High ecological validity • Less extreme demonstration of harming someone in order to show more realistic obedience. they received a series of verbal prods from the researcher and were compelled to go ahead. 2. MILGRAM’S VARAITION STUDY 1. This might have caused psychological harm to them and therefore participants were no longer protected during the procedure. the ethical guidelines were not available at the time when the research was conducted. Procedures • 39 participants recruited from general population in the Netherlands by newspaper adverts to take part in a stress test. • Participants were asked to harass the job applicant despite of the increasing objection raised by the applicant. it was argued that it helped in developing the ethical guidelines. whom was acting as a job applicant. 6.5% lower than the one found in the original experiment. • It had also breached the guideline of protection as participants were extremely distressed and anxious while giving electrical shock. Muse and Raaijmakers’s study 1. 4. • And the drop of obedience indicates the causal relationship between change of situation and degree of obedience. providing a direct support to his agency theory. • When participants protested and showed unwillingness in continuing the experiment. • Naïve participants were used to interact with confederate. . Procedures • The exactly same procedures except that the experiment took place in a set of offices rather than the original Yale University.Moreover. • People from different culture would obey to a recognised authority and do something that goes against their better nature by adopting an agentic state. Conclusion • Agency theory is universal rather than culturally determined. 5. 3. they were not allowed to do so. which was 17. High ecological validity • More realistic setting in an office compared to Yale University.3 High experimental validity • This experiment was a true test of obedience as participants had fewer demand characteristics because they showed more realistic obedience in an office while participants in the original experiment might have behaved differently to please the professor in Yale University. 5. 4. Conclusion • Obedience is determined by situation as almost half of the participants would still issue a 450V electric shock to an innocent person without any reasons. just simply because they were told to do so. • P. 6.
v. Aim • To discover whether nurses would comply with an instruction which would involve them having to infringe both hospital regulations and medical ethics. HOFLINF’S STUDY 1. • 21/22 nurses obeyed to the doctor. Similarities Gather participants by advertisement from general population Naïve participants were used Involved in interacting with confederate Scripted verbal prods given Participants deceived and not fully informed breaching ethical guidelines Test of obedience particularly agentic state. • The nurses were halted from going too far when obedience or consistent resistance was shown. 21/22 nurses said they wouldn’t obey but 21/22 did really obeyed. 11 of them stated they were aware of the maximum dosage. 8. which was in fact a sugar pill. • Therefore their response was truly reflecting a real life situation where their behaviour was natural. 3. it appeared that in fact they did just that. Nurses were deceived at this point. 5.v. Results • In the survey. Differences Milgram’s Muse and Raaijmaker’s Place Yale University Normal workplace Type of violence Physical (electric shock) Psychological (harass the applicant) % of obedience 65% 92% Type of experiment Lab more artificial lower e. P. No.4 • The maximum daily dose of 10mg was clearly stated on the bottle and the doctor said he would sign the prescription later. 7 High reliability . • Then they were debriefed about the true aim of the research. against moral and free wills Both show that obedience dropped if the research had left in the variations 2. they were phoned by ‘Dr Smith’ who was a confederate to give a 20mg dose of a new drug ‘Astroten’ to a patient. the results are numerical therefore it is highly objective and not open to interpretation. higher p. Procedures • Identical boxes of capsules were placed in 22 wards of both public and private psychiatric hospitals in USA. High population validity Samples drawn from general public. which was against the hospital rules. High population validity For nurses only because other professionals might have different training and so may not respond in the same way.v. • When nurses were alone on the ward. High ecological validity • Nurses showed realistic obedience as hospital was their everyday workplace.v. High reliability • Standardised procedures like measuring obedience by how far up the scale of insults they would go. 4. 2. Field natural enviorment higher e.7. Conclusion • Although nurses believed that they would not obey a doctor unquestioningly if they were ordered to do something that breached regulations and endangered patients. of participants 40 39 P’s used All male and American lower Cross cultural & mixed genders p. adding a cross-cultural dimension to Milgram’s findings. 6. COMPARE AND CONTRAST MILGRAM AND MUSE & RAAIJMAKERS 1.
Application on reducing prejudice in multi-cultural schools • As social grouping is said to be producing prejudice. therefore the data collected was numerical and more comparable. • Frequently based on a stereotype held about the social group that they belong to. mixing local students and students with other cultural background could reduce prejudice because they identified themselves as a whole group and comparison would be less likely to occur. 3. indicating that their obedience was caused by their specific knowledge about the drug rather than the doctor’s authority figure as suggested in Hofling’s study.5 • However. • This can strengthen the training courses for nurses in the future to prevent blind obedience that might cause serious consequences to patients. Aim . hostility eventually appeared. adding credits to the study. • Finally we make biased judgements to the out groups when we compare them with our in groups. 5. • Then we identify ourselves as part of the group by following the social norms such as adopting the same opinions and attitudes of other in group members. therefore competition is a factor of prejudice which is not included in the social identity theory. 2. 8. Supporting evidence from Sherif’s camping study • When boys were split into groups. 2. • At the end of the research. • In a similar experiment conducted by Rank and Jacobson. it could be argued that social identity theory is not a complete explanation of prejudice because the hostility between groups was even worse when competition was introduced. This could reduce their inter-racial violence. Supporting evidence from Tajfel’s research • His studies on minimal groups showed that social grouping could induce unfavourable comparisons and prejudice between different groups. hence they are not open to interpretation. which is identical to the claim of social identity theory. 9. PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION 1. Components • We categorise ourselves and others as different social groups. they found that when a familiar drug was used only 2/18 nurses obeyed. suggesting that prejudice is a natural outcome of social grouping. Application on training nurses • The research reveals a weakness in the training courses that nurses should not automatically obey to doctors’ orders. SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (PROPOSED BY TAFJEL) 1. the overdose might have judged their profession and also. Criticism • There was no informed consent as nurses were not aware that they were being tested. But this is essential because this ensured that their behaviour was natural. P. Prejudice • An attitude towards somebody which is usually negative and based on little knowledge. • Nurses were not given the right to withdraw. • However it could be argued that other variables were not well controlled such as distraction in every nurses’ situation. Discrimination • An action or behaviour towards somebody upon a prejudiced attitude. nurses in this research could only choose either obey or not instead of how far they obeyed. this might have had a serious effect on their self-esteem. • Groups that we belong to are our in groups and groups that we do not belong to are out groups. Claims • Prejudiced is an inevitable natural product of social grouping. therefore they were • • not properly protected from psychological harm. making it difficult to replicate and less reliable. TAJFEL’S STUDY 1. same as the view of social identity theory. 4.• Unlike Milgram’s or Muse and Raaijmaker’s research.
conversation about a certain subject. 4.6 2. Unstructured + Less time is required. Criticism • Sherif’s study has higher ecological validity than Tajfel’s because it was done during a summer camp where boys were not aware of the study and therefore their prejudice was more natural and realistic. therefore the problem happened on themselves – prison guards. in terms of rewarding points to in group members or punishing out group members unfairly with money. Low population validity All schoolboys had similar background and culture which failed to generalise into a wider population. scoring points in terms of painting. • The unfair allocation of points was caused by social grouping. grouping would simply mean competition because this method is frequently used at schools. for most schoolboys. 3. therefore their prejudice might be caused by competition instead of social grouping. • The boys knew which group they belong to but not the other boy’s identity. Structured • Some people accused that the guards took pleasure in tormenting the prisoners to fulfil • Follow a questionnaire pattern. 10. but not the pre-existing social groups amongst them. maximise or minimise the difference between two groups. Procedures • Bristol schoolboys aged 13 to 14 were randomly split into two groups in a University. • Also they opted to punish the out group by allocating them the least points to maximise the difference even though some more rational and beneficial scoring methods were available. in this case is + Higher relevance. Results • Boys tended to reward the most points to in groups and least point to out groups. Description • In the social approach we studied about why guards abuse their power in a prison setting. • Other people believed that their immoral acts were brought by the situation. Semi-structured SURVEY METHODS (GATHER SELF REPORT DATA) • Contains both close and open 1. Supporting evidence from Sherif’s camping study (see SIT) 6. 8. 7. High reliability • Experiment was highly controlled because they knew which group they belonged to but not the other boys’ identity. they could use strategies that allocate most points to own or in group. Conclusion • The boys acted against their own interest to maximise the difference of scores. • In the two grids. 2. was artificial which cannot be applied to other situations. 3. • The random grouping prevented the impact of pre-existing social groups on point allocation. • Although competition was carefully avoided. Application on team building • As prejudice is said to be a natural outcome of social grouping.• To test if putting people into meaningless groups would cause prejudice. Klee or Kandinsky. They claimed they were doing this on behalf of the authority to interrogate the prisons. • The reason of why we chose this issue is because in 2004. suggesting that their social identity was an important factor of leading to prejudice. • P’s control the direction of + Higher relevance to the research. the system. images of Americans prison guards torturing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib were released to the press.Closed questions: No in-depth information. prejudice can be avoided in team building when everyone was put into the same group. . KEY ISSUE 1. their sick needs. • They take part in a test where they needed to score 2 boys (1 from their own group and 1 from another group) as an individual using the two grids given in terms of their painting. . 9. P. + Easy to analysis and more comparable. • Mostly closed questions. 5. Questionnaire questions. + Collects a larger amount of data. they thought they were put into groups with boys who like the same painter. by using this principal. Low ecological validity • The nature of task. 1. • This can boost their self-esteem and performance.
QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA 1.g. 1 – 10. . . + Able to monitor other behaviour (e. + Often involves open questions.P’s tend to give socially desirably answers low validity.Cannot generalise as the sampling is small. + More ethical can skip when uncomfortable. .Time consuming.g. + Able to compare the results. . body language). . Quantitative data (numerical) • Nominal: Count the number that falls into that category (e. .Highly subjective because it depends on how the research interpret and analysis the data. + Able to generalise beyond sample.Closed questions often used. + Flexible new brainstorm / insight .P’s may not understand the question and give random answers 2. 10ppl short & 10ppl tall). • Interval: On a recognised unit measurement (e.Subjective depends on how the researcher interprets the data which can be biased and prejudiced. + P’s tend to tell the true answers & in-depth higher validity.g. **How the researcher feels might be different from others. . . 1 is the highest and 10 is the shortest).+ Results not open to interpretation objective. . + Data not open to interpretation objective and reliable more scientific. Qualitative data Consists of words data.g. Interview + Produces qualitative data.Lower relevance to the research in unstructured / semi-structured interview. • Ordinal: Ranking levels on a scale (e.Data difficult to analyse. . • Quantify responses by measuring how much something has changed or been manipulated. height in terms of centimetre). . Difficult to turn into numbers. + Detailed and in-depth.Cannot be generalised results vary amongst individuals. . Made up of people’s opinions and attitudes.Lacks depth in explaining human behaviour superficial measurement. + High validity the obtained person’s view is realistic.Distraction less reliable response.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
We've moved you to where you read on your other device.
Get the full title to continue reading from where you left off, or restart the preview.