Psychology - Unit 1

The Social Approach:

Basic Assumptions

1. All behaviour occurs within our social context.

2. A major influence in people’s behaviour, thoughts and feelings and other people in society.

Theories

Milgram’s Agency Theory (Obedience)

This theory was thought of by Milgram and is largely based on moral strain and obedience. Moral strain occurs when people feel a sense of unease about the behaviour they are performing even when they are in the middle of doing it. In Milgram’s studies of obedience, the participants stated that they knew that what they were doing was wrong, but they were doing it simply because they were being told to do so by someone else. This shows that they were experiencing moral strain. From this Milgram thought of two states of obedience:

Agentic State: This is where participants have no will and are simply complying to the orders of someone with a recognised authority over them. Someone in the agentic state is likely to experience moral strain. For example; the naïve participants in Milgram’s study were in the agentic state to the experimenter.

Autonomous State: This is where someone has free will and is also in a position of authority in which they can make demands of their agents. For example the experimenter was in the autonomous state.

Evaluation:

• The theory has supporting evidence from other studies such as Meeus and Raaijmaker’s study which found that even in a more liberal society, people will obey an authority figure.

• The theory offers something of an explanation towards the behaviour of Nazi soldiers during the holocaust.

• The theory has applications into society in that it shows more police officers should be present at football matches so that there is less crime as people will obey them as authority figures.

• A weakness to the theory is that the supporting evidence Meeus and Raaijmaker’s study lacked ecological validity as it was a lab experiment therefore partipcants were in an artifical environment.

• Another weakness is that the theory is contradicted by French and Raven’s social power theory which suggests that there are 5 different stages of authority.

• The theory lacks detail as it doesn’t scientifically explain why people are in the agentic or autonomous state.

Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory (Prejudice)

This theory thought of by Tajfel states that when people get together in groups, they go through a certain process:

1. Social Categorisation: This is the automatic act of putting yourself into a group

2. Social Identification: Identifying yourself with the group and taking on some of it’s traits.

3. Social Comparison: Comparing your group with another and being in the mindset that your group is the in-group and the other is the out-group.

Evaluation:

• The theory has supporting evidence in Sherif’s Robber’s Cave as they found that prejudice can be instilled in someone by simply putting them into groups.

• The theory offers an explanation as to why the Nazi soldiers behaved the way they did to the Jews during the holocaust.

• The theory has applications into society as it offers an explanation as to why supporters of different football teams hold prejudices towards one and other.

• The theory is contradicted by the realistic conflict theory which suggests that there needs to be a goal insight for prejudice between groups to be caused

• Another weakness is that the supporting study Sherif et al lacked weakness as the boys were decieved as they thought they were just going to s summer camp and not being studied.

• The theory doesn’t take into account the fact that the prejudice may be down to something that has occurred over the course of history, such as conflicts or bad relationships.

Studies

Milgram’s Baseline Study of Obedience (1963)

Aim:

To see whether naïve participants would go against their better nature simply to obey the orders of an authority figure.

Procedure:

A volunteer sample of 40 male participants was used. They were paid $4.00 for taking part. They were informed that the study was a learning and memory test. The participants were asked to ask a student (a stooge) questions and punish them by giving them an electric shock every time they answered incorrectly. The participants didn’t know that no-one was actually getting the shocks and the sounds of the pain that they heard were just recordings. For each wrong answer, the voltage of the shock was increased to inflict more pain. The participant was also joined by the experimenter (also a stooge) who gave verbal prompts in order to persuade the participant to continue.

Results:

65% of participants went to the severe 450 volts.

Conclusion:

People will go against their better nature to obey the order of a recognised authority figure.

Evaluation:

• It was a lab experiment therefore researchers had full control over extraneous variables.

• The ethics of the study were good as Milgram received informed consent when the participants volunteered.

• Results can be applied as they help to explain the behaviour of Nazi soldiers in the holocaust.

• Isn’t representative of both genders as only 40 male participants were used.

• It was a lab experiment so therefore the study lacked ecological validity.

• Lacked ethics as Milgram deceived participants by informing them they would be involved in a learning and memory test.

Milgram’s Variations After completing his baseline study, Milgram repeated the study but manipulated different variables by doing things such as; changing the scenario, adding another teacher to the scenario, etc. The variation which I will look at is the ‘absent experimenter’ variation.

Aim:

To see whether naïve participants would go against their better nature simply to obey orders without an authority figure present.

Procedure:

A volunteer sample of 40 male participants was used. They were paid $4.00 for taking part. They were informed that the study was a learning and memory test. The participants were asked to ask a student (a stooge) questions and punish them by giving them an electric shock every time they answered incorrectly. The participants didn’t know that no-one was actually getting the shocks and the sounds of the pain that they heard were just recordings. For each wrong answer, the voltage of the shock was increased to inflict more pain.

Results:

Only 22.5% of participants went to 450 volts.

Conclusion:

The presence of an authority figure has a large influence on the levels of obedience shown by naïve participants.

Evaluation:•It was a lab experiment therefore researchers had full control over extraneous variables.• The ethics of the study were good as Milgram received informed consent when the participants volunteered.• Results can be applied as they help to explain the behaviour of Nazi soldiers in the holocaust.• Isn’t representative of both genders as only 40 male participants were used. • It was a lab experiment so therefore the study lacked ecological validity.• Lacked ethics as Milgram deceived participants by informing them they would be involved in a learning and memory test.

Meeus & Raaijmaker’s Study of Obedience (1986)

Aim:To see whether even in a more liberal environment, people would go against their better nature to obey an

authority figure.Procedure:A volunteer sample of 39 participants (male and female) were used. They were asked to act as an interviewer

to a job applicant (who was a stooge). During this supposed interview, the participants were joined by another interviewer who were actually the researchers dressed in formal looking suits to visually show their authority. These researchers gave prompts to the participant to psychologically abuse the job applicant by acting unpleasantly.

Results:92% of the participants obeyed the researchers and went against their better nature by psychologically

abusing the supposed job applicant. Conclusion:Even in a more liberal environment, people will go against their better nature to obey an authority figure. Evaluation:• The results are generalisable to both genders as male and female participants were used. • The results can be applied to help explain the behaviour of Nazi soldiers during the holocaust.• The study was a lab experiment therefore there was control over extraneous variable and the test can also

be repeated. • The fact that it was a lab experiment means that the study would’ve lacked ecological validity as

participants were in an artificial environment.• The study lacks ethics as the participants were caused a high level of stress, therefore the ‘protection of

participants’ ethic was breached.• It is hard to compare the results of the test with Milgram’s results as they were both in different cultures

and both used different types of damage to the stooge.

Hoffling’s Nurse Physician Relationship Study

Aim:

To investigate the relationship between doctors and nurses and what happens when a nurse is ordered to carry out a procedure that is professional standards.

Procedure:

This study was a field experiment which involved a sample of 22 nurses in a hospital. Dr Smith (a stooge) rang the nurses on 22 occasions and asked them to check whether they have the drug astrogen (a supposed placebo). He told them to adminster 20mg of the drugs when it was only supposed to be administered in 10mg at a time. The doctor said he would sign the authorisation later on. The nurses were then observed to see what they would do. If they gave the medication, they would’ve breached hospital rules.

Results:

21/22 nurses carried out the orders even though they were theoretically breaking the rules. In a questionnaire, 10 out of 12 nurses and all 21 student nurses said they would not have given the medication.

Conclusions:

Nurses will knowingly break hospital rules in a situation where a doctor (authority figure) tells them to.

Evaluation:

• The study’s results help to explain why the Nazi soldiers obeyed orders during the holocaust.

• The study had ecological validity as it took place in the nurse’s natural setting.

• The study was ran 22 times and the procedure and conditions were the same, meaning the study was reliable.

• The fact that the study was a field experiment meant that there wouldn’t be as much control over the extraneous variables, decreasing the reliability of results.

• The study broke ethical guidelines by deceiving the participant as neither the drug or doctor were genuine.

• Isn’t representative of the whole population as only professional nurses were used in the sample.

Sherif et al Robber’s Cave Study Aim:

To see whether prejudice can be instilled into people by simply putting them into groups.

Procedure:

The study was a natural experiment with a volunteer sample of 22 11 year old boys at a summer camp. The study had a matched pairs design as the boys were split into two groups based on characteristics. The boys did not know about the other group until they had established themselves as groups and were made aware of each other. The researchers then introduced competition which was manipulated so that they had control over who won the most points. When one team gained more points unjustly, the groups got into fights. This escalated largely and resulted in one team’s flag being burned by the opposing team.

Results:

A strong in-group preference was shown by the boys in each group.

Conclusion:

The act of being grouped and being involved in competition increased prejudice and discrimination leading to conflict between the groups.

Evaluation:

• Had ecological validity as the experiment took place in what would have been a natural setting for the boys.

• The study’s results can be applied as they offer an explanation as to why Nazi soldiers behaved discriminated against they Jews during the holocaust.

• The study supports Tajfel’s social identity theory as the boys went through the three stages; categorisation, identification and comparison.

• There could have been a lack of control over extraneous variables seen as the study was a natural experiment.

• Isn’t representative of the whole population as only 22 11 year old boys were used.

• The boys were deceived as they were under the impression they were simply attending a summer camp, meaning the study lacked ethics .

Key Issue:

Why do people obey during conflict?

Explanation:During conflict, soldiers need to obey orders, even if they involve doing something that wasn’t part of their training or that went against the soldiers better nature. A key example of this is the My Lai massacre which occurred during the Vietnam war. On March 16 1968, US Army forces murdered over 350 unarmed Vietnamese civilians, mostly women and children. Some of the victims were tortured before being killed, and many of the bodies were mutilated even after death. Application:• Milgram’s agency theory would state that the soldiers were in the agentic state to their superiors and the overall US government who were in the autonomous state and were able to cause the soldiers (their agents) to obey. • Milgram’s study which found that people would go against their better nature to obey an authority figure. The My Lai massacre had similar principles as the soldiers also went against their better nature to obey the government. • The Meeus and Raaijmaker drew up an almost identical conclusion therefore that too has similar principles to this event. • Tajfel’s social identity theory would state that the soldiers were in their own group (the US army) and this was the in-group. They saw the Vietnamese army as the out-group and developed a prejudice towards it. They saw the citizens of My Lai as being associated with the Vietnamese army and also saw them as the out-group therefore they discriminated them. • Sherif et al’s study found that the formation of groups can lead to the development of prejudice and discrimination therefore that particular study has similar principles to this event as the soldiers were put into groups and went onto develop prejudices against the Vietnamese and discriminate against them.

Evidence of Practice:

My StudyAim:

The aim of the test was to see whether there was a difference in attitudes towards obedience from males and females.

Procedure:

The study was a laboratory experiment with an opportunity sample of 20 participants (10 male, 10 female). These participants were 16-19 year old college students. They were asked to fill out a questionnaire which included 10 closed questions that would ultimately show the participants attitudes towards obedience. Once the Questionnaire was completed, P’s were debriefed.

Results:

For 6 of the questions, females were more obedient. For 3 of the questions, males were more obedient. For the remaining question, both genders were equally as obedient.

Conclusion:

The questionnaire showed that females are more obedient than males.

Evaluation:

• The study was a laboratory experiment which meant that us researchers had control over the extraneous variables.

• The study is representative of both genders as both male and female participants were used.

• The results of my study can be applied into society as it offers an explanation as to why there are more male criminals than female ones.

• The study isn’t representative of the whole population as only 16-19 year old college students were used.

• The study was a lab experiment therefore the participants were in an artificial environment meaning the study lacked ecological validity.

• The questionnaire we used included closed questions. This can be a disadvantage as they produce data that lacks detail.