- Created by: Alex Cole
- Created on: 06-01-13 11:18
Key Assumptions - Social
The social approach is concerned with the interaction of individuals in society and how our behaviour is affected by the presence, attitudes and actions of other people.
Individuals - affect our behaviour e.g. Parents teach us from an early age what's right and what's wrong.
Groups - affect our behaviour e.g. Groups of friends may pressure us into smoking -> peer pressure.
Society - affects our behaviour e.g. Body image in the media
Definition of obedience - The act of following orders from a person who has recognised authority over you.
We may obey because we respect that people -> legitimate authority.
We may obey because we scared of the consequences if we don't -> Illegitimate authority.
Constructive obedience - benefits society e.g. stopping at traffic lights.
Malevolent obedience - When it is badly intended e.g. bullies.
Misguided obedience- When the authority figure has the wrong information.
Aim: To see if participants would obey authority even if it means causing physical harm to a innocent victim.
-> Yale university -> 40 males, 20-50 years old -> Recruited via newspaper advert -> paid $4.50 -> Were told that the aim of the experiment was to see the affects of punishment of learning -> 'randomly' asigned the role of teacher.
The teacher was told that for every wrong answer the learner gave he should give him and electric shock, which increased in voltage every time.
Results: 100% off pps gave 300v
65% of pps gave the fully amount of 400v
Conclusion: People will obey authority even if it means phyically harming an innocent victim.
High experimental validity - pps showed signs of stress e.g. nervous laghter. Which means that they beileved in the experiment.
Low demand characteristic - As pps showed signs of stress it is not likely that they guessed the true aim of the experiment.
Low ecological validity - The study was a lab experiment, artificial environment, meaning the pps may not have displayed natural behaviour.
Concent - pps did give their concent, as they responded to the newspaper advert = ethical
Deception - pps were decieved, were not told the true aim of the experiment, were told the shocks were real (sample shock) they believed the rols were randomly pick.
Debriefing - pps went through an extremely detailed debriefing, reunited with learner, psycyatrist and sent questionarries.
Aim: To see if nurses would obey doctors even if it meant endangering a patients life
-> 22 female nurses -> America hospital -> field experiment
Nurses were contacted by phone, an unknown doctor, told to give 2x the maximum dosage of a drug to a patient, doctor said he would sign the paper work when he arrived at the hospital.
Results: 21 nurses obeyed -> 95% of pps (administered the drug)
Conclusion: Nurses will obey doctors even if it means endangering a patients life.
High ecological validity: Field experiment, pps natural experiment, produce natural behaviour.
Low replicability: As is was a field experiment, extraneous variable are not controlled meaning they could have an affect of the results.
Low demand characteristic: pps did not know they were taking part in the experiment therefore would not have been able to guess the aim.
Consent: pps did not give they consent they did not know they were taking part in the experiment.
Protection of pps: pps did not recieve any physical harm but may have experienced some psychological harm, not no long term damage.
Rigth to withdraw: pps were not giving the right to withdraw as they did not know they were taking part in an experiment.
Meeus and Raajimakers (1985)
Aim: To see if participants would obey authority even if it meant causing psychological harm rather than physical harm.
-> Nertherlands -> University building -> 39 pps, male and female, ages 18-55
pps were instructed by the researcher to harrass a job applicant sitting a test by giving 15 negative statements.
Results: 92% of pps gave all 15 negative comments, continued when told to/ obeyed.
Conclusion: People will obey authority even if it means causing psychological harm rather than physical harm ( against their better nature)
High population validity: wide variation of pps, that is representative of the population of the Nertherlands.
High replicability: Controlled environment - extraneous variables easily controlled, prompts were scripted, ensure all pps had the same expeirence, can be tested for reliablity.
High experimental validity: pps showed signs of stress (needed promoting) suggests they believed in the experiment, 96% beileved they were dealing with a real situation.
Consent: pps did not give their consent so could be seen unethical
Deception: pps were decieved about the true aim of the experiment and who the job applicant was, could be seen as unethical.
Right to withdraw: pps were no told that they could withdraw at any time, could be seen as unethical.