Social Psychology

just AO1

maybe some AO2 to illustrate point

AO1 describe

AO2 then apply

AO1 describe

AO3 strengths & weaknesses

• Obedience: An individual follows a direct order from a legitimate authority figure

Disobedience: An individual does not follow a direct order from a legitimate authority figure

Dissent: An expression of disargeement for a group norm, decision or action

Deviance: The violation of a group norm, decision or action, through action

• Conformity: Behaviour in accordance with socially accepted conventions

• Social norms

• Culture

• Background: Evolution and socialisation teach humans that obeying orders aids survival

• Key Term 1 'agentic state': the state in which an individual blindly obeys and hands over responsibility for their actions to a legitimate authory figure, depsite moral strain

• Key term 2 'autonomous state': the state in which an individual makes own decisions and holds full responsibility for their actions, therefore feeling no moral strain

• Key term 3 'moral strain': physical and psychological symptoms felt when an individual obeys orders which counter their moral values

e.g nervous laughter, sweating, shaking, nail-biting, seizures

Background: Evolution and socialisation teach humans that obeying orders aids survival

'agentic state': blindly obeys, hands over responsibility to LAF, depsite moral strain +Milgram 1963 65% 450V electric shock, shaking & nervous laughter +good application to prevent future blind obedience, increase responsiblity, to prevent switching to agentic state e.g Give Islamist extremists responsibility by media-shaming and showing pictures of victims' families, to prevent blindly obeying terrorism orders 

+replicated retest reliability such as Burger 2006 70% 150V -bad ecological validity, but +consistency of supporting research +Hofling et al 1966 92% nurses unsafe dosage of unknown drug +Meuss & Rajmakers 1985 56% all 15 stress remarks to job applicant

'autonomous state': own decisions, holds responsibility, no moral strain

'moral strain': physical and psychological symptoms felt when obeying orders which counter moral values +Milgram 1963 2 seizures, discomfort, nervous laughter -bad ecological validity as not real life situation

-Latané & Darley 1968 number of ppts affects obedience (2 people present 85% helped seizure, 3 people 62%)

-Social Impact Theory implies strength, immediacy & number of LAFs affect obedience   -ignores other variables (personality, situation, gender & culture)       Conclusion overly simple/reductionist, but good application, doesn't address significance of LAF (SIN), or individual differences

Aims: Were Nazis violent because of internal factors (evil personality) or external factors (power of           situation)?

 Would normal individuals follow orders from a legitimate authority figure to electrically shock  a stranger?

Procedure: Volunteer sampling of US male participants through newspaper advert and small pay, Yale University, 1 experimenter, 1 confederate acting as 'learner' participant, 1 participant 'teacher', learner strapped in chair in other room by teacher, teacher asks learner word association questions, for every incorrect answer teacher administers increasingly high voltage electric shock to learner ranging from 15V (slight pain) to 450V (death '***'), if teacher refused then experimenter gave 4 verbal prods from script e.g 'you must go on' before participant could withdraw, debrief- teacher told no shocks were given and reassured by meeting learner

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY

Findings: 65% of participants administered maximum 450V electric shock to learner, which was                     marked '***' in the experiment

Many participants were under moral strain, which was made visible through physical sympotoms such as nail-biting, sweting, trembling, stuttering, and 3 participants had seizures

Conclusions: Nazi violent behaviour was due to external factors, for example blindly obeying due to the power of the situatoin

Everyday US citizens would follow orders from a legitimate authority figure to administer life-threatening elctric shocks to a stranger, implying everyone is capable of murder

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY

+ Generalisable to target population of Western males, because sample included US working/middle-class males from a range of jobs, which is representative of most Western males

+Reliability can easily be replicated to retest for reliability because Milgram used standardised procedures such as same labels on Voltage meter (ranging from 'slight shock' to '***'), same 4 verbal prompts (e.g 'you must go on'), same recording of learner shouting from other room used

Studies with similar findings, strengthen reliability of Milgram 1963- Milgram experiment 10 (rundown office block instead of prestigious Yale University 48% 450V), and Burger 2006 (males and females aged 70% 150V)

+Application Remove LAF to prevent blind obedience, which may prevent mass killings like the holocaust

+Internal validity due to control over variables, enabling a cause and effect relationship e.g laboratory experiment avoiding noise and light situational extraneous variables

+Ethics thorough debrief where participant is reassured of no electric shocks by meeting learner, and offer of counselling

-Generalisability Only male participants from USA, so not representative or generalisable to females or non-western people, because their obedience behaviour may differ

-Ecological validity artificial, novel, laboratory setting of Yale University, which may lead to unnatural behvaiour, such as more obedience, because it does not represent real world legitimate authority figures giving orders.

-Ethics no informed consent because the participants did not know they would be administering life-threatening electric shocks before the study began, also participants were deceived because they thought the study was investigating memory, and the selection of learner and teacher roles was rigged, also could only withdraw after 4 verbal prods

-Does not consider individual differences Over-simplified conclusions as participants may have different personalities which may make them less or more prone to blind obedience e.g obedient=external locus control, low empathy, agreeableness, conscientious, authoratarian, disobedient=internal locus control, high empathy, disagreeableness, lazy, democratic (Other factors affect obedience- personality, situation, gender, culture)

+Strengths

-Weaknesses

Conclusion: Milgram 1963 has important ethical flaws, which cannot be ignored, because participants were not protected from psychological harm. However, the study's findings are congruent with many other studies and the study has useful applications which may prevent future attrocties such as the holocaust. Overall, groundbreaking, reliable study, but ethically unsound.

Experiment 10: setting changed from prestigious Yale University, to rundown office block in downtown Bridgeport, to see if situational variable of setting affects obedience. 48% 450V

Experiment 7: presence of legitimate authority figure experimenter changed from being in room to telephone instructions, to see if presence of legitimate authority figure affects obedience (experimenter effects). 23% 450V

Experiment 13: presence of legitimate authority figure changed from being in room, to leaving room, to see if presence of legitimate authority figure affects obedience (experimenter effects). 20% 450V 

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY AND SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY (immediacy)

Aims: Would everyday people still blindly obey orders to electrically shock a stranger?

   Do gender/personality affect obedience?

Procedure: Volunteer sampling, 20-81 years old, male and females, highest electric shock 150V

Findings: 70% 150V (compared to 83% 150V for Milgram 1963 original), gender did not affect obedience, personality did affect obedience (high empathy & desire for control=disobedient)

Conclusions: Everyday people will still blindly obey orders to electrically shock a stranger, gender does not affect the level of obedience, personality does affect the level of obedience to some extent

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY

Aims: Would everyday people still blindly obey orders to electrically shock a stranger?

  Do gender/personality affect obedience?

Would peer withdrawal influence obedience?

Procedure: Volunteer sampling, 20-81 year olds, male and female, highest shock 150V, 2 confederates- 1 learner and 1 extra teacher who protests at 75V, refuses to participate at 90V

Findings: 63% 150V (compared to 83% in Milgram's 1963 original experiment, and 70% in Burger 2006 base condition), gender did not affect level of obedience, personality did affect level of obedience (high empathy & desire for control=disobedient)

Conclusions: Everyday people will still blindly obey orders to electrically shock a stranger, gender does not affect obedience, personality does affect obedience to some extent, and peer disobedience affects obedience to some extent

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY AND SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY (number)

+Generalisability Participants are 20-81 year old male and females of mixed ethnicities with different personality types from the USA, which is represenative and generalisable to target population of Western people

+Reliability due to consistency between similar studies: Burger 2009 63% 150V, Milgram 1963 70% 150V, Hofling et al 1966 92% nurses prescribe unknown drug, Meuss & Rajmakers 1985 56% give 15 stress remarks to job applicant, Slater 2006 VR learner 100% gave all 20 electric shocks, Schurz 1985 in Austria 80% 150V, Shanab 1978 in Jordan 63% 150V (little cross-cultural differences in obedience)

-Kilham & Mann 1974 found that gender does affect level of obedience as only 40% of males and 16% of females fully obeyed orders

-Validity is weakened by demand characteristics as participants may know Milgram 1963 and so changed behaviour for desired result e.g more obedient to show blind obedience of people now

-Ecological/task validity is weak as artificial laboratory setting and task may lead to unnatural behaviour

Conclusion generalisable (m/f, big age range, personality) and reliable due to consistency in findings, however bad ecological/task validity make it not representative of real-life obedience, which weaken the study

Burger 2009 Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY

• Personality

+Burger 2009 (low empathy & no desire for control= obedient), Blass 1991 (external locus control=obedient)

• Gender

+Kilham & Mann 1974 (40% of males and 16% of females obeyed)

-Burger 2009 (males 67%, females 73% 150V), Milgram 8 (males 65%, females 65% 450V)

• Situation- setting, immediacy to LAF, conforming peers

+Milgram 10 (office block 48%), Milgram 7 (LAF phone 23%), Milgram 13 (LAF abscent 20%), Burger 2006 modelled refusal condition (confederate refuses 63% 150V vs Milgram 1963 83% 150V)

• Culture

+little cross-cultural differences (for 150V- Meuss&Rajmakers 1986 Netherlands 92%, Schurz 1985 Austria 80%, Shanab 1978 Jordan 63%, Kilham&Mann 1974 Australia 54%)

• Milgram's Agency Theory
• Social Impact Theory

Aims: Would nurses obey an unknown doctor's telephone orders to administer an unsafe dosage of an unknown drug?

Will nurses blindly obey a legitimate authority figure, and break the law, hospital rules and medical ethics?

Procedure: field experiment in hospital, 22 nurses asked to prescribe 20mg of 'astroten' (made up drug and says maximum doage 10mg on box) over th phone with no written authorisation

Findings: 95% (21 out of 22) of nurses blindly obeyed. When 22 other nurses were asked in a questionnaire whether they would blindly obey this order, 95% (21 out of 22) of nurses answered 'no'

Conclusion: Medical professionals are capable of blindly obeying, which could lead to unsafe dosages of drugs being prescribed, breaking the law and medical ethics

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY, SUPPORTS SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY (strength)

Aims: Would everyday people still blindly obey 20 years later?

Does culture affect obedience?

Would people still blindly obey orders for psychological rather than physical violence?

Procedure: 1 observer (employer), 1 confederate (job applicant), 1 participant (who gives stress remarks to job applicant as part of interview process), 15 negative stress remarks read from script every time job applicant ansers a question wrong in interview, job applicant complains

Findings: Original  (56% gave all 15 stress remarks), Variation 1 employer leaves room (36%), Variation 2 2 more confederates posing as participants who withdraw after 10 stress remarks (16%)

Conclusion: People are more likely to blindly obey a legitimate authority figure if they are ordered to be psychologically violent, rather than physically violent, because they are distanced from the pain they cause

SUPPORTS MILGRAM'S AGENCY THEORY AND SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY (immediacy)

An explanation for not just obedience

I=F(SIN)

Influence of legtimate authority figure= Factor of (Strength x Immediacy x Number)

Strength of legitimate authority figure e.g socio-economic status, relationship to targeted person

Immediacy of legitimate authority figure

Higher number of legitimate authority figures increases obedience, but this levels off each time (proportional impact of each source decreases as number of sources increases)

Higher number of targeted people decreases obedience because of diffusion of responsibility and social loafing ('I'm not actively obeying because someone else will do it and I can't be arsed')

Strength socio-economic status, relationship to targeted person +Milgram 1963  academic status/pro.white lab. coat (65% 450V) vs variation 13 2nd confederate teacher is experimenter (20%) +internal validity control over variables  -bad ecological validity -bad ethically cause harm, also case with    Immediacy +Milgram 1963 (65% 450V) vs variation 7 telephone (23%), +Meuss & Rajmakers 1985 interview (56% gave all 15 stress remarks) vs employer leaves room (36%) +consistency reliable  -bad task validity

Higher number of LAFs increases obedience, but proportional impact of each source decreases as no. of sources increases +Milgram et al 1969 confederates gawking (1 person 42% gawk, 15 people 80% gawk) +ecological validity as real life setting (street) for obedience, also case with

Higher number of targeted people decreases obedience as diffusion of responsibility and social loafing +Latané & Darley Bystander Effect 1968 person having epileptic fit (2 people 85% helped, 3 people 62% helped) 

+Application prevent obedience like holocaust. e.g apply to football hooligansim Strength- remove LAF power & weaken target relationship. Immediacy- distance LAF from target. Number- reduce number of LAFs, create more target individuals to diffuse responsibility

-Does not consider individual differences (personality, gender, cultural background), meaning it is overly simple/reductionist, doesn't explain why people obey (whereas agency theory does evolution/socialisation)       Conclusion consistency of findings strengthen theory, but overly simple (no why or variables other than LAF)

Humans socially group other humans to aid survival because resources and skills can be pooled

We have preconceptions of what other people may behave like (this is prejudice) from their social group, to aid survival because we can make decisonis quickly about people

In modern times, we do not neccesarily need to prejudice people to aid survival, but these instincts still exist

• Stereotyping: Assuming a person's behaviour due to generalisation from social grouping

e.g this person will be bad at basketball because they are small

• Prejudice: Forming an attitude of a person based on little or no knowledge of them

e.g this person should not be picked for the basketball team because they will be bad at basketball due to their small height

• Discrimination: Behaving towards a person in a way specific to your prejudice attitude of them

e.g this person is not picked for the basetball team because they are small, so will be bad at basketball

Tajfel & Turner 1979

Background: Evolution & socialisation teach us that social catergorisation aids survival

Key term 1: 'social catergorisation' put ourselves and others into social groups, and the group norms inform us of people's likely behaviour, which helps us understand the social environment

Key term 2: 'social identification' to adopt the identity (behaviour, uniform) of in-group, feel emotional significance and boost self-esteem

Key term 3: 'social comparison' to maintain personal self-esteem, we must favour our own in-group over out-groups, which means we must discriminate against members out out-groups, causinf competition and hostility

evolution/socialisation teach social identification aid survival                                                                                  'social catergorisation' to assume behaviour +Levine 2005 (footy fans more likely to help injured person if support same team)  +good ecological validity  -but does not aid survival, weakening theory

'social identification' group identity (behaviour, uniform), emotional significance, boosts self-esteem +Levine et al 2005 (footy fans more likely to help injured wearing same shirt)   +real world application as could prevent hooliganism by promoting idea of football fan intergroup  -but does not aid survival, weakening theory

'social comparison' maintain personal self-esteem, favour ingroup & discriminate outgroup +Lalonde 1992 (hockey team discriminate better team ('play dirty') to maintain self-esteem)  +good ecological validity  +Tajfel 1970 (pick painting & money rewards show ingroup favouritism, despite randomly selected)  -artificial social groups, not real life social catergorisation, unnatural behaviour, bad external validity

+Theory has good application create intergroup to prevent social identification/comparison leading to less discrimination e.g learning disabled children in mainstream education

-Theory dismisses individual variables (personality, genes) (culture, situation) influence discrimination e.g hostile personality, no social identity, still discriminates    -Realistic conflict theory (Sherif) assumes intergroup discrimination arises due to competition over finite resources, not just to boost ingroup self-esteem     Conclusion consistency, but too simple/reductionist no individual differences or competition over resources causing prejudice (RCT)

• Aims: would prejudice develop if competition was created between 2 groups? would prejudice diminsh if cooperation was facilitated between 2 groups

•  Procedure: park in USA, 22 10-12 year old US, middle-class, protestant males in 2 groups using matched pairs design where they were matched on intelligence & sporting ability, told they are on summer camp and not aware being studied

Stage 1 Ingroup formation: not aware of other group, develop group identity (Eagles/Rattlers, flag, hierarchy, rules) & encourage group cooperation

Stage 2 Intergroup competition: made aware of other group & immediate hostility, competition encouraged (baseball & tug of war), discrimination (name-calling, burning flag) due to competition over finite prizes (penknives, food), questionnaire average 93% ingroup friends & 7% outgroup friends

Stage 3 Intergroup cooperation: given superordinate goals (fix 'broken' water supply, free truck from mud) & voluntarily pooled resources (tokens) to afford to watch a film together, questionnaire redone average 70% ingroup friends & 30% outgroup friends, share bus home

HOSTILITY BEFORE COMPETITION SUPPORTS SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY, SUPPORTS REALSITC CONFLICT THEORY AS COMPETITION OVER FINITE RESOURCES NEEDED

+Reliability due to consistency which support realistic conflict theory (93% vs 7% friends, Lalonde 1992 hockey team outgroup discrimination 'dirty' due to intergorup competition over resources (peknife, food, trophy, sporting status)

+Application as cooperation & use superordinate goals to diminish outgroup discrimination (led to 30% outgroup friends) e.g United Nations brings countries together with goal of world peace, to prevent war between countries

+Ecological validity (field study) representative of setting for real life competition over finite resources, natural behaviour displayed. Good validity as no demand characteristics as boys didn't know in a study so natural behaviour

-Generalisability homogenous sample so not representative or generalisable to target population of all western people e.g may be more competitive due to high levels of testosterone in young males

-Internal validity as field study so extraneous variables (e.g weather affecting emotions) could not be controlled which may affect cause & effect relationship between competition over finite resources and prejudice behaviour

-Ethical guidelines violated as no informed consent, no mention of debrief & ppts not protected from danger (penknives, violence like burning flags could easily escalate)  Conclusion good consistency reliability, strengthed by ecological validity & good application to prevent prejudice/war, but not generalisable to general pop. & ethical issues

• Based on Sherif Robber's Cave Study 1954
• People form social groups, which have different beliefs and goals
• Ingroup favouritism
• Social groups ensure selfish needs met when resources are scarce, which aids survival according to evolution
• Intergroup competition over finite resources leads to prejudice & discrimination
• Superordinate goals encourage intergroup cooperation, which reduces prejudice & discrimination

E.g

• Football hooligan firms
• Hooligans believe their firm is superior to another firm
• Football hooligan firms form to gain social status & hierarchical power, which may aid survival
• Football hooligan firms fight on street to compete over social status & hierchical power, which leads to prejudice & discrimination of other firm's hooligans
• Superordinate goals such as coaching football to children encourages cooperation between football fan hooligans from rival firms, which reduces prejudice & discrimination

• People form social groups, which have different beliefs and goals +Tajfel 1970 boys into 2 groups based on painting preference -Sherif 1954 artificial grouping so formation of social groups not based on beliefs
• Ingroup favouritism +Lalonde 1992 worse hockey team claim they are superior by calling other team's tactics 'dirtier' +Levine et al 2005 more likely to help injured person in same footy shirt +Sherif 1954 boys discriminate other group by flag-burning, name-calling, 3% outgroup friends
• Intergroup competition over finite resources, which aids survival and leads to prejudice +Lalonde 1992 social 'winning' status & trophy -Tajfel 1970 no competition over finite resources but still discriminate with rewards suggests social identitity theory no competition needed, must be self-esteem +Sherif 1954 baseball, tug of war for finite prizes (penknife, food) -Sherif 1954 groups develop immediate prejudice (name-calling) as soon as made aware of other group, before any competition over finite resources is introduced suggests social identity theory no competition needed
• Superordinate goals encourage intergroup cooperation, which reduces prejudice +Sherif 1954 superordinate goals to encourage cooperation like truck out of mud, fix water supply, led to voluntarily pooling resources to afford watch film, bus ride home & 30% outgroup friends from 7% -not generalisable as homogenous sample e.g testosterone=competition
• Conclusion Competition not needed (Social Identity Theory 1970) (Tajfel 1970, or initially in Sherif 1954), competition may not influence gen. pop's prejudice as less testosterone (not generalisable from young boys). However useful application of superordinate goals which could prevent prejudice (e.g football hooliganism). too specific/simplistic

Personality

• Right Wing Authoritarian (RWA) (authoritarian, ethnocentric, pessismistic, conservative, suspicious of democracy) e.g Hitler
• Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) (reject equality & tolerance, justify exploitative & oppressive hierarchies) Pratto etal 1994 & (authoritarian, nationalistic) e.g slave trade owners
• Low openess/agreeableness & high conscientousness Costa & McCrae 1992 according to Eysenck's personality theory

Situation

• competition (cooperation Sherif 1954 superordinate goals> 30% outgroup friends)
• segregation (integration Deutsch & Collins 1951 b&w soldiers dine together)
• hierarchies (intergorup equal-status contact)

Culture

• Low pro-diversity policy (anti-diversity) as cultural policies influence individual attitudes (Guimond et al 2013 high pro-diversity culture reduced anti-muslim attitudes)
• Individualist culture (only thinking of yourself)

How can we explain and reduce football fan violence?

• state key question (written as a question)

• define any terms used in question

• explain direct impacts of key question (individuals affected- hurt, inconvenience, reputation of groups of people)

• explain indirect impacts of key question (society affected- NHS, education, police, tax, reputation of areas/clubs)

• give example (where, when, who, what, IMPACT on individuals & society)

• The key question for social psychology is 'How can we explain & reduce football fan violence?'
• Define 'football fan violence': spontaneous violence or planned violence by firms, hooliganism grew in 80s, first crowd disorder in 1846

It is important to reduce football fan violence because it impacts greatly on individuals & society:

• Direct impact: individuals get physically hurt, previously led to disappointment for fans and job loss for stewards/catering as fans were banned from watching match, affects reputation of club which reduces sponsorship

• Indirect impact: costs to society like NHS/police resources & money as need ambulances/medics on standby, police on patrol in area, hospitals deal with injured, police arrest violent individuals, which all comes from taxes so affects whole of society. Also affects reputation of area which may mean less money through tourism

The example of England vs Russia match in Marseille, France for the Euros June 2016, shows negative impacts of football fan violence & highlights importance of reducing football fan violence:

• violent clashes between England and Russian football fans were so extreme French police had to use tear gas and water cannons to disperse the crowds
• Innocent fans got hurt, costs to French healthcare/police, English/Russian reputation harmed, loss of tourism income

How do theories explain football fan violence?

AO1: previous card (state question, what is ffv?, reduce as direct impacts, indirect impacts, example)

AO2: Agency Theory (Milgram 1974) Agentic state=hooligans blindly obey orders to fight from LAF (firm ring leader) & hand over responsibility, despite moral strain. Moral strain= physical/psychological symptoms felt by hooligans when going against personal moral values such as shaking, sweating. Curfews on firm leader or imprison to reduce presence & power, make hooligans feel responsible to switch to autonomous state with cctv, police presence & banning balaclavas

Social Impact Theory (Latané 1981) strength=firm hierarchy where ring leader has social status. immediacy=ring leader is watching fight/is nearby. number=firm hierarchy with multiple ring leaders/firms kept to 5-10 people to ensure no diffusion of responsibility or social loafing. Reduce immediacy with curfews on match days/prison/take away phone, mix hooligans with normal fans/cctv/police presence/ban balaclavas to encourage social loafing/diffusion of responsibility

Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner 1979) s.catergorisation=ingroups (firms) to boost self-esteem. s.identification=adopt group violent/xenophobic behaviour & uniform (shirt/dark clothes/balaclava). s.comparison=see their firm as superior, ingroup favouritism, outgroup discrimination (xenophobia/violence/taunting) to maintain self-esteem. Create common ingroup of football fans or contact sport, based on similarities to prevent discrimination

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif 1966) footy fans can maximise personal rewards like social status by creating groups (firms), hooligans believe their firm is superior & discriminate other firms, fight in street to compete over finite resources like social status. Superordinate goals e.g coaching football to children to encourage intergroup cooperation which reduces prejudice

Aim: Difference in obedience between males & females. Retesting Kilham & Mann 1974 68% males 150V shock vs 40% females. Semi-structured survey questionnaire. Obedience measured on Likert Scale 5-25, where 25 is max. & 5 is min. obedience.

IV/DV: operationalised: IV= 'male or female', DV='the level of self-reported obedience (score from 5 to 25 where....)'

Hypotheses: experimental='male will be more obedient (out of a score of...) compared to females', null='there will be no difference in obedience (out of a score of...) between males & females. Any difference will be due to chance.'

Procedure: 1) wrote obedience statements (e.g if paramedic told me to leave scene of an incident, I would stay to watch). Pilot study through discussion/changing statements. 5 closed-ended qus- statements on Likert scale (e.g strongly agree). 6th closed-ended qu (male or female?) to gauge gender. 1 open-ended qu at end. Apparatus=20 copies, scoring key for L.Scale, pen. Opportunity sampling method, approaching 10 male & 10 female AC students in corridors 9am-4:30pm. Target pop=16-19 yr old m/f students. 2) informed consent, right to withdraw, no comments on answers to keep confidentiality, debrief of aim of study. 3) quantitative: used scoring key to total obedience scores (per question 1 is least obedient... 5-25). measures of central tendency/range calculated & means for males & females plotted on bar chart to show gender differences in obedience. 4) qualitative: (What do you think is the biggest factor affecting obedience?), identified themes such as 'socialisation', found quotations for each theme, tallied number of males or females said each theme to see if gender made a difference in views of the causes of obedience.

Male Mean: 14.1    Female Mean: 16.3

Male Median: 14.5   Female Median: 18

Male Range: 11   Female Range: 9

Females marginally more obedient than males, but not significant

                                                                                                                                                               dominant theme=socialisation (8), 2nd=authority

                                                                                                                                                               No significant difference in obedience between males & females found, therefore we can accept the null hypothesis and reject the experimental hypothesis, which contradicts Kilham & Mann 1974 conlusion that males are more obedient than females. However there is consistency between other studies which suggest gender does not affect obedience levels, for example Burger 2009 found 67% of men & 73% of women obeyed orders to deliver 150V electrick shock to stranger. I can conclude there is no significant difference in obedience of males & females.

Strength: Although our conclusion that gender does not affect level of obedience is not consistent with Kilham & Mann 1974, there is a lot of other research which is consistent with this conclusion, such as Burger 2009 (67% males & 73% females 150V) & Shanab et al 1978 in Jordan found no difference in obedience between males & females, which strengthens the reliability of this study.

Weakness: A weakness of our study is that it lacks generalisability because we used the opportunity sampling method to gather male & female, 16-19 year old Abbey College student participants, who are not representative of people who are not 16-19 year old college students in manchester, weakening the generalisiblity of this study.

An improvement: A problem with our study was that religion directly influenced answers to one question asking whether the participant would 'alcohol if their friends told them to' because a large number of the participants are forbidden from drinking alcohol by their religion, making it a confoudning variable and lowering the validity of the study. If I were to conduct this study again I would identify any extraneous variables, such as religion, through a thorough pilot study where I would get students to fill in questionnaires & I would adjust the questions accordingly.