Unit 1: Social Approach

Private use only.

HideShow resource information
  • Created by: Beth
  • Created on: 22-04-14 15:29

Definition of approach

  • explains human behaviour
  • how it is influenced by presence, attitudes and actions
  • psychologists investigate obedience and prejudice

 

1 of 43

Methodology_Surveys_Interviews and questionnaires

  • survey = gathers info by asking questions to large no. of people. Two types;
  • interview = 1 to1 conversation with purpose. In person or on phone. Structured to unstructured
  • questionnaire = written questions participant answers with no researcher present. Open (qualitative) or closed (quantitative) questions.

 

2 of 43

Methodology_Surveys_Questionnaire evaluation

Generalisability:

  • sent to large no. people - must be to representatives of target population

Reliability:

  •  sent to large no. people - replicable - do it again

Objectivity:

  • high - if use inter-rate reliabilty of another researcher analyse data - to check not bias

Validity:

  • closed questions - restrict answers - reduce depth - low validity
  • open questions - allow acess of views - increase depth - high validity
3 of 43

Methodology_Surveys_Questionnaires evaluation

Ethics:

  • p. not answer trufully if invade privacy on sensitive issue

Subjectivity:

  • high - if bias analyisis - based on opinions
4 of 43

Methodology_Surveys_Interviews evaluation

Generalisability:

  • bigger sample - structured - quick - more generalisable
  • smaller sample - unstructure - slow

Reliability:

  • structured  - easier repeat- more reliable
  • unstructured - harder repeat - all different - less reliable

Objectivity:

  •  high - if record and play back to p. and agree accuracy

Validity:

  • closed questions - restrict answers - reduce depth - low validity
  • open questions - access views - increase depth - high validity

 

 

 

 

 

 

5 of 43

Methodology_Surveys_Interviews evaluation

Ethics:

  • p. lie if intrusive on senstiive issue
  • no researcher presnet - more honest

Subjectivity:

  • high - if bias - based on opinion

 

 

 

6 of 43

Methodology_Qual vs. quant

Qualitative data:

  • words, text and ideas not reducable to numbers
  • from open questions and case studies
  • in depth data- meaningful conclusions - valid
  • produce rich detailed info that acess emotions andmotivation behind behaviour
  • conducted  more natural circumstances  - ecological validity - real life
  • reasons why not what - explore finding behind quant. data
  • difficult draw comparisons - participant answer own way - no formal measure
  • open to subjective interpretation
  • harder replicate - no control on answers
  • less scientific and more subjective than quant.
7 of 43

Methodology_Qual vs. quant

Quantitative data:

  • data of amounts - numbers
  • numerical and statistical data
  • from lab experiments
  • what not why
  • analyse data - draw conclusions
  • statistical data - further test for chance
  • easily represented in graphs and charts
  • uses operationalised - easier repeat - check reliabilty
  • scientific and objective
  • narrow, unrelaistic info on small fragments of behaviour
  • reduce thoughts and feelings- superficial view - low validity
8 of 43

Methodology_Hypotheses and ethics

  • alternative hypotheses = difference
  • null hypotheses = no difference if so chance
  • directional (one tailed) = specific difference
  • non-directional (two-tailed) =  difference not specific

 

Ethics:

  • confidentiality - respect info and keep private
  • debriefing - harmful long lasting impacts?
  • right to withdraw - clarity of point stop anytime
  • deception - have been lied? was anyother way? was approved by other psychologists?
  • competence - researchers not make judgement on p. unless qualified
  • informed consent - p. given consent after told exactly what happening

 

9 of 43

Methodology_Sampling methods

Oppurtunity

  • participants who present and available at time
  • quick and easy
  • not very representative - small collection from community

Random

  • every member of target population equal chance of selection
  • unbias - researcher  not control chosen
  • hard to do unless small population

Stratified

  • classify target population into subcategories - p. proprtionate to it
  • very representative of taret population
  • time consuming

 

 

 

 

10 of 43

Methodology_Sampling methods

Volunteer / Self-selected

  • participants conciously chose take part in study, possible reponse to advert
  • acess  variety normally don't - motivated
  • motivation cause different behaviour - special qualities

 

11 of 43

Content_Obedience_Agency Theory_Milgram

Description

  • obedience = acknowledgement of authority and compliance with orders
  • agentic state = independent thinking and conscience supressed, follow authorative figure's orders
  • autonomous state = person acts and thinks as independent individual with fully active conscience
  • moral strain = person goes against their conscience and does something believe to be wrong, causes internal conflict

 

 

12 of 43

Content_Obedience_Agency Theory_Milgram

Evaluation

For: supporting research

  • Milgram's study - p. agentic state, adminster electric shocks to learner, ordered by authorative figure
  • Meeus & Raajmakers - p. agentic state, insulted job applicant, ordered by authorative figure
  • Hofling - nurses agentic state, overdosed patient, ordered by authorative figure ('Dr')

 

Applications

  • Abu Ghraib
  • agentic state - US soldiers abuse Iraqi prisoners ordered to by superior ranks
  • moral strain - guilt but seemed greater good ... at war
  • autonomous state - Joe Darby 'whistle blower'

 

13 of 43

Content_Obedience_Agency Theory_Milgram

  • Holocaust
  • agentic state - Nazi soldiers carry out Hitler's Jew abuse orders
  • moral strain - guilt but did out of fear for own lives
  • autonomous state - Schindler helped +1200 Jews escape

Against : Alternative theories

  • French & Raven's Social Power Theory -
  • obey because rewards, avoid punishment and trust expert power - agency thepor
  • agency theory can't explain  individual differences - why some obey and others don't (e.g. 35% Milgram participants not full 450V - changed state)

 

 

 

14 of 43

Content_Prejudice_Social Identity Theory_Tajfel

Description

  • prejudice - attitude of making assumption on person based on particular characteristic
  • discrimination - action towards object of prejudice
  • states prejudice starts with grouping
  • Stage 1 Social Categorisation - group into categories - in / out
  • Stage 2 Social Identification - accept belonging by accepting group norms - how identify as group
  • Stage 3 Social Comparison - compare to boost in-group self-esteem and humiliate out-group

 

 

 

15 of 43

Content_Prejudice_Social Identity Theory_Tajfel

Evaluation

For: supporting research

  • Sherif - starts by grouping - Eagles and Rattlers in US boys summer camp - hostile knew of other's existence
  • Jane Elliott - starts by grouping - blue and brown eyes in school - superior group received discrimantory behaviour - stage 1 eye colour - stage 2 collars - stage 3 name calling, less break, comments on parents

Applications

  • Abu Ghraib
  • stage 1:  in group - US soldiers / out group - Iraqi prisoners
  • stage 2 : uniforms, nationality, culture, religion
  • stage 3 : physical, sex abuse and bad conditions

 

 

 

16 of 43

Content_Prejudice_Social Identity Theory_Tajfel

  • Holocaust
  • Stage 1 in-group Nazi soldiers / out-group Jews
  • Stage 2 St David's star, identity cards, beliefs
  • Stage 3 extermination camps, physical and verbal abuse

  • Overcoming discrimination - diffuse confilct with shared goals (e.g. Sherif)

Alternative theories

  • Realistic conflict theory - limited resources mean prejudice and discrimination
  • SIT not explain co-existence - peace exists
  • SIT not account long conflicts
  • SIT underestimates individual differences - some more prejudice
17 of 43

Obedience studies_Milgram_description

Aim:

  • investigate levels of obedience when participant instructed by authorative figure to adminsiter electric shocks to another person

Method:

  • lab experiment
  • sample 40 males 20-50 yrs
  • volunteer - newspaper advert - 'study of memory and learning' 

Procedure:

1. Participant arrives at Uni alone, draws role out of hat

2. draw rigged, participant always teacher, Mr Wallace (confederate) learner

3. teacher watches learner strap into 'electric chair'

18 of 43

Obedience studies_Milgram_description

4.in another room with fake shock generator, has 30 switches 15-450V. Teacher read word pairs, learner must memorise

5. teacher tests learner, give one word, learner picks 1 of 4 options match by press light, lights up on generator

6. incorrect - shock +15V each time   correct- move on

7. if p. (teacher) stops,  4 verbal prods by researcher to continue 

Results:

  • 100% participants up to 300V
  • 65%  or 26/ 40 participants 450V (max.)

Conclusion:

  • we are socialised to recognise authority and react with obedience
19 of 43

Obedience studies_Milgram_evaluation

Generalisability:

  • all males - andocentric
  • all middle aged
  • all New Haven area US - ethnocentric
  • volunteers more motivated - perform better

Reliability:

  • lab experiment - high control extraneous variables
  • standardised procedure - brief, recorded screams and verbal prods
  • results consistent with Hofling and Meeus & Raajmakers

Application:

  • Holocaust - Nazi soldiers obeyed Hitler and abused Jews
  • Abu Ghraib - US soldiers obeyed superiors and abused Iraqi prisoners
20 of 43

Obedience studies_Milgram_evaluation

Validity:

  • low ecological validity - artificial task and environment
  • low population validity - (generalisability)
  • high experimental validity - p. believed shocks real - distress, shake, sweat (ethis -protection)

Ethics:

  • confidentiality - secret film - footage viewable
  • deception - study of learning and memory - shocks 'real'
  • right to withdraw - prods suggest not 
  • debrief - p. shown Mr Wallace safe - p. examined after by psychiatrists for harm - follow up survey 84% happy be part
21 of 43

Obedience studies_Milgram variation_description

Aim:

  • investigate if obedience levels change when teacher and learner in same room

Procedure:

  • incorrect answer, teacher puts learners hand on shock plate
  • 150v learner refuses put hand on plate, researcher orders teacher (p.) to force hand

Results:

  • 12/40 or 30% fored hand up to 450V (max.)

Conclusion:

  • obedience decreased when close proximity (same room)
22 of 43

Obedience studies_Meeus & Raajmakers_description

Aim:

  • to test obedince where psychological harm is done
  • to test if more modern psychological administrative violence creates more or less violence than Milgram's

Method:

  • lab experiment
  • 39 people (males and females)
  • age 18-55
  • volunteer - response to newspaper advert - paid

Procedure:

  • p. arrive Uni led to believe study on stress and performance
  • p. believe psychology dept. select candidates for job, each applicant take test done by p.
23 of 43

Obedience studies_Meeus & Raajmakers_description

  • p. told test vital to sucess. Those (confed.) failed test= lost job
  • p. asked make 15 increasingly distressing remarks to applicant on test sucess "keep responding like this and your fail the test"
  • p. overhear researcher tell 'false' info to applicant - test not effect job chance
  • 2/3 through test applicant accuses researcher of giving false info and withdraws consent to continue
  • applicant distressed of failing test (no job), if p. stop remarks researcher prods
  • p. all stress remarks obedient, p. refused disobedient!

Results:

  • 92% p. all 15 stress remarks - obeyed
  • p. report disliked making stress remarks
  • p. convinced test score affected by stress remarks
  • 96% thought real situation 
24 of 43

Obedience studies_Meeus & Raajmakers_description

Conclusion:

  • people obeyed authorative figure and went against better nature, eventhough know harm someone else
  • obedience higher than Milgram -  psychological harm easier obey than physical
25 of 43

Obedience studies_Meeus & Raajmakers_evaluation

Generalisability:

  • both males and females
  • p.only from Holland - ethnocentric
  • volunteer sample - motivated- perform better

Reliability:

  • lab experiment - high control enxtraneous variables
  • standardised procedure: brief, applicant response, p. stress remarks, experimenter verbal prods
  • results consistent with Hofling and Milgram

Application:

  • Holocaust - Nazi soldiers obey Hitler and abuse Jews
  • Abu Ghraib - US soldiers obey superiors and abuse Iraqi prisoners
26 of 43

Obedience studies_Meeus & Raajmakers_evaluation

Validity:

  • low ecological validity - artificial environmet (lab) and task of stress remarks
  • high ecological validity - real Uni environemt and real task of job interview
  • high experimental validity - 96% thought real situation

Ethics:

  • deception - stress and performance study not obedience
  • protection - disliked giving stress remarks - distress they cause other not get job
  • right to withdraw - if stop remarks 4 verbal prods
  • debrief - follow up questionnaire year later
27 of 43

Obedience studies_comparison_ M vs. M&R

Similarities

  • volunteer samples - newspaper adverts
  • lab experiments - high control extraneous variables but artificial environment
  • deception - study of memory and learning / study of stress and performance
  • used actors/ confederates 
  • ethnocentric - one country only - Holland / US

Differences

  • results: M 65% full stage  /   MR  92% full stage
  • scripted responses: M taped / MR  live 
  • consequences if real:  M  death /  MR  no job
  • effect: M  physical /  MR psychological
  • sample: M 40 males, 20 - 50 yrs /  MR 39 males and female, 18-55yrs
28 of 43

Practical_Obedience and gender

Aim:

  • test if males are more obedient than females (alternative hypothesis)

Background:

  • Milgram's agency theory states people in society are in agentic state as obey authorative figures orders, and own thinking and conscience is supressed

Method:

  • semi-structured interview

Procedure:

  • select 10 p. using oppurtunity sampling
  • brief p. to make sure comfortable 
  • interview had both open and closed questions
29 of 43

Practical_Obedience and gender

  • debrief p. so knew what looking at
  • analysed data and worked out averages for male and female obedience scores on Linkert scale 
  • displayed results on bar chart

Results:

  • quantitative - males 16.6 - females 16
  • qualitative - males generally said most laws necessary - females generally said parents supportive heterosexual couples

Conclusion:

  • males are more obedienet than females (only slightly)
30 of 43

Practical_Obedience and gender

Evaluation

Generalisability

  • 10 Southampton residents - ethnocentric
  • college students - same age range (16-19)
  • oppurtunity sampling - less representative 

Reliability

  • standardised procedure - scripted brief, interview schedule, debrief  - same experience
  • similar findings Milgram (test males)

Application

  • Holocaust - Nazi soldiers male, carried out Hitler's orders; implies females less likely to obey 
31 of 43

Practical_Obedience and gender

Validity

  • closed questions - restrict answers - reduce depth
  • open questions - access views - increase depth

Ethics

  • informed consent 
  • brief 
  •  avoid deception
  • debrief
  • right to withdraw

Subjectivity

  • open questions - interpretation false - bias
32 of 43

Detail study_Hofling_Obedience_description

Aim

  • to test if nurses follow hospital regualtions and medical ethics when given order that infriges it

Method

  • field study
  • 3 hospitals midwest US (x1 questionnaire, x2 experiment)

Procedure (questionnaire):

  •  fill out if give overdose to patient
  • 10/12 grad NO , 21/21 student NO
33 of 43

Detail study_Hofling_Obedience_description

Procedure (experiment)

  • night shift
  • identical boxes - 22 wards - public and private psychiatric units
  • capsules placebos - label normal 5mg Astroten, max. daily 10mg
  • Dr. (confederate) rings Nurse - instructs 20mg - hurry and patient needs - he observe in 10 mins and sign authorisation then
  • real Dr. posted nearby - unseen to observe 

Results

  • 21/22 or 95% obeyed
  • 11/22 or 50% aware dosage discrepency

Conclusion

  • nurses believed they not obey orders that break regualtions and endanger patients, but did
34 of 43

Detail study_Hofling_Obedience_evaluation

Generalisabilty

  • only females - andocentric
  • midwest US - ethnocentric

Reliabilty

  • replicated 22 times
  • standardised procedure
  • consitent with Milgram and Meeus & Raajmaker's findings
  • field experiment - low control extraneous variables

Application

  • Holocaust - Nazi soldiers obeyed Hitler and abuse Jews
  • Abu Ghraib - US soldiers obeyed ssuperiors and abuse Iraqi prisoners
35 of 43

Detail study_Hofling_Obedience_evaluation

Validity

  • high ecological -  natural environment - hospital ward
  • high experimental - unaware - natural behaviour

Ethics

  • no informed consent - but study not work
  • debrief
  • protection - pscyhological - emabrrassment and guilt
36 of 43

Detail study_Sherif_Prejudice_description

Aim

  • test creation of in/out group causes conflict and prejudice
  • reduce prejudice via shared goal

Method

  • field study
  • 3 weeks USA, Oaklahoma
  • sample 22 boys similar background - 2 week summer camp
  • volunteer via parents from advert
37 of 43

Detail study_Sherif_Prejudice_description

Procedure

1. Unaware of each other

  • Eagles and Rattlers
  • develop idnetity and norms - flags, rules - co-operate
  • end of week aware of other group
  • derogatory out-group terms used

2. Competition / conflict

  • 10 events
  • researchers manipulate points - engineer score - Eagles won
  • prizes trophy and knives each (stolen by other team)
38 of 43

Detail study_Sherif_Prejudice_description

3. Cooperation phase/overcoming prejudice

  • work together fix water tank blockage - thirst
  • work togther pull food truck out of ditch - hunger

Results

  •  strong in-group preference - negative language towards others
  • own group positve qualities; brave, tough, friendly vs. other group negative stereotype; sneaks, smart alecks, stinkers
  • stage 2 93% friends own group
  • stage 3 30% friends both groups

Conclusion

  • competition  = inter-group conflict=  create prejudice and discrimination
  • co-operation = common goal = reduce prejudice and discrimination
39 of 43

Detail study_Sherif_Prejudice_evaluation

Generalsiabiltity

  • ethnocentric - white, middle class Americans
  • andocentric - boys (all 12yrs)

Reliability

  • field study - difficult repeat exactly - low control extraneous variables
  • results consistent Jane Elliot's

Application

  • Abu Ghraib
  • Holocaust
  • real life conflicts and resolutions with joint goals
40 of 43

Detail study_Sherif_Prejudice_evaluation

Valdity

  • high ecological - natural environment -summer camp - natural behaviour
  • unaware of observation - less demand characteristics

Ethics

  • no informed consent - parents consent
  • no right to withdraw
  • deception
  • protection harm - knives
41 of 43

Key Issue_Blind Obedience in prison setting_Abu Gh

Describe (no psych)

  • US military personnel breach human rights of Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib prison
  • summer 2004 photgraphs detailing US military personnel abusing, torturing and humiliating prisoners published world press
  • internatinal outcry - soldiers involved investigated and court martialled
  • 11 junior ranking soldiers convicted abuse and deriliction of duty 
  • no officers convicted abuse, 2 officer convicted deriliction of duty
  • key issue because soldiers obeyed orders (officers) without question eventhough they knew it was wrong
42 of 43

Key Issue_Blind Obedience in prison setting_Abu Gh

Explain (psych)

Obedience:

  • Milgram - agency theory
  • Hofling
  • Meeus and Raajmakers

Prejudice:

  • Tajfel - Social identity theory
  • Sherif
  • Jane Elliott
43 of 43

Comments

No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all Approaches resources »