as psychology social approach

8/3/2019 As Psychology Social Approach

1/8

AS PSYCHOLOGY UNIT ONE SOCIAL APPROACH

DEFINITIONS1. Social approach

Social psychologists assume people behave differently as part of a group than they woindividually.

This is called de-individuation where a person becomes a group member and is no lonseen as an individual, that person becomes anonymous and the responsibility diffuses amonthe group members.

For example, people who are watching a live football match would more likely to stand up shout at their opponents if they are in a group than if they are alone because they think they

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 differently to others in similar situations.

For example, it is unusual for a male to dress up a kilt in England while it is generacceptable 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 wappropriate clothing; students are more likely to obey in a classroom than if it is on the street

ETHICAL GUIDELINES1. 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 sesteem.

3. Deception

Participants should not be deceived, however, if deceived they must receive a full and frdebrief.

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

task that they were involved, in order to return them to the psychological state they were befthe study.

6. **Protection and privacy

Participants should be protected from both physical and psychological harm.

Confidentiality; keep the participants details private; the psychologists should not use mans 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 personal**What is social pressure: It is how powerful or legitimate of the authority is. It depends on how we

brought up and socialised to response to certain figur2. Components

We can either act in agentic state when we follow commands from authority, giving up free wills and take no responsibility.

Or in autonomous state when we can follow our free wills but need to take full responsibover it.

If we are told to do something that we would not otherwise do, the negative feeling of unwillingness is known as moral strain but we still obey to it.

3. Supporting evidence from Millgrams research

All participants went up to issuing 300V electrical shock to the learner although trealised that 300V was a dangerous range. Participants were in agentic state and had giventheir free wills as they were pressurised in that situation.


2/8

This suggests that, as they were normal people, anyone can be highly obedient in the rsituation, even when it means hurting someone that is against their morals, which is identicathe view of the theory.

65% of participants issued electric shock up to 450V to the learner even though they wobviously uncomfortable in doing so.

This is further supported by the variations Milgram used within follow-up research becawhen the researcher left the room, obedience dropped, supporting that the view that situatinfluences obedience.

In a variation of his original study Milgram demonstrated that obedience dropped to 4when the experiment was moved to a rundown office blo

P.1 This provides support for Milgrams theory of obedience as it suggests that situation dinfluence obedience due to the fact that 65% of participants obeyed to 450V when experiment was conducted at the prestigious Yale University. All other variables remained same which shows the more legitimate the authority figure appears, based on the situation, more likely we are to obey.

4. Supporting evidence from Hoflings study

He found that 95% of nurses would obey a doctors orders and give a potentially foverdose of a drug to a patient just because they were told to do so.

This suggests that if the right situation was given, nurses would obey even though it involin endangering someone.

5. Supporting evidence from Muse and Raaijmakers research

Cross-cultural and nave participants would harass a job applicant just because they wtold to, showing how we react to orders from authority figures.

6. Refuting evidence from Millgrams study

It could be argued that 35% of Ps did not go up to 450V therefore agency is not a compexplanation of obedience as other factors such as personality and genes could have impactobedience which are not taken into account in the agency theory.

7. Refuting evidence from Adornos theory and Zilmers research

Adorno proposed a theory that goes against the agency theory that participants would folthe order if they have obedient personality. This view is strengthened by Zilmer who analypsychometric data from Nazi soldiers and US soldiers and found that Nazi soldiers were mobedient than US just because they had an authoritarian personality in terms of their resp

towards authority figure.Thus, the agency theory is not a complete explanation of obedience as personality does han effect on obedience.

8. Application on explaining real life incidents

The theory can be applied in explaining the My Lai massacre where the American soldwere ordered to wipe out the entire village in Vietnam.

Because it was ordered from a higher authority, soldiers had no choice and no responsibover what they were going to do therefore they became the agents of the authority at that teven though their task involved murdering innocent people.

MILGRAMS STUDY ON OBEDIENCE1. Aim

To test if situation would affect obedience. Particularly if people would still obey orders of hurting an innocent person without areasons just because they were told to do so.

2. Procedures

40 participants were gathered by advertisement offering a 4.5 dollar price to take part memory study.

The experiment took place in Yale University, participant met Mr Wallace who they thouwas another participant, but in fact he was a confederate. Both were then introduced the tasrole-playing learner or teacher. The participants would always be the teacher as the lots wrigged.

The participant was asked to issue electric shock to the learner if the wrong answer wgiven, starting from 15V until 450V, in an increasing intensity of 15V.


3/8

When the participants protested and refused to continue, scripted prods such as experiment requires you to go on and you must continue were given by the researcheencourage them to stay and see if they would obey.

3. Results

All participants issued 300V to the learner.

65% of participants issued 450V to the learner.4. Conclusion

Obedience is determined by situation.

The more legitimate of the authority, the more likely people would become agents for authority and do things that they would not otherwise do.

5. Supporting evidence from Muse and Raaijmakers research (see agency theory)6. Supporting evidence from Hoflings research (see agency theory)7. Supporting evidence from Millgrams variations (see agency theory)

It shows that changing from Yale University to offices reduced obedience, providing suppto the idea that obedience is determined by situation. This variation was higher in ecologvalidity due to the more realistic settings.

8. Refuting evidence from Adornos theory and Zilmers research (see agency theory)

9. Ethics

Participants were thoroughly debriefed about the true aims the task, in order to return th

to the psychological state they were before the study. Follow up contacts were made to ensure there was no lasting damage to the participanhence protected from harm.

10 High experimental validity

At the end of experiment participants said they were extremely painful, indicating that tbelieved the experiment was real. Also, their signs of stress were showing their natural respowhich adds credit to the experimental validity.

11. Low population validity

All participants took part on voluntary basis which cannot represent the whole populatas volunteers might be more obedient than others, therefore cannot draw general conclusfrom this study.

However, in Meeus and Raaijkmkerss study in Holland, similar results were shosuggesting that culture does not affect obedience.

All participants were recruited from a restricted area in USA. It cannot be generalised iwider population as Americans might be more obedient than people from other countries.

12. Low ecological validity

Participants didnt think that the electric shocks were real because it was held in YUniversity where supposed to be a civilised and safe place.

However during the experiment participants did show obvious symptoms of distress sas sweating and biting finger nails. Therefore agency theory is a better explanationparticipants were involved in agentic state when the authority figure stated he would take othe responsibility.

It was an artificially set laboratory experiment; in real life, obedience would not

measured by how willing someone was to give electric shock of increasing severity to a strang13. High reliability

The use of standardised procedures ensured all participants experienced the same scripprods which allows the study to be replicated precisely to test the consistency of findinproviding a further support to its reliability.

In the experiment, all participants showed similar behaviour which backs up the point thawas a reliably applied procedure.

14. Criticism

It was criticised that it was not ethical to deceive participants as they were told it was a tof punishment but in fact it was about obedience. However if they were not deceived thdemand characteristics might have caused their behaviour to become artificial and therefore

longer be a true test of natural obedience.


4/8

Moreover, the ethical guidelines were not available at the time when the research conducted; it was argued that it helped in developing the ethical guidelines.

When participants protested and showed unwillingness in continuing the experiment, treceived a series of verbal prods from the researcher and were compelled to go ahead. Althoparticipants wanted to withdraw from the experiment, they were not allowed to do so, hence given rights to withdraw from any stages of the experiment.

It had also breached the guideline of protection as participants were extremely distressed anxious while giving electrical shock. This might have caused psychological harm to them atherefore participants were no longer protected during the procedure.

MILGRAMS VARAITION STUDY

1. Aim To test if the changing the situation would change their obedience.

2. Procedures

The exactly same procedures except that the experiment took place in a set of offrather than the original Yale University.

3. Results

He found that 47.5% of participants issued 450V electric shock to the learner, which w17.5% lower than the one found in the original experiment.

4. Conclusion

Obedience is determined by situation as almost half of the participants would still issu450V electric shock to an innocent person without any reasons, just simply because they wtold to do so.

And the drop of obedience indicates the causal relationship between change of situatand degree of obedience, providing a direct support to his agency theory.

5. High experimental validity

This experiment was a true test of obedience as participants had fewer demcharacteristics because they showed more realistic obedience in an office while participantthe original experiment might have behaved differently to please the professor in YUniversity.

6. High ecological validity

More realistic setting in an office compared to Yale University.

Obedience showed was more natural and realistic than in a laboratory.Muse and Raaijmakerss study1. Aim

To test if participants would harass a job applicant even though they knew it was a fainterview.

2. Procedures

39 participants recruited from general population in the Netherlands by newspaadverts to take part in a stress test.

Nave participants were used to interact with confederate, whom was acting as a applicant.

Participants were asked to harass the job applicant despite of the increasing objectraised by the applicant.

3. Results

92% of participants obeyed even though they said it was unfair and stated they did want to do it.

4. Conclusion

Agency theory is universal rather than culturally determined.

People from different culture would obey to a recognised authority and do something tgoes against their better nature by adopting an agentic state.

5. High experimental validity

Participants did not willingly go along with the orders they were given.6. High ecological validity

Less extreme demonstration of harming someone in order to show more realobedience.


5/8

7. High population validity

Samples drawn from general public, adding a cross-cultural dimension to Milgrams findings.8. High reliability

Standardised procedures like measuring obedience by how far up the scale of insults twould go, the results are numerical therefore it is highly objective and not open to interpretat

COMPARE AND CONTRAST MILGRAM AND MUSE & RAAIJMAKERS1. Similarities

Gather participants by advertisement from general population

Nave participants were used

nvolved in interacting with confederate

Scripted verbal prods givenParticipants deceived and not fully informed breaching ethical guidelines

Test of obedience particularly agentic state, against moral and free wills

Both show that obedience dropped if the research had left in the variations2. Differences

Milgrams Muse and RaaijmakersPlace 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.v. Field natural enviorment highere.v.

No. of participants 40 39Ps used All male and American lower

p.v.Cross cultural & mixed genders higher p.v.

HOFLINFS STUDY1. Aim

To discover whether nurses would comply with an instruction which would involve thhaving to infringe both hospital regulations and medical ethics.

2. Procedures

Identical boxes of capsules were placed in 22 wards of both public and private psychiahospitals in USA.

When nurses were alone on the ward, they were phoned by Dr Smith who wa

confederate to give a 20mg dose of a new drug Astroten to a patient, which was in fact a supill. Nurses were deceived at this point.

The maximum daily dose of 10mg was clearly stated on the bottle and the doctor saidwould sign the prescription later, which was against the hospital rules.

The nurses were halted from going too far when obedience or consistent resistance wshown.

Then they were debriefed about the true aim of the research.3. Results

In the survey, 21/22 nurses said they wouldnt obey but 21/22 did really obeyed.

21/22 nurses obeyed to the doctor, 11 of them stated they were aware of the maximdosage.

4. Conclusion

Although nurses believed that they would not obey a doctor unquestioningly if they wordered to do something that breached regulations and endangered patients, it appeared thafact they did just that.

5. High ecological validity

Nurses showed realistic obedience as hospital was their everyday workplace.

Therefore their response was truly reflecting a real life situation where their behaviour wnatural.

6. High population validity

For nurses only because other professionals might have different training and so may not respondhe same way.

7 High reliability


6/8

Unlike Milgrams or Muse and Raaijmakers research, nurses in this research could ochoose either obey or not instead of how far they obeyed, therefore the data collected wnumerical and more comparable, hence they are not open to interpretation, adding credits to study.

However it could be argued that other variables were not well controlled suchdistraction in every nurses situation, making it difficult to replicate and less reliable.

8. Criticism

There was no informed consent as nurses were not aware that they were being tested. this is essential because this ensured that their behaviour was natural.

Nurses were not given the right to withdraw.

At the end of the research, the overdose might have judged their profession and also, tmight have had a serious effect on their self-esteem, therefore they were

not properly protected from psychological harm.

In a similar experiment conducted by Rank and Jacobson, they found that when a famidrug was used only 2/18 nurses obeyed, indicating that their obedience was caused by thspecific knowledge about the drug rather than the doctors authority figure as suggestedHoflings study.

9. Application on training nurses

The research reveals a weakness in the training courses that nurses should not automaticobey to doctors orders.

This can strengthen the training courses for nurses in the future to prevent blind obedie

that might cause serious consequences to patients.PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION1. Prejudice

An attitude towards somebody which is usually negative and based on little knowledge.

Frequently based on a stereotype held about the social group that they belong to.2. Discrimination

An action or behaviour towards somebody upon a prejudiced attitude.SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY (PROPOSED BY TAFJEL)1. Claims

Prejudiced is an inevitable natural product of social grouping.2. Components

We categorise ourselves and others as different social groups.

Groups that we belong to are our in groups and groups that we do not belong to are groups.

Then we identify ourselves as part of the group by following the social norms suchadopting the same opinions and attitudes of other in group members.

Finally we make biased judgements to the out groups when we compare them with ougroups.

3. Supporting evidence from Tajfels research

His studies on minimal groups showed that social grouping could induce unfavouracomparisons and prejudice between different groups, which is identical to the claim of soidentity theory.

4. Supporting evidence from Sherifs camping study

When boys were split into groups, hostility eventually appeared, suggesting that prejudica natural outcome of social grouping, same as the view of social identity theory.

However, it could be argued that social identity theory is not a complete explanationprejudice because the hostility between groups was even worse when competition introduced; therefore competition is a factor of prejudice which is not included in the soidentity theory.

5. Application on reducing prejudice in multi-cultural schools

As social grouping is said to be producing prejudice, mixing local students and students wother cultural background could reduce prejudice because they identified themselves as a whgroup and comparison would be less likely to occur. This could reduce their inter-racial violenc

TAJFELS STUDY1. Aim


7/8

To test if putting people into meaningless groups would cause prejudice, in termrewarding points to in group members or punishing out group members unfairly with money.

2. Procedures

Bristol schoolboys aged 13 to 14 were randomly split into two groups in a University, tthought they were put into groups with boys who like the same painter, Klee or Kandinsky.

They take part in a test where they needed to score 2 boys (1 from their own group anfrom another group) as an individual using the two grids given in terms of their painting.

The boys knew which group they belong to but not the other boys identity.

In the two grids, they could use strategies that allocate most points to own or in gromaximise or minimise the difference between two groups.

3. Results Boys tended to reward the most points to in groups and least point to out groups.

Also they opted to punish the out group by allocating them the least points to maximthe difference even though some more rational and beneficial scoring methods were available

4. Conclusion

The boys acted against their own interest to maximise the difference of scores, suggestthat their social identity was an important factor of leading to prejudice.

5. Supporting evidence from Sherifs camping study (see SIT)6. Low ecological validity

The nature of task, scoring points in terms of painting, was artificial which cannotapplied to other situations.

7. Low population validity

All schoolboys had similar background and culture which failed to generalise into a wider population Although competition was carefully avoided, for most schoolboys, grouping would simmean competition because this method is frequently used at schools; therefore their prejudmight be caused by competition instead of social grouping.

8. High reliability

Experiment was highly controlled because they knew which group they belonged to not the other boys identity.

The unfair allocation of points was caused by social grouping, but not the pre-existsocial groups amongst them.

The random grouping prevented the impact of pre-existing social groups on pallocation.

9. Application on team building As prejudice is said to be a natural outcome of social grouping, by using this principrejudice can be avoided in team building when everyone was put into the same group.

This can boost their self-esteem and performance.10. Criticism

Sherifs study has higher ecological validity than Tajfels because it was done durinsummer camp where boys were not aware of the study and therefore their prejudice was mnatural and realistic.

KEY ISSUE1. Description

In the social approach we studied about why guards abuse their power in a prison setting

The reason of why we chose this issue is because in 2004, images of Americans pri

guards torturing Iraqi prisoners in Abu Ghraib were released to the press. They claimed thwere doing this on behalf of the authority to interrogate the prisons.

Some people accused that the guards took pleasure in tormenting the prisoners to ftheir sick needs, therefore the problem happened on themselves prison guards.

Other people believed that their immoral acts were brought by the situation, in this casthe system.

SURVEY METHODS (GATHER SELF REPORT DATA)1. Questionnaire+ Collects a larger amount of data.+ Less time is required.+ Higher relevance to the research.+ Easy to analysis and more comparable.

1. Structured

Follow a questionnaire pattern.

Mostly closed questions.+ Higher relevance.- Closed questions: No in-depthinformation.2. Semi-structured

Contains both close and openquestions.

3. Unstructured

Ps control the direction ofconversation about a certain subject.


8/8

+ Results not open to interpretation objective.- Closed questions often used.

- Ps tend to give socially desirably answers low validity.

- Distraction less reliable response.- Ps may not understand the question and give random answers2. Interview+ Produces qualitative data.+ Often involves open questions.

+ Ps tend to tell the true answers & in-depth higher validity.+ Able to monitor other behaviour (e.g. body language).

+ More ethical can skip when uncomfortable.+ Flexible new brainstorm / insight- Lower relevance to the research in unstructured / semi-structured interview.- Highly subjective because it depends on how the research interpret and analysis the data.**How the researcher feels might be different from others.- Cannot generalise as the sampling is small.- Data difficult to analyse.- Time consuming.

QUANTITATIVE AND QUALITATIVE DATA

1. Quantitative data (numerical)

Nominal: Count the number that falls into that category (e.g. 10ppl short & 10ppl tall).

Ordinal: Ranking levels on a scale (e.g. 1 10, 1 is the highest and 10 is the shortest).

Interval: On a recognised unit measurement (e.g. height in terms of centimetre).

Quantify responses by measuring how much something has changed or been manipulated+ Able to generalise beyond sample.+ Able to compare the results.

+ Data not open to interpretation objective and reliable more scientific.

- Lacks depth in explaining human behaviour superficial measurement.Qualitative data

Consists of words data.

Made up of peoples opinions and attitudes.

Difficult to turn into numbers.

+ High validity the obtained persons view is realistic.

+ Detailed and in-depth.- Cannot be generalised results vary amongst individuals.

- Subjective depends on how the researcher interprets the data which can be biased prejudiced.

as psychology social approach

Documents