Social Psychology: The social approach is studying individuals in a social context such as family, friends, institutions

and wider society. Social behaviour may involve activity within a group or between group. Concerned with the way
our interactions with other people affected the way we think, feel and behave. (Social obedience & conformity.)
How we make sense & judge ourselves (self-perception & identity) considers how we relate to others & so includes
areas such as conflict, cooperation & relationships. Behaviour is influenced by actual, imagined or implied presence
of others.
Social psychologists are interested in the way people affect each other in terms of ‘social influence’, This can refer to
influence of a group, majority influence (conformity) or the influence of an individual with perceived authority to ask
you to do something (obedience) Can influenced can result in a change in the thinking, attitudes or behaviour of
others.
Group Influence on the self: When discussing group influence, social influence is important as it means any changes
in the way an individual acts, thinks or behave as a result of interaction with another person or group of people.
When someone tries to persuade another person it is the intention of the individual to do so, while social influence
can come from influential as well as unintentional acts. The rules of society, societal norms, play a significant role in
social influence as do conformity & obedience.
Key Beliefs/ assumptions: The effect of interaction between individuals: we are heavily influenced by individuals and
as a group. E.g an authority figure affect behaviour of an individual. Less emphasis on biological & cognitive causes.
States that people around us is what causes our behaviour. Each society & culture will have it’s own set of rules or
guidelines telling us how to behave (social values)
Culture is more often used in relation to a larger group such as the society in which we live or our ethnic group. Our
culture will affect our response to the individual.
Our relationships with other people are a major influence on an individual’s behaviour. Thought processes and
emotions (take on different roles when we are with different people) Our social role dictates our behaviour. We all
play different roles (parent, daughter) and interact with other people according to the behaviour associated with
that role.
The situation we are in has an effect on our behaviour, we don’t always act accordingly to our free will. (Environment
determines our behaviour) You may act in a way that is deemed acceptable in society. All human behaviour occurs in
a social context even when no one else is present (act dependent on situation we are in).We behave in ways we
believe are appropriate to the social setting, so although you’d take your top off for your doctor in the surgery, you’d
not do it in the supermarket.
We learn how to behave through our upbringing, understanding the unwrittern rules of society. Each
context/situation/environment had a set of social norms to follow which we adhere to in order to keep society
stable.
Strenghts Weaknesses
Use of field experiment on real life situations when Ethical issues as difficult to study social behaviours without
studying behaviour. Interested in human interaction this is neg effecting the participants in the study. Nowadays we
best studied in real situations where ppts have opportunity have ethical guidelines which they should follow to conduct
to interact. High eco V. studies.

Contributes it makes about understanding social Low generalisability – social approach tries to make
behaviour. Makes useful applications because it can generalizability but usually uses opportunity samples of
explain and even offer solutions to problems in the real small sample which don’t account for ID.
world.
Deterministic- it does not recognise other influences on our
Shows the power that social forces can have shaping behaviour such as genetics, physiological or psychodynamic
behaviour & thinking. Environment we develop in is central influences. Reduces idea people have autonomy or ability to
to who we are. Shows we are all individual is somewhat decide their own behaviour. (social reductionism)
artificial as we all behave similar depending on our
situation. Powerful as we can change social phenomena’s Low gen – normally conducted in the west especially USA.
which is difficult in Bio & cog. Issue as we know human cultures can be different.
Obedience:

We can influence someone else’s behaviour by issuing a command which we are obligated to obey. People in society
are in a position where obedience is expected of them and yet at the same time, we expect each person to act of the
dictates of their own conscience.

Obedience is the tendency to comply with the commands of those in authority. Has more to do with the lvl of
authority of the person doing the influence. If they are perceived to be in charge or seen as an authoritarian type,
individuals are more likely to respond to him or her by complying. Obedience occurs when someone acts in a way he
or she may not normally act as a result of someone in position of authority ordering them to do so.

The holocaust is one of the first things that come to mind with obedience. Adolf Eichmann was responsible for
developing & implementing plan for best way to collect, transport & slaughter those who were meant to die. On his
trials he said he was only doing what he was meant to do. He was tested and found to be sane.

Following the end of the war psychologists decided to study German behaviour to see how Germans were different
to allow them to carry out the orders they were given. Soon found out it was not a German trait but a human one.

Dissent & resitstance: The holding or expression of opinion at variance with those commonly or officially held. Those
who choose to not obey with the actions ordered are also said to be demonstrating independence behaviour. Resist
pressure to obey the orders given by an authority figure.

Disobedience is when the individual refuses to carry out the order of an authority figure. This can occur for various
reasons, ranging from social situation a person is in to the dispositional actors that influence personality & gender.
Milgram:

Aim: to investigate levels of obedience when authority figure tells them to give an electric shock. Investigate the
‘Germans are different’ hypothesis. (assumption obeyed due to blind obedience not because of who they were.
Method/Procedure: Sample of 40 men recruited from newspaper advert from new haven area. Lab based
experiment.
Lots drawn at the start, creating charade for who was the teacher & the learner. Participant was always the learner.
The volt machine ranged from 15v -450volts. The confederate (stooge) was taken into another room where he was
strapped down with electrodes attached to his arms.
Teacher had to read the word pairs to the learner, the first word pair with 4 terms. Every time there was an incorrect
answer participants had to give na electric shock going up in 15v every time a wrong answer was given.
Verbal prods were used to make the teacher continue carry on shocking the student. (Standardized).
Results: Of the 40 subjects, 5 refused to go beyond the 300 volt level. 4 more subjects gave one more shock than
stopped. 2 broke off at 330 volt level. 26/40 went up to the 450v (65%) 14 subjects defied the experimenter.
People showed distress while obeying when not wanting to. ‘nervous laughter’.
Continued because of verbal prods for them to continue, saw experiment to have a worthy purpose. Experimenter
was professional so knew what they were doing. Forms of gradual commitment. Victim wasn’t visible while
experimenter was.
Conclusion: Milgram argued that an important factor influencing behaviour is the situation a person is in. He
concluded obedience was due to:
Learner viewed as other participant so they could leave. Designed to look to have a worthy purpose. Obligation by
ppt not wanting to wreck experiment. Experimenter was profession so knew what they were doing.
Believed we make dispositional attributes about behaviour which are incorrect. We believe a person has behaved
the way they do because of their personality when it fact it was the situation which shaped their behaviour.
Strengths Weaknesses
High r – control over environment as carried out in a Low G – used 40 males, from USA, New Haven area –
lab, standardized procedure such as verbal prods, this is a biased & unrepresentative sample that does
instructions and feedback tape – easier to repeat to not reflect the general population. Cannot be
test for consistency of findings. generalised to German culture for aim.

High r – Burger found similar results Low ecological V – study took place in a lab, artificial
setting as part of Yale Uni. – behaviour shown may not
A – results show we have a natural tendency to obey be natural, may not behaved as they would realistically
authority figures even when we feel it morally wrong. to obedience.
65% carried on till 450v mark. - Explains horrific events
such as holocaust, refutes Germans are different Low task V – required ppts to give an electric shock
hypothesis and gives insight of power of a situation from 15-450v and isn’t a usual task – lacked mundane
realism so we can question validity of findings and not
High internal V – high lvl of control over EV as such as realistic to asses obedience.
script used and verbal prods – due to such control a
cause and effect relation can be established. Low E – psychologically damaged others by scaring
them and putting them under stress. Many reflected
badly to the experiment – ppts showed fear & distress
showing they obeying was morally effecting them

Low E – ppts were deceived about the nature of the

experiment
Variations:

Baseline study (experiment 5) – 26/40 went up to 450v (65%) 100% went up to 300v mark, 5 refused after this –
showing reluctant to disobey experimenter as they were alone in unusual setting & experiment seemed professional.

Telephonic instructions – instructions were given over the phone so ppts couldn’t recognise with authority figure -
obedience lvl fell from 65% to 20.5% - shows how physical presence of an authority figure increases obedience.
Doesn’t know who’s on the other side.

Run down office: 48% completed the experiment. 2ppts refused to give lowest shock – shows setting affected
obedience, in a shabbier room expectations lowered, in a lab scientists are seen as more competent – more likely for
obedience.

Ordinary man gives orders: 16/20 did not contribute, only 20% did – people less likely to obey an ordinary person as
they are seen as less competent.

Ordinary man, ppt as bystander – When experimenter left the room, a confederate stood up and suggested
increasing the voltage – 11/16 (68.75%) stood by, only 5/16 (31.25%) physically tried to stop the stooge. – shows
that if it’s an authority figure we become passive to authority but when we are asked by an ordinary man we criticise
their judgement.

Telephonic instructions: This variation was less ethical than the original – prior to the original study milgram did not
know so many would show signs of distress & not obey. – when carrying out the variations he had insight to the
distress making variation less ethical as he knew the potential harm.

Rundown office: Higher in ecological validity – as took place in a rundown office block – more realistic situation than
a prestigious lab in yale uni meaning behaviour is going to be more natural.

Validity may not be as high – the study was still in a set up lad with scientific equipment not true to real life –
therefore behaviour may not have been completely normal.

Ordinary man: support from Bickman as in his study had 3 men dress up in sports coat and tie, milkman and a police
officer giving one of three orders, to lend someone money for parking metre, pointing to a bad and asking a
pedestrian to pick it up & telling someone at the bus stop and telling them the sign says no parking. Showing more
likely to obey the police officer than ordinary civilians – supports idea when someone is wearing a uniform
obedience is more likely to be due to their perceived authority.

The authority in the situation many not have been reduced at first – the study still shows 20% of the participants are
obedient – having another apparent ppt might not have been enough to remove power of the situation.

Ordinary man prt 2 Bystander: internal validity – ppts likely to have believed the set up as they saw the accomplice
draw lots, just as the victim did – meaning they are likely to have behaved in a natural way
Burger (Contemporary study)
Aim: To investigate obedience by replicating Milgrams study to examine situation factors affecting obedience to
authority figures. To test if there is an gender difference in obedience.
Procedure: Advert responses. Ppts were screened for if they knew Milgram’s work, mental health, drug dependency.
Second screening on age, occupation, education, ethnicity. Final clinical screening as an interview to see if anyone
may react negatively to experiment. 70 ppts left. (29 men/41 women)
Ppts randomly assigned into two groups. Told study was on learning & punishment. Drew lots to see who was
teacher and learner.
Consent was obtained from the ppts, they were being videotaped and were told they could leave at any point and
keep the $50. They attempted to learn 25 pair words & wrong answer = shock. Schock from 15-450V, which
increased by 15V.
Used same verbal prods, but the experiment finished at 150v.
Modelled Refusal: Same as base condition except one confederate was a second teacher. Confederate started &
didn’t hesitate up to 75v, 90v hearing grunts & said to experiment ‘I’m not sure about this’. Ppt was asked to
continue from 90v.
Results: 12 (30%) stopped at 150v, or earlier 6male, 6 female. 28 (70%) went to continue after 150v. 12 men and 16
female.
Mod refusal: 11 (77.1%) stopped at 150v or earlier. 19 (63.3%) went to continue after 150v. Modelled refusal had
verbal prods earlier, suggesting they were looking to stop but didn’t have the chance as confederate did till 90v.
Results showed little difference in obedience between men and women.
Conclusion: Results showed similarity to mailgrams work, showing time & change in society’s culture didn’t affect
obedience.
Burger suggests same situational factors must be around today since there was high similarities, even after an
altered procedure & people kept obeying. Ppts were told they could leave at any time & kept payment but still
obeyed.
Strengths Weaknesses
High G – Burger used both male and female sample 70 Low ecological – because the experiment was
(29 men 41 women) with age range of 20-81 – includes conducted in a lab similar to mailgrams – ppts may not
both gender & wider gen to population. be acting naturally to obedience as they are in an
artificial setting.
High R – there was control over lab with standardized
procedure such as same verbal prods, same recording, Low task- ppts were asked to administer shocks ranging
instructions – easy to replicate to test for consistancies from 15-450v – therefore this lacks mundane realism
since it involves which isn’t natural.
High R – replicate of milgrams experiment which got
similar results. (65%) and (70%) obedience – therefore Low ethics – ppts thought the aim was to do with
shows results are reliable as test re-test. educational and punishment – therefore meaning ppts
weren’t aware of nature of the experiment.
A – Burger found that the situation factors around
today are similar to those in milgrams time as her found
70% of his ppts had obedience and wanted to continue
past 150V – can help justify horrific events such as
holocaust & explain why Germans are obedient.
Milgram’s agency theory:

Developed through a series of experiments (grounded in research).

Milgram believes we are all capable of extreme obedience which serves as evolutionary societal function. To live in a
hieratical society, we must give up our free will and obey the few people at the ‘top’.

Milgram proposed two states: One autonomous state and one agentic. The autonomous state is where a human acts
with free will making their own decisions. When given an instruction the mind switches to the agentic where we act
as an agent of the authority figure.

While in the agentic state ppt felt moral strain when ordered to do something immoral. Blind obedience leads to
distress. We may use defence mechanisms to help us deal with consequences of our actions.

In the angentic state the individual displaces responsibility onto authority figure, this is diffusion of responsibility. We
are socialised into obeying at a young age: parents & teachers use reward systems for obedience.

Strength Weakness
Supporting study – evidence from milgrams original Criticism- Milgram’s study was carried out in yale
study showed an authority figure ordering ppts to give university lab which is an artificial environment –
electric shocks. 65% obeyed till 450v – supports idea as behaviour is not natural of obedience.
ppts said they were doing what told.
Milgram also refutes his theory – 35% of his ppts didn’t
Hofling – 21/22 nurses would obey the doctor to give go up to the 450v line and 5 stopped after 300v limit. –
an higher doses – demonstrates that nurses would give ppts repelled against the agentic state when given
higher doses because the doctor is a competent orders.
authority figure.
Alternative theory authoritarian personality –
Hoffling has higher eco validity as was carried out in a obedience is due to people with authoritarian
natural setting of natural situation – less chance of personalities that they are more likely to obey. – this
demand characteristics and behaviour more natural makes importance of parenting and personality.

Application – theory suggests that we have free willing Reductionist – it reduces complex psychological
until we are given are given an instruction and our phenomena to something simple ignoring the role of
minds switch to an agentic state acting as an agent of people free will or personality – ignores the wider social
the authorities figure – explains why events like context and cannot simpalise human interaction.
holocaust occurred and help prevent future incidents.
Situation effects of Obedience.

Location: Study show that location picked can undermine experimenter’s authority to limited extent. Shown by
variation of run down office with no link to yale uni & obedience dropped to 48%.

The original study took place in prestige yale uni giving social power as authority figure. Milgram did an experiment
in yale uni basement, but little change due to link with the uni.

A dramatic location change such as the slums would undermine experimenter’s credibility & larger reduction of
obedience. Supported by Reicher finding change of location reduced identification with the experimenter. More the
identification of learner/victim lowers authority & creditability.

Proximity: Milgram argued obedience to an authority figure can be increased by increasing prox of ppt to the
learner. PPts were more likely to deliver shocks if learners danger us less obvious. Milgram’s experiment remote
feedback where victim not heard or seen (66%) while prox where victim 1m from ppt (40%)

Physical prox is the distance between the learner & ppt. Psychological prox is the ppts awareness of the learner’s
positon. Prox is an important factor of obedience for authority figures. Less obedient ppts was when closer to the
learner.

Uniform: In milgram’s studies experimenters wore white lab coats showing status of scientific expertise. Ordinary
man lacked uniform of a scientist & therefore lacked the social expertise status.

In another study, the experimenter left the room & a confederate (disguised as a ppt) took over & suggested turning
voltage up. Obedience dropped to 20%.

Obedience more likely when those wearing a uniform gave an order. Uniform suggests legitimacy. We are
conditioned and socialised to obey when specific authority figures command us.

Bickman: experiment using 3 confederates, 1 as a milk man, 1 in a sports coat and tie, one as a police officer. They
had to give ppts 1 of 3 orders. Found that the ppts were more likely to obey the confederate in the police officers
uniform.

Strengths Weaknesses
Milgram – variation run down office showed obedience Low task V – Milgram’s tasks were to administer
lvls dropping to 48% due to the change in location – electric shocks from 15-450 v for incorrect trigrams –
shows that location effects level of obedience by lacks mundane realism as not a natural task.
perceived social status with the location.
Low eco V – Milgram’s research comes from studies
Bickman – Showed that ppts more likely to obey orders carried out in Yale university & over prestige labs –
from the police officer than the ppl dressed as milk man behaviour is artificial reflecting the environment & may
or civilian – shows that uniform helps perceive a social not be natural reflection of authority
status which increases obedience.
Different theory – authoritarian personality – suggests
Application – the study suggests the closer we are to that ppl are more obedient due to strict upbringing by
someone the more likely we are to be obedient, the parents and having developed traits of
status of a uniform can present authority and that authoritarianism. – highlights importance of personality
location helps impact obedience – we can encourage and not just situational factors.
obedience in schools or work places by moving
employees closer to employers. Milgram – 35% of the ppts did not go up to 450v and
stop prior – shows not everyone is effected by
situational factors, showing obedience is effected by
individual differences.
Factors effecting obedience:

Gender: Burger found no sif difference 27% (27.3%) 6 female and 33% (33.3%) 6 males.

Milgram found no difference, used sample of 40 women and got result of 65% same as his base line experiment.
However females had higher levels of moral strain, stress and tension.

Shanaba Yahya – 192 Jordanian ppts (aged 6-8, 10-12, 14-16) Followed migrams procedure & no sig difference but
more obedient females reported to giving to the shocks due to following orders. Females more anxious.

Kilham & mann – Males 40%, women 16% when giving shock. 68% male and 40% women when giving others to give
shock. Did match pair of learner and teacher to see if women would form alliances.

Gupa – females less obedient to males – but found females to have more stress & tension.

Personality: Authoritarian personality: adult personalities stem from childhood experiences & actions of their
parents based on psychodynamic defence mechanisms.

People with authoritarian personalities had strict, punctuate parents who demanded absolute obedience & loyalty,
impossibly high standards & very critical of failure. They have defence mechanism to put hostility on weaker
minorities since couldn’t to their strict parents. (Still idolising their parents).

Adoro investigated AP on obedience, exploring childhood & personalities using 2000 USA college students.

Locus of control: (background) Holocaust survivor Grentchen Brandt took part in milgrams study, refused to continue
to 210v, she was calm & composed and saw disobedience as a rational act. Witnessing the Nazi era made her more
autonomous, Milgram thought she was more sensitive to her actions.

Rotter investigated concept of Locus of Control as a type of personality. Some believe actions are entirely their
control while others are ‘victims to fate’.

External locus of control – helpless & blame others for failure. ‘that happened because I was in the wrong place at
the wrong time.’

Internal locus of control – feel in control & take control of their responsibility for their actions. What happened was a
consequence of their behaviour, succeed in difficult & stressful situation. Achievement orientated & make better
leaders & resist the pressures of others. ‘That happened because I made it happen.’

Strengths Weaknesses
Milgram – 35% of ppts couldn’t go up to 450v in original Low V –adoro uses F-scale to measure AP from
study – meaning more likely to have internal locus of interviews and questionnaires on statements – findings
control than others who obeyed. Understood may not be accurate due to social desirability.
implications of their actions.
Low eco validity – most of the studies such as Burger &
Elms – Found obedient parents describing parents in Milgram took place in a uni lab which was an artificial
more negative way while defiant children in a more setting – behaviour may not be natural of representing
positive way – authoritarian personalities likely to be obedience
created by hatred of their strict parents & upbringing.
Milgram – run down office showed that obedience fell
Olmer – 406 germans sheltered jews from the nazi’s & to 48% when the location changed – highlights the
found they had an internal LOC – shows that important of situation factors at obedience.
implications of actions can show obedience or dissent &
have control over their actions. Social impact theory –. The power of sources or status
of the source may effect the obedience of a target –
Application – show that obedience is a case of doesn’t acknowledge the role of personality but that
personality traits by a strict upbringing of parents who obedience is created by the impact of people around us
demand loyalty and critical of failings – implications on
society & government to stop strict parenting and
making ppl aware of the effects of it.
Culture effects on obedience:

Munroe & Munroe – notes African cultures are more obedient in comparison to other cultures. Due to higher
obedience in countries with military gov or dictator.

Edwards – 87.5% obedience in south Africa. As a collective culture meaning it is one that values need of a group or
community over individuals more likely to be independent to help out community. Individual cultures is when
individuals care for own needs rather than community.

Smith & Bond – ppl who belong to individualistic cultures behave more independently than those from collective
cultures in which group decisions valued. Individual cultures more concerned with individual success. Culture can
effect levels of independent behaviour.

Mantell – study in Germany using Milgram procedure along side a CG who could chose when to stop. Found 85%
obedience.

Shanaba Yahya – 192 Jordanian ppts (aged 6-8, 10-12, 14-16) Followed migrams procedure & 73% delivered till the
end shock. High lvls of obedience.

Schruz – 56 austrians & asked to give painful burst of ulstrasound to learner. Found no link between LOC & 80% who
went to highest shock, those who were internal LOC took control of their own actions.

Meeus & Raajjimaker – study in Netherlands of administrative violence as to physical violence. Experimenter, ppt &
confederate seen as job applicant. PPt to disturb the confederate with 15 neg comments of performance &
personality during an interview & if he failed he’d be unemployed. Ppts had 4 prods. 92% make all 15 marks. (Higher
task validity)

These studies show variation in findings between countries but may not be due to culture but due to age of ppt, task
presented to them.

Strengths Weaknesses
Trandis – found higher level of obedience in countries Low eco validity – replications of milgrams studies
where there was a dictator as a leader – therefore which are done in an artificial lab where everything is
shows that people obey due to cultural situational controlled – ppts less likely to show natural behaviours
effects which influence their behaviour. and subject to DC.

Meeus & Raajjimaker – study in Netherlands of Ppts Different theory – rundown office 48% obedience -
having to make 15 negative comments about a situation effects more important.
confederate applying for a job & had 4 prods. 92%
make all 15 marks – shows that other cultures have Meeus & Raajjimaker – found 92% of ppts making all 15
higher obedience. remarks, isn’t exactly an exact replication as involved
making stress remarks and meaning there could be EV
Higher task validity – as ppts used administrative due to results and not just culture.
violence rather than physical, in social situations
obedience can be in forms of verbal abuse – meaning
task can reflect natural obedience.

Application – suggests obedience is universal and that

the ability to be obedient is in all cultures and not just
Germany & is a natural behaviour – can refuse germans
are different hypothesis.
Social Impact Theory:

Highlights two types of people for social influence; Source (provides influence) target (those influenced)

Number – the number of sources will increase influence. The law of diminishing effect states number is affective till
a great amount of people is present, one more will not affect the target.

Strength – the strength of a source (position, authority, power) is more likely to put higher social status on you. The
stronger the source the more influence they have.

Immediacy & proximity- psychological, social & physical prox will impact influence, the closer someone is the more
influence they will have.

Multiplication affect has an affect up to a point on the target. The more sources there are for targets the better the
impact. Division affect occurs when there are more targets in a room than there are sources meaning the influence
isn’t as strong.

Group polarisation – groups with extreme ideas & attitudes than the individual in the group have more influence
effect on the individual. This is to give the group a sense of identity.

Strengths Weaknesses
Milgram ordinary man – less obedience when the Low eco V – milgram’s work have took place in artificial
ordinary man with no sense of authority gave the environments such as Yale university where everything
orders. Obedience droped to 20% - shows that the is controlled – behaviour may not be natural or reflect
strength of a source can affect how targets are natural obedience
obedient
Low task V – because the task involved giving a learner
Telephonic instructions – authority figure gave the ppts a shock volt from 15-450v – lacks mundane realism as it
instructions over the phone resulting in drop of is not an everyday task
obedience to 20.5% - showing a lack of proximity of an
authority figure decreased the influence on the source. Different theory – agency theory suggests that our
mind sets change from autonomous state to an agentic
Application – the theory explains our obedience due to state when we are given orders – this theory does not
factors such as number of sources influencing the recognise pre-dipositional factors and only on
target and the strength of these in terms of social situational.
status and authority along with proximity – helps
explain football hooliganism as we are surrounded Reductionist – breaks down complex human behaviour
many rebellious peers and the number would influence into small concepts like number of sources, strength of
the targets. the sources and the immediacy – ignored the role of
other factors such as emotions and personality.
Social Practical:

Aim: To find out if gender has an effect in obedience.

Hypothesis (Non-directional): It is predicted that there would be a sig difference in levels of obedience between
males and females.

Method: Survey Variables: DV – score of obedience out of 50 IV – Difference in gender

Sample: Opportunity, 24 ppts (9 male & 16 female) ages 16-79

Controls: Standardized procedure, same instructions, same questionnaire, time of day, way of approach to stop
extraneous variables.

Procedure: Ppts were approached and asked to take part in the research. They were told they had the right to
withdraw at any point. They ppt was allowed to complete the questionnaire without researcher pressure or a set
time limit. Majority of the ppts remained anonymous. They were given a full debriefing at the end.

Results: female mean 27.9 Male mean 28.2

Conclusion: results show that there is no sig difference between obedience in males & females.

Thematic analysis: Ppts pointed out for the qualitative questions ‘what types of people would you obey’ made
reference to ‘authority’ and ‘uniform’ specifically such as police officers, doctors or polticians showing the status is
what gives the obedience.

‘under what circumstances would you obey someone’ answered with dangerous situations, when having to obey the
law, knowing them personally or if others around them obey.

Improvements: use a wider sample possibly which isn’t an opportunity sample. Use more distracter questions so
ppts don’t display socially desirable answers

Strengths Weaknesses
High R – questionnaires gathered quantitative data Low G – used an opportunity sample which consisted of
through closed questions – data can only be analysed in 24 people from the same location – cannot generalise
an objective way reducing researcher bias. to a wider or whole population.

High R – questionnaires and instructions were Low internal V – subjects may of guessed the aim of the
standardised meaning everyone received the same study by the questions provided as there was not
procedure – easier to retest the procedure to test for enough distractor questions – could provide socially
consistency of findings. desirable answers.

Application – study found that there was not a sig Low r- the questionnaire contained some open
difference between gender obedience levels – males questions, meaning that qualitative data was collected
and females should be treated equally in jobs and – means that the data is subjectively analysed and
education on obedience terms. produce researcher bias answers.

High V – questionnaires collect both qualitative and

quantitative data through opened and close questions –
provide both objective and rich indepth data which can
be analysed in greater detail.
Social Identity theory

Suggests that existence of groups cause prejudice. Humans have a natural tendency to form groups.

Stereotyping is pre-conceived judgments about certain groups/people based on characteristics. Based on normal
cognitive process – tendency to group things together. When doing so we exaggerate the differences between
groups and similarities of in-groups.

Social Categorisation: Categorising people into groups by race, gender & social class. Some more relevant to some
people. We do this to understand our social environment, allowing us to learn things about them & determine how
to correctly behave in their context.

Social identification: Process of making from categorising yourself with an in-group to identifying more overtly.
Adopt the identity of our in-group & conform to their social norms. Emotional & self-esteem will be bonded with the
group.

Social comparison: We compare our in-group to our out-group maintaining esteem as we compare favourably. Once
group identify themselves as rivals they are forced to compare to maintain self-esteem.

To increase self-image we enhance status of the group we belong to. We hold prejudice views & discriminate against
the other groups.

In group favouritism: extend an individual identifies with a group. Extent for grounds of comparison with out-group.
Relevance of in-group to out-group

Strengths Weaknesses
Sheriff - at a summer camp, when both groups split, Low R – sheriff’s study done in natural setting of a
they formed groups & picked leaders creating prejudice summer camp – therefore lack of control over
for their outgroup rival – demonstrates that there is an extraneous variables meaning harder to test for
ingroup & outgroup which produces prejudice through consistencies.
own ability exaggeration.
Sheriff’s study also opposes the theory – found
Lalonde – observed a hockey team doing badly & knew prejudice increased when competition was introduced
the other team were better. The team favoured tgeur in sports where ratters flag was burned – shows the
durty tactics which Lalonde disagreed with (saying importance of competition in creating prejudice
tatics were dirty) – group inflation to show better than
outgroup. Different theory – realistic conflict theory theory states
prejudice arises due to scares resources like oil, jobs
High eco V – sheriff’s study was done in a natural and money – show prejudice may not arise just by the
setting of a summer camp – ppts would be acting in a formation of groups.
natural way. Higher mundane realism.
Reductionist – doesn’t take into consideration historical
Application – states prejudice arises due to formation conflicts or backgrounds of different groups, just tries
of group, by categorising people into in or out groups, to simplify complex human behaviour – theory is
identifying with their group where esteem & emotions limited as it ignores causative factors.
are linked & comparing groups to make in-group better
– can explain why nazi’s categorised themselves as
superior & Jew’s as inferior & exaggerated the
differences.
Sheriff Robber’s cave study (CLASSIC STUDY):

Aim: Investigate how in-group behaviour developes to include related out-group hostility. To see how friction
between groups could be reduced. To see how attitudes & behaviours change by introducing competition.

Sample: 22 boys from white middle class background, 12 years of age, opportunity sample (ppl at summer camp),
matched on sporting ability & IQ, and screened to eliminate attitude problems.

Procedure: observational study, 1 observer for each group for 12 hours a day. Field experiment. Socieometric
analysis – notes on issues of friendship patterns. Tape recording – adjectives & phrases used to refer to in-group &
out-group.

Phase 1 (in-group formation) : Groups separated for a week, encouraged to bond over common goals needing co-
operation & planning. Both boys created a group (rattlers & eagles) & creating a recognisable leader.

Results: when other group revealed Rattlers described eagles frequently saying ‘they better not be in our swimming
hole’. Eagles wanted to engage in competition. Group stereotypes emerged & clear hostility to outgroup

Phase 2 (competition): Competitions were set up. Points rewarded for winning. After both groups revealed they
wanted to engage in basketball tournaments. Competition was to increase frustration to develop negative attitudes.
Collective bean experiment to collect beans & estimate how many they got.

Results: Rattlers discussed protecting their flag. Eagles made comments ‘we will beat them’. Both groups used name
calling & taunting. Eagles burned Rattlers flag so they stole property of the eagle’s cabin. They became so aggressive
they were physically separated.

Phase 3 (integration phase): Wanted to achieve harmony. Simple tasks introduced to bring both groups together to
communicate. A superordinate goal was introduced for both groups in conflict to resolve

Results: Hostility remained & verbal taunts like ‘ladies first’. Sat in in-groups when watching film. Superordinate goal
introduced, such as water shortages, broken down camp truck needing both groups help & share resources to buy a
film. At the end out-group friendship choices. Eagles: 23% Rattlers 36%

Conclusion: Support realistic conflict theory, suggesting conflict of interest or competition between groups can make
prejudice. Boys overestimated abilities of their in-group & minimised their out-group. Increase contact is not enough
to reduce conflict, superordinate goal required.

Strengths Weaknesses
High ecological V- study took place in a natural Low G – 22 boys, 12 years old, white middle class
environment where tasks reflected the environment background –can’t generalise to whole population or
especially on a summer camp – behaviour likely to be females.
natural & high in mundane realism.
Low R – Tyreman & spencer tried to follow similar
High internal V – researcher used covert observation so procedure with English scouts, finding after dividing the
boys did not know they were being watched – ppts boys they remained in friendly competition – shows
couldn’t guess the aim or know being watched meaning prejudice may arise due to other factors than
behaviour natural (no DC) competition.

Application – prejudice was reduced when both groups Low R – Carried out in a field experiment / natural
had to work together on a superordinate goal – setting – therefore there was a lack of control over EV’s
techniques like jigsaw fit have been introduced where meaning harder to test for consistencies of findings
ppl work together & rely on each other to get the task
done to reduce prejudice. Low E – the study deliberately tries to create prejudice,
hard and conflict by group formulation & introducing
Highly scientific – careful controls to an extent as there competition – exposed 12 year old vulnerable children
was experimental aspects of the study – this can be to harm.
seen as a creditable piece of research, but less scientific
than lab based experiment.
Realistic conflict theory:

States that inter-group hostility can arise due to result of a conflicting goal & competition of limited resources.
Prejudice is more likely if the resource is finate.

Explains prejudice & discrimination towards outgroups. Groups may be in competition for real or perceived scarce
resources.

This is important if the group see only one winner (Zero sum fate). The conflict is based upon the shortage and value
of the resource.

Any group competition for the same resource will tend to be an in-group & and out-group. The out-group
threatening the resource.

There is evidence that when ppl compete for scarce resources there is a rise in hostility between groups. Prejudice
can be reduced by putting everyone in the same in-group by reassuring everyone that there is enough resources to
go around.

This links back to Sheriff as hostility between in-groups & out-groups were reduced when a superordinate goal was
introduced which put everyone in the same in-group.

Strengths Weaknesses
Sheriff – found that when introduced competition in Low reliability – sheriff’s study was done as a field
phase 2, prejudice increased due to both groups experiment/ natural setting of a summer camp meaning
wanting to compete for points to prove their ability – less control on EV – harder to replicate to test for
shows that competition between in group & outgroup consistencies of findings.
creates prejudice
Tyerman & spencer – study using British scouts when
Application – Because the study states that prejudice divided into groups & introduced competition however
arises due to real or perceived scarce resources friendly ties remained across groups – showing
because threatened by an out-group – superordinate competition between groups doesn’t create prejudice
goals need to be used to put everyone in the same in-
group such as jigsaw fit in education institutions. Sheriff – prejudice started to arise before the
introduction of competition to the groups – therefore
High eco validity – sheriff’s study was done in a natural show competition creating prejudice but more
setting of a summer camp – meaning that behaviour emphasis on formation of groups.
will be natural & not artificial.
SIT – suggests that prejudice arises just by the mere
existence of groups – this theory refutes the idea that
prejudice arises due to competition

Weakness – there is no solid proof that scarce

resources are the cause of prejudice – cannot be sure
that scarce resources or even competition are what
causes prejudice.
Situational Factors of prejudice:

SIT: States as humans we form groups for protection & to help survive. We categorise people into certain groups to
understand how to behave around them. We then compare them using prejudice to make out-groups seem inferior
& identify more openly to our in-group self-esteem.

Showing situational factors as we could categorise everyone in the in-group prejudice would decrease or use
superordinate goal to bring the two groups together.

RCT: When two countries or groups of people rival over a scarce resource which can only have a zero-sum fate e.g
money, Land, jobs. Lead to an in-group and out-group formulation which will build up prejudice due to both groups
wanting the same source and the rival being the one to threaten it.

Showing if it isn’t for situational factors wasn’t there e.g lack of jobs, land, oil, money than prejudice wouldn’t be
created. In a recession there are less jobs meaning they will become scarce & people would compete for them.

Frustration & Aggression: frustration emerges when circumstances interfere with a goal leading to aggression. The
cause may be a powerful figure (parent/employer) instead of we direct our aggression by displacing it on substitute
target. E.g scapegoating cause not by being able to place the anger on the correct person & displacing it elsewhere.

e.g economic problems lead to lash out on outgroups marginalized in society.

Strengths Weaknesses
Sheriff – when boys were divided into groups they Sheriff – low generalisability – used 22, 12 year old
started to share hostility towards each other – white middle class children all from America – unable to
prejudice arises to them being in a situation where generalise to whole population of females meaning
groups emerged & needing to be superior to rival. results are not applicable to all.

Sheriff – high eco V – it was done in a natural setting Personality theories – such as authoritarian personality
(field experiment) of a summer camp – higher mundane suggesting that some heavy seated traits make people
realism as behaviour would have been more natural to favour totalitarianism and highly prejudice as a result –
the setting. makes more emphasis on role of personality through
childhood than situational factors.
Filindia & pearson Merkcuitz – during economic
hardship When perceived increase in immigration in Reductionist – only looks at situational factors which
communities, immigration policies had more may create prejudice – ignores the ideas of culture &
restrictions - meaning prejudice would arise to these personality in prejudice meaning looking narrowly at
‘immigrants’ as they are competing for jobs & money complex human behaviour.

Application – prejudice result of situation factors such

as the nature of the environment making humans form
groups, or competing for scarce resources. –
implications for society to reduce prejudice by
encouraging people to recognise groups as part of the
same in-group to stop prejudice hostility.
Individual differences: Personality

Social dominance orientation: Ideology of attitude of someone who sees society as a hierarchy with themselves in
dominant position while others in a lower status. (Don’t believe in equality)
Those who believe in hieratical society are more likely to be prejudice towards low status groups & want own group
to dominate.
Rigid thinking correlates with prejudice, they ruthless * tough minded, competitive & work towards own interest
desiring supremacy.
Cohrs et al – used self-report data & found correlation between right wing authoritarianism & prejudice. More open
you are the less authoritarian.
Right-wing Authoritarianism:
Authoritarianism which links to political focus & thought to produce prejudice & discrimination. Researchers found
correlation.
RWA – someone who has rigid & inflexible thinking & likes society to have rules & obey them in authority. Prefer
people to submit to authority rather than force them, but will if necessary.
Believe the world is dangerous & desire satiability security & group cohesion. They are aggressive to subordinates &
submissive to authority figures.
Authoritarian Personality:
Adoro et al proposed prejudice was a result of an individual personality type. Argued some deep-seated personality
traits made some people highly sensitive to totalitarianism (dictatorship) & anti-democratic ideals. Prone to high
prejudice.
Adult behaviour stems from childhood those with strict parents who couldn’t place anger on their parents displaced
it on other groups. Harsh parenting not always produce prejudice individuals. Some prejudice people do not conform
to authoritarian personality.
Doesn’t explain why people prejudice against certain group.
Strengths Weaknesses
Cohrs – he found a + correlation between RWA & Cohrs – however he only had country generalisability as
prejudice. Found attitudes on homosexuality, his sample only used German population – therefore
disabilities & foreigners – demonstrates ppl with this the study cannot be generalised to all of the world.
personality have rugud & inflexible attitudes –
preferring society to have rules & create group Different theory – RCT suggests prejudice is affected by
cohension & those who don’t fit in are targets of in-group & out-group formations over scarce resources.
prejudice. – personality roles may not be as important as situation
factors.
Cohrs – high G - had a large diverse sample union which
was gathered through Germany. – meaning we can
generalise results to the whole of german population.

Application – prejudice is a result of personality through

strict upbringing for example then there are
implications for society to reduce prejudice – would
include encouraging parents to be less strict & more
aware of how upbringing can encourage prejudice.
Culture affecting prejudice:

Collective & Individual cultures - collective cultures emphasise the need of groups: holding duty to the in-group.
Characterised by strongly emotional attachment to in-group.

Collective culture relies on mutual independence & co-operation, prejudice between individuals less likely to be
lower in collectivism, as registered with in-group being independent & less likely to be stigmatised for physical
deformity a lack of skills.

Individual cultures emphasises, private self-individual autonomy & prioritise person over collective needs, more
likely to be prejudice. West Europe & USA likely to be individualistic while east Europe & Africa are collective

Minard: investigated how social norms influenced prejudice, behaviour of white & black miners in southern USA.
Observed both above & below ground. Below ground social norms were friendly towards work colleagues. 80 of
white miners friendly towards black miners.

Above ground where social norms of prejudice from white to black, it was 20. White miners conforming to different
social norms above & below ground. Suggesting prejudice can/can’t be shown depending on social context which
behaviour takes place.

Taylor & Jaggi: Examined perception of Muslims & Hindus office workers had on each other & how described. (acting
desirably a in-group) Results show my Muslims & Hindus have systematic bias to ingroup when in-group acted
desirably – characteristic blessed. Undesirably – blamed out of control factors. (reversed for out-groups).

Strength Weaknesses
Minard – found 80 white miners friendly to black Validity – hard to find comparisons between culture as
miners but prejudice when above ground (20). – shows the measures & research methods aren’t the same –
that prejudice can be created by social norms of specific means that studies might not be making meaningful &
location. valid comparisons.

Taylor & Jaggi – found cultues would favour our in- Different theory – authoritarian personality suggests
group for blessing character for desirable behaviour & prejudice affected by personality traits which are
blaming out of control factors for undesirable developed by strict upbringing. – role of culture cannot
behaviour and reversed for out-group. – shows even in be accountable for prejudice on it’s own.
religion we would favour our in-group & show prejudice
to out-group. Culture in an abstract sense – prejudice reactions of ppl
within a culture actually create a culture – ppl are
Application – prejudice is a result of culture through constantly contributing to their culture rather than
socialisation and how we act with prejudice based on simply responding to it.
cultural norms – meaning we must change the norms of
culture to try and reduce prejudice. Reductionist -
Key Question: How can we prevent genocide?
Issue: Genocide is the deliberate killing of a large group of people, especially those of a particular nation or ethnic
group. E.g the holocaust is the worlds most known instance – it was an attempt by the Nazi government to
exterminate Europe’s Jewish population. Concentration and mass extermination camps either worked jews to death
or gassed them. 6 million jews being killed, 5 million slaves, disabled, Jehovah witnesses
Agency Theory: States when we are given orders we switch from an autonomous state of mind to a agentic state
becoming an agent of the authority figure. We may gain moral strain but diffuse the responsibility onto the authority
figure.
It helps explain when soldiers are given orders that they lose their free will and their mind switches to this agentic
state becoming an agent of that person to carry out those orders. We can prevent genocide with the agency theory
by making people aware of how giving orders can make the person’s mind set change.
We can also encourage more democratic institutions where leaders/dictators are challenged and question so people
become more aware of their actions.
Authoritarianism: ppl with authoritarian personalities are more likely to be obedient. He explored childhood and
found that those with strict parents who demand total obedience. The child would lash out and direct hatred
towards the minorities and others because they couldn’t with their parents.
This can cause genocide as authoritarian personalities are more likely to be obedient and follow the orders of those
who are much higher up. We can use this to prevent genocide by making people aware of the consequences of strict
parenting and encourage parents to be more lenient.
Realistic Conflict Theory: intergroup hostility can arise due to two groups forming, competing about a conflicting
goal or a scarce resource. It can explain the prejudice and discriminating towards outgroups competing for the same
resource, groups may be in competition for real or perceived scarce resources.
This explains genocide because two groups are in rival for a scarce resource, prejudice occurs to the point where one
group wants to exterminate the rival so they are no longer competition. To prevent genocide, a superordinate goal
has to be introduced so they work together to get along which reduces conflict.
Social Identity Theory: The existence of groups is the mere force of prejudice. Showing we have a natural tendency
to form groups. We socially categorised them, identify ourselves with our ingroup where self-esteem & emotions &
social norms and merged. Social comparison is when we compare our in-group & out-group and inflate ourselves to
keep up self-maintenance.
Links to genocide because two different groups who may hate each other or be rivals will direct to each other,
climbing the scale of prejudice where it may escalate and extermination of their rival group may occur. To prevent
this we can make the two rival groups see they have something in common so they can identify widely and be part of
the same in-group.
Evaluation:
Milgrams study supports the agency theory as it found that 65% of obeyed orders when told to turn the voltage up –
showing that our minds in fact do switch when given an order by an authority figure.
However the study have low ecological validity as it was carried out in Yale University meaning behaviour is less
natural while Sheriff’s study has high ecological validity as it was carried out in a natural setting out a summer camp
meaning behaviour and tasks were natural to that setting so behaviour will have higher mundane realism.
Milgrams study has higher scientific status because of the higher internal validity and control over extraneous
variables and how the study had a standardized procedure such as verbal prods and instructions. Easier to test for
consistency of findings. Sheriff has lower scientific status as it took place in a natural setting where control of the Iv
occurred but couldn’t control every variable meaning harder to test for consistencies of findings.
Sheriff supports both RCT & SIT because it shos that groups were formed and leader arised which caused prejudice
by the existence of groups. Also the use of competition increased prejudice between groups showing that there are
multiple ways prejudice can be created which can created genocide.
Theories are reductionist: e.g Authoritarian personality only looks at the personality aspect of social influences and
not situational factors or pre-dispositions. Reduced human complexity to something we can interpret.