Psychology Revision Unit 1 The Social Approach

What do I need to learn? Content The following key terms: agentic state, autonomous state, moral strain, in-group/ outgroup, social categorization, social identification, social comparison, obedience, destructive obedience, prejudice, discrimination Describe and evaluate Milgrams 1963 study of obedience Describe one variation on Milgrams original procedure (method and result) Describe and evaluate another study of obedience: Meeus and Raaijmakers 1985 study of obedience Compare Milgram and another study of obedience (Meeus and Raaijmakers) Describe and evaluate Hoflings 1966 study of obedience Describe and evaluate Milgrams Agency Theory of obedience Describe and evaluate Tajfels Social Identity Theory of prejudice (1970) Describe and evaluate Sherif et als 1961 Robbers Cave study of prejudice Describe and evaluate one contemporary issue from the Social Approach: Using social psychology to explain why prison guards abused prisoners in on Tier 1-A Abu Ghraib Describe and evaluate the survey as a research method (including questionnaires and interviews) Describe evaluate and compare qualitative and quantitative data
1

Number of marks 2 marks you should define the term and elaborate or give an example Description 8-10, evaluation 6-8 2 marks Description 8, evaluation 6 4 marks Description 8, evaluation 6 Description 6, evaluation 6 Description 6, evaluation 6 Description 8, Evaluation 6 Outline of issue 4 Application of theories/ studies 6 Evaluation 4 Description 4 Evaluation 4 Description, evaluation and comparison 4

Describe, apply and assess ethical guidelines for the use of human participants Identify, describe, evaluate and apply sampling techniques (opportunity, random, quota (sometimes called stratified, systematic) Evidence of practice the survey you carried out in class. You must be able to: Outline the theory upon which your practical is based State your alternative and null hypothesis State the independent and dependent variables (operationalised) Describe the ethical problems you encountered and how you overcame them Describe the research method used and why Describe the target population, how you selected the sample and the justification for this Describe how you decided what questions to use and why those questions were chosen Describe how you carried out the questionnaire and how the data was analysed Describe the conclusions you made from the study Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of your study

Revision Tips There is a lot to learn, but it is not impossible! Use your knowledge from the Cognitive Approach to help you revise:
o o

Revise in chunks do not try to learn too much at once it is easy to get confused Deep processing is best do not simply read the information, do something with it. Spider diagrams, flash cards, post-it notes for definitions are all helpful. If you

o o

know something well enough to explain it to someone else without notes then you will be fine in the exam Use cues to help you remember such as mnemonics or includes pictures on your spider diagrams which can act as a visual cue in the exam Test yourself especially with past exam questions, you know the style of question that will be asked so make them up, you have my email address so you can email me questions that you complete and I will mark them and send them back to you with comments (jkirk@pensbyhigh.wirral.sch.uk) Use the Learning Environment there is extra information on there, including podcasts for auditory learners. I have also set up a revision forum where you can post questions/ share your frustrations and I and you can answer any questions

Question Technique
o It sounds obvious but read the question! If it asks for a theory do not describe a o o o

o o

o o o

study you will get no marks If you are asked to describe, do not evaluate and vice versa Remember to PEE!! Make your point and provide an example or further explanation When evaluating make sure the points you make are specific to that study e.g. lots of studies lack ecological validity you need to say what this is and explain how the study you are evaluating lacks ecological validity (if this is the point you are making) When describing a study remember Nasty Awful Mothers Ruin Children (Name Aim Method Results Conclusion). This should be the first thing you write on your question paper as a cue to help you remember as you will not have time to plan any answers except possibly the 12 mark essay question Watch out with the multiple choice questions they are not as easy as they look and can often catch people out Always write in full sentences never ever ever use bullet points even for evaluating and do not divide evaluation into sub headings such as strengths and weaknesses Use the language of the mark scheme to answer your question. When describing a study use word such as the aim of the study was to, the results of the study were Use connectives in your writing One strength of Social Identity Theory is In addition to this, the theory has been praised because of You will be given marks for spelling, punctuation and grammar in the essay question so take care on this question especially If you are asked to compare, refer to both things you are comparing in each sentence.

o If a question asks you to assess something you need to weigh up the strengths and

weaknesses o If a question asks you to describe something for a parent for example, you should use laymens terms (language which a non-psychologist would understand). Key Terms You are just going to have to learn these terms off by heart: agentic state: part of Agency Theory. When we are in an agentic state we follow the orders of those in authority to maintain a stable society. We behave on behalf of someone else. When we follow orders which go against our conscience we show moral strain and deal with this by using defence mechanisms such as denial. autonomous state: part of Agency Theory. When we are in an autonomous state we use our free will and take responsibility for our own actions. moral strain: part of Agency Theory. When we follow orders which go against our conscience we show moral strain and deal with this by using defence mechanisms such as denial. in-group/ out-group: part of Social Identity Theory. We favour groups we belong to (the in-group) and we discriminate against groups we do not belong to (the out-group). social categorisation: part of Social Identity Theory. We categorise people as either belonging to the same group as us or in a different group to us. social identification: part of Social Identity Theory. We adopt the identity of groups we belong to. An example would be a Liverpool fan singing Youll never walk alone. social comparison: part of Social Identity Theory. In order to preserve our self-esteem we need to see our own group as better so we favour the in-group and discriminate against out-groups. obedience: following an order given by a person with recognised authority over you. An example would be a nurse following the orders of a doctor. destructive obedience: following an order given by a person with recognised authority over you, that is harmful or wrong. An example would be a member of the SS shooting a Jewish person because their commanding officer told them to do so.
4

prejudice: an attitude towards another person based upon little or no knowledge of that person. Prejudice is often based upon stereotypes, for example the notion that all blonde women are dumb. Discrimination: this is behaviour towards another person based upon a prejudiced belief. An example could be not employing someone who is blonde based upon the prejudiced belief that they will be unintelligent. Obedience Studies of obedience: NAME: Milgram, 1963, Behavioural study of obedience to malevolent authority AIM: To establish a baseline measurement of how obedient participants would be when ordered to give electric shocks to an innocent victim when ordered to do so by someone in authority. He also wanted to test the Germans are different hypothesis this was the idea that there was something unique about German citizens which meant they tolk part in the holocaust. METHOD: Milgram advertised for 40 male participants to take part in a study at Yale University looking at the effects of punishment on learning. The participants were paid $4.00 plus car fare. Participants completed the study individually and were introduced to a man named Mr Wallace who they were led to believe was another participant. He was in fact a confederate of Milgrams. The participant and Mr Wallace were asked to draw lots to see who would play the role of teacher and who would be the learner. The procedure was rigged so that Mr Wallace was always the learner. Mr Wallace was then attached to an electric shock machine with switches an lights ranging from 15 to 450 volts. The higher voltages were labeled XXX. The participant was given a mild electric shock to test the equipment worked this was in fact the only real shock of the experiment. The participant (teacher) then went into the next room where he could still hear Mr Wallace. The teacher then had to read a word list and test the learner (Mr Wallace). Every time Mr Wallace got a question wrong the researcher asked to teacher to administer an electric shock to Mr Wallace. The researcher used prompts towards the teacher such The experiment requires you to continue. The shocks increased in intensity each time they were given. Mr Wallace
5

as

screamed in pain, complained of a heart condition and refused to continue before going silent at 315 volts. RESULTS: Milgram was shocked. He and other professionals though most participants would stop as soon as Mr Wallace asked to be released (140v). All participants gave 300 v 65% gave the full 450v and continued despite the fact that some of the teachers displayed signs of stress when carrying out the orders. CONCLUSIONS: The social setting we find ourselves affects our behaviour. The researcher was seen as a legitimate form of authority and the participants felt obliged to obey. Milgram showed that human beings will commit acts of destructive obedience when told to do so by an authority figure. EVALUATION: Strengths: o The study helped people to review their value systems and become aware of destructive obedience o The study had high experimental validity, which means that the participants believed the study was real. The set up looked real, he staged a sample 45v shock which was given to the participant and at the end of the experiment the participants said that they believed that the last shocks they gave were incredible painful. o The study is extremely reliable. He used a standardised procedure so that every participant experienced exactly the same situation and therefore no other variables could have affected the outcome of the results. For example a series of standardised prompts were used to urge the participants to continue. His study had been replicated (repeated) many times and similar results have been found. Weaknesses: o The study lacks ecological validity. The participants were aware that they were taking part in a study (even if the aim of the study was different to the one they believed they were taking part in) and this means that they may have believed differently to how they would in the real world. For example, being in a study could have made the participants feel protected from the consequences of their actions. This makes it difficult to generalise the results to explain real-life behaviour. Nevertheless, Hoflings study does have high ecological validity and he found even greater obedience levels than Milgram (95%) Lacks validity as the task of giving electric shocks to a stranger is not something people encounter in everyday life

o The sample used in this study can be criticised for being androcentric (all male) and

it is debatable whether the results can be applied to female. Nevertheless, Milgram carried out the same study on females and found identical levels of obedience. Since the participants all volunteered for the study it could be that it is in the nature of these individuals to be more obedient and people who are more reticent about volunteering could be less obedient o Milgrams experiment has been criticised for being unethical. The participants did not give their informed consent to take part and were deceived about the true nature of the study. However, if they had been fully informed the experiment would have been pointless. In addition to this, the participants were put under extreme stress and prompted to continue when they wanted to stop. On the other hand, Milgram fully debriefed the participants and in a follow-up questionnaire, 84% said they were glad to have participated in the study. o Procedure may be prone to demand characteristics as participants may have guessed nature of experiment due to cues. However 80% who were surveyed said they believed the shocks were painful and there were also visible signs of mental anguish, e.g. sweating, these signs cannot be faked. One variation on Milgrams original procedure: Change in location and authority figure Milgram aimed to discover whether changing the setting of the experiment would affect levels of destructive obedience. Milgram changed the location of the study from the prestigious setting of Yale University to a seedy run-down office block. The experiment is supposedly conducted by a private research firm in an office suite in Bridgeport away from the University. It was apparently conducted by a private research company. All other aspects such as recruitment and payment were the same as in the original study (if asked to describe this study in the exam say what happened). 47.5% of the participants obeyed up to the maximum 450v shock. This shows how the environment can influence levels of obedience. Milgram concluded that because private research firms are viewed as less prestigious than certain universities, it is easier under these conditions to abandon the belief in the experimenter's essential decency.

NAME: Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1985, Administrative Obedience: Carrying out orders to use PsychologicalAdministrative Violence AIM: The researchers wanted to show that obedience would occur with modern psychological-administrative violence as well as with the old-fashioned violence used by Milgram in his study.
7

In addition to this, they wanted to see whether high destructive obedience occurs across cultures and over time. METHOD: Meeus and Raaijmakers advertised in a newspaper for 39 volunteers to take part in a study investigating stress and performance. The study took place in a university. The participants believed that the Psychology department had been asked to select candidates for a job. As part of the selection procedure, each applicant was to take a test which would be administered by the participants. The test was vital to success for the job; if you fail the test, you lose the job. The participants were told that these were real job applicants who had not been informed about the study, they only came to the University to take the test as part of their job application. The participants were asked to make negative remarks to the applicants regarding how they were getting on with the test. These remarks were only seen by the participant as they appeared on a screen in front of them during the study. The participants also received feedback (false) on how tense the job applicants were getting. The participants overheard the experimenter telling the applicants false information about the study (e.g. it would not affect their job chances). As the test / study progressed it was obvious that the applicant was getting extremely distressed and that they would fail the test (and, therefore, not get the job). Two thirds of the way through the test the applicant accused the researchers of giving false information and withdrew his consent to continue. If the participants refused to continue to make the stressful remarks they were prodded to continue by the experimenter. *This study often confuses students! Remember there is no job it is a set up. The applicants are confederates working with Meeus and Raaijmakers who are interested in whether the participants will make the unpleasant remarks to the applicants RESULTS: 92% of the participants obeyed the experimenter to the end and made all the stress remarks. There was no real opposition to the experimenters. The participants reported that they intensely disliked making the stress remarks but made them anyway. The participants were convinced that the applicants test scores had been seriously affected by the stress remarks. 96% of the participants were sure that they were dealing with a real situation. CONCLUSIONS: The researchers concluded that the level of obedience in their study was considerably higher than in Milgrams study. Furthermore, this shows that it is easier to obey orders to use psychological-administrative violence than to obey orders to use physical violence. This is even true in spite of the fact that the consequences of the behaviour in this study could lead to permanent harm. Meeus & Raajmakers conclude that: The experiments on obedience by Milgram are amongst some of the most well-known research projects in social psychology. Even so, Milgrams findings do not seem to have affected mans propensity to obey orders. The level of obedience is as high as ever. Even in the Netherlands in the 1980s.
8

EVALUATION: Strengths and weaknesses: o The task in this experiment is valid the type of violence that the participants had to carry out was in tune with modern violence. For example, bullying is more often verbal than physical o Despite this, the study still lacks ecological validity as the scenario was something that participants would be unlikely to take part in in everyday life and the participants were aware that they were taking part in a study o The study is reliable as it supports the findings from other studies of obedience such as Milgram and Hofling o The sample compromised of Dutch adults and could be said to be representative of the adult population in Holland. Nevertheless, the participants responded to an advertisement in a newspaper and it could be that people who respond to adverts may be more compliant than the general population o There are ethical problems with this research, for example, the participants were deceived as to the true nature of the experiment and therefore did not give their informed consent. Nevertheless the participants were fully debriefed. In addition to this, the participants acknowledged that they felt very uncomfortable making the remarks. Cross-cultural comparison between Milgrams study and the study carried out by Meuus and Raaijmakers:
Milgrams study looked at whether participants would follow orders to commit

physical violence (electric shocks) whereas Meeus and Raaijmakers were interested in whether participants would administer psychological violence (abusive remarks) Although both studies had a similar aim which was to see whether ps would obey an authority figure The results of the studies both showed high levels of obedience, Milgram 65% and Meeus and Raajimakers 92%, the difference could be explained by the nonphysical punishments the participants had to give in M + Rs study it is unlikely that the differences can be explained by cultural differences Both Milgrams and Meeus and Raaijmakers accept Agency Theory as an explanation of why the participants were obedient in their studies Both studies used volunteers obtaining through an advertisement in a newspaper article and therefore the samples may not be representative of the population and thus lack population validity The setting for both studies was similar as the research took place in a university building

 Both studies had a stooge (confederate) in them designed to deceive the real

participant Participants were deceived in both studies as they thought the study was on stress and performance (not obedience) and that the applicants were real when in fact they were just actors Theories Theory of Obedience: Milgrams Agency Theory: o According to Milgram, human beings are selfish yet dislike chaos. Therefore in order to maintain a stable society we give up our free will some of the time. o We have two social states they are opposing and our behaviour switches between the two. oThe autonomous state - where we take responsibility for our actions and follow out free will oThe agentic state where we follow the orders of those in legitimate authority. We recognise authority figures because of uniform, age etcWe learn to behave in an agentic state in school where we are socialised to accept the orders of authority figures. In an agentic state we do not feel responsible for our actions. oPassing from the autonomous state to the agentic state is known as the agentic shift. o Being an agent of society might have evolved as it avoids conflict and enables smooth running of a society o Another aspect of the agentic state is moral strain. This can be defined as the signs of stress we show and the guilt we feel when following orders we believe are wrong. To copy with this we use defence mechanisms such as denial Evaluation of Agency Theory:
o The theory has real-life applications to explain obedience. For example it accounts

for why so many soldiers in WWII followed orders without question; (1 mark). They saw themselves as agents for the person giving the orders, in this case Hitler (1mark) o Pps in Milgrams experiment were seen to be following orders from the experimenter and had passed over responsibility for their actions; (1 mark) o In Hoflings experiment the nurses became agents of the doctors who were the authority;(1mark)
10

o However, in Milgrams experiment both the task(giving electric shocks) and setting

were artificial giving it low ecological validity; (1 mark ) o Agency theory cannot explain individual differences in obedience. Milgram has neglected the minority of participants who did not obey him; (1 mark) 35% of ps did not go up to 450v. even though Milgram supposed they were in the same state at the start of the study as those that did obey the authority figure; ( 1 mark) o The idea of an identifiable agentic state has proved very difficult to pin down; (1 mark) Simply saying that someone is an agentic state because they obey and that they obey because they are in an agentic state is a circular argument/eq; (1 mark) Theory of Prejudice: Tajfels, 1970, Social Identity Theory: o Tajfel argues that we are prejudiced because we hold stereotyped beliefs about groups to which we do not belong. Prejudice can be explained by our tendency to identify ourselves as part of a group (in group), and to classify other people as either within or outside that group (out group). Conflict may not even be necessary for prejudice to occur, merely being in a group and being aware of the existence of another group is sufficient for prejudice to develop o Groups which we belong to are known as in-groups and groups which we do not belong to our called out-groups o According to Tajfel we discriminate against the out-group o Out-group discrimination was demonstrated by Tajfel et al in their minimal groups experiment o Tajfel argued that there are three social processes involved when we classify ourselves as belonging to a group o Social categorisation (when we classify ourselves and other people as belonging to a particular social group) o Social identification (when we adopt the identity of the group we classify ourselves as belonging to and internalise the norms and values of our group this is important for self-esteem) o Social Comparison (where we compare our group to others, judging our own to be better, therefore preserving selfesteem)e.g. we think our team has better players/stadium and put down the players of the opponents EVALUATION o The theory helps to explain why racism exists and can account for acts of football hooliganism football fans will show in-group favouritism to their own team and to preserve their self-esteem become abusive towards players and supporters of other teams
11

o The theory is supported by the results of a study carried out by

o o

Poppe and Linssen (1999). They surveyed Eastern Europeans on their attitudes towards different nationalities and found that they favoured other Eastern Europeans over Western Europeans and upheld national stereotypes, for example stating Germans as arrogant. You could also mention the Eurovision Astrote Song Contest here n that it However, a major weakness of Social Identity Theory is the fact cannot account for individual differences in prejudice. Platow et al (1990) showed in a version of Tajfels experiment that individuals assessed as competitive were more likely to display ingroup favouritism. In addition to this, not all football fans discriminate or act violently towards supporters of other teams In addition to this, Tajfels experiment upon which he based his theory has been criticised. Dobbs and Crano discovered much less in-group favouritism when people had to justify the points they allocated to each group, this suggests in-group favouritism is more complex than first thought However this particular study (Tajfel et al) is a laboratory experiment which suffers from low ecological validity as it is carried out in an artificial setting There are other reasons why people become prejudiced, for example historical and economic factors play a part and it is too simplistic to suggest that prejudice occurs simply because we favour people who are similar and discriminate against those who are not

Key Studies Obedience NAME: Hofling et al, 1966, Experimental Study in Nurse-Physician Relationships AIM: To investigate the nurse-physician relationship and specifically discover whether nurses would obey an authority figure (a doctor) when doing so would break their own moral codes and hospital regulations. METHOD: 3 hospitals in the Midwest of American were used in this field study. One hospital acted as a control where a questionnaire was given. In 22 wards across the other two hospitals, boxes of Astroten were placed alongside other medicines. Astroten was simply glucose, but the safe daily dosage was labelled 10mg, each capsule was 5mg. Each ward was called by a researcher calling himself Dr Smith from the psychiatry department, the researchers waited until a nurse was alone on the ward and the nurse selected were simply those who were on duty at the time. The doctor informed the nurse on duty that he was running late but needed the nurse to give 20mg of Astroten to
12

a Mr Jones. This breached two hospital rules the nurses need written authorisation before administering drugs, and the dosage was 10 mg over the recommended safe amount. The experiment ended when the nurse went to get the medication, refused to comply, asked another colleague for advice or became upset. The nurses were then debriefed. Alongside this experiment 12 graduate nurses and 21 student nurses were asked how they would act in the same scenario. RESULTS: Hofling et al found that 21 out of the 22 nurses in the field study obeyed the doctors instructions, 11 of which said they had not noticed the maximum safe dosage on the bottle. None of the nurses were hostile to the caller and nearly all of the nurses admitted they knew they were breaking the rules. In the questionnaires, 10 out 12 graduate nurses and all 21 student nurses said they would ignore the doctors instructions. CONCLUSIONS: While nurses may believe that when faced with a moral dilemma that breaks rules they would ignore an authority figure, when faced with the situation in real life they would do the opposite. The will knowingly break rules when asked to do so by an authority figure even when doing so could endanger a patients life. EVALUATION: Strengths: o The study has ecological validity. The method used was a field study and the nurses did not know that they were taking part in an experiment, therefore their behaviour was natural o The study has high population validity as the nurses who took part were simply those on duty at the time of the experiment o The study is reliable as it supports the results of Milgram who found that people will obey orders they believe are wrong when told to do so by someone in authority Weaknesses: o The study has many ethical problems. The nurses did not give their consent to take part in the study and were deceived, they also suffered from harm whereby in the debriefing the nurses felt embarrassed that they obeyed. Most worryingly is that the experiment could have negatively effected the way that they behaved with another patient which worrying about their decision o As the study is a field experiment it lacks the high level of control employed in lab experiments. As a result other variables could have affected the nurses decision to obey. For example, if the ward was particularly busy this could have meant that the nurses were pressed for time and had to make a decision without thinking about the consequences o Other studies have failed to replicate the findings of Hofling (Krakow and Blass)
13

Prejudice Name: Sherif et al, 1961, Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robbers Cave experiment Aim: To see whether it is possible to instill prejudice between two very similar groups by putting them in competition with each other. To see if prejudice would be reduced if the
two groups were set a (superordinate) goal that needed their co-operation to achieve

Method: 22 12 year old boys took part in this field study which took place at a summer camp in Oklahoma USA for three weeks. All were white, American, lower-middle-class and protestant. All were psychologically well adjusted. Two groups were created and an attempt was made to match the groups by IQ and sporting ability. They were transported separately in two groups to the Robbers Cave National Park in Oklahoma. At the camp the two groups lived separately, unaware of the other group. For 5 days (this was stage 1), each group were given tasks to carry out together in order to help them bond. Each group developed their own rules, names (Eagles and Rattlers) and flag. After a week, the groups were gradually made aware of each other they heard the other group in the distance and drinking cups from one group were left behind for the other group to see. Researchers observed that in-group, out-group terms started to be used. During stage 2, friction between the two groups was encouraged by means of competitions between the two groups for attractive prizes like penknives. The researchers deliberately kept the scores close. Even before the tournament began the groups were fighting with each other and one group burnt the other groups flag. The prizes, when awarded were stolen by the other group. Stage 3 was designed to ease tension between the two groups. At first the groups were simply brought together without competition. Then the groups were brought together to take part in joint problem solving activities. In one of these activities the water supply was blocked by vandals, and the two groups worked together to remove the blockage. In another activity the groups worked together to free a truck apparently stuck in mud. Results: A strong in-group preference was shown by the boys in each group, for example in the bean collecting task the boys overestimated how well their own group had done and underestimated how well the other group had done. In stage 1 the boys bonded with their own group and, although they had not met the other group, each group expressed dislike of the other. In stage 2, competition led to immediate hostility. The Eagles refused to eat with the Rattlers and when together the groups shouted insults at each other. Both groups raided the others huts. Activities in stage 3 which just involved bringing the groups together did not reduce hostility, although the joint problem solving tasks did. Following this both groups asked to share the same bus home and the Rattlers asked to spend the 5$ prize they had won on malted milks for everyone. In the
14

hostility phase, 93% had friends in their own group; however, after the co-operation phase, 30% had friends between the two groups. This shows the reduction in prejudice. Conclusions: Just being placed in a group and being aware of another group can lead to hostility. Competition increased prejudice and discrimination, leading to clear-intergroup conflict. Bringing to groups together to create one group is not enough to end hostility, however, when groups work together on cooperative tasks that benefit both of them, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced. EVALUATION: o The validity of the findings in this study is high. The study was a field experiment so the boys believed they were just at a summer camp and did not know anything about the experiment. The activities they took part in were typical of those on an ordinary summer camp. In addition to this, participant observers were used. This meant that their behavior was natural, thus giving the study high ecological validity. Several data collection methods were used (experiments, observations, content analysis of tape recordings) so that the findings could be compared. o The experiment was carefully planned and controlled. Each group was matched so that the members were as similar as possible so that the researchers could be sure that any hostility which occurred was because of group membership and not because of differences between the groups. o Can be applied to real life by helping reduce prejudice between groups in society through use of superordinate goals o There are ethical problems with this study. The boys were unaware they were taking part in the study so did not give informed consent and they were deceived. Parents were informed but were forbidden to visit the camp to see if their son was happy. Debriefing was not mentioned in a book written by the researchers so it may not have taken place. o It may be difficult to generalize the findings of this study beyond the participants used as they were so carefully selected. Young boys are a competitive group and it may not be possible to apply these findings to girls or to young people from other cultures, particularly Asian cultures which are more collectivist.
o What is often left out of the familiar story is that it was not the first of its type, but

actually the third in a series carried out by Sherif and colleagues. The two earlier studies had rather less happy endings. In the first, the boys ganged up on a common enemy and in the second they ganged up on the experimenters themselves. How does this alter the way we look at the original Robbers Cave experiment? Michael Billig argues that when looking at all three studies, Sherif's
15

work involves not just two groups but three, the experimenters are part of the system as well (Billig, 1976). In fact, with the experimenters included, it is clear they are actually the most powerful group. Much of the conflict between the two groups of boys is orchestrated by the experimenters. The experimenters have a vested interest in creating conflict between the two groups of boys. It was they who had the most to lose if the experiment went wrong, and the most to gain if it went right.

Key Issue
The key issue for the Social Approach is understanding why the guards on Tier 1-A in Abu Ghraib prison committed atrocities against the inmates of the prison. Remember that to answer this well you need to be able to outline what the issue is and explain the issue by applying theories, studies and concepts from the Social Approach. To help with your revision for this you can use the sample answer that I gave you. However, the issue is not something that can be learnt by rote it shows a higher level of understanding to be able to apply the knowledge that you have learnt. You could instead, be given a question whereby an issue is outlined to you and you have to explain it using Social Psychology. For example there could be a description of a violent clash between rival football fans and you would be asked to explain this e.g. Footballers identify with the team they belong to and favour their own team and discriminate against other teams. Remember that the best answers will include evaluation. This is done by examining the quality of the explanation e.g. this is an incomplete explanation because it cannot explain why not all football fans participate in violence against fans of other teams. See the examples we did in class.

16

Research Methods * for more in-depth discussion of research methods see your research methods booklet and revise the relevant sections Features of qualitative and quantitative data Qualitative Quantitative data Data in the form of words Data in the form of numbers Description
Rich detailed data (think quality) The researcher themselves gathers the data, usually through unstructured interviews or structured open-ended interviews or questionnaires This is usually used in the early stages of a study Subjective - individuals interpretation of events is important Detailed, rich in depth data is produced this makes it easier to arrive to more meaningful conclusions which increases the validity of the findings

Strengths

Precise measured data (think quanitity) The researcher uses tools such as a structured closed questionnaire or equipment to gather numerical data This is usually used in the later stages of research when the researcher knows exactly what they are looking for Objective seeks precise measurement & analysis of concepts It is easy to analyse as averages can be calculated and put into tables which is easier than generating themes in qualitative research It is possible to analysis data to draw comparisons between groups and to draw conclusions about the thing in question Researcher tends to remain objectively separated from the subject matter, this makes the data more reliable as two researchers will get the same results when analyzing the data

17

Weaknesses

Qualitative data is time consuming to gather and analysis and the subjectivity of the analysis makes it more difficult to generalize the results found Due to the subjective nature of the research it is unreliable different researchers may come to different conclusions when analyzing the data It is difficult to draw comparisons between groups or arrive at a reliable conclusion about a specific thing

The reduction of thoughts and feelings to numbers gives a very superficial view of the behaviour being researched, which may lack validity Quantitative data is more efficient, able to test hypotheses, but may miss detail

Reasons why quantitative data is better than qualitative data: Easier to analyse than qualitative data because data is in numbers; this enables comparisons to be made between groups much more easily Produces more objective data than qualitative as involves little or no interpretation More likely to be tested for reliability which may lead to generalisability to other situations For example counting words in a memory experiment is more measurable than asking open questions in an interview Can be collected more quickly than qualitative data as tends to use closed rather than open questions

Surveys In our study we carried out a survey using a questionnaire with open and closed (qualitative and quantitative data). The quantitative data was in the form of a likert scale. Below details what a likert scale is, including evaluation. You should also be prepared to discuss different types of surveys (interviews and questionnaires).
Likert Scales: Used to measure attitude Responses such as strongly agree strongly disagree Responses given a value and added up to give a total score Should have 10+ questions and roughly equal positive and negative statements Evaluation: Good for measuring attitudes The creation of the scale is subjective It is easy to score 18

Types of Interviews and Questionnaire Surveys Name Description Evaluation Non-directive The person is free to discuss Rich in-depth data, useful in study interview anything of one person. Difficult to replicate so unreliable but valid Informal interview General topics are explore in Detailed information provided on depth e.g. prejudice the topic of interest, valid but unreliable Structured openAll interviewees are asked the Easy to replicate, more reliable than ended interview same open ended questions in non-directive but less reliable then the same order closed question. Permits good comparison between questions Fully structured A standard set of questions Allows replication and comparison interview asked in a fixed order, there is a between people. Is reliable. Quick restricted number of answers and easy to collect and analyse e.g. Yes/No data, is less valid Closed question A standard set of questions Allows replication and comparison questionnaire asked on paper or computer in a between people. Is reliable. Quick fixed order, there is a restricted and easy to collect and analyse number of answers e.g. Yes/No data, is less valid Open question A standard set of open ended Easy to replicate, more reliable than questionnaire questions in the same order on non-directive but less reliable then the paper/ computer closed question. Permits good comparison between questions Sampling techniques Method Random Procedure Strengths Use this mnemonic to help you remember the ethical guidelines Weaknesses
Very difficult to do unless the target population is really small Time consuming and difficult to carry out as you need to have information about the whole target population

Stratified or quota

Every member of the Representative as the target audience has an researcher does not equal chance of being control who is chosen selected use a random can be generalized number generator The sample is a If done properly this is proportional representative and the representation of the results can be target population. You generalized break down the target population into its constituent groups and recreate a smaller version e.g. by ethnicity

19

Participants are selected Quick and easy to carry by whoever is available at out, likely to be ethical as the time of the study e.g. the participants will be if you carried out an willing to take part experiment on everyone in your class Will have access to a Volunteer or self-Participants select themselves e.g. large variety of people selecting sample participants answer an who will be motivated to advertisement in a take part, likely to be newspaper ethical and participants are keen

Opportunity

Not very representative as the sample is likely to be taken from a small section of the community e.g. university students May be something unique about volunteers which makes it more difficult to generalize the results

Ethical Guidelines for Human Participants: Consent

o Researchers should always obtain participants consent before carrying out

any study on them. Observational studies should only take occur in places where people would expect to be seen by strangers, unless informed consent is received It is difficult to gain informed consent from the following: Adults with learning and communication difficulties, children under 16, prisoners and psychiatric patients. To gain informed consent from participants they should be presented with a brief, detailing the general purpose of the experiment. Confidentiality o Psychologists should maintain the confidentiality of their participants and the data they collect from them. Participants identities should not be revealed, except with their expressed permission. To maintain confidentiality
20

psychologists should use participant numbers and ensure other identifying characteristics such as handwriting are disguised. In some studies participants sell their stories (Zimbardos) but this is ok. In cases where maintaining confidentiality may result in the harm of others, confidentiality can be broken. Debriefing o Participants should be given an explanation about the study they took part in so that they understand fully the reasons for the research. The debrief is used to reassure participants and return them to the state they were in prior to participation. E.g. Milgram fully debriefed all participants and introduced them to Mr. Wallace. The Right to Withdraw o Participants have the right to withdraw from an investigation at any time, without any penalty. You can withdraw your consent retrospectively and have your data destroyed. Deception
o Psychologists

should avoid deceiving participants wherever possible. However, there are sometimes problems with this e.g. Milgram, and some memory experiments

Protection of Participants o Participants must be kept safe from harm and psychologists should ask participants about any medical conditions or problems that might put them at risk. Milgram was criticised for causing his participants distress. Giving Advice o You should not give participants advice unless qualified to do so. For example if you come across a psychological or physical problem with a participant they are not aware of you should not give them advice yourself, but refer them to a specialist Rights o Respect the rights and dignity of participants at all times, for example you must tale into account cultural differences DD CC WARP Debrief
21

Deception Consent Confidentiality Withdrawal Advice Respect Protection ** Put alongside this your notes for your practical you must know this off by heart for your exam. Above all you need to try your best. If you do not revise you will fail the exam. If you know this booklet and your practical inside out there is no way you can fail the exam, even if there are some really tricky questions. Good luck!!!

22