Zusammenfassung der Ressource
Social Approach
- Key Assumptions
- Influence of other individuals
- How other people affect our
thoughts, feelings and
behaviours
- Influence of groups and culture
- How groups/culture around
us affects our thoughts,
feelings and behaviour
- Milgram (1963)
- Aim
- To measure how obedient
participants would be when ordered
to give electric shocks to innocent
person
- Sample
- 40 adult male
volunteers,
advertisement in
newspaper
- Procedure
- Participants told they were taking part in a study on the effect of
punishment on learning. In a fixed lottery participant always given role
of teacher and the stooge was the learner. Participant read out word
list and had to shock learner when they gave a wrong answer. Shocks
ranged from 15v to 450v - no shocks were actually given. Learner went
silent at 315v. If teacher refused to continue 'prods' used to encourage
them. Obedience measured by how far the participants went.
- Results
- 100% went
up to 315v,
65% went
up to 450v
- Conclusion
- Obedience due to situational
factors rather than deviant
personality
- Variation Studies
- Leaner could not be seen/heard - 100% went to 450v
- Learner could be seen and heard - 40% went to 450v
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- V.reliable - participants thought
experiment was real so behaviour
was real
- Has experimental validity
- Weaknesses
- No ecological validity
- No population validity - only used
American adult males
- Broke ethical guidelines - protection of
participants, withdrawl, deception,
consent
- Meeus and Raaijmakers (1985)
- Aim
- To test
obedience where
harm would be
done
- Procedure
- Based on Milgram's study. Participants ordered
to harass a job applicant (a stooge) to make
them nervous while sitting a test
- Results
- 92% obeyed, most said they thought it was
wrong (moral strain)
- Conclusion
- People will obey an authority
figure even if they think it is
morally wrong
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- Ecologically valid
- Weaknesses
- Ethical guidelines broken -
deception, protection of
participants
- Carried out in a lab
setting -
contradicts
ecological validity
- Agency Theory (Milgram 1976)
- Proposed that we have evolved to obey authority
- Two social states:
- Autonomous state - we act
independently, have free will
- Agentic state - see
ourselves as agents those
in authority, don't believe
we are responsible for our
actions, surrender free will
- Moral strain - occurs when we are asked to do
something we know is morally wrong
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- Helps to explain moral strain
- Has support from studies like Milgram
and Holfing et al
- Could help protect against
being destructively obedient
- Weaknesses
- Not everyone obeys
authority
- Could be used as an excuse
for bad behaviour
- Predjudice
- Usually negative pre-judgement towards a
person/group based on appearance
- Discrimination
- Acting on prejudice feelings
- Social Identity Theory (Tajfel 1970)
- The act of being placed into a group
will lead to prejudice against other
groups
- Happens in 3 stages:
- 1. Social categorisation - we
categorise ourselves and others into
different groups
- 2. Social identification - we identify with a
certain group and adopt behaviours of this
group
- 3. Social comparison - we compare
our group to others; must compare
well to help self-esteem
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- Supported by Sherif et al
- Explains real world behaviour
- Weaknesses
- Simplifies complex human reactions
- Hofling et al (1966)
- Aim
- To find out what happens when a
nurse is given orders which go
against professional standards
- Sample
- 22 nurses in two hospitals, third
hospital used as a control
- Procedure
- Boxes of placebo capsules
labelled '5mg of Astrofen' placed
on wards, indicated that 5mg was
normal dose and 10mg was max
daily dosage. While nurses were
alone on the ward they got a phone
call from an unknown doctor
calling himself 'Dr Smith'.
Instructed them to give a patient
20mg of Astrofen as he was in a
hurry and would be over to sign
prescrption later
- Results
- 21/22 nurses complied, 11/22 didn't
notice the dosage, 10 did but gave it
anyway
- Conclusion
- Nurses obeyed the 'doctor' because they
thought he was a legitimate authority
figure
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- High ecological validity
- High experimental
validity - nurses thought it
was real
- Weaknesses
- Low reliability
- Broke ethical guidelines - consent,
deception, protection of participants
- Low population validity -
only female nurses from
USA
- Sherif et al (1961)
- Aim
- To see whether it's possible to create
prejudice between similar groups
- Sample
- 22 boys split into two groups
- Procedure
- Neither group knew each other. Did a series of
tasks in order to bond as a group. Told about
other group after first week. Felt the other group
had invaded their territory which led to prejudice.
Both groups made to compete for prizes - strong
prejudice and discrimination resulted.
- Results
- Strong 'in-group' preference
shown, 93% only had friends in
their own group
- Conclusion
- Once group identities had formed
introducing competition led to
discrimination and prejudice
- Evaluation
- Strengths
- High ecological validity
- High experimental validity
- Weaknesses
- Broke ethical guidelines - consent,
deception, protection of participants,
withdrawl
- Low population validity
- Obedience during conflict
- Soldiers trained to obey orders from authority
- How far should this be used as an excuse for carrying out atrocities?
- My Lai Massacre, Vietnam 16th March 1968
- 26 US soldiers massacred the village of My Lai, killing between
350-500 women, children and old men
- Soldiers charged with murder but only one was convicted
- Lt. William Calley the leader of the 1st Platoon
- Defence was that he was only obeying orders from superiors