Obedience: Practical

Question 1

Describe the background of this practical with research that supports and refutes the aim.

Answer 1

• Investigating gender differences in obedience can help to potentially understand causes
• Milgram’s (1963) and Burger’s (2009) research found no gender differences with both genders being equally as likely to give up to 300V
• Sheridan and King’s (1972) research found gender differences in that 100% of females would shock a dog compared to 54% of males

Question 2

What was the aim of our practical?

Answer 2

To investigate a gender difference in obedience using a questionnaire on attitudes towards obedience.

Question 3

State the fully operationalised alternative hypothesis.

Answer 3

There will be a significant difference in the attitudes towards obedience, measured by scores out of 50 and themes, between males and females.

Question 4

State the fully operationalised null hypothesis.

Answer 4

There will be no significant difference in attitudes towards obedience, measured by scores out of 50 and themes, between males and females, any difference will be due to chance.

Question 5

What sample did we use in our practical?

Answer 5

• 39 ppts (20 males, 19 females)
• 16-18 years
• King Edward VI College in Stourbridge

Question 6

What sampling method did we use?

Answer 6

Opportunity

Question 7

What methods were used in our practical?

Answer 7

• Questionnaire

- Thematic analysis

Question 8

What was the content of the questionnaire?

Answer 8

• 10 closed questions using a Likert scale
• 4 distractor questions
• 3 with reversed scoring
• 2 open questions

Question 9

Briefly describe the procedure of our practical.

Answer 9

• We used an opportunity sample of 39 ppts that study at KEDST aged 16-18 years.
• We gave them a questionnaire containing 10 closed Qs with a Likert scale, 4 distractor Qs, 3 with reversed scoring, and 2 open Qs
• Gave ppts a briefing, allowing them the right to withdraw and assuring confidentiality of their answers
• Ppts completed the questionnaire privately with no time limit
• Once complete we gave a debrief (using the same as in the beginning due to it being scripted), giving the ppts another chance to withdraw
• After collecting data we used thematic analysis to decipher reoccurring themes in the 2 open questions
• Using this we created codes for themes of attitudes towards obedience and refined the categories overtime

Question 10

What are the variables of our practical?

Answer 10

IV = gender
DV = attitude towards obedience (scored out of 50 + themes)
Controls = same questions, all ppts answered privately, the same brief/debrief

Question 11

State the results of the quantitative data.

Answer 11

Females = 33
Males = 33.5
The mean scores of males and females on their attitudes towards obedience were not significantly different.

Question 12

State the results of the qualitative data.

Answer 12

Using thematic analysis we found that:
Q1 = The main themes include: authority and danger with both genders
Q2 = The main themes include: authority and fear and a difference of social desirability in females answers

Question 13

What can we conclude from our results?

Answer 13

There was no gender difference in attitudes towards obedience, and so accept the null hypothesis.

Question 14

How do our findings compare with background research?

Answer 14

• We agree with Milgram’s (1963) and Burger’s (2009) findings in that there is no significant difference in obedience/attitudes towards obedience between males and females
• We therefore reject Sheridan and King’s (1972) research that found 100% of women would shock a dog compared to 54% of males

Question 15

Evaluate the generalisablity using a low point.

Answer 15

P - Low
E - Small, specific to 16-18 year old KEDST students
E - Doesn’t reflect the whole population of older ages and different levels of academia

Question 16

Evaluate reliability using 2 high points.

Answer 16

P - High
E - Standardised procedure of same Qs and briefing
E - Replicable
P - High inter-rater
E - Agreement between coders on the themes
E - Reduces researcher bias and subjectivity

Question 17

Are there any applications?

Answer 17

P - Yes
E - Found that there are no gender differences in attitudes to authority
E - Can apply to research from Milgram and Burger

Question 18

Evaluate validity using a high and low point.

Answer 18

P - High
E - Ppts weren’t told the aim and completed in private
E - Increases honesty in answers
P - Low
E - Limited amount of Qs
E - May not truly reflect someones attitude towards obedience and so reduces authenticity of results

Question 19

Using the acronym ‘PEEJ’, evaluate an ethical issue raised during our practical.

Answer 19

P - Unethical
E - Didn’t specify the aim
E - Deceives the ppt
J - Ppts were given a debrief and chance to withdraw

Question 20

Give 3 examples of how we can improve our practical for future research?

Answer 20

1) More distractor questions to hide the aim
2) Give questionnaire to a wider range of people
3) More open (mainly) and closed