Social Approach Flashcards
Outline one assumption of the social approach. [2]
One assumption of the social approach is that behaviour varies depending on the situation we are in, rather than dispositional attributes. For example, we are more likely to behave obediently in the presence of an authoritative figure, according to Milgram’s research.
With reference to Piliavin’s study, describe how the social approach could explain helping behaviours. [4]
The social approach could explain obedience by saying it is a result of the situation we are in. In Milgram’s research, he demonstrated how obedience was a result of being in the presence of an authority figure who used ‘prods’ to persuade the ‘teacher’ to give electric shocks to the ‘learner’ and go to the maximum of 450 volts. other factors about the environment that influenced their obedience was that they were in a prestigious university, making them perhaps feel pressured to act obediently. According to Milgram, such situational variables had a stronger affect on their obedience than dispositional ones.
Describe one similarity between any two core studies that take the social approach. [3]
Both Piliavin’s study and Milgram’s study were executed in a somewhat unethical manner. In Piliavin’s study, subway riders were deceived by being made to think that the falling over model really was ill or drunk, when in reality they were just acting. In Milgram’s study, participants were also deceived by being led to believe that the ‘learner’ was really being harmed (due to the artificial ‘screams’ they could hear as imposed by the experimenters), when actually they were not.
Describe one difference between any two core studies that take the social approach. [3]
Piliavin’s study and Reicher and Haslam’s study used different sampling techniques to obtain participants for their experiments. In Piliavin’s study, an opportunity sample was used, allowing the experimenters access to approximately 4450 men and women of varying ages and ethnicities, who were subway travellers between April and June 1968. In contrast, Reicher and Haslam used a self-selecting sample whereby they could obtain willing male participants, and after undergoing a weekend assessment 15 were chosen for the experiment out of 332 applicants.
Describe one similarity and one difference between any two core studies that take the social approach. [6]
Both Piliavin’s study and Milgram’s study were executed in a somewhat unethical manner. In Piliavin’s study, subway riders were deceived by being made to think that the falling over model really was ill or drunk, when in reality they were just acting. In Milgram’s study, participants were also deceived by being led to believe that the ‘learner’ was really being harmed (due to the artificial ‘screams’ they could hear as imposed by the experimenters), when actually they were not.
Piliavin’s study and Reicher and Haslam’s study used different sampling techniques to obtain participants for their experiments. In Piliavin’s study, an opportunity sample was used, allowing the experimenters access to approximately 4450 men and women of varying ages and ethnicity, who were subway travellers between April and June 1968. In contrast, Reicher and Haslam used a self-selecting sample whereby they could obtain willing male participants, and after undergoing a weekend assessment 15 were chosen for the experiment out of 332 applicants.
Describe one strength of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [3]
A strength of the social approach is that it has provided useful applications in explaining how a situation affects behaviour. For example, Reicher and Haslam’s study highlights the importance of group coherence, as when it breaks down it allows tyranny to flourish, shown as the ‘guards’ became more tyrannical. Another example is how Milgram demonstrates that situational factors, such as the presence of an authoritative figure, can encourage certain behaviours such as obedience. (A.P. However, one could argue that these studies measuring social behaviour may be specific to the time they were done. For example obedience rates in the 1960s might be different to obedience rates in the noughties.)
Describe another strength of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [3]
Another strength of the social approach is that as participants in social psychology are often deceived about the situations they are in, demand characteristics should not influence their behaviour. For example, in Piliavin’s research the participants (subways travellers) were not aware of the observation happening, so their behaviour was true to life and a natural response, and no demand characteristics would be shown. Therefore, social psychology theories of behaviour are based on valid measures of behaviour as participants have been influenced by the situational variable and not the expectations of the researcher. (A.P. However, this makes the approach unethical, thus affecting the reliability of the studies as they are harder to re-test and replicate. For example, due to the extreme lack of ethical guidelines in Zimbardo’s study in the 1970s, Reicher and Haslam’s remake had to be much altered to make it ethical enough to carry out.)
Describe two strengths of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [6]
A strength of the social approach is that it has provided useful applications in explaining how a situation affects behaviour. For example, Reicher and Haslam’s study highlights the importance of group coherence, as when it breaks down it allows tyranny to flourish, shown as the ‘guards’ became more tyrannical. Another example is how Milgram demonstrates that situational factors, such as the presence of an authoritative figure, can encourage certain behaviours such as obedience. (A.P. However, one could argue that these studies measuring social behaviour may be specific to the time they were done. For example obedience rates in the 1960s might be different to obedience rates in the noughties.)
Another strength of the social approach is that as participants in social psychology are often deceived about the situations they are in, demand characteristics should not influence their behaviour. For example, in Piliavin’s research the participants (subways travellers) were not aware of the observation happening, so their behaviour was true to life and a natural response, and no demand characteristics would be shown. Therefore, social psychology theories of behaviour are based on valid measures of behaviour as participants have been influenced by the situational variable and not the expectations of the researcher. (A.P. However, this makes the approach unethical, thus affecting the reliability of the studies as they are harder to re-test and replicate. For example, due to the extreme lack of ethical guidelines in Zimbardo’s study in the 1970s, Reicher and Haslam’s remake had to be much altered to make it ethical enough to carry out.)
Describe one weakness of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [3]
A limitation of social psychology is that much of the research is laboratory-based, with simulated and artificial situations. This means the theories lack ecological validity. For example, Reicher and Haslam’s study uses an entirely simulated prison environment, where at one point during the experiment the ‘prisoners’ had the opportunity to be promoted to guard status, which would definitely not happen in a real prison situation, meaning the study is lacking in ecological validity. This is a limitation as if we want to explain how situations affect behaviour, we need to test people in real situations to get a more valid measurement of how people would really react.
Describe another weakness of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [3]
A further weakness of social psychology is that it is reductionist as it claims/assumes any behaviour is a result of situational attributes, ignoring other possible factors such as disposition. For example, the Piliavin study denies people can act from altruistic disposition (meaning the motivation for their behaviours is unselfish and based on the needs of another person), and assumes they will always behave based on a ‘cost-reward’ model, where an individual will act after having weighed up costs of helping/not helping and rewards of helping/not helping. This is a weakness because it does not allow other possible approaches to affect behaviour in real life, thus perhaps we need to be more holistic in our approach to psychology, incorporating other ideas to gain the most valid and rounded conclusions about behaviours and how these are affected.
Describe two weaknesses of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [6]
A limitation of social psychology is that much of the research is laboratory-based, with simulated and artificial situations. This means the theories lack ecological validity. For example, Reicher and Haslam’s study uses an entirely simulated prison environment, where at one point during the experiment the ‘prisoners’ had the opportunity to be promoted to guard status, which would definitely not happen in a real prison situation, meaning the study is lacking in ecological validity. This is a limitation as if we want to explain how situations affect behaviour, we need to test people in real situations to get a more valid measurement of how people would really react.
A further weakness of social psychology is that it is reductionist as it claims/assumes any behaviour is a result of situational attributes, ignoring other possible factors such as disposition. For example, the Piliavin study denies people can act from altruistic disposition (meaning the motivation for their behaviours is unselfish and based on the needs of another person), and assumes they will always behave based on a ‘cost-reward’ model, where an individual will act after having weighed up costs of helping/not helping and rewards of helping/not helping. This is a weakness because it does not allow other possible approaches to affect behaviour in real life, thus perhaps we need to be more holistic in our approach to psychology, incorporating other ideas to gain the most valid and rounded conclusions about behaviours and how these are affected.
Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the social approach using examples from any of the core studies that take this approach. [12]
A strength of the social approach is that it has provided useful applications in explaining how a situation affects behaviour. For example, Reicher and Haslam’s study highlights the importance of group coherence, as when it breaks down it allows tyranny to flourish, shown as the ‘guards’ became more tyrannical. Another example is how Milgram demonstrates that situational factors, such as the presence of an authoritative figure, can encourage certain behaviours such as obedience. (A.P. However, one could argue that these studies measuring social behaviour may be specific to the time they were done. For example obedience rates in the 1960s might be different to obedience rates in the noughties.)
Another strength of the social approach is that as participants in social psychology are often deceived about the situations they are in, demand characteristics should not influence their behaviour. For example, in Piliavin’s research the participants (subways travellers) were not aware of the observation happening, so their behaviour was true to life and a natural response, and no demand characteristics would be shown. Therefore, social psychology theories of behaviour are based on valid measures of behaviour as participants have been influenced by the situational variable and not the expectations of the researcher. (A.P. However, this makes the approach unethical, thus affecting the reliability of the studies as they are harder to re-test and replicate. For example, due to the extreme lack of ethical guidelines in Zimbardo’s study in the 1970s, Reicher and Haslam’s remake had to be much altered to make it ethical enough to carry out.)
A limitation of social psychology is that much of the research is laboratory-based, with simulated and artificial situations. This means the theories lack ecological validity. For example, Reicher and Haslam’s study uses an entirely simulated prison environment, where at one point during the experiment the ‘prisoners’ had the opportunity to be promoted to guard status, which would definitely not happen in a real prison situation, meaning the study is lacking in ecological validity. This is a limitation as if we want to explain how situations affect behaviour, we need to test people in real situations to get a more valid measurement of how people would really react.
A further weakness of social psychology is that it is reductionist as it claims/assumes any behaviour is a result of situational attributes, ignoring other possible factors such as disposition. For example, the Piliavin study denies people can act from altruistic disposition (meaning the motivation for their behaviours is unselfish and based on the needs of another person), and assumes they will always behave based on a ‘cost-reward’ model, where an individual will act after having weighed up costs of helping/not helping and rewards of helping/not helping. This is a weakness because it does not allow other possible approaches to affect behaviour in real life, thus perhaps we need to be more holistic in our approach to psychology, incorporating other ideas to gain the most valid and rounded conclusions about behaviours and how these are affected.
