THE SOCIAL APPROACH - KEY STUDIES Flashcards
What was Milgram’s aim?
To investigate the obedience of people to an authority figure whilst in a moral strain
What was Milgram’s procedure?
60 American male volunteers with diverse educational abilities, ages and occupations were told they were ‘randomly selected’ as the ‘teacher’ and had to give the ‘learner’ electric shocks everytime they got a memory question wrong
The participants were given a sample shock of 50V at the start of the study
The increments increased by 50V each time, and they operationalised obedience at 450V
The participants could hear the ‘learner’ scream and beg them to stop but the researcher had a set script telling them to continue
What were strengths of Milgram’s study?
The sample were of a diverse age range, educational ability and occupations making it more generalisable and showing obedience of the population
It was a standardised procedure as everyone had the same experience and the researcher followed a set script, this makes it more reliable and valid, as it also controlled for confounding variables (eg what the researcher said)
Deceiving the participants was necessary for the validity of the study, as it ensured that there were no demand characteristics where the participants obeyed because they knew the aim of the study - making it more valid
84% were glad they took part
What were weaknesses of Milgram’s study?
The participants were deceived as they were told it was an experiment on memory but it was destructive obedience, which makes it less ethical and they were caused obvious distress
The sample was ethnocentric and androcentric reducing the generalisability of the study as it doesn’t show the obedience of women or different cultures
Gina Perry found that there was improvisation done by the researcher, meaning there could’ve been a researcher effect influencing the obedience of the participants, making it less reliable and valid
What were Milgram’s three variations?
Telephonic instructions - tested the effect of proximity and obedience dropped to 22.5%
Ordinary man - tested the impact of uniform and obedience dropped to 20%
Rundown office block - tested the effect of status and obedience dropped to 48%
What was the aim of Burger’s contemporary study?
To replicate Milgram’s study on obedience but in a more ethical way
What was Burger’s procedure?
The same as Milgram apart from:
Operationalised obedience at 150V not 450V
Included women in the study as well as men
The researcher in the room was a clinical psychologist
The participants were told they could withdraw from the study three times
What were the results of Milgram’s study?
100% obeyed up to 300V and 65% obeyed up to 450V
What were the strengths of Burger’s study?
It was more ethical as the participants didn’t believe they were fatally harming the ‘learner’ and were told they could withdraw
The researcher was a clinical psychologist which meant they could step in if there were any signs of severe stress, making it more ethical
It included women as well as men making it more generalisable as it showed obedience of both genders
What were weaknesses of Burger’s study?
Less valid as not studying destructive obedience due to operationalising obedience at 150V
Not ecologically valid, as doesn’t reflect a real life situation because not offered to withdraw when asked to obey
What was Sherif et al’s aim?
To investigate whether prejudice is a result of competition, and whether this can be reduced using superordinate goals
What was Sherif et al’s procedure?
It was a field experiment with two
groups of eleven, US, white, protestant, sporty 11 year old boys at a summer camp
Stage one: the groups bonded separately without knowing the other
group existed forming a group identity
Stage two: competition was introduced
Stage three: hostility reduced using successful superordinate goals
The children were unaware they were being observed, and the parents didn’t give informed consent as they believed it was a study on leadership
What were the strengths of Sherif et al’s study?
Individual differences has less effect on prejudice, as they all shared similar traits, which means any prejudice was a result of competition and not due to confounding variables - making it more valid
It showed the boys’ natural behaviour and prejudice as they believed they were at a summer camp and were unaware they were being observed, making it more ecologically valid
Less chance of demand characteristics making it more valid
What were the weaknesses of Sherif et al’s study?
Results aren’t generalisable to girls, adults or different cultures meaning it doesn’t show prejudice as a result of competition for the population making it less representative
The boys could’ve been naturally more competitive due to them being sporty, further making it less generalisable
The researcher actively encouraged hostility which isn’t representative of a real life summer camp, making it less ecologically valid
This could have also led to demand characteristics as they boys could’ve realised they were being observed
The boys and parents were deceived of the true aim of the study, making it less ethical
What were the results of Sherif et al’s study?
Prejudice was caused by the competition, and this hostility was decreased using superordinate goals
