Social Psychology

Defining Social Psychology

Social psychology examines the effects of our environment on our behaviour and how our
actions are influenced by individuals, groups and culture. There is less emphasis on other
psychological determinants of behaviour, such as cognition and biology. Our thoughts and
feelings are strongly influenced by the social setting in which we find ourselves and we will
behave in ways we perceive as being consistent with the social setting. Social psychologists
tend to use surveys and field experiments when investigating the impact of the environment
on our behaviour as these are carried out in real-life settings and can be universally applied
when studying individuals, groups and culture.

Exam tip
When defining social psychology, stick to the topic overview rather than
describing actual theories or studies.

Obedience
Obedience is a form of social influence where an individual acts in response to a direct order
from another individual, who is usually an authority figure. It is assumed that without such an
order the person would not have acted in this way. Obedience involves a hierarchy of
power/status. Therefore, the person giving the order has a higher status than the person
receiving the order.

Typical mistakes
Remember to include something about authority figures when giving a definition of
obedience. It is not enough to just follow orders from someone.

Agency theory
Milgram’s Agency Theory states that obedience is necessary for the stability of human society
and that we are socialised into obeying from childhood. The theory suggests that there are two
states: the agentic state and the autonomous state.

In the agentic state, we are working to benefit society at the expense of our own wishes.
Milgram suggested that in order for a person to enter the agentic state, the orders must be
perceived as being given by a legitimate authority who will accept responsibility for what
happens.

Although an individual may carry out the orders they have been given, they may not
necessarily want to do so. This web of obligation is known as moral strain.

The theory states that we are socialised into an agentic state from a young age and as children
we learn to obey our parents and teachers and act as agents following social rules. This, in
turn, is training us to obey employers and others in authority when we are older. Milgram
argued that people tend to obey recognised authority figures in order to maintain a stable
society. In order to avoid chaos and disorder we have to give up some of our free will to follow
certain rules otherwise there would be disorder through disobedience.

Now test yourself

1. Why does society need obedience?
2. Explain the difference between agentic and autonomous states, including which state
operates when we are obedient.
3. How do we acquire the agentic state?

Social impact theory

Bibb Latané (1981) proposed an alternative theory of obedience which focuses on the presence
or actions of others. He defined social impact as “any changes in physiological states and
subjective feelings, motives and emotions, cognitions and beliefs, values and behaviour, that
occur in an individual, human or animal, as a result of the real, implied, or imagined presence
or actions of other individuals” (Latané, 1981, p. 343). The basic principle behind social impact
theory is social force.

When these forces exert enough pressure to successfully get people to change their behaviour,
then that is known as ‘social impact’.

- Strength: a measure of how much influence or power the individual perceives

the source to have.
- Immediacy: how recently the event occurred or whether there were intervening
events.
- Numbers: the number of people exerting pressures on the individual, the greater the
social force they will have.

Thus social impact is higher when the source has higher status, when the statement is more
immediate, and when there are a higher number of people saying it. The most significant
difference in social impact occurs in the transition from 0 to 1 source. As the number of
sources increases, the incremental impact lessens. This is the idea that the first source of
influence has the most dramatic impact on people, but that the second, third, fourth, etc.,
sources generate less and less social force. For example, being watched by one other person
can make you feel nervous, but being watched by two does not make you twice as nervous.
Increasing the audience to a hundred or even a thousand does not increase the sense of
pressure by as much as you would think.

The theory is formulated as a mathematical model:

 𝑆
𝑖 = 𝑓 𝑁
1. i is the magnitude of impact
2. f is a function, i.e. the impact of others
3. S is the strength of the sources, i.e. one or more people or groups and their powers of
persuasion
4. I is the immediacy of the sources, how close they are in time and space
5. N is the number of sources.

Now test yourself

4. Outline one difference between Social Impact Theory and Agency
Theory.

Milgram’s Research into Obedience

Milgram’s Experiment 1:

Aims
Milgram wanted to investigate how obedient participants would be when following orders
would mean breaking their moral code and harming another person.

Procedures
He offered $4 plus 50 cents car fare for any volunteer adult male willing to take part in a study
on memory. Participants were met by the researcher in a smart grey lab coat and another
‘volunteer’, Mr Wallace who was in fact an actor. The researcher drew lots, but this was rigged
as both lots said ‘teacher’. The participants were shown the shock generator which had 30
switches each showing a 15 volt increase in shock level from the last.

The participant was instructed to increase the level of shock by 15 volts each time a question
was answered incorrectly.

Although the participant could not see the learner, he was able to hear him clearly through the
wall. He began to complain about his heart and demanded to be let out, refusing to take further
part. At the 300 volt level, he pounded on the wall. He repeated this at the 315 level but from
then on was silent. The researcher delivered a standardised sequence of verbal prods such as
‘please continue’ or ‘the experiment requires that you continue’. The experiment ended when
they refused or after they had shocked to the 450 volt level.
Results
All 40 participants went up to at least 300 volts and 65 per cent went to the maximum
450 volts.

The distribution of maximum voltages given by participants is as follows:

- Five gave 300 volts as a maximum.
- Eight gave between 315 and 360 volts.
- One gave 375–420 volts.
- Twenty-six gave 450 volts.
- The average maximum voltage given was 368 volts.

Participants were debriefed. They were told the full aims and nature of the study, were
reunited with Mr Wallace and reassured that they had behaved absolutely normally – no
matter what they actually did.

Conclusions
The study clearly shows the power of authority over our behaviour. Even when the
participants were clearly upset by what they had to do, they still saw no alternative except to
obey.

Now test yourself

5. How does Milgram’s original study support Agency Theory?

Milgram’s Experiment 7:
Telephonic instructions|Closeness of
authority|Experimenter Absent

Aims
To see if having the experimenter in the room affected the level of obedience, so this was
carried out with the experimenter in touch by phone.

Procedures
The experimenter was away from the participant, out of sight, and gave instructions
over the telephone. The experimenter gave the instructions at the start, in the same
room, but then left the laboratory and communicated only by telephone.

Results
The obedience dropped sharply when orders were given by telephone. Instead of 26 obeying
the orders, nine obeyed (22.5 per cent).
Participants lied to the experimenter about giving increases in voltage, instead they gave
lower shocks. Over the phone, these participants said that they were raising the shock
levels, as requested, but were not and did not confess.

Conclusions
When the experimenter is not face-to-face with the participant, it is easier not to
obey.

Physical presence is an important force.

Milgram’s Experiment 10:

Rundown Office Block|Institutional Context

Aims
- To see if the outcome would be similar if the study took part in a rundown office
block and not conducted in Yale University as it was regarded as prestigious.
- This was as a result of follow-up interviews suggesting that the integrity of Yale
institution had given them the confidence to take part in the study.
- Milgram suggested that the participants expose their throats in a barber’s saloon, but
would not anywhere else, so wanted to determine whether the setting would have an
influence on obedience rates.

Procedures
- The experiment was relocated to a rundown commercial office building in
Bridgeport, Connecticut and all links to Yale University were removed.
- The same procedures were followed as the original, although the building
was sparsely furnished. The lab was clean. This includes the volunteers being
asked and paid $4.50 dollars for attending.
- The same personnel were used and the same age and occupation details for
participants.
- The researchers said that they were from a private firm

Results
- Participants have more doubts about this study. One participant made notes and
asked himself a number of questions about the legitimacy of the study. Another
participant questioned his own judgement and thought the study was ‘heartless’.
- Obedience did not drop that much. 47.5 percent obeyed the maximum voltage level
compared with 65 per cent in the original study at Yale. This was a lower level of
obedience, but Milgram did not think that it was a significant difference.
Conclusions
- The idea of having a legitimate setting does seem to be backed by evidence, albeit a
barely significant one.
- However Milgram gives the example that people deposit money in prestigious
looking banks and seedy ones, so people will obey experiments regardless of where
the laboratory is.

Milgram’s Experiment 13: ordinary man giving

orders

Aims
To see whether an order given by someone without authority is followed. In
particular to see if an order given by an ordinary man, who it is clear holds no
authority unlike his predecessor, is carried out.

Procedures
The experimenter gives the instructions about administering the shock, but then gets ‘called
away’ and leaves the room. There is an accomplice in the room who was initially given the
task of recording the times and the participant thinks is another participant like him and the
learner. The accomplice makes a suggestion of increasing the shocks one at a time as the victim
makes a mistake.

Results
- The experimenter leaving creates an awkward atmosphere, which
undermines the credibility of the experiment.
- Sixteen of 20 (80 percent) participants broke away from the ordinary man’s
instructions, even though the accomplice urged them to continue.
- Four of 20 (20 percent) went to the maximum shock level.
- When the participant refused the orders of the ‘ordinary man’, there was an
adaptation to the experiment and the accomplice said the participant should
swap roles and take over the recording. 16/20 watched the distressing scene
as the ordinary man gave the shocks.
- All of the 16 bystanders protested and five tried to disconnect the power
from the generator or physically restrain the accomplice.

Conclusions
- Levels of obedience fell dramatically with an ordinary man who had no perceived
authority.
- Participants did not like seeing the ‘ordinary man’ giving the shocks, but were
not able to prevent it.
Factors affecting obedience and dissent/resistance to
obedience, including individual differences
(personality and gender), situation and culture

Typical mistakes
When asked about any of these variation studies, make it clear to the examiner which one
you are writing about; do not let them have to work it out. The best way to highlight this is
in the aim or results, as the procedure will (mostly) be the same as the original study.

Situational

Personal responsibility.
Milgram suggested that obedience would be higher if the personal responsibility is
given to the authority figure. This was demonstrated when at one point the learner
asks the experimenter, ‘He might be dead in there, sir! Do you take responsibility?’
To which the reply is ‘I am responsible’, at which point the learner sits down and
continues to administer shocks.

Slippery slope
Generator switches only went up in small increments (15 volts), so participants found it easier
to obey as each wrong answer only merited a minor increase. Similarly, having begun the
experiment, participants did not know how to disobey; nothing they said had any effect on the
experimenter and so they felt they should finish what they had starte

Power and status of the authority.

Obedience is only shown if the authority figure was perceived as legitimate. Legitimate
power is held by those in certain roles, usually those of authority. The researcher would have
had legitimate power in Milgram’s experiments on obedience. He would have also had
expert power by appearing professional at all times and was wearing a lab coat to indicate his
expertise and knowledge.

Personality

Locus of control
This refers to the extent to which individuals believe they can control events affecting them.
Someone’s ‘locus’ is either internal (they believe they have some control over events in their
life) or external (meaning they believe that life is determined by environmental factors which
they cannot influence)
Authoritarian Personality
Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that individual differences in obedience could be explained by
the idea of an authoritarian personality. Adorno et al. devised the F-scale to measure what they
called authoritarianism (F stands for Fascist). High F-scale scorers would show (among other
numerous personality characteristics) obedience to those in authority.

Gender
Overall, there does not appear to be any real difference between men and women in their
ability to resist obeying an authority figure. This goes against traditional beliefs that females
tend to be more obedient to authority. Milgram (1963) found that men and women were
equally obedient in one variation of his electric shock experiment. Female participants did
report higher levels of stress and tension than male participants, perhaps because women are
generally more empathetic than men.

Culture
Individualistic cultures are those that stress the needs of the individual over the needs of the
group as a whole. In this type of culture, people are seen as autonomous, independent and
tend to resist conformity or compliance. Collectivistic cultures, in contrast, emphasise the
needs and goals of the group as a whole over the needs and wishes of each individual. In such
cultures, relationships with other members of the group, cooperation and compliance
between people play a central role in each person’s identity.

Exam tip
When answering questions on factors affecting obedience, discuss one of the areas above
instead of describing the actual research itself. If the question stipulates only one of these
such as culture then do not bring in the other factors like gender.

Now test yourself

6. Explain the difference between individualistic and collectivistic cultures.
7. Define the term ‘Fascist’.
8. You are trying to stop eating chocolates and your friend offers you one small
bite so you decide to take it. This would be an example of which type of
situational factor of obedience?
Prejudice
Prejudice means to prejudge. It is an attitude and all of us are prejudiced towards and
against certain things. When the prejudiced attitude leads to prejudiced actions, this is
called ‘discrimination’. Prejudice is an attitude and an attitude comprises three parts.

1. Affect - How you feel about something

- Feelings of dislike, hostility, fear, suspicion

2. Behaviour - What you do about it

- Insult, discrimination, avoidance, physical attack on others.

3. Cognition - What you know about it

- Knowledge based on stereotypes

Theories of prejudice

Social Identity Theory

suggests that participants want to promote members of their in-group over the out-group
members, because it enhances their own status. If you are in a group, thinking of that group as
the best will enhance your own self-esteem. Tajfel and Turner (1979) suggest that prejudice is
caused by the creation of groups, not by realistic conflict – just creating two groups will cause
conflict. There does not need to be real conflict over real material goods and being aware of the
existence of another group is sufficient for prejudice to develop.

According to Tajfel and Turner (1979), prejudice can be explained by our tendency to identify
ourselves as part of a group, and to classify other people as either within or outside that
group.
Tajfel refers to the in-group and the out-group:

In-group - we belong here

Out-group - the rest

There are three cognitive processes involved in evaluating others as part of the
in-group or out-group. These are:

1. Social categorisation. We categorise ourselves and others as members of particular

social groups.
2. Social identification. We adopt the identity of the group we have categorised ourselves
as belonging to.
3. Social comparison. This is the final stage, once we have categorised ourselves as part
 of a group and identified with that group, we compare that group with others.

Critical to our understanding of prejudice, is that for our self-esteem to be maintained our
group needs to compare well against other groups.

Now test yourself

9. Define prejudice.
10. How can Social Identity Theory be applied to a real-life setting?
11. Does Social Identity Theory explain individual differences in prejudice? Why
not?

Research into Social Identity Theory

This theory was based on a series of lab experiments called the ‘minimal group studies’.
Minimal groups are so named as the grounds on which the participants would see
themselves as belonging to one group or another were minimal (e.g. by the toss of a coin or
which painting they preferred). Tajfel’s experiments found that in spite of the fact that there
was no competition between groups, the participants consistently displayed prejudice
towards those identified as being in the same group as themselves, and against those as
being identified as in a different group.

Typical mistakes
When outlining evidence to support theories, you must only write about the findings of
that research rather than describe the whole study itself.

Realistic Conflict Theory

Realistic Conflict Theory states that whenever there are two or more groups that are seeking the
same limited resources, this will lead to conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and
discrimination between the groups.

This theory holds that hostility between groups is a result of direct competition for limited and
valued resources. Sherif (1966) proposed that intergroup relations reflect the functional
relations between groups. The conflict can lead to increasing animosity toward the groups and
can cause an ongoing feud to develop. Realistic Conflict Theory is used to explain the conflict,
negative prejudices, and discrimination that occur between groups of people who are in
competition for the same resources.

If the outcomes of two groups are competitively interdependent (gains for one group depend
on losses for the other) intergroup hostility will be maximised; competition gives rise to
unfavourable stereotypes, increased in-group solidarity and cohesiveness and thus to
in-group biases in evaluations of the two groups. If the groups are cooperatively
interdependent (e.g., there is a superordinate goal), intergroup hostility will be reduced,
cumulatively improving intergroup relations.

Conversely, conflict, negative stereotypes and beliefs, and discrimination between groups can
potentially be reduced in situations where two or more groups are seeking to obtain some
superordinate goals.
Because of its emphasis on group behaviours and conflict, the Realistic Conflict Theory is
also referred to as the realistic group conflict theory.

Factors affecting prejudice and discrimination

Personality
Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that individual differences in prejudice could be explained by the
idea of an authoritarian personality. Based on Freudian theory, Adorno et al. argued that
prejudiced people were more likely to have experienced a harsh style of parenting. Adorno
reasoned that harsh discipline would make the child outwardly obedient, but at the same time
create hostility that could not be directed at the parents because of fear. The child would grow
into an adult who obeyed and feared those with more power, but the hostility would be
displaced onto those who were weaker, such as groups with lower social status. This is the
reason for prejudice and discrimination.

Now test yourself

12. How does Authoritarian Personality Theory differ from Social Identity
Theory in its explanation of prejudice?
13. Give one strength and weakness of using questionnaires to measure
prejudice.
14. Why would the F-scale questionnaire be less valid today?

Situational
Changes in social norms can lead to an increase of prejudice, in particular any kind of social
threat from a group may cause problems and these are directly related to the situation. A prime
example would be the rise of Islamophobia today as there is a perceived social threat from
radicalised Muslims. This is a product of the situation society finds itself in due to various
events over the last decade or so. Furthermore, it is reasonable to expect an increase in prejudice
and discrimination against minority groups in bad economic times or national trauma like the
9/11 attack, both of which are products of the situation.

Situational factors more close to home may play a part too. A child who is exposed to racism
and prejudiced peers and family members will invariably take on the norms and values of the
situation him or herself.

Social Identity Theory suggests that whenever a situation arises where there are two groups (in-
and out-group), prejudice will occur.

Realistic Conflict Theory suggests that when there is competition over scarce resources,
conflict will occur.

Culture
Cultures may demonstrate prejudices about others in a variety of ways including the
stereotypes they apply to members of other groups, the ways they make sense of the
actions of members of other cultures and, frequently, open aggression and hostility
towards members of cultures not their own.

All cultures seem to make a fundamental distinction between ‘us’ and ‘them’ and it
appears universal that they favour ‘us’ over ‘them’ for many purposes.
Consequently, it could be said that all cultures show a bias that could be regarded as
prejudice.

Clearly, cultural groups stereotype each other, with undesirable characteristics

typically being attributed to the out-group. However, the tendency to stereotype
out-group members may be a consequence of a predisposition to be biassed against
them (as in Social Identity Theory) rather than the initial cause of prejudice. If this is
the case, then stereotypes may play a more important role in maintaining prejudice
than in causing it. Negative stereotypes may cause people to avoid members of other
cultures. They are also likely to influence how the behaviour of out-group members
is interpreted.

Individual differences and developmental psychology

Adorno et al. devised the F-scale to measure what they called ‘authoritarianism’ (F
stands for Fascist). High F-scale scorers would show these personality
characteristics:
- obedience to those in authority
- views things rigidly as right/wrong
- intolerance of those who are different/weak
- hostility to those of lower status
- rigid and conventional views.

These individual differences in terms of personality traits might influence how prejudiced we
are.
Milgram’s participants also demonstrated locus of control when choosing to obey the
experimenter or not. The 35 per cent that did not go to 450 volts were showing independent
behaviour and could be said to have more of an internal as opposed to external locus of
control.

Similarly, as culture is developed from social norms and values within each
particular society, this in turn will impact on how prejudiced we may be.

Our upbringing in an individualistic culture will have a different influence on our

development from being brought up in a collectivistic one. As obedience is found across all
cultures, it can be said to be developed universally as opposed to from the environment.

Methods:

Self-reports
are used as part of an investigation as a way of collecting data and can be carried out in the
form of questionnaires or interviews. They gather information by asking questions of a large
number of people, usually through a written questionnaire or through face-to-face interviews.
By using questionnaires researchers can acquire a great deal of information very cheaply. These
can be distributed by post or handed to people in the street.

However, there is no control over how accurately or thoughtfully people answer the
questions, whether they understand them/return them at all. Questions must be
carefully prepared, must be clear and not lead the participant (to overcome this, a
pilot questionnaire should be used).

Interviews
Are much more time-consuming, but there is more opportunity for control over
sampling and assessing whether participants understand questions. Interviews may
be structured, using carefully written questions, or unstructured, as in clinical
interview. In this, the researcher asks questions, but then asks further questions
which depend on the answers that the participants give.

Closed questions
Structure the answer by allowing only answers which fit into categories that have
been decided in advance by the researcher. Data that can be placed into a category is
called ‘nominal data’. The options can be restricted to as few as two (e.g. Yes or No,
Male or Female), or include quite complex lists of alternatives from which the
respondent can choose. The respondent provides information which can be easily
converted into quantitative data (e.g. count the number of Yes or No answers).
Closed questions can also provide ordinal data (which can be ranked). This often
involves using a rating scale to measure the strength of attitudes or emotions, for
example:
Strongly agree/Agree/Neutral/Disagree/Strongly disagree/Unable to answer.

Alternative hypotheses
Whenever psychologists carry out a study, they must start with a hypothesis.

A hypothesis, then, is any idea or theory which makes certain predictions and an experiment
is designed to test these predictions. A hypothesis states what you believe will happen and is
a precise and testable statement of the relationship between two variables.

The experimental hypothesis is sometimes referred to as the ‘alternative hypothesis’.

Remember that some studies are not experiments (they may be observations, correlations, etc.)
and in this case we do not start with an experimental hypothesis but with an alternative
hypothesis. When we carry out an experiment we can use either term.

Typical mistakes
Do not get hypotheses and aims mixed up - they are not the same thing

Sample selection and techniques:

A population is an entire group with specified characteristics. The target group/population is

the desired population subgroup to be studied, and therefore want research findings to
generalise to. A target group is usually too large to study in its entirety, so sampling methods
are used to choose a representative sample from the target group.

A representative sample is a subset of the target group with a similar distribution of

relevant characteristics, in turn allowing us to generalise from the sample to the target
group with some justification. An unrepresentative sample is one that does not reflect the
distribution of characteristics of the target group, cannot be generalised to the target
population, and is therefore biassed.

Random
Random selection is like the National Lottery where every member of the target population has
an equal chance of being picked, e.g. names drawn from a hat.

Stratified
The target population is divided into subsets such as age, race and gender, and a
representative sample of each is found. For example, if the target population consisted of 75
per cent males and 25 per cent females, a stratified sample of 20 would include 15 men and 5
women.
Opportunity
Whoever is available at any opportune moment, e.g. the first 20 people you find in the canteen.
It is the simplest form of sampling and involves selecting anyone who is available from the
target population.

Volunteer/self-selected
People volunteer to take part in an experiment, e.g. volunteers replying to a
newspaper advertisement (Milgram)

Typical mistakes
Random and opportunity sampling are frequently mixed up by candidates. The term
‘random’ is not to be used in its everyday sense. In psychology, it means everyone has an
equal chance of being picked.

Now test yourself

15. Write an experimental hypothesis about revision and exam results.
16. Give one strength and weakness of using self-reports to measure
prejudice.
17. Give one strength and weakness of each of the four types of sampling
techniques

Qualitative and quantitative data

Quantitative (‘what?’)
measuring by number (e.g. number of words recalled in a memory experiment or how many
participants obeyed in the Milgram experiment).

Qualitative (‘why?’)
describing, emphasising meanings and experiences (e.g. how memory works or interviewing
participants to see why they went so far on Milgram’s shock generator).

In general, quantitative methods tend to be stricter and will produce more reliable data as they
can be replicated easily which enhances their scientific status. However, such approaches can
be criticised for producing narrow, unrealistic information which only focuses on small
fragments of behaviour. In contrast, qualitative approaches with less control, conducted in
more natural circumstances tend to produce more valid data, but are criticised for low
reliability and subjectivity. Qualitative methods can be subjective because they produce
information which the researcher has to organise and select from.
Quantitative data analysis
There are three types of measures of central tendency:

Mean
add up all scores in a condition and divide by the number of participants.

Example:
Four tests results: 15, 18, 22, 20
The sum is: 75
Divide 75 by 4 = 18.75
The ‘mean’ (average) is 18.75 (often rounded to 19).

Median
Put all of the scores in order and find the midpoint. There must be an equal number of
numbers either side of this point. The median is the ‘middle value’ in your list. When the
totals of the list are odd, the median is the middle entry in the list after sorting the list into
increasing order. When the totals of the list are even, the median is equal to the sum of the two
middle (after sorting the list into increasing order) numbers divided by two.

Example:
Find the median of 9, 3, 44, 17, 15 (odd number of numbers)
Line up your numbers 3, 9, 15, 17, 44 (smallest to largest)
The median is 15 (the number in the middle).
Find the median of 8, 3, 44, 17, 12, 6 (even amount of numbers)
Line up your numbers: 3, 6, 8, 12, 17, 44
Add the two middle numbers and divide by 2:
8 + 12 = 20 ÷ 2 = 10
The median is 10.

Mode
It is the most frequently occurring score in a condition. The mode in a list of numbers refers to
the list of numbers that occur most frequently. A trick to remember this one is to remember
that mode starts with the same first two letters that most does.

Example:
Find the mode of:
9, 3, 3, 44, 17, 17, 44, 15, 15, 15, 27, 40, 8
Put the numbers is order for ease:
3, 3, 8, 9, 15, 15, 15, 17, 17, 27, 40, 44, 44
The mode is 15 (15 occurs the most at three times).
Note: It is important to note that there can be more than one mode and if no number occurs
more than once in the set, then there is no mode for that set of numbers.
Range
A measure of dispersion where you take the lowest score from the highest score.

Measures of dispersion or variability

Another descriptive statistic that we need is a measure of dispersion. This will tell us
whether our scores are clustered closely round the mean or are widely scattered.

Consider the following sets of scores:

Group A: 10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100 | mean 55, median 55
Group B: 35, 40, 45, 50, 50, 60, 60, 65, 70, 75 | mean 55, median 55

Although the means and medians of these two sets of scores are identical, the dispersion or
variability is very different.

If these were results from a test then the teacher in charge of Group A would have a much
wider spread of ability to teach than the teacher in charge of Group B. This would not be
obvious if the only information the teachers had was a measure of central tendency, but it
would be obvious if they had a measure of dispersion as well.

The normal distribution

By plotting the data from a sample as a histogram, we can see if we have a normal
distribution. It often occurs where a large number of measurements are taken of
naturally occurring phenomena, e.g. people’s height, weight, foot size, etc.

- The mean, median and mode all occur at the same point (the highest point of the curve).
- It is symmetrical on either side of the central point of the horizontal axis. The pattern of
 scores is exactly the same above the mean as it is below it.
- A large number of scores fall relatively close to the mean on either side. As the distance
from the mean increases, the scores become fewer.
- The tails of the distribution should meet the x-axis at infinity.
- It should be bell-shaped. Sometimes distributions are skewed.

The characteristic of skewed distributions is that the mean, median and mode have
different values. A skewed distribution is often found when:
- a small number of scores are taken
- biased sample is taken of a population which may be normally distributed.
For example, plot the frequencies of height of females in the room in which
you are sitting or plot the distribution of university students’ scores.

Standard deviation
A much more sensitive description is provided by what is called the standard deviation,
often abbreviated to SD. The range only takes account of the highest and lowest scores but
the SD takes every score in the distribution into account. Loosely speaking, it gives us an
idea of how much, on average, scores in a distribution differ from the mean.

Supposing you run a study with two conditions, e.g. investigating the effects of gender and
exam performance. You measure the effect of the causal variable in terms of percentage grade
on a psychology exam. It is possible that you would get identical means between the two
groups (males versus females) so it seems like there is no difference – but the mean could be
inflated in one group by a small subset of scores at one extreme. The standard deviation could
alert you to this by being much larger in one condition than the other – showing that in one
group the scores cluster around the mean, but in the other group there is a much greater spread
of scores. Therefore, a small SD shows the mean to be a good representation of the data as a
whole – a large SD compared to this might be showing that the mean is not representative of
how the group scored as a whole.
 Now test yourself
18. Why do we use standard deviation?
19. Give one strength and weakness for each of the mean, median and
mode.
20. Give one strength and weakness for using the standard deviation.

The formula for working out the standard deviation is below, followed by an
example:

2
(Σ𝑥 − 𝑥)
𝑠 = 𝑛−1

- x is each score
- 𝑥 is the mean
- n is the number of participants

4 −7 49
7 −4 16
9 −2 4
11 0 0
13 2 4
15 4 16
18 7 49

Σ(𝑥 − 𝑥) = 138
138
𝑠 = 6
= 4. 796

Qualitative data analysis using thematic analysis

As participants can respond to an open-ended question in many different ways,
qualitative data is often analysed using themes. This requires the researcher to be
very familiar with the data. Thematic analysis is one of the most common forms of
analysis in qualitative research.

Themes are patterns across datasets that are important to the description of a phenomenon
and are associated with a specific research question. The themes become the categories for
analysis.

There is a wide range as to what a ‘dataset’ entails. Texts can range from a single-word
response to an open-ended question or as complex as a body of thousands of pages. As a
consequence, data analysis strategies will likely vary according to size. The researcher uses
coding to group the data and from the coding develop a limited number of themes. The
themes must represent the data fairly. The analyst develops the research and can go back and
forth looking at the data more than once, and recode in the light of the development themes.
Thematically analysed data can then be converted to quantitative data which allows themes
and patterns to be identified. This keeps the meaning within the qualitative data, but makes it
easier to manage.

This process of data analysis can occur using two approaches, inductive
and deductive.

Thematic analysis follows a number of stages. Once the data has been gathered, a reflective
journal can be used, which is a record of the whole process, starting with the raw data. This
can log how coding is done, thoughts when doing the coding and the ideas are developed
by themes during the coding.

This systematic way of organising and gaining meaningful parts of data as it relates to the
research question is called ‘coding’. The coding process evolves through an inductive analysis
and is not considered to be a linear process, but a cyclical process in which codes emerge
throughout the research process. This cyclical process involves going back and forth between
phases of data analysis as needed until the researcher is satisfied with the final themes.

Coding can be thought of as a means of reduction of data or data simplification. Using simple
but broad analytic codes, it is possible to reduce the data to a more manageable task. The
researcher or an independent analyst who does not know the aims of the research can carry out
the coding process. Sometimes, more than one coder is used so some form of inter-rater
reliability can be established.

Ethical guidelines
In the United Kingdom, ethical guidelines for research are published by the British
Psychological Society (BPS). The purpose of these codes of conduct is to protect
research participants, the reputation of psychology and psychologists themselves.

Ethics refers to the correct rules of conduct necessary when carrying out research. We
have a moral responsibility to protect research participants from harm. However
important the issue under investigation, psychologists need to remember that they
have a duty to respect the rights and dignity of research participants. This means
that they must abide by certain moral principles and rules of conduct.

Ethical guidelines are important for the following reasons:

- To avoid psychological harm to participants
 - Protects the rights of participants, especially children and those in institutions
- If participants are pressured, valid data may not be found
- Confidentiality means participants are more likely to co-operate fully
- If consent is given, psychologists are themselves protected against complain
- Competence means psychologists can be trusted, participants can therefore be
more trusting and more studies can be done.

Now test yourself

21. Why would ethical guidelines be less important?

BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct

The code is based on four ethical principles below.

Respect
Psychologists value the dignity and worth of all persons of all cultural backgrounds, with
particular regard to people’s rights including those of privacy. The experience they bring to
the research must be respected and other guidelines, including informed consent and right to
withdraw (see below), should be followed.

Competence
Psychologists should be fully able to carry out the work assigned to them and place value on
the high standards of their own competence in their professional work. They should have an
awareness of their own ability and limits and work within these.

Responsibility
Psychologists have a responsibility to themselves, their clients, the general public, and to the
profession of psychology. They must try and ensure any research does not damage the
reputation of psychology. They must ensure participants are protected from harm and always
debriefed (see below) at the end of any research.

Integrity
Psychologists should be honest and accurate in all their research and with all parties
concerned. This includes honesty and accuracy when results of research are published
and any conflicts of interest must be open and transparent. There should be an underlying
impression of fairness carried out within all the research and with all those concerned.

Informed consent
Whenever possible, the consent of participants must be obtained. It is not sufficient to
simply get participants to say ‘Yes’. They also need to know what it is that they are
agreeing to. You need to explain what is involved in advance and obtain the informed
consent of participants.
Consent forms may need to be accompanied by an information sheet for participants
setting out information about the proposed study along with details about the
investigator’s contact details

If there is difficulty in gaining consent, then presumptive consent may be sought. A

similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about taking part. If they think
it would be all right, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also find it
acceptable.

Debrief
The aim of the debriefing is not just to provide information, but to help the participant leave
the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when he/she entered it.

Aronson (1988) At the end of the study the participant should be able to discuss the procedure
and the findings. Debriefing should take place as soon as possible and be as full as possible;
participants must be given a general idea of what the researcher was investigating and why,
and their part in the research should be explained. They must be asked if they have any
questions and those questions should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Protection of participants
Researchers must ensure that those taking part in research will not cause distress and will be
protected from physical and mental harm. The risk of harm must be no greater than in
ordinary life. The researcher must also ensure that if vulnerable groups, such as the elderly
and children, are used they must receive special care. Children get tired easily so
participation should be brief.

Deception
This is where participants are misled or wrongly informed about the aims of the research. The
researcher should avoid deceiving participants about the nature of the research unless there is
no alternative – and even then this would need to be judged acceptable by an independent
expert. However, there are some types of research that cannot be carried out without at least
some element of deception, for example, in Milgram’s study of obedience. The true nature of
the research should be revealed at the earliest possible opportunity, or at least during
debriefing. Researchers can determine whether participants are likely to be distressed when
deception is disclosed, by consulting culturally relevant groups.

Now test yourself

22. In what ways did Milgram deceive the participants on obedience?

Confidentiality
Participants, and the data gained from them must be kept anonymous unless they give their
full consent. No names must be used in a research report.
Ultimately, decisions to disclose information will have to be set in the context of the aims of the
research.

Withdrawal from an investigation

Participants should be able to leave a study at any time if they feel uncomfortable. They should
also be allowed to withdraw their data. They should be told at the start of the study that they
have the right to withdraw. They should not have pressure placed upon them to continue if they
do not want to. Participants may feel they should not withdraw as this may ‘spoil’ the study.
Even at the end of the study the participant has a final opportunity to withdraw the data they
have provided for the research.

Exam tip
Always try to give depth when describing guidelines and avoid being tautological by
saying things like ‘deception means to deceive’.

Studies

Classic study: Sherif et al.

(1954|1961)

Aims
1. Sherif wanted to test the idea that if you create an in-group/out- group situation
by creating groups and then creating conflict between them, prejudice will arise.

2. Sherif also thought that if the two groups were set a goal that needed their
cooperation to achieve, then prejudice would be reduced.

Procedure
Twenty boys stayed at the Robber’s Cave State Park, Oklahoma, camp for three weeks
and were carefully selected to be ‘typical’ of their age (12), sex (male) and race (white).
The boys were randomly divided into two groups, which the boys named the ‘Rattlers’
and the ‘Eagles’. For the first week the groups did not know about each other, and passed
the time normally and separately, doing what they chose to do.

The ‘Rattlers’ were tough guys, whereas the ‘Eagles’ did not allow swearing. Then they
discovered each other and both groups felt that the other was invading their territory.

Sherif introduced real conflict at this stage by having a tournament between the two groups.
The teams got points, and the member of the team with the most points got a prize. This
indeed led to loyalty to the in-group, and hostility to the out-group, as was predicted.

At this stage, there was negative stereotyping of the other group. The camp counsellors
counted the negative words used when referring to the out-group. Each group thought the
others were ‘sneaks, smart alecks and stinkers’, while their own members were ‘brave,
tough and friendly’. Each burned the flag of the other group and carried out raids on the
other group’s camp.

Then the researchers set about trying to reduce the prejudice. At first, they tried simple
contact, by bringing the groups together.
However, this made things worse.

So Sherif organised ‘superordinate goals’, where the boys had to work together to
overcome problems. First, the camp water supply ‘failed’. Initially, the groups set off
separately to find the problem.

They met up at the water tank, where the problem was, and co- operated to fix it, getting
on better in the process. Second, a truck got stuck in the mud and they all had to pull it
out. This reduced hostility and indeed led to a friendly atmosphere. The counsellors
noticed less name-calling and the boys used fewer negative traits when describing the
others.

Results
Prejudice was reduced after the two groups had to work together on the superordinate
goals. Sherif (posing as the camp handyman) also asked the boys who their friends were. In
the ‘hostility’ phase, 93 per cent had friends in their own group; however, after the co-
operation phase, 30 per cent had friends between the two groups.
This shows the reduction in prejudice.

Conclusions
Prejudice will occur in a situation merely where two groups are created - this supports
Social Identity Theory. Sherif’s study also supports the idea that competition may also be a
factor resulting in prejudice. The study can be used to develop ways to reduce prejudice that
has been formed between two groups.

Exam tip
This study, unlike most, has more than one aim. Try to give both when you are
describing it in the exam.
 Typical mistakes
Candidates often think this study has no quantitative data in its findings and forget to
include figures when asked about the results of Sherif. There are two specific figures given
above; please remember to include these.

Now test yourself

23 Explain how Sherif could be criticised for ethnocentrism in his methodology.
24 What ethical issues are raised by the study?

Contemporary studies

Burger (2009)

Aims
To see if obedience levels have changed since Milgram’s 1963 study and also to conduct
a more ethical study on obedience to authority figures. In particular,
- Would Milgram’s findings be replicated nearly 50 years later?
- To examine people’s reactions to the modelled refusal, i.e. to see whether people use
the behaviour of others as a norm reference for how to behave.
- Are there gender differences in obedience?
- Are there personality differences in obedience?

Procedures
Burger had the experimenter administer a very mild 15-volt sample shock to the participants
(with their consent) so they could see that the generator was real and could obtain some idea
of what the shock felt like.

In order to deal with the ethical problems associated with Milgram’s original study, it was
decided that the study would not go on any longer than when the participants hit 150 volts.

Individuals responded to advertisements in a local newspaper and participants were

randomly assigned to one of two conditions (base condition and moral refusal condition).
Those assigned the base condition were taken to the laboratory by a research assistant and
introduced to the experimenter. A minute later, the white male in his 50s entered the room (the
confederate). Using a script largely from Milgram’s research, the procedure followed
Milgram’s very closely.

The confederate was told to try to remember each of the 25 word- pairs read by the
experimenter. The confederate then had to press a button to indicate their answer, but was
told that an incorrect answer would result in an electric shock and it would continue until all
25 word-pairs were learned.

All the responses from the confederate were pre-recorded.

No participant was allowed to press any switches after the 150 volt stage. The participant
was debriefed immediately at the end of the experiment and they met the confederate.

Model refusal condition

This followed the same procedure as the base condition, but with a few exceptions. Two
confederates were used. One of the confederates was the same man who played the learner in
the base condition. The other confederate, also posing as a participant, was of the same gender
as the real participant (white Caucasian woman in her late 20s or a white Caucasian male in his
mid-30s). The draw was rigged so that the participant was Teacher 2 and the new confederate
was Teacher 1.

They both watched the strapping into the chair and were given the sample shock. The
teachers then sat next to each other in front of the generator with the participant on the right.

Teacher 1 began the procedure by reading the words and pressing the switches. The
confederate showed no signs of hesitation until reaching 75 volts. The confederate paused
before continuing and after the 90-volt switch said, ‘I don’t know about this’, while the
experimenter used the prod ‘Please continue’. The confederate then paused for a few seconds
and said, ‘I don’t think I can do this’.

The experimenter then focused on the participant instead, asking them to continue with the
test.

Results
Conclusions
- Burger’s experiment highlights that average Americans react to this laboratory
experiment today much in the same way as they did in the 1960s, and that the same
situational factors that affected obedience then still apply.
- Contrary to expectations, participants were no less obedient after seeing another
person refuse to continue compared with the base condition. This might demonstrate
the powers of the situational forces that led participants to follow the experimenter’s
instructions.
- The failure to find gender differences may reflect the power of situational variables in
this setting to override individual differences (such as women’s tendency to be more
concerned about the learner’s plight). Alternatively, women’s greater concern for
others may have been weaker than their ability to stand up to the experimenter
(compared to men).

Reicher and Haslam (2006)

Aims
To create an institution that resembled a prison, to investigate the behaviour of groups that
were unequal in terms of power, status, privileges and resources in an ethical way. In
particular, to see when people accept or challenge inter-group inequalities, whether people
who have power use it without constraint and whether those without power accept their
inferior group without complaints.

Procedures
Fifteen male participants took part in an experimental case study with five randomly
selected to be guards and the other ten prisoners. They lived in a mock prison for ten
days with permeability between the groups altering and participants rating their
identification with their own and the other group each morning.

The 15 participants were first divided into five groups of three people who were as
closely matched as possible on personality, such as racism, authoritarianism and
social dominance. From each group of three, one participant was then randomly
selected to be a guard (and the remaining two to be prisoners).

The guards were told that their responsibility was to ensure that the institution ran as
smoothly as possible and that the prisoners performed all their tasks and were then asked to
draw up a series of prison rules and of punishments for rule violations.

There were three planned interventions: permeability, legitimacy and cognitive alternatives.
These interventions can be seen as the independent variables. Permeability refers to the degree
to which it is perceived to be possible to move from one particular group into another. At their
initial briefing, the guards were told that they had been selected because of their reliability,
trustworthiness and initiative from pre-selection assessment scales. The experimenters stated
that it was also possible that they had misassigned one or more of the prisoners. Hence, the
guards were told that they should observe the behaviour of the prisoners to see if anyone
showed guard-like qualities.

This information was also announced to the prisoners over the loudspeaker. In the initial days
of the study, participants were thus led to believe that movement between groups was
possible. After the promotion of one prisoner to guard actually took place, the possibility of
movement was removed by announcing that there would be no further promotions.

Legitimacy refers to the extent to which relations and status differences between groups are
perceived to be justified or not. Three days after the promotion, participants were to be
informed by the experimenters that there were in fact no differences between guards and
prisoners. The participants would now believe that the group division was not legitimate.

Cognitive alternatives refers to group members’ awareness of ways in which social relations
could be restructured in order to bring about social change. Within a day of the legitimacy
intervention, a new prisoner was introduced. He was chosen for this role because of his
background as an experienced trade union official. Hence, it was expected that his
introduction would enable the prisoners to envisage the achievement of a more equal set of
social relations.

Findings|Results

Haslam and Reicher divided the findings of the experiment into two phases rejecting
inequality (days 1–6) and embracing inequality (days 7–8).

Rejecting inequality
In this first phase of the study, the guards did not identify with their group and therefore did
not act collectively. The prisoners also lacked a social identity initially and acted individually
in the hope of being promoted. However, after the promotion on day 3, the prisoners
increasingly identified as a group and on day 6 the guards were overthrown by the prisoners.

Embracing inequality
In this second phase of the study, the prisoners and guards decided to create a new
self-governing commune. However, the commune was unable to deal with internal dissent and
some of the former prisoners and former guards attempted to impose a new much harsher
regime on the other participants. The study therefore had to be terminated on day 8 as it would
have gone on to break ethical guidelines.

The guards identified more strongly with their group compared to the prisoners until
participants were told there would be no more movements between groups and the trend
reversed with the scores of prisoners remaining higher for the rest of the study. On day 6,
prisoners broke out of their cells and soon prisoners and guards governed together as one.
Conclusions
- Tyranny arose as a solution to group failure.
- People do not blindly/automatically conform to roles that are assigned to
them.
- Social identification is important to allow the group to be effective and affects
the members’ mental state. A dysfunctional group led to a worse mental
state.
- The study reinforced Social Identity Theory’s suggestion of how permeability
affects how people identify with groups.
- They concluded that surveillance affects behaviour as the guards were
reluctant to appear authoritarian

Cohrs et al. (2012)

Aims
The study aimed to examine any correlations between the Big Five personality dimensions,
Right Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) and Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) and prejudice.

Cohrs et al. (2012) also wanted to see whether previous research would be supported by using
self-report and peer-report data, rather than just relying on the one. The use of peer reports
would be used to cross-check the self-report data. Using self-reports alone, previous research
had found a link between certain personality traits and ideological views which lead to
prejudice. More specifically to see whether that conscientiousness correlated positively with
RWA and that RWA and SDO correlated positively with prejudice.

Procedures
Two separate studies were carried out in relation to the overall study. The procedure in both
studies involved the participants self- rating their own personalities and their peers then
rated them (the participant). Participants were asked to give the peer report questionnaire to
a friend and to complete the self-report themselves. Confidentiality was maintained
throughout and the peer raters were to answer as best they could, thinking about how the
participant (their friend) would respond.

Study 1 used an opportunity sample from the general population of Eastern Germany which
had just the one peer rater. Study 1 focused on measuring prejudice to foreigners and
negative attitudes to disability and homosexuality. The sample consisted of 125 female and 64
male participants and their associated peers who knew the participant they were paired with
well. To measure personality and prejudice, study 1 used the NEO Five Factor Inventory
(seven-point scale) which had 12 items for each of the five factors.

Study 2 used volunteer sampling from a twin registry and unlike study 1 had two separate
friends for each participant as this would give more reliable data. Study 2 used the German
version of the NEO Personality Inventory Revised (five-point scale) which had 48 items for
each of the five factors. The sample consisted of 103 men and 321 women aged between 18
and 82 years. They also completed an adapted questionnaire based on the negative attitudes
to the same groups from study 1.

Results

Conclusions
- If an individual is more conscientious, they are more likely to be RWA.
- If an individual has SDO or RWA, they are more likely to be prejudiced.
- The findings of previous research which just uses self-reports has been found to be
reliable when using both self-reports and peer reports.
Exam tip
When asked to describe a study such as those above, do not spend most of your answer
writing about just the procedure. Try to give the examiner breadth of knowledge by
including the aims, results and conclusions as well.

Key questions

What makes people commit acts of terrorism against fellow human beings?

The attack on the World Trade Center in America on 9/11 and the London bombings
on 7/7 have stirred up public opinion and made us all consider what motivates an
ordinary person to become a terrorist.

Terrorism is defined as ‘the use or threat of action to influence a government or intimidate the
public for a political or religious cause’. Terrorism is not new. It has been used since the
beginning of recorded history. Early examples of terrorist acts can be traced back to the
French Revolution in 1789. However, it evolved over the last 200 years and now the most
common types of terrorism include bombings, hostage taking and hi-jacking.

In terrorism studies in the late 1960s, it was not uncommon to conceive of pathology as a
psychological abnormality or affliction rooted inside the individual. However, more recently
this idea has fallen into disrepute, and the consensus now holds that the roots of terrorism lie
not in the individual, but in the wider circumstances in which terrorists live and act.

Application of concepts theories and research to explain this key question

Realistic Conflict Theory would take this idea one step further and suggest there is some
competition (political/social) between the groups which leads to this form of discrimination.

Terrorists may believe they are the in-group and categorise themselves as such at the expense
of the anti-terrorists (out-group). In identifying with one group they may have exaggerated
differences with the other group, e.g. through the uniform/clothes worn. This in-group
favouritism to their own country/cause may have led to discrimination in order to protect
their own self-esteem.

Terrorists may be following a leader in a position of authority who may make them obey his
commands to carry out atrocities. Terrorists are therefore obeying the (religious) leaders’
authority figures as they are in an agentic state.

There may be a diffusion of responsibility in that the terrorist may believe that those they are
obeying will be ultimately responsible. Milgram found that participants were more likely to
continue giving shocks as they knew responsibility lay with the experimenter and not
themselves.

Some suicide bombers may be in an autonomous state fully believing what they are doing is
correct and of their own free will. However, others may not actually want to do these acts and
may experience moral strain when doing so. Zimbardo (1971) found that acts such as these
may be the product of the social situation and social roles given to them.

Social Impact Theory would suggest the terrorists were all in agreement that it was acceptable
and the message was strong. Because of the number of previous terrorist acts and the
immediacy of the message, the impact of the decision to commit these atrocities was high.

Exam tip
When describing your key question, try to avoid bringing in any psychology as this should
be included in your explanation of the key question only

Practical investigation
In conducting the practical investigation, you must:
- design and conduct a questionnaire to gather both qualitative and
quantitative data to look for a difference in the data
- consider questionnaire construction, sampling decisions and ethical issues
 - collect and present an analysis of quantitative data using measures of central
tendency, measures of dispersion (including range and standard deviation as
appropriate), bar graph and frequency table
- collect and present an analysis of qualitative data using thematic analysis
- consider strengths and weaknesses of the questionnaire
- write up the procedure, results and discussion section of a report.

Suitable examples
- A questionnaire to see if males or females perceive themselves to be more obedient
- In-group out preference and out-group hostility
- Gender differences in obedience to authority
- Prejudice within gender and sport in the media.

Issues and debates

Ethics Issues of informed consent, causing psychological harm
and right to withdraw within obedience research
The necessity of creating these conditions in order to
study prejudice and obedience

Practical issues in design Practical issues when researching prejudice, such as

and implementation of social desirability Issues with interviews/self-reports
research when measuring obedience and prejudice Importance
of sampling participants into conditions (Burger 2009
and Sherif et al. 1954/1961)

Reductionism Reducing behaviour down to an equation in social

impact theory
Risk of drawing reductionist conclusions from data
drawn from self-reports and interviews
Measuring prejudice attitudes by questionnaires can
reduce the complexity of behaviour

Comparisons between ways of Issues of personality, culture, gender and situation in

explaining behaviour explaining both obedience and prejudice
Use of two different theories to explain prejudice and
obedience behaviour
 Psychology as a science Controls over variables in laboratory experiments can
lead to replicability and reliability
However, bias in questionnaires can lead to issues of
validity

Cultural and gender issues Obedience not found to be influenced by gender

However, there are cultural differences (collectivistic vs
individualistic) in obedience

Nature–nurture Role of authoritarian personality and upbringing in

obedience and prejudice Links from Cohrs (2012)
study on prejudice and RWA/SDO suggest
prejudice is more nurture than nature

Psychological Changes from Milgram (1960s) and the replication

understanding over time work of Burger (2009) into obedience
Similarly, Cohrs (2012) further examined the work of
Adorno (1950) on personality and prejudice

Social control Making people obey authority and socialising them into
an agentic state from a young age
Knowledge of how to induce and reduce prejudice
within individuals and groups

Psychological knowledge in Reduction of prejudice

society Explaining football violence/acts of
terrorism/cult behaviour/historical atrocities

Socially sensitive Prejudice links to racism and the impact of research on

research participants and the groups they represent

Exam practice
- Evaluate Milgram’s agency theory as an explanation of obedience.
- Evaluate one contemporary study from social psychology.

- Evaluate Milgram’s original study of obedience.

- Evaluate one of Milgram’s variation studies.

- Evaluate Sherif’s robbers’ cave study.

- Evaluate Social Identity Theory as an explanation of prejudice.

- Outline two features of Milgram’s (1963) study that might explain why the
participants obeyed.

- Outline two features of Milgram’s (1963) study that might explain why the
participants obeyed.

- Compare the agency theory with the social impact theory as an explanation
of obedience.

- Describe how personality may affect obedience.

- Explain how prejudice can be explained by developmental psychology.

- Evaluate social impact theory.

- Outline what is meant by social psychology.

- Explain two ways in which prejudice was reduced in the robbers’ cave study.

- Sakina has been told by her teacher that she should do her homework this
week if she is to improve on her current grades. Using your knowledge of
social impact theory, explain why Sakina is likely to follow her teacher’s
instructions