PsychologyWHAT IS PSYCHOLOGY AND HOW IS IT CONSIDERED A SCIENCE?

Introductions!

Post it notes

3 things I can do to help you learn

What is Psychology?

Pop Psychology – theories or concepts that may or may not have basis in psychology

Can be oversimplified based on anecdotal evidence and popular beliefs – unsupported claims

Scientific psychology- based on documented research evidence

In pairs define these terms (relating it to what you know about psychology)

Reliability Hypotheses

Objectivity Falsifiable

Causality Control

Common definition: Psychology is the scientific study of mental processes and behaviour and how these are affected by internal processes and the environment

Scientific – systematic and controlled study of human behaviour.

Cause and Effect – Causality

Mental processes – covert behaviours e.g. attention, memory, emotion, attitudes

Behaviours – Overt e.g. Obedience, prejudice, aggression, helping

Internal processes – hormones, genes

Environment

Nature vs. nurture

Multidisciplinary science – biology, sociology,

Data collection – experiments, brain scanning, observations, interviews,

Biological – e.g. neurotransmitters, hormones, genes (e.g. effect of drugs)

Social – effects of people, culture and society (e.g. obedience)

Cognitive – Study of mental processes (e.g. memory)

Psychology – how is it considered a science?

Empirical methods – means information gained through direct observation or experiment

To collect facts

Does not rely on beliefs

Important – anyone can make claims

Truth - ‘direct testing’ i.e. Observation and experiments

Replicability – reported in detail so that other researchers can repeat and verify the work

If the outcome is the same, it affirms the original results

Objectivity - Objective research is when it is not affected by the expectations of the researcher.

i.e. not being influenced by their beliefs or feelings

Unbiased

Systematic collection of data

Controlled conditions

Cause and effect

Which method of data collection would be seen as the most scientific?

Hypothesis testing: Theories are modified through this process Good theory must be able to generate testable expectations

If scientists fails to support hypothesis – then theory may require modification

A good theory or hypothesis also must be falsifiable, which means that it must

be stated in a way that makes it possible to reject it.

In other words, we have to be able to prove a theory or hypothesis wrong

5 minute Task!

Can human behaviour be measured objectively?

In pairs, make a list of potential problems researchers may come up against when conducting research?

Interviews

Observations

Experiments

Bias

Demand Characteristics

Confoundin

g

variables

Ethics

Mundane Realism

Experimen

ter EffectsReliability Validity

Example methodological issues

ReliabilityIt is important that psychology research can easily be repeated and yield the same results each time. Reliability refers to the extent to which the measurement of a particular behaviour is consistent.

Validity

Refers to the extent to which a research technique actually measures the behaviour it is claimed to measure

Back to Social Psychology!The Social approach

Year One/AS course covers obedience and prejudice.

Social approach: people are studied as social beings

Basic assumptions: humans are social, they interact with others and they are affected by others

How individuals interact and how they behave in groups

Groups in society: We live within a culture and society

Our behaviour is affected by experiences within our culture/society

What groups are you part of? Brainstorm a list of the groups to which you belong

How important are they you your personal identity?

Social Identity

Social Identity – identifying yourself as a member

Prejudice – examples?

Social situations affect behaviour too – what do you think this means?

Example?

Social roles

Expectations attached to roles

Recap

Explain three ways in which being ‘social’ influences people

Next lesson: What is obedience? Agency Theory.

Homework: define the social approach, drawing on two of its main assumptions (6 marks)

Obedience

Recap – Social Approach

LO: To define, explain and evaluate the agency theory, including agentic state, autonomous state and moral strain

What is obedience?

In your own words?

Obedience

obeying direct orders from someone in authority

Conformity

doing something which is against the individual’s own inclinations. The act of matching attitudes, beliefs and behaviours to group norms. Yielding to group pressure.

Compliance

going along with what someone says, while not necessarily agreeing with it (e.g. peer relationships) Not an order but a request.

Internalisation

obeying with agreement

What is an authority figure?

Who are you more likely to obey, and why?

1. A fireman in uniform approaches you in the street and tells you to cross to the other side of the street immediately

2. You volunteer to contribute ideas to a book, for which you’re being paid, and in your first session the tutor tells you to step on snails and then write about the experience

Why Study Obedience?

Why do people suspend moral judgements and carry out an order that is inhumane or destructive?

“The Nazi extermination of European Jews is the most extreme instance of abhorrent immoral acts carried out by thousands of people in the name of

obedience” - Stanley Milgram

Evolution of obedience – Milgram

Why is obedience important in society?

Society is hierarchal in nature

Survival function

Social order and harmony

Without obedience there would be challenges to social order

Societal breakdown

Nature vs Nurture

Innately predisposed to be obedient

Authority figures (parents, teachers etc.) nurture us through socialisation

Rewards and punishments encourage obedience and discourages dissent

Society – encourages us to develop as subordinates (legal system for example)

Stanley Milgram

Could ‘anyone’ be ordered to harm another person?

Conducted research on ‘normal’ healthy participants

Investigate whether these ‘normal’ participants would yield to an authority figure and administer electric shocks to an innocent person

Milgram concluded that we are capable of complying to the demands of a legitimate authority figure, even if it means causing harm.

Milgram believed that this must serve a function – evolutionary or societal

Milgram – Study of Obedience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCVlI-_4GZQ

Nature Vs Nurture

Which side of the debate do you think Milgram was trying to argue?

Obedience Theory 1 – Agency Theory

Agency Theory (Milgram) – Mechanism to ensure obedience

People operate in 2 ways

1. Autonomous – aware of consequences of actions and choose to act

2. Agentic state – persons sees themselves as an agent. Carry out orders but do not feel personally responsible

The change from autonomous to agentic state is agentic shift

How would you feel if you were taking part in a study and you were asked by one of the researchers to administer an electric shock to someone else in the next room?

What if you were told by the researcher that you needed to continue as it was essential to the study?

What if the they also said that they would take full responsibility for your actions?

Moral Strain – asked to do something they wouldn’t normally do

They may believe it is immoral or unjust

Results in feelings of discomfort, anxiety and distress

They are thinking about dissent however this goes against what they have been socialised to do

Agentic state of mind

Displaces responsibility onto the authority figure

Absolving them of the consequences

There are other ways to relieve moral strain

i.e. removing yourself from the situation

Evaluation - Agency Theory

Mai Lai Massacre

Lieutenant Calley instructed American soldiers to shoot occupants of Mai Lai

“just following orders”

They massacred women, men and children – despite no return fire

Does this support or refute the agency theory? Why?

Supports – involves displacement of responsibility.

Hofling (1966)

21 out of 22 followed the doctor’s orders (administer twice the daily dosage of a drug to a patient)

Some of the nurses justified their behaviour due to the hierarchy of authority at the hospital – displacement of responsibility

Mail Lai – some soldiers refused to shoot Robert Maples – refused an order to fire his gun

Even when his commanding officer aimed his gun at him

Hofling (1966) 22 out of 23 nurses carried out the order Not 100%

Agency theory does not explain Individual differences – obedience is a complex process

Dissent can occur for many different reasons (i.e. personality type, gender and situation)

Agentic shift – internal mental process

Can be inferred but not measured

No direct evidence to support the evolutionary basis of obedience However similar hierarchal systems exist in animal groups (primates)

Can be inferred that it has evolved to serve a purpose (survival function)

Motivation issues aren’t explained by agency theory

There are other possible explanations – when another explanation is equally possible, this makes the theory less powerful

French and Raven (1959) Five bases of power that motivate and influence behaviour

Legitimate power

Reward power

Referent power

Expert power

Coercive power

Examples ?

Agency theory- a claim that provides a description

No evidence to suggest that we have evolved to obey those in higher positions

Issues and Debates - Obedience

Nature vs Nurture

Milgram: obedience is “an ingrained behaviour established through the process of socialisation. This behaviour manifests as we are exposed to authority figures under certain environmental conditions conducive to compliance”

Homework:

Explain Milgram’s agency theory of obedience (4 marks)

What is meant by the terms ‘agentic state’ and ‘autonomous state’ (4 marks)

Next Lesson: social impact theory of obedience

Recap – Agency theory

Apply your knowledge of agency theory and explain this behaviour:

Prisoner’s human rights were abused at the Abu Ghraib prison under the authority of the American armed forces in the aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war. Soldiers were thrust into the role of prison guards and began to sadistically torment prisoners there and at other detention sites in Afghanistan and Iraq. The soldiers claim that they were following orders and documented what they did.

Define agency theory

Define the agentic state

What is the agentic shift?

What is the autonomous state?

How does one feel under moral strain?

Evaluation points?

Supporting evidence?

Limitations?

Social Impact Theory

LO: Explain and evaluate the social impact theory

This theory can be applied to obedience but it is not strictly a theory of obedience.

Social Impact theory looks at the functioning of individuals in the presence of others

How we are affected by our social environment ad the variety of opinions we encounter as social beings

Latane (1981)

Influenced by the actions of others

Persuaded

Inhibited

Threatened

Supported

The result of others’ actions – changes to how we feel and act

Target – person being impacted on

Source – influencer

Research task Jigsaw– 3 groups (20-25 mins)

Group 1 What is social impact theory

Group 2 Linking the theory to Milgram’s work

Group 3 Laws of behaviour – mathematical model

Presentation – PPT/other programme (5 mins. each group)

All members to participate in explaining their work

All students to listen and make notes

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY Bibb Latane 1981

we are greatly influenced by the actions of others; we can be persuaded, inhibited, threatened andsupported by other people.

People’s actions, effect changes to how we feel

How we feel effect how we act in response.

SOURCE

TARGETCONFO

RMITY

BYSTANDER

OBEDIENCE

Social Force - The likelihood that a person will respond to social influence will increase with:

•Strength•how important the influencing group of people are to you.(status, authority, age)

•Immediacy•how close the group are to you at the time of the influence attempt. (proximity, distance, buffers)

•Number•How many people there are in the group.(sources and targets)

EXPLAINING OBEDIENCEAuthority figures

strength

immediacy

The greater the strength, immediacy and number of the source, the greater the impact on the target.

SOURCE

TARGET

number

Berkowitz Bickman and Milgram (1969)

Between one and 15 confederates congregated on the street and craned their necks to look up at the sixth floor of the university building

Passers-by who also stopped and craned their necks to look up were recorded by Milgram

increasing the numberof confederates craning their neck increases the number of passers-by imitating their actions

The effect eventually levels off as the number of passers-by grew smaller relative to the size of the confederate group.

PSYCHOSOCIAL LAWThe multiplicative effect

E. G. One lightbulb will have a dramatic effect in a dark room, a second will improve lighting conditions but as more are added the effect becomes less pronounced.

The divisional effect

The ability of the speaker to persuade the audience is divided among many members of the audience

A lone person is more likely to help someone in needcompared to a group of people; there is a diffusion of responsibility similar to a divisional effectTherefore an authority figure would have a

diminished capacity to influence someone if that someone had an ally or group of allies. (Milgram’s variation- two peers rebel condition)

EVALUATION - Summary

Individuals are passive receivers of other’s behaviours

Mainly ignores individual differences

Predicting behaviour in unusual circumstances is useful

Application of principles can be observed in everyday behaviour

Cannot predict what will happen if two equal groups impact on one another (who is the source/target in football matches?)

Target and source interactions cannot be explained

Evaluation in more detail – Weaknesses

Potential weaknesses?

Views individuals as passive receivers of others’ behaviour

Disregards active nature of social interaction

Static theory – rather than dynamic

Ignores interaction between source and target

What does that target bring to the situation?

Oversimplifies the nature of social interaction – ignores individual differences

Some people may be more resistant to social impact others may be more passive

The impact of others involves many factors such as power of persuasion, immediacy, size of group etc. It is difficult to see that all of these factors can be reduced to a formula

Evaluation – Weaknesses

Can not explain all social situations

What about two equal groups? (equal in number, immediacy and strength)

Who would be the source/target?

As a theory of obedience

Looks at social impact in general not just obedience

Can explain how the presence of others affects obedience levels but it can’t explain why change of setting can affect obedience

What is obedience?

Not about the influence of groups on behaviour so only features of obedience that involve groups are addressed.

Evaluation – Strengths

Useful predictive power Quantifiable (measurable) – principles can be observed

Using mathematical formulas predictions can be made to help society in the control of its members

As long as the factors can be measured (i=f(S/N)

The likely influence on individuals can be estimated

Explains what conditions people are more likely to be influences

A descriptive theory rather than explanatory (can predict behaviour under certain conditions)

Reliability - as it is set out so clearly

If same measurements about groups and individuals are put into the formula same predictions will emerge

As a theory of obedience

Milgram showed when there is peer support there was less obedience

This theory acknowledges that impact is affected by the number of people being influenced as by the number influencing

Can support this finding from Milgram’s variation

The theory acknowledges strength as a feature of groups (power of persuasion as well as authority) this suits the idea that people obey those in authority.

Issues and debates

Reductionism: the study of something by breaking it down into parts E.g. Milgram – looked at parts of obedience (in variations)

He measured these parts i.e. how many volts or how they felt

Limiting - findings aren’t likely to represent the whole picture

Reducing behaviour to certain actions and situations

However reductionism can be useful

Scientific study reduces the object of study into parts to enable experiments to be carried out

Issues and Debates

Useful? How is this theory useful?

Latane – social engineering or social control?

Could be used to decide who to appoint as a leader (i.e. manager)

Number of students in a class or colleagues in an office

Crowding

Milgram (1963) – Basic study of obedience

LO: To describe and evaluate Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience.

To explain three of Milgram’s variation studies.

Layout (APRC)

Aim

Procedure

Results

You will need to know results of the studies – percentages

Conclusion

Evaluation - Strengths

Individual task: What strengths and weaknesses can you come up with?

Share with someone sitting next to you – can you add more to your list?

Strengths

Well controlled procedure – cause and effect

Prompts were in a set order

Learners response same across participants

Made every effort to ensure all participants had the same experience – to avoid bias

Obedience due to response of an authority figure – unlikely that other factors could have contributed to the findings

Can be replicated and tested for reliability

Limitations

Ethical issues

BPS ethical code – electric document

Anxiety and stress – psychological harm

Deception

Right to withdraw – given but the prompts made it difficult for some participants to leave

Consent – not fully informed due to deception

Debrief given

Lack of internal validity

The participants may have continued due to the prestigious setting (trusted everything would be okay)

Perhaps they didn’t think the shocks were real so behaved as expected – counter argument?

Lab & Control a strength however is it representative of real life behaviour?

Could be argued that it lacks mundane realism

However!

Remember the Hofling study?

Variation studies – situational differences

Telephonic Instructions

Proximity – could this have influenced the level of obedience in the basic study?

To test the effects of physical distance between the experimenter and teacher

Reduces the risk of the participant feeling bound to the experimenter (obliged to help out with the scientific study)

Procedure

Provided face to face instructions first of all and then left the room

Continued to provide instructions over the phone

Results: 22.5% continued to 450v in comparison to 65% in the original study

Why do you think results were so different?

Participants administered lower shocks (rather than increasing by 15v) and lied to the experimenter

The physical presence of the experimenter is a force when it comes to obedience

Application – If someone wants obedience they should be present rather than giving orders over from a distance (e.g. over the phone)

Run down office block Same procedures as the original study

Participants told the research was being conducted by Research Associated of

Bridgeport (private company)

Dissociated from Yale (integrity, prestigious settings)

Building partly furnished

Results?

48% in comparison to 65%

Less reputable context effected legitimacy of the study

During debrief participants questioned the credentials of the company

Ordinary man gives orders

Power relations- role of authority on obedience

No lab coat – experimenter played by an ‘ordinary man’

Draw for three roles: experimenter, teacher and learner (all rigged)

Experimenter – noting times from clock and seated at a desk

Followed instruction to strap the learner into the electric shock chair

Didn’t tell the teacher what levels of shocks to administer

Received a phone call to leave the room telling the teacher to continue – to ensure the learner had learned the word pairs perfectly

Learner – ‘a good way to conduct the study would be to increase the shock level after each incorrect answer’ – repeated throughout the study

Results?

20% obedience level compared to the original 65%

80% broke off before the maximum shock 450v

Particular situational factors – encourage dissent

Recap

Why did Milgram use the same procedure in the variations?

Why did he change situational factors?

Recap – Q&A

Homework:

Outline three ethical issues with Milgram’s study (6 marks).

Outline two features of Milgram’s (1963) study that might explain why the participants obeyed. (4)

Table/diagram comparing Agency Theory and Social Impact theory

H/W

H/W Evaluate Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience (12 marks)

Individual differences – Personality

Locus of control

Authoritarian Personality

Empathy

In pairs – Look up these terms

Define and discuss how these relate to obedience

Locus of control Personality Theory Rotter (1966)

Locus of control: sense of control people have over successes or failures and events in their life

Locus of control

External: Behaviour beyond their control, due to external factors, more influenced by others

Internal: In control, feels responsible, less influenced by others

Thinking back to Milgram’s findings relate this to locus of control.

Obedient people have ___________ locus of control

More likely to be influenced by an authority figure

More likely to believe they are not responsible

Dissenters have an ____________ locus of control

More likely to be resistant to authority

More likely to take personal responsibility

Link between obedience and personality seems plausible and can account for individual differences (example of individual differences?)

Research in this area is mix and there is a lack of strong evidence to suggest that those with internal locus of control resist and those with external locus of control obey.

Personality

The Authoritarian Personality

Tendency to be extremely obedient

Respect for authority/ hostile to lower rank (subordinates)

Adorno: key to understanding extreme obedience and racial prejudice: early childhood experiences

Personality formed

Personality

Adorno (1959) 2000 American students – mainly white middle class

Interviewed about political views and childhood experiences

Strict parents + harsh punishment = hostile and angry

F scale developed (Fascism scale – extreme intolerant views based on right wing politics)

Milgram and Elms (1966): Compared F Scale scores on 20 obedient and 20 defiant participants. Fully obedient – scored higher on tests of authoritarian personality compared to dissenters.

Personality

Empathy

High levels of empathy – less likely to harm another person

More likely to defy orders from an authority figure

We will look at Burger (2009) a bit later on

Found that those who score high on empathy more likely to protest

Did not find lower levels of obedience

Gender

Links to developmental psychology

Gender Role Schema (Bem, 1981)

Sense of masculinity and femininity developed as we are brought up and socialised

Affects how we perceive ourselves and others

List a few stereotypes

Men are often depicted as__________________

Females are often depicted as_______________

Who thinks females would me more obedient than men?

This prediction may not be accurate

Schema is a cognitive framework that helps organise and interpret information in the world around us

Milgram study – 4 female teachers Level of obedience 65%

27.5 broke off at 300v

Level of anxiety was a lot higher than males (links to empathy?)

Sheridan and King (1972) – live puppy as victim All 13 female participants delivered the max level of shock to the puppy compared to

males

Kilham and Mann (1974) direct replication of Milgram’s research (Australia) Females less obedient (16%) than males (40%)

Male teachers were paired with male learners

Female teachers paired with female learners

Joined together in alliance against the demands of the male experimenter?

Very little evidence to show gender differences in obedience despite traditional beliefs

Gender

Blass (1991) Meta-analysis

Overall set of results (similar in procedure)

9 studies

Only 1 found gender differences (Kilham and Mann)

Therefore conclude: there are no gender differences in obedience

Factors affecting obedience – Situational Factors and Cultural Factors

Situational Factors

1. Momentum of compliance – gradual commitment

2. Proximity

3. Status of authority

1. Momentum of compliance – gradual commitment

Binding relationship that escalated

Examples?

Trivial requests- request increases (duty bound to continue)

Slow 15 volt increments

2. Proximity

Distance – buffer to obedience (telephonic condition)

Learner and teacher in the same room – obedience dropped

Generator – physical buffer (more inclined to use machinery rather than doing something first hand)

3. Status of authority

Legitimate authority figure

Yale rather than run down office or when conducted by ordinary man

4. Personal responsibility

Variation study – participants had to sign a contract stating they were acting of their own free will and Yale would not be made responsible.

Obedience fell to 40%

Relate to Agency theory

Culture

Could different cultures have different levels of obedience?

Nature vs Nurture debate – why are looking at culture?

Agency theory – nature or nurture?

Nature to obey However situation led to obedience (nurture)

Milgram – human nature to obey and the situation affects the level of obedience

Two main types of cultures Individualistic

Collectivist

Complete the worksheet

Which culture would be predicted to be more obedient?

Assumption:

Collectivist cultures will be more obedient because such traits are beneficial to that kind of culture

Culture – Blass (1999) review of obedience research

Researcher Country % of obedience

Milgram (1962) US 65%

Edwards et al. (1969) South Africa 87.5%

Bock (1972) US 40%

Kilham and Mann (1974)

Australia 28%

Shanab and Yahya (1977)

Jordan 73%

Miranda et al. (1981) Spain 50%

Schurz (1985) Austria 80%

Ancona and Pareyson (1968)

Italy 85%

Burley and McGuiness (1977)

UK 50%

Which of these countries are collectivist/individualist?

www.geert-Hofstede.com/united-kingdom.html

Is this cultural variation or could the difference be explained by something else?

Think about replication…..

Examples: Ancona and Pareyson (1968) Italy – 85% Max shock was 330 volts

Less dangerous than 450 volts

Students used – Milgram avoided students due to their compliant and competitive nature

Shurz (1985) Austria – 80%

Bursts of ultrasound not shocks

Told that it would be painful

Blass (2012) concluded there were similarities found despite differences in procedure/situation/participants

Powerful tendency to obey authority

May be ‘one of the universals of social behaviour’ (Blass 2012, pg. 203)

Due to the differences however – studies that are examining different cultures should have the same procedures, similar participants in order to conclude that differences in obedience are down to culture and not differences in the studies.

Recap

To what extent can individual differences explain variation in levels of obedience?

Tips – review all available information

Come to reasoned conclusion that directly answers the questions

Question: To what extent can individual differences explain variation in levels of obedience?

Review knowledge concerning obedience and individual differences (research and theories)

Come to a reasoned conclusion that directly answers the question – based on the research not opinion