S O C I A L P S Y C H O L O G Y U N I T
1
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:
Definition & key social psychological terms
How other people, groups, culture & society can influence our
behaviour. Individuals with perceived authority or charisma can
influence us, e.g., obedience, self-fulfilling prophecy; groups can
influence behaviour, e.g., compliance & conformity – Asch, Latane &
Darley (Smoke filled room), crowd behaviour & diffusion of
responsibility.
Culture & society can influence us: our culture can affect our
response to individuals & groups, who we believe has legitimate
authority over us and may also affect our general tendency for
obedience (we may have an ethnocentric bias). Culture & society
may influence our beliefs about perceived attractiveness – rates of
anorexia may reflect social & cultural influences.
The power of the social situation can be very influential: even ‘good’
SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY:
Key Terms
Agentic state
:
we surrender our free will & conscience to serve theinterests of the wider group; we see ourselves as primarily the agents of those with power and in authority and only secondarily as individuals – responsibility shifts to those in charge and we become de-individuated, denying personal responsibility
Autonomous state
:
essentially the opposite – we feel free to act aswe wish, including how our conscience dictates.
Moral strain
:
this is the result of having to do something we believeto be immoral in order to function as an agent of those with power & authority, and so benefit society. Denial (a defence mechanism) is often used to avoid the distress associated with moral strain and having to do things we might normally find abhorrent.
In-groups/out-groups
: in-group loyalty refers to our tendency toKey Terms
(continued)
Social categorisation:
categorising ourselves as
members of a particular group; these categories are ones we learn
to be important, e.g., Goths, Emos.
Social identification
: Adopting the identity of the group
to which we have categorised ourselves, adopting consistent
behaviours with this categorisation, adopting the attitudes &
behaviours of the in-group to distinguish oneself from
non-members.
Social comparison:
comparing your group favourably to
In depth area of study:
Obedience & Prejudice
Define the
terms
prejudice &
discrimination
Social
Identity
Theory of
prejudice
Agency theory
Milgram’s
study & 1
variation of it
Ethical issues
& the study of
obedience
1
OBEDIENCE
Obedience: to allow ourselves to be directed by an individual[s] who
we perceive to have power/authority over us. It differs from
compliance, which means simply going along with suggestions or
instructions without being directly ordered to; and conformity which
is where we adopt the attitudes & behaviour of those around us
without being directly ordered to by an authority figure.
Studies of obedience, why people carry out orders which they
seemingly find abhorrent and go against their moral believes and
values,
gained
impetus
after
the
destructive
obedience
demonstrated by some Nazis during World War II, such as the
Holocaust.
Genocide, as illustrated by the Holocaust, is the most obvious
Milgram’s classic study of obedience (1963)
Name: Milgram’s study of obedience
Aim: to investigate how obedient people would be in a situation where following orders would mean breaking participants’ moral codes & harming another person: to test the hypothesis that the ‘Germans were different’.
Method: procedure-Milgram advertised for 40 volunteers (males aged 20-50) to take part in a study on human memory (really obedience). Each participant was introduced individually to Mr Wallace (a confederate) and told that either they, or Mr Wallace would be randomly allocated the roles of either ‘teacher’ or ‘learner’. Mr Wallace was always the ‘leaner’ who would receive an electric shock every time he got a memory question wrong (Mr. Wallace was in another room so could be heard but not seen). The ‘teacher’ (the naïve/real participant) was given a small shock at the beginning of the experiment to illustrate its effects. Shocks went up in 15v increments up to 450v marked ‘XXX’. The researcher & Mr Wallace followed a carefully scripted set of responses & prompts.
Generalisability: can we generalise from Milgram’s sample to the wider population, I.e., is there population validity? Despite the fact that only US males were used, they were from a wide range of backgrounds & ages; furthermore, Milgram found very similar results with female participants and cross-cultural results tend to be similar (see table below).
Reliability: a standardised procedure was followed, I.e., the same script & verbal prompts were used for each participant.
Application to real life: there are numerous examples in real life where we have to obey authority figures.
Validity: did the study have experimental
Milgram’s study
(continued)
Results: Before the research
Milgram asked psychologists & psychiatrists to estimate what % of naïve participants would inflict shocks – the estimate was les than 1%. In reality 100% went to 300v & 65% went to 450v. [NB. Obedience is operationalised as going to 450v.]
Conclusion: Milgram concluded
that the power of the social situation is a powerful determinant of behaviour – we are socialised from an early age to recognise authority and obey those with perceived power.
Validity cont’d: Variations of
Milgram’s experiment, e.g., when done outside a lab and in a run down office block, saw obedience levels fall, but where still very high at 48%. Hofling’s (1966) field experiment found similar results and later real life incidents, e.g., Mai Lai, support the ecological validity of Milgram’s study. Sheridan & King (1972) conducted a procedural similar studies to Milgram’s on puppies, participants thought they were shocking puppies: similar results were obtained.
Ethics: Participants were deceived but
Milgram’s study
(continued)
Ethics cont’d
: Participants were put under a great deal
Variations of Milgram’s original study
Prestige: the experiment was moved
from Yale university to a rundown office block – obedience levels dropped to 47.5%.
Responsibility: when the participant
was not directly responsible for the shocks, I.e., they simply had to read the paired words & someone pressed the electric shock button, obedience rose to 92.5%. When the ‘teacher’ (naïve participant) had to hold the ‘learner’s’ hand on the electric shock plate obedience dropped to 30%.
Buffer: if the ‘learner’ & ‘teacher’
were together in the same room so that the ‘teacher’ could be seen & heard, obedience dropped to 40%. When the ‘learner’ could not be seen or heard, all the participants went to 450v.
Personal control: when participants
were allowed to choose their own shock level they always choose the lowest.
Witnessing disobedience: where a
participant saw another ‘participant’ refuse to beyond administering 150v, only 10% then obeyed the experimental instructions & carried on to 450v.
NB., these variations in the social
situation, and their impact on the levels of obedience, illustrate how powerful the social situation is in determining human behaviour.
NB., the evaluative points applied
Ethical issues & the study of obedience
Studies of obedience often involve deception, preventing
participants giving informed consent, but this is often necessary to
ensure experimental validity.
Participants may experience significant distress, not least because
they may find out quite negative things about themselves, I.e., they
are prepared to obey & cause harm to others.
Withdrawal is sometimes made difficult to simulate the effects of
obedience in real life situations – but participants can be fully
debriefed afterwards.
The benefits of the research to wider society may outweigh the
Milgram’s agency theory
Milgram argued that general tendency to obey those we perceive to
have authority is a mechanism to ensure a stable society. To run
smoothly, complex societies require us to obey a vast range of social
rules; keeping to these rules means that we have to give up a certain
amount of our free will
.
To enable us to give up a degree of our free will we have evolved 2
states: autonomous & agentic (see the definitions of these terms
above).
We are socialised from an early age into developing the capacity for
the agentic state. This process starts in the home, continues in
school and into the workplace: to maintain order in different social
situations we give up our free will and obey parents, teachers &
employers (people often put the needs of their employers above
their own, e.g., they work longer than their contracted hours, take
work home, sacrifice family & quality of life for their jobs).
We use this agentic state to avoid moral strain; when we do things
Evaluation of agency theory
It has face validity (on the surface it seems to explain human behaviour in many
situations, school, the workplace, armed forces etc.)
There is a lot of experimental support for it, e.g., the studies of Milgram & Hofling.
A study by Blass (1996), where participants saw extracts from the original Milgram
study, showed that these participants blamed the researcher for what the naïve participants did, i.e., they accepted that these naïve participants were the agents of the authority figure, in this case, the researcher.
A study by Bushman (1988) varied the authoritativeness of the authority figure, when
the authority figure had more authority/status (e.g., a uniform) obedience was more likely. We are more likely to become agents when perceived level of authority increases.
When participants are reminded of their potential for autonomy, e.g., they see someone
else disobey, obedience levels drop.
Not everyone in the Milgram study gave up their autonomy and entered into the
Evaluation of agency theory
(continued)
The obedience alibi: David Mandel argues that agency theory ‘lets people off
the hook’ for their heinous actions, I.e., it gives concentration camp guards an excuse for their deplorable behaviour; ‘I cannot be held personally responsible for my actions, I was only obeying orders’. This might have some validity in some cases but should be treated with caution.
Circular argument: it cannot be defined independently from obedience –
people obey because they are in an agentic state, but are in an agentic because they obey. Circular arguments have limited explanatory value – because you simply go around in circles!
Personality (charisma): it doesn’t take into account personality variables &
obedience, some people might be naturally more predisposed to obey, whilst some people can get others to obey them even when they have little or no authority over them, it is simply the force of their personality (charisma) which elicits obedience.
There are other explanations of obedience, e.g., French & Raven (1959)
Cross-cultural studies of obedience
Studies of obedience carried out across cultures find similarly high levels of obedience
to those found by Milgram. This shows that we are, by nature, social beings, heavily influenced by our social environment & setting: the power of the social situation.
However, cross-cultural studies of obedience often use different methodologies, so like is
not always being compared with like.
In an Australian study, Kilham & Mann (1974), the ‘learners’ had long hair & may have
been perceived as more or less deserving of electric shocks as a result. Also, in this study female students were asked to shock another female (in Milgram, the ‘learner’ being shocked was always male).
Hamilton & Sanders (1995) presented participants from US, Japan & Russia with
scenarios where a crime was either an individual’s idea or the order of a superior. Little responsibility was attributed to the person who acted criminally under orders, but that reversed when they acted on their own volition. However, cultural differences emerged: US participants attributed more personal responsibility to individuals acting criminally under orders than did the Japanese & Russian ones; thus obedience might be deduced to be more important in Japanese & Russian culture than US culture, I.e., obeying even criminally wrong orders might be seen as appropriate more in Japan & Russia than in US.
Finally, most obedience research involve studies that were conducted in western
Cross-cultural replications of
Milgram’s obedience research
Study
Country
Participan
ts
% obedient
Ancona &
Pareyson (1968) Italy Students 85 Kilham & Mann
(1974) Australia Male studentsFemale students 4016 Burley &
McGuinness (1977)
United Kingdom Male students 50
Shanab & Yahya
(1978) Jordan Students 62 Miranda et al.
(1981) Spain Students 90+ Schurz (1985) Austria General
population 80 Meeus &
Raajimakers (1986)
Holland General
Meeus & Raaijmakers (1985) Administrative
Obedience:
carrying out orders to use
psychological-administrative violence
Name: Meeus & Raaijmakers (1985)
Aim: To test the concepts of obedience illustrated by Milgram by in a more up-to-date way & in a culture more liberal than 1960s US – 1980s Holland. Would obedience still be high if psychological, as opposed to physical, harm was to be applied?
Method: 24 naïve participants took
part in what they thought was a job interview that required the applicant being able to tolerate stress. In 1 condition an experimenter sat in with the naïve participant who was to interview the applicant (a confederate or stooge, much like Mr. Wallace in the Milgram study). The naïve participant was told to cause the applicant stress being making a series of graduated cutting comments to the applicant, with 1 being the most innocuous & least offensive to 15 being the most offensive.
Generalisability: adults from the general population, not just students, so is therefore more representative and so generalisable, and the results are consistent with other studies done in Europe, so arguably there is good
population validity.
Reliability: well-controlled, standardised statements, I.e., from 1-15 generating quantitative data which can be objectively & easily analysed & interpreted. The study supports the findings of Milgram & Hofling; the high levels of obedience found in this study can be explained by the non-physical nature of the abuse required to be obedient.
Meeus & Raaijmakers
(continued)
1 = your answer to question 9 was
wrong: 15=according to the test it would be better for you to apply for lower functions. The applicant would show increasing levels of distress as the offensive comments progressed up the scale to 15.
Results: In the experimental condition,
where the experimenter sat in on the interview, 22/24 (92%) of participants made all 15 stressful comments. In the control condition, where the naïve participant was alone, none did. Rates of obedience were higher than in the Milgram study.
Conclusion: Even in a liberal culture like
the Netherlands, people obeyed an authority figure & were prepared to abuse a stranger psychologically. People are even more willing to abuse people emotionally under direct orders.
Validity: researchers maintained that
ecological validity was high, arguing that the type of abuse depicted in the study was more common in society than the physical abuse depicted in Milgram’s study and therefore more realistic. However,
experimental validity was still quite low because the scenario is still quite extreme and bizarre.
Ethics: although the level of distress
In depth area of study:
prejudice & discrimination
PREJUDICE:
To pre-judge, when we allow our
stereotypes to affect our beliefs & attitudes about
a group of people (often based on little or no
knowledge of them).
DISCRIMINATION:
Actions or treatment based
on prejudice. Unequal treatment of individuals or
groups – often based on characteristics such as
race or sex.
STEREOTYPE:
A set of fairly fixed, simplistic
Prejudiced Attitudes
Attitude: how positive/negative you feel about
something
A=AFFECT
– how you feel about something,
e.g., mood, emotional state: anger, fear,
suspicion, hostility.
B=BEHAVIOUR
– how you behave, e.g.,
insulting, avoidance, physical attack
C=COGNITION
– what you think about
PREJUDICE
: Social Identity
Theory (minimal groups)
Social identity theory states that simply being in a
group, or perceiving that you are in a group, is
enough to create in-group loyalty & out-group
hostility.
Social identity theory & the process of generating
in-group loyalty & out-group hostility is made of 3
features:
SOCIAL CATEGORISATION
SOCIAL IDENTIFICATION
SOCIAL COMPARISON
Social Identity Theory
(continued)
Social identity theory is illustrated by the research carried out by Tajfel
(1970).
Participants were placed in groups according to minimal criteria –
whether or not they liked the same paintings, or, when estimating the number of dots on a screen, they were under or over-estimators. In reality the participants were allocated to groups entirely randomly.
A member of each group was then given the same task to perform.
Members of each group then had to allocate rewards to the people
performing the simple task.
Despite the fact that the task being performed was the same for the
individuals from each group, both groups decided to reward the member of their own group more highly than the member of the other group.
There was no direct competition between the 2 groups and what
members of each group thought they had in common with each other was minimal, i.e., liking the same painting, or being an under/over-estimator.
Nevertheless, members of both groups were prepared to discriminate in
Evaluation of Social Identity Theory
The theory has a certain amount of face validity as it can
successfully explain many aspects of real-world behaviour &
be applied to a wide range of social situations, e.g., football
teams, racism, Emos/Goths.
There is great deal of empirical, scientific research which
supports the theory, e.g., the research carried out by Tajfel,
to an extent Sherif (1961), as the boys immediately developed
strong in-group loyalty & out-group hostility when they knew
there was another group of boys in the woods.
The theory has useful applications: because it can explain
Evaluation of Social Identity Theory
(continued)
Some contemporary research into minimal groups suggests
discrimination & prejudice is more complex. E.g., Dobbs & Crano
(2001) showed that where individuals perceived that their in-group
was in the majority there was much less in-group favouritism &
out-group hostility than when they perceived their in-out-group was in the
minority, (then the situation reversed); I.e., more likely to be
anti-English if you are Welsh or Scottish than the other way around,
because Welsh & Scottish people are the minority in the UK.
Social Identity Theory cannot explain individual differences in levels
of in-group loyalty & out-group hostility; not everyone in a particular
in-group will have the same level of loyalty towards the in-group &
hostility towards the out group (authoritarian personality theory may
explain individual differences in prejudice better).
Finally, people may have all sorts of complex reasons for identifying
Hofling et al. (1966): Experimental study
in nurse-physician relationships
Name: Hofling et al. obedience in a
natural setting
Aim: To investigate nurse-physician
relationships, I.e., investigate effects of authority on obedience in a natural environment (a hospital)
Method: field experiment; 12
graduate nurses & 21 student nurses asked to fill in a questionnaire about how they would act in the experimental situation. 22 nurses from 2 separate hospitals took part in experimental condition. While alone on a ward they were asked by an unknown doctor over the phone to break 4 hospital rules:.
Generalisability: although the study
only involved nurses, and nurses might conceivably be more inclined to obey doctors, the nurses in the study were simply those on duty at time, not specifically chosen. Also, nurses are not a particularly unique set of people, therefore, the study might be considered fairly good in terms of
population validity.
Reliability: the study was run 22
Hofling et al.
(continued)
Method cont’d: 1 Give an over
dose of a drug {Astroten 5mg}to a patient (it was really a placebo).
2. Instructions were given over
the ‘phone, not in person.
3. The particular drug was
unauthorised for use on that specific ward.
4. The instruction was given by
an unfamiliar voice.
The ‘doctor’ used a written script
to standardise the procedure & all conversations were recorded. Results were operationalised thus: nurse complies & goes to give drug; consistently refuses to give drug; goes to get advice; becomes upset; call lasts longer than 10 minutes.
Application to real life: this was
done a in a real world environment and the negative effects of nurses obeying inappropriate instructions from doctors is very real & important.
Validity: the study has very good
ecological validity because it was done a real hospital with nurses who were unaware they were taking part in a study – it demonstrated real behaviour – nb., the difference between the questionnaire results 7 actual behavioural results. It also has
Hofling et al.
(continued)
Results: results of
questionnaire=10/12 graduate nurses & 21/21 student nurses believed no one would give medication.
Results of experimental
condition=21/22 started to give the medication, calls were brief, only 11 nurses were aware of dosage limits for drug Astroten, none were hostile towards the caller & all admitted knowing what they were doing was against hospital rules but said it was a fairly common practice.
Conclusion: the perception of
authority (in this case a doctor) is enough to generate obedience, even when this could possibly endanger a patient’s life.
Ethics: ethically the study was
Sherif et al. (1961): Intergroup conflict &
co-operation: The Robber’s Cave experiment
Name: Sherif et al. (1961).
Aim: To see if prejudice can be created
between two very similar groups by putting them in competition with each other.
Method: A field experiment: 22 12 year
old white, lower middle-class protestant boys were taken to a summer camp in Robber’s Cave national park, Oaklahoma. They were all very similar & psychologically well-adjusted. They were put into 2 separate groups & for first 5 days each group given tasks to perform to help them bond as a group & given names (Rattlers & Eagles). Over next 4 days tension was generated between the 2 groups by staging a series of competitions between the 2 groups.
Generalisability: The sample was not
very representative, i.e., all white, protestant, middle class young boys – lacked population validity.
Reliability: although the boys were all
tested to ensure they were
psychologically well-adjusted and they were all similar backgrounds, in a field experiment such as this it is very hard to control confounding & extraneous variables.
Application to real life: There are
many examples of tension & conflict over resources leading to prejudice & discrimination, e.g., Northern Ireland, race riots in northern England, Israel & Palestine. Also, how to reduce prejudice, e.g., through 2 opposing groups working together to solve a
common problem – called a
Sherif et al. (1961): Intergroup conflict & co-operation:
The Robber’s Cave experiment
Method cont’d: Once hostility had
been created the researchers tried to reduce it by bringing both groups together for joint activities and problem-solving tasks.
Results: A strong in-group
preference & out-group hostility was shown by each group; this was eventually reduced by the joint problem-solving tasks.
Conclusion: Competition increased
prejudice & discrimination, leading to clear inter-group conflict; however, there was some hostility between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other. Working together on co-operative tasks successfully, but not entirely, reduced prejudice & discrimination between the 2 groups.
Validity: Ecological validity was high
because they experiment was conducted in a natural environment, therefore, eliciting natural, uncontrived behaviour; also there was high experimental validity as the boys did not realise their behaviour was being observed & that they were in a experiment, so there would be no demand characteristics (trying to please the researcher). However, even before competition started, as soon as the groups knew of the existence of another group there was out-group hostility – simply being in a group seemed to be enough to create this, there was no need for competition. The competition simply strengthened that hostility.
Ethics: the boys were not harmed or
Sherif et al. (1961): Intergroup conflict &
co-operation: The Robber’s Cave experiment
Ethics cont’d:
Nevertheless, they did set out to
Tajfel et al. (1971) Social
Categorisation & Intergroup Behaviour
Name: Tajfel et al. (1971)
Aim: To test whether the act of
placing people into 2 clearly identifiable groups, based on minimal intra-group similarities & not in competition, would be enough to produce prejudice between groups of very similar people. (NB., inter=between/intra=within)
Method: See explanation of
Social Identity theory above. 2 versions of experiment, 1 involving paintings by Klee or Kandinsky, and 1 involving estimating numbers on a screen (being an under or over-estimator). The participants were initially placed into groups according to whether they were under/over-estimators, or their painting preference (in reality the allocation to groups was entirely random).
Generalisability: The research
has been replicated on many different social groups, not just schoolboys, as in the original studies, e.g. adults in Cardiff, female adults in California, soldiers in Germany: all showed similar minimal group effects. Therefore, this research does have population validity.
Reliability: The study was easy to
replicate because the procedure was strictly controlled & very similar results have been obtained across different cultures & groups.
Application to real life: In the
Tajfel et al. (1971) Social Categorisation & Intergroup
Behaviour
(continued)
Method cont’d: Participants were
then given the opportunity to
allocate points, which
could be converted into prizes, to members of the two groups. The participants did not know who they were allocating points to, but did know which group they belonged to. In another variation, Tajfel further manipulated the experiment by ensuring that when participants favoured members of their in-group, the out-group would automatically get more points. Results: The participants
overwhelmingly chose to favour their own group by allocating more points to members of their own group, even when this meant the out-group would then get more overall points, & therefore prizes.
Validity: The study lacked
ecological validity because it was quite removed from the real life experiences of the participants, I.e., being asked to estimate dots on a screen, or be placed in a group according to painting preference. Furthermore, the study was carried out in a university setting which would be unfamiliar to many of the participants. Experimental validity
Tajfel et al. (1971) Social Categorisation & Intergroup
Behaviour
(continued)
Conclusion: Even when
categorised into meaningless/minimal groups, participants still chose to favour members of their own group over members of the other group. This shows we have a natural tendency in social situations to favour people we have identified & defined as being part of our ‘group’ & discriminate against those perceived to be members of a different group. One explanation of this is that by favouring members of our own perceived in-group, we boost our own self-esteem, because we are part of that group.
Ethics: There are no real ethical
1 key issue in Social Psychology
Obedience during
conflict: destructive
obedience – Holocaust,
Mi Lai massacre, Abu
Ghraib
Obedience during
conflict: destructive
obedience – Holocaust,
Mi Lai massacre, Abu
Ghraib
Cult behaviour &
obedience
Cult behaviour &
obedience
Race riots
Race riots
Football violence
Key issues in Social Psychology:
destructive
obedience, cult behaviour, football/race related
violence
All the above issues can be
explained using ideas, concepts & research from social psychology
But how?
What ideas & research can be
used?
Agency theory
Agentic V. autonomous states Moral strain
Charismatic leadership & reward/
punishment (coercive power)
Social Identity Theory – in-group
loyalty/out-group hostility
Social categorisation,
identification, comparison
Self-esteem
Soldiers who commit war crimes,
football crowd violence & cult behaviour can be explained by:
Agency theory, they become the
agents of those with perceived authority/status/power; thus losing their own autonomy. Moral strain is the result, denying personal responsibility is a coping mechanism.
Some people may have
Key issues in Social Psychology:
destructive obedience, cult behaviour,
football/race related violence
All the above issues can be explained
using ideas, concepts & research from social psychology
But how?
What ideas & research can be used? Agency theory
Agentic V. autonomous states Moral strain
Charismatic leadership &
reward/punishment (coercive power) simplistic, emotional language
Social Identity Theory – in-group
loyalty/out-group hostility
Social categorisation, identification,
comparison
Self-esteem
De-individuation (Zimbardo-guards) De-humanisation(Zimbardo-prisoners,
Milgram)
Emotional contagion
Conformity/obedience/power of social
situation.
Being in the army, or a cult, or
member of a football gang, or ethnic minority group can generate a strong sense of in-group loyalty & out-group hostility.
A strong sense of in-group loyalty
is often fostered by the army, cults etc., and the processes of social categorisation, identification & comparison can increase self-esteem.
Any challenge to the in-group is
also a challenge to members’ self-esteem and can be strongly resented.
However, the level of in-group
Key issues in Social Psychology:
destructive obedience, cult behaviour,
football/race related violence
(continued)
Not everyone becomes an agent of perceived authority & enters into
an agentic state – some people disobey despite the social, &
sometimes physical, costs to themselves. Agency theory struggles to
explain this
The concept of agency theory may provide an excuse for some
people to commit horrible acts & atrocities – they were
psychologically powerless to act any differently, but is this really
case?
Some conflict between groups is about competition for resources
Research Methods/How Science
Works & Practical
For the social approach you will need to
know a range of scientific terminology & be
able to describe & evaluate a number of
different social psychological research
methods
Many of these terms you will need to apply
to a short practical based on principles from
social psychology.
When carrying out your own social
Research Methods/How Science
Works & Practical
How you planned it;
How you carried it out/methodology &
procedure;
How you analysed it;
Your conclusions;
Research Methods/How Science
Works & Practical
Qualitative data: descriptive,
non-numerical information, such as generated by open-ended questions, unstructured interviews etc..
Difficult to analyse statistically &
therefore to generalise from.
Greater validity as provides more
detail & means answers can be explored in more depth making conclusions more meaningful.
Quantitative data: information is
numerical in nature, such as generated by closed questions, likert scales etc..
Numerical data only tells you how
often behaviour occurs, not the underlying motivation for behaviour, reduces thoughts & attitudes to numbers which undermines validity.
Is reliable, as easy to repeat, easy
Sampling methods
(a
representative sample is drawn from the target
population)
Method
Procedure
Strength
Weakness
Random
Every member of the targetpopulation has an equal chance of taking part in research: like names being drawn out of a hat
Most representative, unbiased sampling technique of a ‘normal’ population, researcher has no influence over who is chosen.
Very hard to do unless you have a small population group.
Opportunity
Participants selected from whoever is available at the time.Ethical, no pressure to take
part , easy & quick Not very representative, I.e., sample drawn from who is available at time.
Stratified
A proportionalrepresentation of the target group, e.g., if target
group=60%male & 40% female our sample will have same proportion of males & females
Likely to be very representative of target population
Time-consuming & difficult to establish correct
proportions from target & sample populations.
Volunteer/
self-selected
Participants select
themselves, e.g., respond to advert
Well-motivated & people might not normally have access to
Sampling methods
(a
representative sample is drawn from the target
population)
continued.
Method
Procedure
Strength
Weakness
Systematic
sampling
This involves selecting every nth person from a list or group, e.g., from a list of 1000 selecting every 10th person
Likely to be more representative than simply choosing first 10 on a list or from a group
Still not entirely representative as method is not entirely random & need big sample for it to be effective, which may not always be practical.
•
[For many psychological studies the sample is made up of students because
researchers will often use opportunity sampling]
Surveys:
questionnaires &
interviews
Method
Description Strengths
Weaknesses
Unstructured
interview
Questions are open-ended, not systematic, each question depends on answers given previously: qualitative data
Flexible, more detail can expand on answers, get information about attitudes, beliefs underpinning
behaviour, high validity.
Cannot be replicated, unsystematic, time consuming, subjective interpretation
Semi-structured
interview
Is a schedule of questions but some flexibility to expand on responses
See above See above
Structured
interview
Systematic, pre=set questions asked of every interviewee
Systematic, very reliable as easy to repeat & compare answers.
Less detail elicited as little opportunity to expand on answers: lower validity
Closed
Questions
1 word, yes/no answers, Likert scales, limited responses, yields quantitative data
Reliable, easy to replicate, easy to interpret &
statistically analyse answers, objective, can be large-scale
Low validity, little detail, superficial, only tells you how often, not why.
Open questions
Can be answered how participant chooses, words not numerical response, yields qualitative dataDetailed, more valid (opposite to closed questions)
Research Methods/How Science
Works
Surveys – questionnaires & interviews
Research Methods/How Science
Works
Before starting a piece of research a
hypothesis has to be made: a hypothesis is a
testable prediction. Prediction of human
behaviour is made and then tested to
ascertain if this hypothesis, or prediction, is
actually true for most people
Research Methods/How Science
Works: Hypotheses
Experimental hypothesis: This is a prediction testable by
means of either laboratory, field or natural experiment.
Alternative hypothesis: This is a prediction testable by means
of research methodology other than experiments, e.g.,
questionnaires, interviews, observations, correlation studies,
longitudinal, Cross-sectional & cross-cultural studies.
Null hypothesis: This is NOT the opposite of the alternative
or experimental hypothesis – it is a rejection of it. The null
hypothesis states that the prediction is wrong, there is no
such effect (as had been predicted) other than effects
produced by chance.
E.g., Exp Hypothesis: coffee makes you more alert: Null
Ethics & research on human
participants
Introduction: researchers must ensure that public, after taking part in
research, have confidence in the psychology profession & have a positive perception of psychologists. All participants should be treated with respect & their dignity & well-being should be safe-guarded at all times.
Informed Consent: participants must be made aware of the aims &
procedure of the research to enable them to make a fully informed decision about whether to take part or not. Sometimes, to avoid demand characteristics, participants may be deceived about the nature of the research, or they may be in a field experiment or observation where informed consent cannot be obtained prior to research. In these cases participants must be fully debriefed after the research. Where informed consent cannot be obtained presumptive consent can be obtained (would other people, if the scenario was explained to them agree to take part in the study themselves).
Debriefing: participants must be fully debriefed at the end of the
research, I.e., everything about the nature of the research must be revealed to them, & they must be reminded of their right to withdraw their results from the study & given the chance to ask any questions about the study. They must leave in same emotional state as they arrived.
Withdrawal: participants must be made aware that they can withdraw at
Ethics & research on human
participants
Competence: Researchers should do research and make judgements only in
areas appropriate to their area of expertise; must check with colleagues if there is any doubt – or not carry it out research.
Deception: wherever possible participants should not be deceived unless
vital to preserve experimental validity & should be fully debriefed at the end.
Confidentiality: unless agreed with participants in advance, confidentiality
should be maintained, no personal information should be disclosed & pseudonyms used.
Protection from harm: Participants should be protected from physical &
psychological harm & should be exposed to no more risk than they would normally encounter in their usual lives. Participants should leave the research feeling positive about themselves & the experimental experience.
Observation: participants should only be observed in places where public
Research Methods/How Science
Works
Reliability
: this refers to the consistency of data – if the research is
reliable we would expect that if it were repeated, with similar types
of participants in similar circumstances, the same results would be
obtained
.
Validity:
Does the research actually measure what it is supposed to
measure. In psychology testing abstract concepts can be difficult,
we rely on observing measurable changes in behaviour & attitudes/
beliefs; however, we cannot always be sure that what we think we
are testing is actually being reflected in the participants’ responses –
these responses may be due to factors other than the ones we are
thinking we are testing.
Subjectivity
: This refers to the interpretation of data, could
participants’ data be interpreted differently, is the interpretation of
data completely free from bias?
Objectivity
: Essentially the opposite, is data able to be interpreted
Research Methods/How Science Works:
The Practical
Develop a hypothesis & null hypothesis.
Consider the ethics of your practical: questions should not cause
distress, embarrassment.
Consider how you will generate quantitative & qualitative data:
closed questions & open-ended questions, questionnaire &
small-scale unstructured interview/semi or structured interview.
Sampling: who is your target group what type of sampling method
are you going to use to ensure a representative sample, what
issues are there with your sampling method, how big will the
sample be?
Operationalising your research: how will you operationalise your
questions & variables, e.g., if you are trying to measure attitudes,
levels of prejudice, out/in-group loyalty or obedience how will your
define & measure these terms? What/who will you be comparing?
Conduct a pilot study: ask a very small number of participants the
Research Methods/How Science Works:
The Practical
Analysing the results: Quantitative data: look for numerical trends by
establishing mean, median & mode, range & standard deviation.
Analysing the results: Qualitative data: look for trends/themes in the
answers given to open-ended questions.
Reliability: is your study reliable? What have you done to standardise
instructions & procedure to avoid experimenter bias & ensure the research is well-controlled?
Validity: What have you done to ensure high validity & avoid demand
characteristics and confounding/extraneous variables affecting your results?
Do your results support the alternative/experimental hypothesis or the null
