The Dummies Guide to the Social Approach

The Dummies Guide to the Social approach

Summary Agentic state, autonomous state, moral strain, in-group, out-group, social
Definition and key terms categorisation, social identification, social comparison
Methodology Survey method: including questionnaires and interviews.
Quantitative and qualitative data.
Content Sampling – volunteer, random, opportunity, stratification
Validity, Reliability, Generalisability, Objectivity/Subjectivity, Credibility,
Two studies in detail Demand characteristics,
Key Question Obedience – Agency theory, Social Impact Theory.
Practical Milgram’s main study and THREE variations, with evaluation and ethics.
Burger’sibling replication of Milgram’sibling study.
Factors affecting obedience.
Prejudice – Social Identity theory, Realistic Conflict Theory
Factors affecting prejudice.
Classic: Sherif (1961) and Conteporary: Burger (1996)
How can knowledge of social psychology be used to reduce prejudice in situations
such as crowd behaviour or rioting?
Designing a questionnaire, writing open/closed questions, using a Likert scale,
analysing descriptive statistics, measures of central tendency, construct validity,
social desirability bias.

KEY ASSUMPTIONS

Assumptions are the underpinning beleifs and ideas that support an area of psychology. Social psychology
examines how individuals interact with each other and how people behave in groups.
(RIBS)
1) Social Roles:
We are affected by how others see us and by the roles we are allocated. Social roles have expectations attached
to them and people act in accordance with their social role. Social roles determines obedience. This happens at
all levels. Individuals have an influence over us through e.g. social power, obedience.

2) Interaction between individuals:
Individuals interact with others and affect one another’s behaviour. We behave in ways that benefit society

3) Being a member of a group:
We describe ourselves as belonging to a group. (sister, friend, student etc). Groups are prejudice against each
other, peer groups copy one another and crowds can become unruly.

4) Social Situation:
Culture and society and the situation we are in help to shape our behaviour. E.g. our culture affects our view of
what we think. What we are exposed to and the social situation we find ourselves in can influence how we
behave.

1

OBEDIENCE

Obedience is a form of social influence, eg when a person obeys instructions from someone else, usually a
perceived authority figure. We are socialised to obey, obedience prevents accidents and creates an orderly
society, without obedience there would be challenges to social order resulting in chaos and war. When
someone does something because they have been instructed to, even though they may disagree with it is
obedience. Rejecting the demands from the authority figure is known as dissent.

AGENCY THEORY - Milgram

The authority figure produces the agentic state but it is the participant who is in the agentic state. The authority
figures takes on responsibility for the participants actions, so allowing the participant to carry on giving the
shocks, as the consequences of his actions are no longer his responsibility.
Milgram proposed that people are capable of shifting between 2 different states:

 autonomous state, in which they see their actions as voluntary and in which the conscience is fully
operative;

 agentic state, in which people see themselves as being agents of others and in which individual
conscience does not operate.

Moral strain is doing something that goes against our principles but seems to be for the greater good. Ie
soldiers at Abu Ghraib.

Milgram sees people are being trained into an agentic state from an early age. At school, a child is encouraged
to show organisationally appropriate behaviour for the general 'good' of the class and the authority of the
teacher must be respected. Milgram claimed similar mechanisms are reflected throughout other social
institutions. Milgram suggest that the agentic state manifests itself through a number of mechanisms. One of
these is tuning, the person becomes 'attuned' to orders from superiors and requests from people who are not
superiors don't matter as much. In his study the requests from the 'learner' were not heeded! Another
mechanism is redefining the meaning of the situation so that they can accept the situation. In his study the
participants redefined the pain they were causing as 'not dangerous' because this was how it had been defined
by the experimenter. A further mechanism is that people no longer feel responsible for their actions. Instead,
they feel responsible to the higher authority. This, according to Milgram is how ordinary people can undertake
tasks that involve killing, murdering or torturing other people.
Milgram’s variations show that obedience is a product of the situation (situational) not their personality
(dipositional).

Evaluation:
Strength: explains a wide range of social behaviours, going to work, going to war, dissenting etc
Strength: Milgram’s study provides evidence because the ppts showed moral strain (anxiety) when giving an
order. When debriefed, many said that their behaviour was the responsibility of the experimenter and that they
didn’t want to do it suggesting they were acting agentically.
Strength: supporting studies into obedience have similar findings (or higher levels of obedience)
Limitation: doesn’t explain indiviual differences in why some may not obey an authority figure, suggesting other
factors are involved eg. some people are very charasmatic leaders and can elicit obedience regardless of their
position of authority.
Limitation: Theory is too vague, e.g. there is no physical evidence that such states exists. For example, there are
no brain scans or EEGs whihc show when a person is or isn’t in the agentic state.

2

MILGRAM (1963) Obedience

Aim: to test the levels of obedience that ppts would reach when told to give electric shocks. To test whether
obedience has a dispositional explanation (a person is more likely to obey, e.g. German soldiers)
Method: Controlled study at Yale University
Participants: 40 male volunteers each paid for their service.
Procedure: confederate was ‘learner’ in a supposed memory test, Ppt was ‘teacher’ who was told to give
electric shocks of increasing severity as learner kept making mistakes; ppt faced a shock generator and
thought they were giving real electric shocks. Verbal prods given to continue.
Results: 100% ppts gave 300v, 65% ppt gave the highest 450v, many ppts showed distress.
Conclusion: Volunteers were willing to shock another person simply because they were told to by someone
in authority even when uncomfortable about doing so.
Evaluation:
G: Ppts were all male – would women obey orders in the same way? (Kilham & Mann study)

Ppts were volunteers – who would not / could not take part? Does volunteering suggest particular
traits?
Ppts would have all served in the forces (either during war or National Service) – would this make them
more likley to obey?
R: The study used standardised procedures and good controls – this allows the procedure to be repeated
and tested (e.g. Burger)
A: Who would be interested in the findings of this study? Obedience increased when the participant could
not see the victim -how could this information be used by the military?
The findings support agency theory as they suggest that the participants did not hold themselves
responsible for their actions – they were in an agentic state.
E: Deceit – the participants were decieved and then debriefed – is this enough to protect them from what
they had found out about themselves (what they were capable of?)
Harm: the participants were distressed during the experiment (short term harm) and the findings had
long term consequences (what they now know they are capable of). Right to withdraw was only allowed
following pressure (four prods) which caused further distress.

VARIATIONS: Obedience Rate
(Those going to 450 volts)
Milgram changed one variable at a time to see what the effect was.
47.5%
Variations 20%

Experiment 10: (situation) Venue moved to ‘run down’ offices in nearby town 20.5%
Experiment 13: (status) Ordinary man giving orders
Experiment 7: (proximity) Experimenter instructs and prods teacher by telephone
from another room

Expt 7: Was the presence of an authority figure influencing Milgram’s participants? – if they were concerned
about impressing the experimenter it could explain why they were so insensitive to the ‘victim’.

 Initial instructions given and experimenter left the room.
 Obedience dropped sharply, several administered lower shocks than required and never told the

experimenter. 22.5% obeyed compated to Milgram’s original (65%)
 Participants could resist better when not having to confront the experimenter face to face therefore the

physical appearance of an authority figure was an important force

3

Expt 10: Were the people obedient because of the context of the situation? – Post interviews with Milgrams
participants indicated that they were in awe of the prestigious status of the university and had confidence in the
integrity, competence and purpose of the experiment.

 Relocated in a run down comerical building which adds better valdiity than a university
 Participants were less tense even though researcher had sufficient ‘authority’
 Obedience slightly lower (47.5%) therefore if harmful and destructive commands are to be perceived as

legitimate they must occur within some sort of institutional structure.
Expt 13: How much power does the experimenter hold? - is it the command or is it the status of the
command?

 3 subjects (2 confederates) arrive at the lab and drawing is rigged
 A telephone call takes the experimenter away (without mentioning which shock levels to use)
 One confederate suggests administering a shock one step at a time after each mistake
 Compliance drops (despite insistance). 20% went to the max shock level suggesting that the presence of

an authority figure (lab coat or person giving orders) leads to high obedience

EVALUATION
STRENGTH: Milgram’s variation experiments were all highly standardised and controlled. Each ppt experienced
the same (verbal prods, feedback etc). Everything was kept the same except for the variation in IV
Both quantiative and qualitative data was made making the research credible in terms of being scientific
LIMITATION: small samples and not representative of general population. They were all recruited by
advertisment resulting in a volunteer sample suggesting they could be more compliant or authoritarian in
character.
During debrief there were a variety of reasons why people obeyed (not one overriding factor) .
A criticism is that ppts didn’t really believe they were shocking and just playing along with the game which
would affect validity. However Milgram claims that observing the anxiety displayed (moral strain) is evidence
that they were acting agentically.

ETHICAL ISSUES
 Deception and Informed consent: Ppts gave consent to a study about learning therefore did not knowo
the true aims of the study
 Right to withdraw: Verbal prods used to keep the ppts obeying so they couldn’t leave
 Competence: Milgram asked opinion of colleagues, he was not expecteing to find high level of
obedience (3%) so wasn’t intending it to be so stressful
 Debrief: ppts were fully debriefed, introduced to the ‘victim’ to show no harm was done
 Ppts were paid volunteers suggesting a contract was made making it difficult to pull out.
 Confidentiality: names were not published
 Protection from Harm: if ppt became distressed observers stepped in to stop the study

Dissent and resistance to obedience
Obedience is useful for society, it keeps society ordered so that things such as economy, infrastructure etc. can
run smoothly. However it also may need people to be autonomous such as not obeying ‘bad’ orders and
sticking to a moral code. 14 out of 40 ppts resisted orders in Milgram’s study.
People resist more when;

 They can see the victim (proximity)
 If they are involved directly in giving a punishment (holds hand on shockplate)
 The setting doesn’t fit the authority (run down offic block)
 Orders are given remotely (phone)
 Someone else is seen to reist (peers rebel)
 Orders are confusing

4

CONTEMPORARY STUDY
You need to know this study in detail and you neeed need to be able to
compare it to the Sherif study.
BURGER (2009) ‘Replicating Milgram: would people still obey today?’

Burger, using an experiment very similar to Milgram’s, found that 70% of subjects would continue to administer
the seemingly painful but fake shocks, even after hearing a subject’s cries for mercy and stopping.

Several additional steps were taken to ensure the welfare of participants.
1. A two-step screening process to exclude any individual who might have a negative reaction to the
experience.
2. Participants were told at least three times (twice in writing) that they could withdraw from the study
at any time and still receive their $50 for participation.
3. A sample shock was administered (with their consent) so they could see that the generator was real
and could obtain some idea of what the shock felt like. However, a very mild 15-volt shock was
administered rather than the 45-volt shock Milgram gave his participants.
4. The study stopped at 150 volts. Knowing how people respond up to 150 volts allows us to make a
reasonable estimate of what they would do if they go any further and would avoid exposing them to
intense stress.
5. Debriefing was immediate and within a few seconds of the study’s end, the learner entered the room
to reassure the participant that he was fine.
6. The experimenter who ran the study was a clinical psychologist who was instructed to end the study
immediately if he saw any signs of excessive stress.

Sample – 29 Men, 41 Women. Aged 20-81, mean age 42.9. Self-Selected Sample. Recruited from adverts in the
local newspaper, online listings, flyers in libraries, farmers markets, coffee shops, and community centres.
Worded similar to Milgram’s Study. Participants were promised $50 for two 45 mins sessions.

Bseline condition:
 Used script similar to original study
 No participant was allowed to continue after 150v

Model refusal condition: 2 confederates used.
 The draw was rigged and participant was assigned ‘teacher’.
 Both teachers sat next to each other with confederate on left (teacher 1) and participant of right
(confederate 2).
 Confederate went first and showed no signs of hesitating until 75volts.
 After first prompt, pushed chair back and asked real participant to continue.

Findings:

Numbers and (Percentages) of Participants who Stopped and Who Continued

Behaviour Base Condition Modelled Refusal condition Milgram’s Original
experiment
Stopped at 150 volts or 12 (30.0) 11 (36.7) 7 (17.5)
earlier 28 (70.0) 19 (63.3)
33 (82.5)
Continued after 150 volts

5

Conclusion:
• the same situational factors are around today – ie it is the SITUATION that leads to obedience
• stopped at 150v but felt that some would continue onto 450v
• it is not a lack of empathy that leads to obedience but rather personality factors but he is unable to pinpoint

any in particular.

Evaluation:
Strength: replicating the procedure of Milgram’s study gives it good reliability and credibility and results could
be legitimately compared
Strength:recruited a more diverse sample of ages and ethnicity so better generalisability but difficult to
generalise findings from a lab study into real world scenarios
Strength: Burger acknowledged the ethical concerns of Milgram’s study and took measures to ensure the well
being of the participants. (screening, 15v shock, 3 reminders to withdraw, clinical psychologist on hand)
Weakness: lab expts lack validity
Weakness: only a partial replication, (didn’t go beyond 150v) so cannot be certain if they would/would not go
to 450v

SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY – Latane 1981

We are constantly exposed to other people’s behaviour and opinions therefore other people’s behaviour and
opinions will have an impact on your attitude and behaviour. 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, targets)

The more people giving the message and if the message is strong (given by an expert) then the greater the
impact. This fits with Milgram’s findings – more obedience if the experimenter was an authority figure than if
an ‘ordinary man’.

The multiplicative effect (number) – as the number of social forces increases, so does the number of social
influences. Berkowitz, Bickman and Milgram (1969) - 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.

The divisional effect – individuals feel less accountable as the number of people present increases. A lone
person is more likely to help someone in need compared to a group of people; there is a diffusion of
responsibility similar to a divisional effect

• 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

6

COMPARING SOCIAL IMPACT THEORY AND AGENCY THEORY
 SIT is not a theory of obedience
 Sit is more of an explanation as it involves a formula that works in all group situations
 Both theories can explain Milgram’s findings

FACTORS AFFECTING OBEDIENCE

Personality:
Rotter (1966) Locus of Control

 People with INTERNAL locus of control tend to believe that they are responsible for their own actions
and are less influenced by others. Dissenters are more resistant to authority and more likely to take
personal responsibility for their actions.
o Blamed themselves (48 %)
o Blamed the experimenter (39 %)
o Blamed the learner (12%)

 People with an EXTERNAL locus of control believe that their behaviour is largely beyond their control
but due to external factors such as fate. Obedient people are more likely to be influenced by an
authority figure.

Adorno (50) Authoritarian Personality
 An authoritarian personality is typically submissive to authority but harsh to those seen as subordinate
to themselves
 F-scale questionnaire used on Milgrams ppts
 The higher the score the more obedient they were
 More submissive to authority
 Less likely to withdraw from the study

Empathy
Empathy is the ability to sense other people’s emotions, coupled with the ability to imagine what someone else
might be thinking or feeling

It is believed that people who have high levels of empathy would be less likely to harm another person at the
instructions of an authority figure.

Burger (2009) found that although people who score high on empathy were more likely to protest against giving
electric shocks, this did not translate into lower levels of obedience

Gender
Milgram used predominantly male participants in his experiments, although he did conduct one experiment
(Experiment 8) which involved 40 female teachers. Previous research had indicated that females were more
compliant than males, yet traditionally we think of women as less aggressive.

This contradiction would be played out in an experiment that commanded both compliance and aggression.
Milgram found that females were virtually identical to males in their level of obedience (65%), 27.5 % breaking
off at the 300-volt level. Yet their rated level of anxiety was much higher than males for those who were
obedient. This was also found in Burger’s (2009) replication of the experiment.

7

Sheridan and King (1972) adapted Milgram’s experiment to involve a live puppy as a victim that received
genuine shocks from college student participants. They found that all 13 female participants were much more
compliant and delivered the maximum levels of shock to the puppy compared to men.

However, in a review of 10 obedience experiments, Blass (1999) found that obedience between males and
females were consistent across nine of the studies. The study that did not show a similar male/female
obedience level was conducted by Kilham and Mann (1974) in a direct replication of Milgram’s experiment in
Australia.

They found females to be far less obedient (16%) than male participants (40%). Although this could have been a
result of male teachers being paired with male learners and female teachers with female learners. Perhaps the
females joined together against the situation in an alliance to react against the demands of the aggressive male
experimenter. It seems that very little, if any, gender differences in obedience, despite traditional beliefs that
females would be more compliant than males.

Culture
Milgram’s work has been replicated in different cultures. It is suggested that if obedience is in our nature then
we would expect to find obedience universally. Collectivists cultures – cooperation and compliance is
important for stability of the group. Individualistic cultures – behave independently and resist conformity. Non-
Western cultures (collectivist) are considered more obedient due to tradition and respect to their families
compared to Individualistic cultures who emphasise the ‘I’.

• Italy 85%
• Spain 50%
• South Africa 87.5%
• Jordan 73%
• Austria 80%
• Australia 28%
• UK 50%

There were some differences in obedience levels, obedience is found across cultures suggesting that it universal

and possibly an evolved trait that supports survival. However, cultural influences and differences in procedures

are not explicit in the results.

Situation
All ppts went to 300v. it is unlikely that peersonalityw as responsible for this finding. Milgram suggests it is the
situation not the disposition of the individual that results in obedience which is supported in the study in a run
down office and the removal of an authority figure. Burger’s study also found that obedience drops as the
situation changes.

8

PREJUDICE

Prejudice is when people hold stereotypes and they affect their attitudes. Usually involves negative hostile
attitudes towards a particular group. Discrimination is when a prejudiced attitude leads to prejudiced actions.
Stereotype is a generalization about a group of people in which identical characteristics are assigned to virtually
all members of the group, regardless of actual variation among the members. Stereotypes are not necessarily
emotionally laden and do not necessarily lead to discrimination.
Discrimination is the behavior or actions, usually negative, towards an individual or group of people, especially
on the basis of sex/race/social class, etc.

SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY – Tajfel and Turner 1979

Prejudice arises simply from there being two groups. Membership of an in group influences how we perceive
our in group and perceptions of out groups. Our in-group gives us self esteem and identity, so to enhance this
we see out-groups negatively. Social identity is how a person sees themselves in relation to their group
membership. Groups are classified into ‘us’ and ‘them’.

There are 3 processes involved in becoming prejudiced against out-group members.
 Social categorisation – categorising someone (or ouself) as part of a group; e.g. student
 Social identification – overtly identifying with group membership, taking on the norms of group
members in they way they dress, talk, behave etc. e.g. wearing school uniform
 Social comparison – people see their in-groups as more superior and better than the out-group which
enhances self esteem; e.g. students from your school are better than from another school

There are different causes of prejudice which can arise from genuine competition of resources or a release of
emotional tension, Tajfel suggests that there are two main features

 Attitudes of prejudice towards an out-group
 Discriminatory behaviour towards the out-group

Evaluation:
Strength: Social identity theory explains a whole host of social phenomena, ranging from racism and class
conflict to a sense of togetherness we get from following a football club or band. Significantly, social identity
theory provides at least a partial explanation for the tendency for people to discriminate in favour of people
from their own country and against those from other countries.
Strength: There is clear evidence from the minimal group studies (Tajfel 1970) that being part of a group is
sufficient to lead to prejudice against people not within that group, e.g. football violence.
Strength: Social identity explains a wide range of phenomena and can be applied to a range of social and
cultural situations, e.g. Lalonde (1992) found that a hockey team who knew that another hockey team was doing
better did not admit that the other team was a better team, instead said that the other team used ‘dirtier’
tactics (in group favouritism).
Weakness: Not all cultures show equal bias towards in-groups.
Weakness: Social identity theory does not explain individual differences in prejudice. A closer look at the results
of the minimal group studies shows wide variations in the degree to which people discriminate against the out-
group

9

REALISTIC GROUP CONFLICT THEORY – Sherif (1966)

Sherif (1966) proposed that prejudice often results from conflict between two groups. Whenever there is more
than one group in competition for resources there will be prejudice and discrimination. This is known as Realistic
Conflict Theory. When two groups compete for the same goal and resources are limited there will be winners
and losers, competition will be more fierce and conflict can last a long time. This was shown in the famous
Sherif et al (1961) “Robbers Cave experiment “ In contrast if two groups work together in order to achieve the
same goal then it is likely that they will co-operate with each other and that prejudice will not be present.

Evaluation:
Strength: the Robber’s Cave study is valid, well planned and used good controls and helps to explain conflict in
everyday environment
Strength: Andreeva (1984) found similar results in Russian schoolboys.
Strength: the theory accounts for the strength of the hostility and makes sense because people can be hostile in
real life when they feel threatened by competition.
Weakness: all boys, white American middle-class 12 year olds so can’t generalize, groups hostile before games
began so perhaps formation of groups itself caused prejudice/ethnocentrism.
Weakness: Tyerman and Spencer (1983) claim that prejudice does not result if those in competition have
already formed friendships.
Weakness: the theory does not account for the origin of the prejudiced attitudes. It explains how prejudice
results when competition is introduced to groups who hold such attitudes, but it needs to be considered in
combination with SIT theory to account fully for how the attitudes develop in the first place.

CLASSIC STUDY
You need to know this study in detail and be able to compare it to the contemporary
study (Burger). You also need to be able to compare it to the other 5 classic studies.

SHERIF et al (1954/61) ‘Intergroup conflict and cooperation: the Robbers Cave experiment’

A special remote summer camp in Oklahoma, Robbers Cave State Park USA.
Aim To study informal groups and observe the natural development of group organisation and attitudes. To see
if competition will create hostility.
Method Field experiment
Participants 22 white, 11 year old boys with average-to-good school performance and above average
intelligence with a protestant, two parent background
Procedure –

(Stage 1) formation of groups
Boys were kept separate from each other and encouraged to
bond. They quickly established their own cultures and group
norms and chose names: The Eagles and the Rattlers.

(Stage 2) group competition
Competitive activities were organised to deliberately create
friction between the groups. At first the prejudice started with
name calling or taunting, as the competition wore on the Eagles burned the Rattlers flag, the
Rattlers ransacked the Eagles cabin and stole private property. The groups became so
aggressive that they had to be physically separated.

(Stage 3) Group cooperation
Activities were staged so that they had to work together to achieve the goals. The exchange of
insults abruptly stopped. Several pairs from opposite sides made friends.

10

Conclusion - the mere existence of groups is enough to cause prejudice and discrimination. There is a lot of
evidence that when people compete for scarce resources there is a rise in hostility. Hostility can be reduced
through cooperation and teamwork.
Evaluation –
Strength: good controls, careful sampling and briefing of obsevers so that the same procedures could be
followed
Strength: several data collection methods and the findings agreed
Weakness: they did not give fully informed consent, they were deceived as they did not know the true aim nor
were they protected from physical and psychological harm.
Weakness: gender bias as only white, middle class 11yr old boys used therefore hard to generalise
Weakness: it was artificial in the sense that two randomly assigned groups do not equate to rival inner city
gangs or rival football supporters. However it has higher ecological validity because it was a field experiment.

FACTORS AFFECTING PREJUDICE

Prejudice is complex, a prejudiced person may not act on their attitude. Therefore, someone can be prejudiced
towards a certain group but not discriminate against them.

Personality:
Adorno: authoritarian personality is more likely to be:

• hostile to people inferior to themselves, particularly minority groups or out-groups.
• rigid in thinking and intolerant to change.
• submissive to authority and obedient to those in power
• had harsh and unaffectionate parents, they had to be respectful to their parents, while learning they

could be cruel to those who are weak
• authoritarians frequently project their anger and aggression onto others
Therefore the more open and agreeable a person is the less prejudiced they will be

Culture:
Cultural norms and values are learned, people pick up on the norms and values within their society. If a country
is multicultural then people are less prejudiced. Prejudice will occur if the culture has:

• existing social norms that legitimize prejudiced practice
• strict religious regimens or laws that endorse prejudice
• events that trigger prejudice towards another group

Clark & Clark (1947) showed that African American children were convinced that it was not desirable to be
Black, choosing to play with White dolls rather than Black dolls.

Cross cultural comparisons of prejudice are hard to measure. They do not suggest that one type of culture is
more prejudiced than another.

Situation:
Levels of prejudice in society rise and fall over time (Brown 1995) but personality is stable over time which
means changes in prejudice seem to be down to the situation. This could explain why prejudice coming from a
scarcity of resources fits into this idea.
Allport suggests ways of reducing prejudice

• Making contact often
• Work towards a common goal
• Cooperation and learn from one another (multiculturalism)
• Acknowledge authority of each group

11

Reducing prejudice
 Co-operation – introduce activitites to have a shared goal eg picking up litter
 Equal status contact – treat everyone on a level playing field so they treat everyone equal.eg wear
uniforms, not have hierarchy, such as prefects.
 Categorisation – decategorise any groups. Encourage people to see themselves as belonging to one
group.

KEY QUESTION

• Is it relevant in today’s society?
• Explain using research and/or theories from the social approach as covered in this specification?
• Put forward a for/against argument for the key question?
• Plausible explanations for the key question? (Theories and studies)

How can knowledge of social psychology be used to reduce prejudice in situations such as crowd behaviour or
rioting?

Describing the question: Explain why prejudice is a problem in society today? Provide examples of situations
which have led out of prejudice (search news items of discrimination or racially aggravated violence). Explain
ways in which this prejudice could be reduced and how this would benefit society.

Applying concepts from the social approach:

Social Identity Theory – identification of in-group and outgroup. Suggests that people think of the ingroup as
being superiror because it enhances self esteem and see the outgroup as inferior which leads to prejudice and
hostility.

Realisitic Conflict Theory – is about competition. The looting of shops and stealing of goods shows competition
for resources in times of economic hardship.

Reducing prejudice – have the groups work together towards a superordinate goal (better able to explain the
uniting of football fans when supporting a national team)
Crowd rioting can be calmed if the crowd had to work towards a goal, e.g. saving the neighbourhood from
complete destruction, after the rioting the whole community came together to clean up.

Superordinate goals -Aiming for common goals reduces prejudice, Evidence from Sherif et al (1961) Robber's
Cave study illustrates how this is effective in reducing prejudice. The boys prejudice was reduced when they had
to work together to free the camp bus and restore the water supply. After the super-ordinate goals the number
of boys which had friends in the other group increased from 7% to 30%.

Equal status contact- Desforges et al (1991) found if individuals from diff groups come in contact, relationships
improve but if the experience is a negative one, this reinforces stereotypes. Deutsch & Collins (1951) studied
housing projects and found less segregration in integrated housing.

Redrawing boundaries (decategorisation)-Incorporating in-group and out-group, Turner (1991) pointed out that
when the boys in Sherif et al (1961) study worked together, it could be said that they redrew the boundaries
between the 2 groups, and became one in-group. So incorporating others into the in-group can reduce
prejudice. Gaertner at al (1993) did and experiment to test this and found that when 2 groups became 1 to
solve a problem, the individuals spoke more positively about each other than when they had been in 2 separate
groups.

12

Issues and debates – A level

Ethics No standard ethical guidelines in 1950s and 1960s, therefore no direct replication of these
studies is possible today without significant modificaton. Research into prejudice and
obedience raises issues of protection from harm and right to withdraw but are necessary
to create conditions in which these topics can be studied.

Practical issues of design Demand characterisitcs: - if they are aware of the study their behaviour won’t be natural.
and implementation of Deception is used to disguise the aims and prevent demand characteristics from occuring.
research
Reductionism Sherif believes it is not possible to explain prejudice at a dispositional level, to understand
prejudice research should include both lab and field studies to encompass society as a
whole.

Comparison with another SIT and RCT use different themes and concepts toexplain prejudice.
explanation

Psychology as a science Methodology includes lab and field experiments where variables can be controlled and
carefully manipulated to establish cause and effect relationships. Social psychology is
criticised for studying human social behaviour in a vacuum which lacks validity in such a
complex social world.

Culture and gender Evidence suggests there is no difference in gender regarding obedience but is rather a
product of social circumstances; but it could be due to presence of male researcher.
Differences between collectivist and individualistic cultures are useful but it is still not
clear whether the mediating fators are social or cultural.

Nature-nurture Is it the situation (external factors) or disposition (personality) that drives someone to
obey or be prejudice?

Development of Race theories in 1920s legitimised the inequalities that existed and endorsed white
psychological supremacy. A significant shift in the 1960s with Jane Elliot’s study (blue/brow eyes) when
understanding focus changed onto group dynamics. 1970s focus changed to group processes interacting
with dispositional characteristics with the rise of cognitive approach to explain
stereotypes.

Social control The visibility of Police uniforms, high ranking officers, the abiity to punish offenders
encourages conformity in society. Social control can be used positively drawing on
Sherif’s superordinate goals to reduce prejudice and applied in the classroom using the
jigsaw technique.

Using psychology in society See key question

Socially sensitive research Prejudice can be socially sensistive as it links to racism.

Freewill Vs Determinism Are we repsonsible for our behaviour? (Links to nature/nurture debate)

13