Social Psychology

1.1 Obedience

1.1.1 Theories of obedience, including agency theory and social

power theory.
agency theory - Obedience to authority

Agency Theory:
Agency theory was developed by Stanley Milgram in 1973 to investigate obedience in
light of a Nazi war criminal’s trial.

Agency theory states that humans can have two mental states:

●​ Autonomous: We take responsibility for our actions and behaviour so we feel

guilt for what we do​

●​ Agentic: We see ourselves as an agent for someone else’s will; the authority
figure commanding us is responsible for what we do so we feel no guilt.

We perceive some people to be legitimate authority figures because they carry

symbols of authority, such as a uniform or possess status, a rank for instance. An
order from them triggers a mental shift to the agentic state.

This can be explained by social conditioning, where we obey an authority figure

because we expect to be rewarded or to avoid punishment (operant conditioning, see
learning theories).

When an authority figure issues an order against our conscience, we experience

moral strain due to contradictory urges (to obey societal expectations or our own
conscience). Agency theory takes moral strain into account, unlike social power
theory.

Evidence:

●​ Milgram’s 1963 study showed that 65% of participants obeyed and shocked
the learner to 450 volts.​

●​ Milgram’s Variation Study 10 used a rundown office rather than Yale

University and obedience dropped to 47.5%​
​
Variation 13 used an ordinary man to give orders and obedience dropped to
20%.​
​
These figures show that the agentic shift is triggered due to symbols of
authority and their legitimacy.
Strengths:

●​ Credible:
-​ Supported by Milgram’s observational studies into obedience where
participants obeyed an authority figure by giving shocks to a learner​

-​ Explains events such as the Holocaust in which soldiers behaved

agentically and obeyed without question.​

-​ Supporting study: Hofling et al (1966) conducted a more ecologically

valid study to investigate agency theory. 21/22 (95%) of nurses obeyed
an unknown doctor by giving a very high dose of medication as
responsibility was displaced onto the doctor​

●​ Reliability: Milgram’s (1963) research into obedience was a controlled lab

experiment, so evidence for moral strain is reliable.​

●​ Interactionist: Agency theory acknowledges both nature and nurture as

Milgram suggested that we are born with the preparedness to be obedient and
are taught to obey authority through social conditioning

Weaknesses of agency theory:

●​ Lacks ecological validity:​

-​ Milgram used a lab experiment and artificial setup may not represent
obedience in everyday life. The study lacks mundane realism.
Therefore, the findings of the study may lack ecological validity.​

-​ Hofling et al (1966) investigated obedience through a unique

doctor-nurse relationship which is characterised by strict hospital
hierarchy. Displacement of responsibility may look different in
everyday life, so the study lacks ecological validity.​

●​ Reductionist/Deterministic:​

-​ Agency theory doesn’t take individual differences (personality, culture,

situation) into account and does not explain why 35% of participants
dissent. ​

●​ Lacks scientific credibility:​

-​ Agentic and autonomous concepts are states of mind and cannot be

measured objectively.​

●​ Alternative theories:​

-​ Social impact theory may be better for explaining obedience

because it considers the factors within the situation that affect
obedience (strength, immediacy and number). These concepts can be
 objectively measured.​

-​ House (1976) suggest that it is the traits of the leader that affect
obedience more than the mere presence of the authority figure as
agency theory suggests​

Sample Questions and Markscheme Points:

1.​ Evaluate agency theory as an explanation of obedience (8 marks)

2.​ Evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience (12 marks)

Social Power Theory:
Social power: overview

Social power can be defined as the ability to create conformity, even when the
people being influenced may attempt to resist those changes. It is the potential for
social influence. Social power and social influence are distinct concepts.

Although social power is potential (which may or may not be used), social influence
is an effect, an actual change (or deliberate maintenance) in the beliefs, attitudes,
behaviour, emotions, and so on, of someone because of the actions or presence of
another. The person or group that is the source of influence is commonly known as
the influencing agent, whereas the object of the attempted or successful influence
attempt is commonly known as the target (of the influence). Thus, influencing agents
have social power, which are the means they may use to influence targets.
French and Raven (1959) developed the theories of social power and identified
five different types:

Legitimate Power Authority that comes from a belief that the person has a
legitimate right to demand conformity

Expert Power Power that comes from a belief that the power-holder has
superior skills and abilities

Referent Power Influence based on attraction to, or respect for the

power-holder

Coercive Power The ability to dispense punishments

Reward Power The ability to distribute positive or negative rewards

Social Impact Theory (Not directly in the specification but helps to know)

Bibb Latané (1981) proposed the Social Impact Theory of social influence that can be
used to explain obedience. He defined social impact as any changes in physiological
states and subjective feelings, motives and emotions, cognitions and beliefs, values
and behaviour, that occur in an individual, human or animal, as a result of the real,
implied, or imagined presence or actions of other individuals. The basic principle
behind social impact theory is social force.

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

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

the source to have.​

●​ Immediacy: how recently the event occurred or whether there were

intervening events.​

●​ Numbers: the number of people exerting pressures on the individual, the

greater the social force they will have.

Sample Questions and Markscheme Points:

1.​ Victor is employed as a computer programmer. He was instructed by his

manager at work to tidy the store cupboard. Although this was not part of
his day-to-day job, Victor did as he was instructed and tidied the store
cupboard.

(a) Describe, using social power theory, why Victor tidied the store
cupboard. (4 marks)

(b) Explain two weaknesses of social power theory as an explanation for

why Victor tidied the store cupboard. (2 marks)
2.​ Explain one strength of social power theory as an explanation of obedience.
(2 marks)
 3.​ Explain two weaknesses of social power theory as an explanation of
obedience (4 marks)

1.1.2 Research into obedience

Milgram’s Experiment 1:

Aims:

Milgram wanted to investigate how obedient participants would be when following

orders would mean breaking their moral code and harming another person.

Procedures:

He offered $4.5 car fare for any volunteer adult male willing to take part in a
study on memory (deception). Participants were met by the researcher in a smart
grey lab coat (expert power) and another ‘volunteer’ who was an actor. The
researcher drew lots, but this was rigged as both had ‘teacher’.

The participants were shown the shock generator which had 30 switches each
showing a 15 volt increase. The participant was instructed to increase the shock by 15
volts each time a question was answered wrong. Although the participant could not
see the learner, he was able to hear him clearly through the wall. He began to
complain about his heart and demanded to be let out, refusing to take further part.
At the 300 volt level, he pounded on the wall. He repeated this at the 315 level but
from then on was silent.

The researcher delivered a standardised sequence of verbal prods such as ‘please

continue’ or ‘the experiment requires that you continue’. The experiment ended
when they refused or after they had shocked to the 450 volt level.

Results

All 40 participants went up to at least 300 volts and 65% went to the maximum

450 volts.

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

- 26 gave 450 volts

- 5 gave 300 volts as a maximum

- 8 gave between 315 and 360 volts

- 1 gave 375–420 volts

- The average maximum voltage given was 368 volts

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

Conclusions

The study clearly shows the power of authority over our behaviour. Even when the

participants were clearly upset by what they had to do, they still saw no alternative
except to obey.

Milgram’s Experiment 7:

Telephonic instructions|Closeness of authority|Experimenter Absent

Aims:

To see if having the experimenter in the room affected the level of obedience.

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

Results

The obedience dropped sharply when orders were given by telephone. Instead of 26
obeying the orders, nine obeyed (22.5%).

Participants lied to the experimenter about giving increases in voltage. These

participants said that they were raising the shock levels over the phone, as requested,
but were not and did not confess.

Conclusions

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

Milgram’s Experiment 10:

Rundown Office Block|Institutional Context

Aims

To see if obedience levels would change if the environment was not credible or
prestigious. So they used a rundown office block instead of a place in Yale University.

This was as a result of follow-up interviews suggesting that the integrity of Yale
institution had given them the confidence to take part in the study.

Procedures

The experiment was relocated to a rundown commercial office building in

Bridgeport, Connecticut and all links to Yale University were removed. The same
procedures were followed. This includes the volunteers being asked and paid $4.50
dollars for attending. The same personnel were used and the same age and
occupation details for participants. The researchers said that they were from a
private firm

Results

Participants have more doubts about this study. One participant made notes and
asked himself a number of questions about the legitimacy of the study. Another
participant questioned his own judgement and thought the study was ‘heartless’.

Obedience did not drop that much. 47.5% obeyed the maximum voltage level
compared with 65% in the original study at Yale. This was a lower level of obedience,
but Milgram did not think that it was a significant difference.

Conclusions
A legitimate setting does affect obedience according to the evidence but not
significantly. Milgram points out that people deposit money in both good and shady
looking banks. So people would obey regardless of the location.

Milgram’s Experiment 13: ordinary man giving orders

Aims

To see if obedience levels would change if someone without authority gives the
orders.

Procedures

The experimenter gives the instructions about administering the shock, then gets
‘called away’ and leaves the room. There is an accomplice who was asked to record
the times and the participant thinks is another participant like him and the learner.

The accomplice makes a suggestion of increasing the shocks one at a time as the
victim makes a mistake.

Results

The experimenter leaving creates an awkward atmosphere, which undermines the

credibility of the experiment.

-​ 16 of 20 (80%) participants broke away from the ordinary man’s

instructions, even though the accomplice urged them to continue.​

-​ 4 of 20 (20%) went to the maximum shock level.​

-​ When the participant refused the orders, the experiment was adapted and the
accomplice said the participant should swap roles and take over the recording.
16/20 watched the distressing scene as the ordinary man gave the shocks.​
​
All of the 16 bystanders protested and five tried to disconnect the power from
the generator or physically restrain the accomplice.

Conclusions

Levels of obedience fell dramatically with an ordinary man who had no perceived
authority. Participants did not like seeing him give the shocks, but were not able to
prevent it.

Strengths:

●​ Reliable and scientific: As it was a lab experiment, extraneous variables were

controlled and the study is standardised and replicable. Burger (2009)
replicated Milgram’s experiment and found similar results.​

●​ Application: Milgram's research helps us to understand why the Nazi soldiers

blindly obeyed orders to carry out atrocities
Weaknesses:

●​ Lacks ecological validity: Controlled laboratory experiment creates an

artificial setting as obedience levels will vary in real life situations. Lacks
mundane realism.​

●​ Lacks population validity: Sample collected through volunteer sampling,

which could consist of primarily authoritarian personalities, only adult males
used, so study is androcentric​

●​ Ethical issues: Participants were subject to deception as they were told it was
an experiment investigating memory and not obedience. Distress caused to
participants may have led to psychological harm. Pressure from experimenter
to continue, interfering with participant’s right to withdraw.

Sample Questions and Markscheme Points:

Milgram conducted research into obedience, including variation studies.

(a) Describe the results of ordinary man gives orders (Experiment 13) study. (2
marks)

(b) Explain strengths and weaknesses of Experiment 13. (4 marks)

(c) Strength of Milgram’s research (6 marks)

(a)

A01 (2 marks)

Credit up to two marks for accurate description.

For example:

• In experiment 13 only 20% of participants gave the maximum 450V shock (1).

Obedience level dropped from 65% in Milgram's original experiment to 20% (1)

(b)

A01 (2 marks), A03 (2 marks)

Credit one mark for accurate identification of each strength/weakness (A01)

Credit one mark for justification of each strength/weakness (A3)

For example:

Strength
The procedure was standardised so could be replicated to test for reliability (1).
The accomplice was always given the task of recording times at the experimenter's
desk and the experimenter was always called away by a rigged phone call (1).

Weakness

The participant was deceived so the study has questionable ethics (1).

The experimenter and ordinary man were accomplices of the study which the
participant was not made aware of so was lied to (1).

(c)

A01 (3 marks), A03 (3 marks)

Credit one mark for accurate identification of each strength (A01).

Credit one mark for justification of each strength (A03).

For example:

In Milgram's (1963) research he completed his obedience to authority experiment in

a controlled laboratory environment (1) which allowed him to measure a cause and
effect relationship between the IV - presence of the authority figure and DV - level of
shocks administered (1).​

Milgram's (1963) research used a standardised procedure for all participants

including using the same electric shock volts delivered through the generator (1)
which increased reliability as participants would have thought they were delivering
the same shock level consistently to all 40 learners (1).​

Participants showed genuine stress reactions when delivering shocks to the learner
indicating they believed the shocks were real (1) which increased validity/mundane realism
as the task had authenticity leading participants to deliver the electric shocks as instructed
(1).

1.​ Evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience. (12 marks)

1.1.3 Factors affecting obedience
Personality:

-​ Authoritarian Personality: Adorno et al. (1950) proposed that some

people would be more obedient due to an authoritarian personality. They
created the F-scale (fascist scale) to measure authoritarianism. High scores
would indicate obedience with other personality traits.​

-​ Locus of Control: How much a person believes they can control events that
affect them. It is either internal, thinking they have control, or external, they
think external factors out of their control affect things more.

Gender: There are no real differences in obedience in men or women in resisting an

authority figure. Female participants in Milgram’s (1963) variation study reported
higher stress due to being more empathetic.​
​
Situation: Situational explanations for obedience focus on external factors that
affect the likelihood that someone will obey orders. Examples of situational factors in
Milgram's research are proximity, location and uniform.

Culture: Either individualistic or collectivistic. Individualistic cultures focus on

individual needs, people are seen as independent and can resist obedience.
Collectivist cultures stress the needs of the group, people’s relationships with other
people are a key part of their identity so they are more obedient.

1.1 Conformity
Conformity is a type of social influence where a person changes their belief or
behaviour in order to fit in with a group. This change is due to real (physical
presence) or imagined (pressure of social norms / expectations) group pressure.

1.1.4 Types and Explanations of Conformity

Types of Conformity:

Compliance (group acceptance):

When someone conforms because they want to be accepted in a group. They want
specific rewards or approval, or they want to avoid disapproval or ostracisation.
Usually stops when the group pressure is not there. Temporary change.

Example: Agreeing with political statements at a family dinner to not cause unrest.

Internalisation (genuine acceptance of group norms):

When someone fully accepts group norms as their own beliefs and changes their
behaviour both in public and in private. They agree in public to fit in, and also agree
in private because they believe in it.

Example: Religion.

Identification (group membership):

When someone conforms due to being in a social “role”. They want to establish or
maintain a relationship with another person or group.

Example: A fifth grader on a school trip guiding third graders through the halls
despite being uncomfortable with being in a position of authority.

Explanations of conformity:

●​ Normative Conformity: Conforming due to a desire to fit in with a group.

(Asch Line Study for example) Having a fear of rejection. Usually is
compliance, changes are temporary. Emotional process, not cognitive.​
 ●​ Informational Conformity: Conforming due to a lack of knowledge.
Looking to the group for guidance in an unclear situation. (Sherif’s study for
example) Usually involves internalisation, changes are permanent. Cognitive
process.

1.1.5 Research into conformity including Asch (1951) and his variation
studies (1952, 1956).

Asch Conformity Experiment

Aim: Solomon Asch conducted an experiment to investigate the extent to which

social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.

He believed that the main problem with Sherif's (1935) conformity experiment was
that there was no correct answer to the ambiguous autokinetic experiment. How
could we be sure that a person conformed when there was no correct answer?

Asch (1951) devised what is now regarded as a classic experiment in social

psychology, whereby there was an obvious answer to a line judgement task. If the
participant gave an incorrect answer it would be clear that this was due to group
pressure.

Experimental Procedure

Asch used a lab experiment to study conformity, whereby 50 American male students
participated in a ‘vision test.’

Using a line judgement task, Asch put a participant in a room with seven
confederates. The confederates had agreed in advance what their responses would be
when presented with the line task.

The real participant did not know this and was led to believe that the other seven
confederates/stooges were also real participants like themselves.

Each person in the room had to state aloud which comparison line (A, B or C) was
most like the target line. The answer was always obvious. The real participant sat at
the end of the row and gave his or her answer last. There were 18 trials in total, and
the confederates gave the wrong answer on 12 trails (called the critical trials). Asch
was interested to see if the real participant would conform to the majority view.

Asch's experiment also had a control condition where there were no confederates,
only a "real participant."

Findings

Asch measured the number of times each participant conformed to the majority
view. On average, about one third (32%) of the participants who were placed in this
situation went along and conformed with the clearly incorrect majority on the critical
trials.

Over the 12 critical trials, about 75% of participants conformed at least once, and
25% of participants never conformed.
In the control group, with no pressure to conform to confederates, less than 1% of
participants gave the wrong answer.

Conclusion

Why did the participants conform so readily? When they were interviewed after the
experiment, most of them said that they did not really believe their conforming
answers, but had gone along with the group for fear of being ridiculed or thought
"peculiar''. A few of them said that they really did believe the group's answers were
correct.

People conform for two main reasons: because they want to fit in with the group
(normative influence) and because they believe the group is better informed than
they are (informational influence).

Critical Evaluation

One limitation of the study is that it uses a biassed sample. All the participants were
male students who all belonged to the same age group. This means that the study
lacks population validity and that the results cannot be generalised to females or
older groups of people.

Another problem is that the experiment used an artificial task to measure

conformity: judging line lengths. How often are we faced with making a judgement
like the one Asch used, where the answer is plain to see? This means that the study
has low ecological validity and the results cannot be generalised to other real-life
situations of conformity.

Finally, there are ethical issues: participants were not protected from psychological
stress which may occur if they disagreed with the majority. Evidence that
participants in Asch-type situations are highly emotional was obtained by Back et al.
(1963) who found that participants in the Asch situation had greatly increased levels
of autonomic arousal. This finding also suggests that they were in a conflict situation,
finding it hard to decide whether to report what they saw or to conform to the
opinion of others.

Asch also deceived the student volunteers claiming they were taking part in a 'vision'
test; the real purpose was to see how the 'naive' participant would react to the
behaviour of the confederates. However, deception was necessary to produce valid
results.

Sample Questions and Markscheme Points:

1.​ Research has been conducted to investigate conformity, including Asch

(1951) and his variation studies (1952, 1956). Evaluate research into
conformity. (8 marks)
 ​

1.1.6 Minority influence (Moscovici, 1976).

Moscovici and Minority Influence in Psychology

The term minority influence refers to a form of social influence that is attributed to
exposure to a consistent minority position in a group. Minority influence is generally
felt only after a period of time, and tends to produce private acceptance of the views
expressed by the minority. An important real-life example of a minority influencing a
majority was the suffragette movement in the early years of the 20th century.

Suffragettes

A relatively small group of suffragettes argued strongly for the initially unpopular
view that women should be allowed to vote. The hard work of the suffragettes,
combined with the justice of their case, finally led the majority to accept their point
of view.
Conformity studies involve a minority group who were conforming to the majority.
Moscovici (1976, 1980) argued along different lines. He claimed that Asch (1951) and
others had put too much emphasis on the notion that the majority in a group has a
large influence on the minority.

In his opinion, it is also possible for a minority to influence the majority. In fact Asch
agreed with Moscovici. He too felt that minority influence did occur, and that it was
potentially a more valuable issue to study - to focus on why some people might follow
minority opinion and resist group pressure.

Moscovici made a distinction between compliance and conversion. Compliance is

common in conformity studies (e.g. Asch) whereby the participants publicly conform
to the group norms but privately reject them.

Conversion involves how a minority can influence the majority. It involves

convincing the majority that the minority views are correct. This can be achieved a
number of different ways (e.g. consistency, flexibility). Conversion is different to
compliance as it usually involves both public and private acceptance of a new view or
behaviour (i.e. internalisation).

Moscovici argues that majority influence tends to be based on public compliance. It

is likely to be a case of normative social influence. In this respect, power of numbers
is important - the majority have the power to reward and punish with approval and
disapproval. And because of this there is pressure on minorities to conform.

Since majorities are often unconcerned about what minorities think about them,
minority influence is rarely based on normative social influence. Instead, it is usually
based on informational social influence - providing the majority with new ideas, new
information which leads them to re-examine their views.

In this respect, minority influence involves private acceptance (i.e. internalisation)-

converting the majority by convincing them that the minority's views are right.

1.1.7 Factors affecting conformity and minority influence, including

individual differences (personality), situation and culture.

Rotter's Locus of Control Scale

Four main factors have been identified as important for a minority to have an
influence over a majority. These are behavioural style, style of thinking, flexibility,
and identification.

Behavioural Style

This comprises 4 components:

1. Consistency: The minority must be consistent in their opinion

2. Confidence in the correctness of ideas and views they are presenting

3. Appearing to be unbiased
4. Resisting social pressure and abuse

Moscovici (1969) stated that the most important aspect of behavioural style is the
consistency with which people hold their position. Being consistent and unchanging
in a view is more likely to influence the majority than if a minority is inconsistent and
chops and changes their mind.

Moscovici (1969) investigated behavioural styles (consistent / inconsistent) on

minority influence in his blue-green studies. He showed that a consistent minority
was more successful than an inconsistent minority in changing the views of the
majority.

Consistency may be important because with a consistent opposition, members of the

majority will sit up, take notice, and rethink their position. Consistency gives the
impression that the minority are convinced they are right and are committed to their
viewpoint.

Confidence

When the majority is confronted with someone with self-confidence and dedication
to take a popular stand and refuses to back down, they may assume that they have a
point. A consistent minority disrupts established norms and creates uncertainty,
doubt and conflict. This can lead to the majority taking the minority view seriously.
The majority will therefore be more likely to question their own views. In order to
change the majority's view the minority has to propose a clear position and has to
defend and advocate its position consistently.

Flexibility and Compromise

A number of researchers have questioned whether consistency alone is sufficient for

a minority to influence a majority. They argue that the key is how the majority
interprets consistency. If the consistent minority are seen as inflexible, rigid,
uncompromising and dogmatic, they will be unlikely to change the views of the
majority. However, if they appear flexible and compromising, they are likely to be
seen as less extreme, as more moderate, cooperative and reasonable. As a result, they
will have a better chance of changing majority views (Mugny & Papastamou, 1980).

Identification

People tend to identify with people they see similar to themselves. For example, men
tend to identify with men, Asians with Asians, teenagers with teenagers etc. Research
indicates that if the majority identifies with the minority, then they are more likely to
take the views of the minority seriously and change their own views in line with those
of the minority.

For example, one study showed that a gay minority arguing for gay rights had less
influence on a straight majority than a straight minority arguing for gay rights
(Maass et al.1982). The non-gay majority identified with the non-gay minority. They
tended to see the gay minority as different from themselves, as self-interested and
concerned with promoting their own particular cause.
1.2 Methods
1.2.1 Designing and conducting questionnaires and interviews,
considering researcher effects.

Gerard Keegan's Psychology Site: Research Methods and the Correlation

Questionnaire Survey

Interview Survey

Self-report data: A survey is a self-report method, used to gather information

about how people feel, their attitudes and opinions, personality types and other
traits. Surveys typically are designed to gather a large amount of information, this
can be done through a questionnaire or large-scale interview.

Questionnaire: Questionnaires are designed to gather a large amount of data by

accessing a large sample. Questionnaires can be administered by post, email, face to
face or online, and often consist of questions that require information from
participants about their attitudes, opinions, lifestyles and indeed any aspect of a
person's life.

Quantitative data can be described as information that is or can be converted into

numbers, and qualitative data can be defined as information that is non-numerical
prose. The type of question asked in a questionnaire can yield either quantitative or
qualitative data.

Closed questions are questions that have preset fixed answers that a respondent
has to select from by circling or ticking the one that is the closest match to their
opinion. Closed questions yield quantitative data. These can be yes/no response
questions or where a list of options is available.

Open questions do not involve preset answers, but instead allow respondents to
answer freely. This allows them to elaborate on their answers and justify their
opinions. However,it does require more time and effort on the part of the respondent
and open-ended question responses require a degree of qualitative analysis, which
can lead to subjective interpretation on the part of the researcher.

Issues with questionnaire design

Social desirability: This occurs when a respondent does not give a genuine
answer, but one which depicts them in a more favourable light. That is, they respond
to a question in a way that is seen as desirable according to prevailing social norms.

Question construction: As a researcher is not present when the questionnaire is

being completed, it is very important that questions are not too technical, ambiguous
or complex. It is also important that questions do not lead or mislead a respondent
into giving a particular answer or ask personal questions because this violates the
right to privacy.

Questionnaire reliability: External reliability refers to the consistency of a

measure or finding over time. Internal reliability refers to the consistency of a
measure within itself. Some questionnaires and scales lose their external reliability if
respondents repeat them on different occasions, so it is important to establish
whether this is the case by using the test-retest method. This literally means that
the same people are given the same questionnaire to complete again on a different
occasion. If their responses are the same or very similar, external reliability can be
established.

Internal reliability is a problem for questionnaires because often several different

questions are used to measure the same trait or attitude. A split-half method can be
employed. This involves splitting the questions into two halves and comparing the
findings from both halves during analysis. If all of the questions are measuring the
same concept, both halves should achieve the same score. If they do not, it suggests
that some of the questions may be measuring a different concept.

Questionnaire validity: Validity refers to the extent to which something is

measuring what it intends to measure. If a questionnaire is a valid measure of a
construct, such as intelligence, then it should have predictive validity. This means
that it is able to accurately predict the same construct in the future. If an intelligence
test has predictive validity, a high intelligence score should correlate with
educational success, such as A level or degree grading.

Researcher effects: When asking people questions, there are many interviewer
characteristics that can influence the respondent; the sex, age, manner and
personality of the interviewer can all affect how a person responds, whether they are
truthful, and whether they disclose information at all. It is, therefore,important to
predict what characteristics might influence respondents and control them. For
example, you can predict that a male interviewer will be unlikely to obtain detailed
information from a female participant about their view of marriage. This can be
controlled by employing a female interviewer.

​
1.2.2 Primary and secondary data
Primary data: refers to the first hand data gathered by the researcher himself.

Secondary Data: refers to second hand data that has been gathered from existing
data, usually produced by someone else, and then reported, analysed or interpreted.

1.2.3 Unstructured, semi-structured and structured interviews, open,

closed (including ranked scale) questions.

Interviews: An interview can be used in a survey if it can be administered to a large

sample of people relatively easily.This is more likely if it is a structured interview.

Structured interview: Structured interviews are defined by the nature of the

questions and the way in which they are asked. Typically, structured interviews are
standardised so that all respondents are asked the same questions in the same way,
often using closed questions that gather quantitative data. Structured interviews tend
to be easy to administer and do not need to establish a rapport between the
researcher and respondent. However, the data gathered can be superficial and lack
depth, and the respondent may feel stifled and not be able to express their opinions
fully, which can be as frustrating as answering closed questions in a questionnaire.

Semi-structured interview: To avoid some of the problems with structured

interviews, semi-structured interviews are more conversational and dynamic. A
researcher has a set of questions that they aim to be answered, but do not have a
standardised format to follow. This means that the conversation can flow a little bit
better, while still achieving the research aim and getting relevant information from
respondents. This type of interview can gather both quantitative and qualitative data.

Unstructured Interview: This type of interview begins with a loose research aim
and gathers qualitative information from respondents. Unlike structured interviews,
the interviewer needs to be analytical during the interview so that they can probe and
seek meaning from respondents. An unstructured interviewer needs to be skilled at
achieving a good rapport with respondents and responsive to the information
offered; they need good listening skills and should use non-judgemental language.

Ethical issues are important when conducting any type of questionnaire or interview,
but critical when using an unstructured interview because the qualitative data
gathered can make direct reference to quotes from respondents. It is important that
all respondent details are anonymised and personal details disguised. Due to the
reflexive nature of an unstructured interview, the interviewer must deal sensitively
when asking for personal information to ensure they do not breach the respondent's
right to privacy.

1.2.4 Alternative hypotheses:

In addition to an overall research aim, a study might also make a prediction about
what is likely to occur. This prediction is known as an alternative hypothesis.

See Cognitive Psychology for a complete explanation on hypotheses and more

1.2.5 Random, stratified, volunteer, and opportunity sampling

techniques
In psychological research it is necessary to recruit participants or respondents to
study. The way in which these participants are selected is known as sampling.

It is unlikely that a whole population can be studied, so a sample of the population

needs to be gathered using a sampling technique. The technique used will depend on
the type of research being conducted and the availability of the participants, but the
aim of a sampling method is to select a representative sample of participants; that is,
a sample that represents the characteristics of the population well. This will ensure
that any conclusions drawn from the research can be successfully generalised back to
explain the behaviour of the target population as a whole.

If the sample gathered is not representative, because of an over- or

underrepresentation of a particular type of participant in the sample use, a sampling
bias will occur.

Random sampling: The most likely way to recruit a representative sample is by

using a random sampling technique. This should ensure that everyone has an equal
chance of being selected. Random sampling should result in a representative sample,
although this may not always be the case because you can select an unrepresentative
sample at random, too.

Stratified sampling: If the target population has salient characteristics that need
to be proportionately represented in the sample recruited, a stratified sampling
technique can be used. For example, if you are researching stress in the workplace in
a company, you can find out how many staff occupy different roles within the
company, for example office clerks, managers, canteen staff, cleaners, etc. As there
may be more clerks than managers, more clerks need to be recruited for the study
than managers in order to represent the company staff more fairly.

Opportunity sampling: An opportunity sample makes use of participants who are

available. This can involve a researcher going to a student common room and asking
people to take part, or investigating passers-by in a high street. Either way, the
researcher has limited control over who is recruited and not everyone in a target
population has an equal chance of being selected.

Volunteer sampling: Self-selected participants can be recruited by placing an

advert in a newspaper or a student common room. Volunteers are self-selecting
because they choose to take part; they are not approached and asked by a
researcher.The researcher has no control over who volunteers and often a certain
type participant may choose to take part. This can result in a sample bias. However, a
researcher may pre-test volunteers before the main study and exclude those with
characteristics they feel may not represent the target population.

​1.2.6 (List A) Analysis of quantitative data: calculating measures of

central tendency (mean, median, mode), data tables (frequency tables
and summary tables), graphical presentation (bar chart, histogram),
measures of dispersion (range and standard deviation), percentages,
ratios, fractions.

Mean is calculated by adding up all of the values in a data set and dividing the total
by the number of scores collected. The median is a measure of central tendency
that calculates the middle value when the values in the data set are placed in rank
order (from smallest to largest). The mode is a measure of central tendency that
calculates the most frequent score in a data set.

Measures of dispersion

Dispersion is a descriptive statistic that calculates the spread of scores in the data set.
Measures of central tendency can be misleading without knowing the variation
between the scores.There are different types of measures of dispersion.

Range: The range is the simplest calculation of dispersion; it is simply the difference
between the highest and lowest value. The range is calculated by subtracting the
lowest value from the highest value.
Standard deviation: A more useful way of looking at the spread of scores is to
understand the concept of deviation. Deviation refers to the distance of each value
from the arithmetic mean. Formula:

Summary tables: Summary tables represent measures of central tendency and

dispersion clearly.

Graphical representation of data: Graphs can be useful to illustrate summary

data or data frequencies. Bar charts are used to present data from a categorical
variable, such as the mean, median or mode. The categorical variable is placed on the
x-axis, and the height of the bars represents the value of that variable,

A histogram is used to present the distribution of scores by illustrating the frequency

of values in the data set. Unlike a bar chart, where the bars are separated by a space,
the bars on a histogram are joined to represent continuous data rather than
categorical (discrete) data. The possible values are presented on the x-axis and the
height of each bar represents the frequency of the value.
1.2.7 Normal and skewed distribution

Normal distribution: When the frequency distribution of a population is

calculated, it can be represented on a frequency graph. If the graph illustrates a
bell-shaped curve, the data has a normal distribution. Normal distribution is
characterised by its symmetry around the midpoint. The mean, median and mode
should be aligned around the midpoint.

Skewed distribution: Some distributions are not normal, but are referred to as
skewed because they are not symmetrical.This may be a result of the test
administered or the type of sample gathered. If a test is easy or the aptitude of the
sample is unusually high, it will mean that most people score highly. This will lead to
a negative skew, where many people score above the average or mean score. If the
test was particularly difficult or the aptitude of the sample low, it will mean that most
people will achieve a low score.This will lead to a positive skew.
1.2.8 Analysis of qualitative data using thematic analysis

Analysis of qualitative data using thematic analysis

Qualitative data is non-numerical data gathered often through interviews,

questionnaires, case studies and observations. Qualitative data can be converted into
quantitative data by counting instances of an event occurring.

Thematic analysis is a way of analysing data without losing its meaningfulness

completely but enables a vast amount of qualitative data to be more manageably
reduced into general patterns, trends and themes. Thematic analysis is achieved
through reviewing and identifying themes in the qualitative data. This can be done
inductively or deductively. Using an inductive approach, the researcher would
read and reread the qualitative data gathered and themes would emerge from the
data without the researcher imposing any of their own ideas or expectations from it.
Deductive thematic analysis would involve the researcher specifying the themes that
they will look for before analysing the data.

Thematic analysis is very flexible, and many researchers use it in different ways. The
overall procedure involves carefully reading and considering the qualitative data
gathered and identifying the themes present in the data that occur frequently or
seem to be a key feature of the data. How frequent or central to the text the theme is
depends on the opinion of the researcher and the nature of the material analysed.

The researcher will develop these themes into 'codes' which represent the categories
of themes found. The researcher will then use these codes to analyse the data
gathered and search for instances where it appears in the data. This is reviewed
continually, and changed if necessary, until the themes can be stated, supported and
used as a summary of the data.

Analysis of qualitative data, using thematic analysis or other forms of qualitative

analysis, is often considered to be unscientific because the themes are highly
dependent on the subjective opinions of the researcher, and therefore can lead to
researcher bias. For example, if a researcher expected that emergency room service
users would be dissatisfied with the waiting times and level of care, they may have
preconceived ideas that affect their theme choice and the way interview transcripts
are interpreted.

Despite the fact that there is very little control over how a thematic analysis is
conducted by individual researchers, qualitative analysis does yield far more detailed
and meaningful information than quantitative data.

1.2.9 British Psychological Society (BPS) code of ethics and conduct

(2009), including risk management when carrying out research in
psychology.

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

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

Responsibility: Psychologists have a responsibility to themselves, their clients, the

general public, and to the profession of psychology. They must try and ensure any
research does not damage the reputation of psychology. They must ensure
participants are protected from harm and always debriefed at the end of any
research.

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

Informed consent: Whenever possible, the consent of participants must be

obtained. It is not sufficient to simply get participants to say ‘Yes’. They also need to
know what it is that they are agreeing to. You need to explain what is involved in
advance and obtain the informed consent of participants. Consent forms may need to
be accompanied by an information sheet for participants setting out information
about the proposed study along with details about the investigator’s contact details.
If there is difficulty in gaining consent, then presumptive consent may be sought. A
similar group of people can be asked how they would feel about taking part. If they
think it would be all right, then it can be assumed that the real participants will also
find it acceptable.

Debrief: The aim of the debriefing is not just to provide information, but to help the
participant leave the experimental situation in a similar frame of mind as when
he/she entered it. Aronson (1988) At the end of the study the participant should be
able to discuss the procedure and the findings. Debriefing should take place as soon
as possible and be as full as possible; participants must be given a general idea of
what the researcher was investigating and why, and their part in the research should
be explained. They must be asked if they have any questions and those questions
should be answered honestly and as fully as possible.

Protection of participants: Researchers must ensure that those taking part in

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

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

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

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

1.3 Studies
1.3.1 Moscovici et al. (1969) Influence of a Consistent Minority on the
Responses of a Majority in a Colour Perception Task. (Classic study)

Moscovici and Minority Influence in Psychology

Aim: To investigate the effects of a consistent minority on a majority. Moscovici

(1969) conducted a re-run of Asch’s experiment, but in reverse. Instead of one
subject amongst a majority of confederates, he placed two confederates together with
four genuine participants. The participants were first given eye tests to ensure they
were not colour-blind.

Procedure: They were then placed in a group consisting of four participants and
two confederates. They were shown 36 slides which were clearly different shades of
blue and asked to state the colour of each slide out loud.

In the first part of the experiment the two confederates answered green for each of
the 36 slides. They were totally consistent in their responses. In the second part of
the experiment they answered green 24 times and blue 12 times. In this case they
were inconsistent in their answers. Would the responses of the two confederates
influence those of the four participants? In other words, would there be minority
influence?

Results:

In condition one it was found that the consistent minority had an effect on the
majority (8.42%) compared to an inconsistent minority (only 1.25% said green). A
third (32%) of all participants judged the slide to be green at least once.

Conclusion: Minorities can influence a majority, but not all the time and only when
they behave in certain ways (e.g. consistent behaviour style).

Evaluation:

The study was conducted in a lab and therefore lacks ecological validity. Moscovici
used female students as participants (i.e. unrepresentative sample), so it would be
wrong to generalise his result to all people – they only tell us about the behaviour of
female students and thus lack population validity. Four people may not be enough to
be considered a majority.

Sample Questions and mark scheme answers:

 1.​ Evaluate Moscovici et al. (1969) Influence of a Consistent Minority on the
Responses of a Majority in a Colour Perception Task. (8 marks)

1.3.2 Burger (2009) Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?

Book pages: 60 to 63

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

Procedures:

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

In order to deal with the ethical problems associated with Milgram’s original study, it
was decided that the study would not go on any longer than when the participants hit
150 volts. Individuals responded to advertisements in a local newspaper and
participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions (base condition and
model refusal condition).

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

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

All the responses from the confederate were pre-recorded. No participant was
allowed to press any switches after the 150 volt stage. The participant was debriefed
immediately at the end of the experiment and they met the confederate.

Model refusal condition

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

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

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

Burger’s experiment highlights that average Americans react to this laboratory

experiment today much in the same way as they did in the 1960s, and that the same
situational factors that affected obedience then still apply.

Contrary to expectations, participants were no less obedient after seeing another the
person refuse to continue compared with the base condition. This might demonstrate
the powers of the situational forces that led participants to follow the experimenter’s
instructions.

The failure to find gender differences may reflect the power of situational variables in
this setting to override individual differences (such as women’s tendency to be more
concerned about the learner’s plight). Alternatively, women’s greater concern for
others may have been weaker than their ability to stand up to the experimenter
(compared to men).

Sample questions and markscheme answers

1.​ Evaluate Burger (2009). (8 marks)

1.3.3 Yi Huang et al. (2014) Conformity to the opinions of other people
lasts for no more than 3 days.

Conformity to the Opinions of Other People Lasts for No More Than 3 Days

Aim(s): To investigate whether social conformity reflects private acceptance or

public compliance by examining the stability of behavioural changes in judgments.

To determine whether long-lasting judgement changes are likely to reflect a change

in private opinion, whereas transient judgement changes suggest that public
compliance is involved.

To ascertain whether social conformity could persist in the short-term.

Procedure

Study 1

Sample: 17 Chinese students were recruited from South China Normal University (5
men, 12 women) with a mean age of 22 years. All participants were right-handed,
had normal or corrected-to-normal vision, and reported no neurological or
psychiatric disorders.

The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology at
South China Normal University. All participants gave written informed consent and
were informed of their right to discontinue participation at any time. Participants
received a payment of 30 yuan (about $5 U.S.). Participants were informed that they
were taking part in research about human perception of facial attractiveness.

280 photographs of faces of young adult Chinese women with neutral expressions
were downloaded from free internet sources or were university students (taken with
consent). All photographs were colour and of similar quality and general appearance.

Photographs were presented on a computer monitor for 2 s. An 8-point Likert scale

(1 = very unattractive, 8 = very attractive) was then added to the display, and
participants rated the face. Their initial rating was shown on screen for 0.5 seconds.
Then, for 2 seconds, another box indicated an alleged average rating given by 200
other students of the same gender as the participant.

In 25% of trials, the group rating agreed with the participant rating (peers agree
condition).

In 75% of trials, the group rating was equally likely to be above or below the
participant rating (peers-higher and peers-lower conditions).

After 3 months, participants were called back and asked to complete a second test,
which they had not been told about previously. They rated the same faces again.
Faces were presented in random order; participants were not reminded of
peer-group ratings.

Study 2
This was to ascertain whether social conformity could persist over a one day, three
day or seven day interval (as opposed to 3 months) between the initial and the
rerating sessions to periods.

Three different groups of student participants were recruited from South China
Normal University. 18 students took part in the 1-day group (7 men, 11 women; mean
age = 20.72 years) 16 were in the 3-day group (6 men, 10 women; mean age = 20.81
years) and 17 in the 7-day group (8 men, 9 women; mean age = 21.53 years).

Participants performed the same initial rating task as that in Study 1 and they rerated
the faces 1, 3, or 7 days later.

Results

Study 1

Rating scores changed, showing that participants changed their ratings of

attractiveness in the retest, aligning themselves with the peer-group ratings given 3
months before.

Study 2

For the 1-day group, the rating change between the peers-lower and peers-higher
conditions was significant; participants rated faces in the peers-higher condition as
more attractive than faces in the peers-lower condition.

The rating change was also significant for the 3-day group, but not for the 7-day
group.

Conclusions

Study 1

There was no evidence for long-term influence of social conformity on participants’

attractiveness ratings.

Study 2

Overall, social conformity in facial attractiveness judgments persists for up to 3 days,

but not for longer than 7 days. The social-conformity effect observed reflected a
change in privately held views. However, the short duration may have been the result
of participants’ daily exposure to large numbers of faces.

It is probable that opinions were quickly revised because of subsequent experience,

so that judgments of facial attractiveness were reset back to the original norm. A
resetting of individual judgement norms could have occurred more quickly than it
would for classes of objects viewed infrequently.

Sample questions and markscheme answers:

 1.​ Describe the procedure in your chosen contemporary study. (3 marks)

1.4.1 Practical Investigation

One practical research exercise to gather data relevant to topics
covered in social psychology. This practical research exercise must
adhere to ethical principles in both content and intention.

Book pages: 73 to 79