IAL Psychology Notes
Unit 1: Social and cognitive psychology
Topic A: Social psychology
Topic overview
Students must show an understanding that social psychology is about aspects of human
behaviour that involve the individual’s relationship to other persons, groups and society,
including cultural influences on behaviour.
1.1 Content
Obedience and majority and minority influence, as forms of social influence on behaviour.
Obedience
1.1.1 Theories of obedience, including agency theory and social power theory.
Theories of Obedience:
Agency Theory:
Milgram used the idea of being in an ‘agentic state’ to put forward his agency theory. When
someone is in an agentic state (like the participants in Milgram’s study), they follow the
orders of an authority figure.
This is opposite to autonomy, which is when someone is under their own control and have
the power to make their own decisions.
Agency theory is the idea that our social system leads to obedience. If people see
themselves as individuals, they will respond as individuals and will be autonomous in a
situation.
A hierarchical system (the one used in Milgram’s study) is where people act as agents to
those ‘above’ them. According to the study, the agentic state is what caused the participants
to obey.
In an autonomous state:
● Individuals see themselves as having power.
● They see their actions as being voluntary.
In an agentic state:
● Individuals act as agents for others.
, ● Their own consciences are not in control.
Evaluation of Agency Theory:
Strengths:
● Agency theory explains the different levels of obedience found in the variations of the
basic study. For example, in Milgram’s basic study the participants did not take
responsibility for their actions and said they were just doing what they were told.
However, when they were made to take more responsibility, like in the variation
where they had to hold the victim’s hand down, obedience decreased as they moved
into a more autonomous state.
● The theory helps explain the Holocaust, where very many Jews and other members
of society were murdered at the hands of the Nazis who claimed they were just
following orders.
Weaknesses:
● There are other explanations for obedience, like social power. French and Raven
proposed five different kinds of power:
○ Legitimate Power – held by an authority figure who is in a formal position to
expect obedience from a person they make demands of.
○ Reward Power – held by those with certain resources.
○ Coercive Power – held by an authority figure who has the ability (perceived or
real) to punish another for disobedience.
○ Expert Power – held by the authority figure who has superior knowledge/skills
(perceived or real) to a subordinate person.
○ Referent Power – held by those who can win people over.
● Agency theory is more descriptive on how society works rather than an explanation.
It suggests that participants obeyed because they were agents of authority. However,
obedience is defined as obeying authority figures so it doesn’t really provide a further
explanation for obedience.
1.1.2 Research into obedience, including Milgram’s (1963) research into obedience and
three of his variation studies: rundown office block (Experiment 10), telephonic instructions
(Experiment 7), ordinary man gives orders (Experiment 13) as they demonstrate situational
factors that encourage dissent.
● Rundown office block (Experiment 10)
● Telephonic instructions (Experiment 7)
● Ordinary man gives orders (Experiment 13)
Milgram’s (1963) Basic Study:
Aim:
Milgram wanted to see how far someone would go to obey an authority figure. This was in
order to test whether ‘German’s were different’.
Procedure:
● There were 40 male participants.
, ● The subjects were to draw for the role of the teacher or the learner.
● Participants always became the ‘teacher’ and the accomplice the ‘learner’.
● The teacher and the learner were put into separate rooms.
● The participants were to use a generator that had switches increasing to go from
15V, in 15V increments, up to 450V, and the participant had to press the switch to
deliver the ‘fake shock’ to the victim who was in another room – the victim could be
heard, not seen.
● The learner/victim gave answers to the test questions.
● The answers were pre-set to be wrong sometimes, and so the shocks were
delivered.
● If the participants hesitated, the experimenter used verbal prods.
● The session came to an end when the participant refused to obey the experimenter.
Results:
● 100% went to 300 volts, (the point of pounding on the wall).
● 65% (26 out of 40) went all the way to the end - 450 volts.
Conclusion:
Milgram concluded that obedience to authority is more common than he or others had
anticipated. Strong pressure from authority figures can make decent people do bad things to
others.
Milgram’s (1963) Basic Study Evaluation:
Strengths:
● Milgram carried out a very well-controlled procedure. He had set prompts, in a set
order, and had prepared the victim’s responses carefully. He made every effort to
make the experience of each participant the same, to avoid any bias. This lack of
bias means that the conclusion was firm. It was unlikely that other factors led to the
results. This meant that cause-and- effect conclusions could be drawn.
● The controlled procedures meant that the study was replicable and so could be
tested for reliability. This precise procedure could not be repeated for ethical reasons.
However, there have been replications using the same idea, but with a more ethical
procedure (i.e. Burger’s (2009) study)
Weaknesses:
● There were a lot of ethical problems with Milgram’s study. There were high levels of
anxiety and stress that the participants experienced during the study. He debriefed
the participants carefully and introduced them to his accomplice, as well as checked
on their well-being. However, he described shaking, trembling, sweating and
seizures, so it cannot be denied that the was unethical. He technically gave the
participants the right to withdraw, however, by using the verbal prompts, it made it
difficult for the participants to withdraw. He also deceived the participants by saying
the study was about learning and by pretending that the shocks were real. Whilst he
gained consent from all the participants, it was not fully informed because of the
deceit.
Milgram’s (1963) Variations:
, Telephonic Instructions (Experiment 7):
Procedure:
After giving the initial instructions to the participant face-to-face, the experimenter left the
room and continued to give instructions over the telephone.
Results:
● The maximum 450-volt shock fell to 22.5%.
● Participants administered lower shocks rather than increase the voltage as instructed
and even lied to the experimenter about it.
Conclusion: Physical presence of the experimenter is a factor affecting obedience. Physical
presence rather than giving orders from a distance yields a higher level of obedience.
Rundown Office Block (Experiment 10):
Procedure:
The experiment was relocated to a rundown office building.
Results:
● The maximum 450-volt shock fell to 47.5% (slight reduction).
● Participants questioned the credentials of the company on arrival.
Conclusion:
A less reputable context reduces the legitimacy of the study. Since the level of obedience is
still comparable to the original study, it shows that the original results may not be entirely a
result of the reputation of Yale, as there is the idea that the Yale setting lacks ecological
validity.
Ordinary Man Gives Orders (Experiment 13):
Procedure:
● Three people arrived at the lab; two of them confederates of the study.
● The first confederate was the learner, the second was assigned the role of noting
times from a clock (ordinary man).
● The experimenter gives instructions about administering shocks, but before he can
explain further, he gets ‘called away’ and leaves the room.
● The ordinary man (accomplice) then suggests to increase the shock level each time
when the learner makes a mistake. He insisted this throughout the experiment.
Results:
● 16 out of 20 participants broke away from the ordinary man’s instructions despite the
constant urge from the ordinary man.
● 4 of the participants (20%) went to the maximum shock level.
Unit 1: Social and cognitive psychology
Topic A: Social psychology
Topic overview
Students must show an understanding that social psychology is about aspects of human
behaviour that involve the individual’s relationship to other persons, groups and society,
including cultural influences on behaviour.
1.1 Content
Obedience and majority and minority influence, as forms of social influence on behaviour.
Obedience
1.1.1 Theories of obedience, including agency theory and social power theory.
Theories of Obedience:
Agency Theory:
Milgram used the idea of being in an ‘agentic state’ to put forward his agency theory. When
someone is in an agentic state (like the participants in Milgram’s study), they follow the
orders of an authority figure.
This is opposite to autonomy, which is when someone is under their own control and have
the power to make their own decisions.
Agency theory is the idea that our social system leads to obedience. If people see
themselves as individuals, they will respond as individuals and will be autonomous in a
situation.
A hierarchical system (the one used in Milgram’s study) is where people act as agents to
those ‘above’ them. According to the study, the agentic state is what caused the participants
to obey.
In an autonomous state:
● Individuals see themselves as having power.
● They see their actions as being voluntary.
In an agentic state:
● Individuals act as agents for others.
, ● Their own consciences are not in control.
Evaluation of Agency Theory:
Strengths:
● Agency theory explains the different levels of obedience found in the variations of the
basic study. For example, in Milgram’s basic study the participants did not take
responsibility for their actions and said they were just doing what they were told.
However, when they were made to take more responsibility, like in the variation
where they had to hold the victim’s hand down, obedience decreased as they moved
into a more autonomous state.
● The theory helps explain the Holocaust, where very many Jews and other members
of society were murdered at the hands of the Nazis who claimed they were just
following orders.
Weaknesses:
● There are other explanations for obedience, like social power. French and Raven
proposed five different kinds of power:
○ Legitimate Power – held by an authority figure who is in a formal position to
expect obedience from a person they make demands of.
○ Reward Power – held by those with certain resources.
○ Coercive Power – held by an authority figure who has the ability (perceived or
real) to punish another for disobedience.
○ Expert Power – held by the authority figure who has superior knowledge/skills
(perceived or real) to a subordinate person.
○ Referent Power – held by those who can win people over.
● Agency theory is more descriptive on how society works rather than an explanation.
It suggests that participants obeyed because they were agents of authority. However,
obedience is defined as obeying authority figures so it doesn’t really provide a further
explanation for obedience.
1.1.2 Research into obedience, including Milgram’s (1963) research into obedience and
three of his variation studies: rundown office block (Experiment 10), telephonic instructions
(Experiment 7), ordinary man gives orders (Experiment 13) as they demonstrate situational
factors that encourage dissent.
● Rundown office block (Experiment 10)
● Telephonic instructions (Experiment 7)
● Ordinary man gives orders (Experiment 13)
Milgram’s (1963) Basic Study:
Aim:
Milgram wanted to see how far someone would go to obey an authority figure. This was in
order to test whether ‘German’s were different’.
Procedure:
● There were 40 male participants.
, ● The subjects were to draw for the role of the teacher or the learner.
● Participants always became the ‘teacher’ and the accomplice the ‘learner’.
● The teacher and the learner were put into separate rooms.
● The participants were to use a generator that had switches increasing to go from
15V, in 15V increments, up to 450V, and the participant had to press the switch to
deliver the ‘fake shock’ to the victim who was in another room – the victim could be
heard, not seen.
● The learner/victim gave answers to the test questions.
● The answers were pre-set to be wrong sometimes, and so the shocks were
delivered.
● If the participants hesitated, the experimenter used verbal prods.
● The session came to an end when the participant refused to obey the experimenter.
Results:
● 100% went to 300 volts, (the point of pounding on the wall).
● 65% (26 out of 40) went all the way to the end - 450 volts.
Conclusion:
Milgram concluded that obedience to authority is more common than he or others had
anticipated. Strong pressure from authority figures can make decent people do bad things to
others.
Milgram’s (1963) Basic Study Evaluation:
Strengths:
● Milgram carried out a very well-controlled procedure. He had set prompts, in a set
order, and had prepared the victim’s responses carefully. He made every effort to
make the experience of each participant the same, to avoid any bias. This lack of
bias means that the conclusion was firm. It was unlikely that other factors led to the
results. This meant that cause-and- effect conclusions could be drawn.
● The controlled procedures meant that the study was replicable and so could be
tested for reliability. This precise procedure could not be repeated for ethical reasons.
However, there have been replications using the same idea, but with a more ethical
procedure (i.e. Burger’s (2009) study)
Weaknesses:
● There were a lot of ethical problems with Milgram’s study. There were high levels of
anxiety and stress that the participants experienced during the study. He debriefed
the participants carefully and introduced them to his accomplice, as well as checked
on their well-being. However, he described shaking, trembling, sweating and
seizures, so it cannot be denied that the was unethical. He technically gave the
participants the right to withdraw, however, by using the verbal prompts, it made it
difficult for the participants to withdraw. He also deceived the participants by saying
the study was about learning and by pretending that the shocks were real. Whilst he
gained consent from all the participants, it was not fully informed because of the
deceit.
Milgram’s (1963) Variations:
, Telephonic Instructions (Experiment 7):
Procedure:
After giving the initial instructions to the participant face-to-face, the experimenter left the
room and continued to give instructions over the telephone.
Results:
● The maximum 450-volt shock fell to 22.5%.
● Participants administered lower shocks rather than increase the voltage as instructed
and even lied to the experimenter about it.
Conclusion: Physical presence of the experimenter is a factor affecting obedience. Physical
presence rather than giving orders from a distance yields a higher level of obedience.
Rundown Office Block (Experiment 10):
Procedure:
The experiment was relocated to a rundown office building.
Results:
● The maximum 450-volt shock fell to 47.5% (slight reduction).
● Participants questioned the credentials of the company on arrival.
Conclusion:
A less reputable context reduces the legitimacy of the study. Since the level of obedience is
still comparable to the original study, it shows that the original results may not be entirely a
result of the reputation of Yale, as there is the idea that the Yale setting lacks ecological
validity.
Ordinary Man Gives Orders (Experiment 13):
Procedure:
● Three people arrived at the lab; two of them confederates of the study.
● The first confederate was the learner, the second was assigned the role of noting
times from a clock (ordinary man).
● The experimenter gives instructions about administering shocks, but before he can
explain further, he gets ‘called away’ and leaves the room.
● The ordinary man (accomplice) then suggests to increase the shock level each time
when the learner makes a mistake. He insisted this throughout the experiment.
Results:
● 16 out of 20 participants broke away from the ordinary man’s instructions despite the
constant urge from the ordinary man.
● 4 of the participants (20%) went to the maximum shock level.
