Year 1 Psychology Revision
Social Psychology
Things they can ask: Milgram’s variations, individual differences
impacting obedience/prejudice, Burger, Milgram’s Baseline, Social
impact theory, Agency theory, Sherif, Practical investigation, Key
question, Realistic group conflict theory, social identity theory.
Milgram’s variations:
- Experiment 7 – Telephone instructions
Experimenter not present, obedience fell to 23% meaning 9/40
listened/obeyed
- Experiment 10 – Run down office block
Same experiment in run down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%,
19/40
- Experiment 13 – Ordinary man
Experimenter leaves the room, and ordinary man gives the
instructions, obedience levels dropped down to 20%, 8/40
Individual differences impacting obedience
Individual differences = a factor that are specific to an
individual, obedience = the tendency of someone to follow
instructions
Gender – doesn’t impact obedience, in Burger’s study
obedience was 70% which had both genders, Milgram’s
baseline had 65%
Culture – Different places in the world are exposed to different
levels of obedience and may impact how people obey certain
orders and to what degree, e.g. Asian vs Western cultures.
Personality – Adornos 1950 Authoritarian personality, explained
through the F scale, authoritarian meaning they are more likely
, to obey orders. Individuals who did the self-reporting data,
respected legitimate power.
Locus of control – includes external and internal loci, external
locus meaning when people believe that the authority figure
controls their life, so more likely to obey, and the internal locus
being the opposite
Burger, 2009
Aim – To investigate obedience by replicating Milgram’s study
in a more ethical manner, and to determine whether situational
factors are still relevant in modern society
Sample – 70 participants: 29 Male, 41 Female, recruited
through advertisements
Procedure – study stopped at 150 volts, participants were
screened for things like previous psychology knowledge and
psychological issues, also promised $55 for 2, 45-minute
sessions
Results – In base condition, 70% went to 150 volts, there was
also a model refusal condition, which had 63% obedience.
There were no statistical differences in gender.
Conclusions - People today will obey to a similar level as found
by Milgram, there’s no difference in gender, and seeing
someone else refuse to obey instructions has no effect on
obedience.
Milgram’s baseline study (1963, variation 5)
Aim – To see if naive participants would obey authority that goes
against their own values, and to create baseline data that would
allow it to be compared to other variations
IV/DV – Structured observation, so no IV, DV – measuring the highest
shock level that participants would go up to, 450 = complete
obedience
, Sample – 40 participants, all male aged 20-50, recruited through
volunteering sampling, newspaper ad for a study on memory, paid
$4 for participating
Procedure – Milgram watched in a one-way mirror, role of
experimenter was taken by teacher Mr Williams, verbal prods e.g. “it
is essential for u to continue”, and shock generator 15-450v, danger
was increased every 15 volts.
Results – 100% obedience till 300v, 13 participants showed nervous
laughter, 65% obedient till 450v and 35% dropped out at 300-375v
Conclusions – Do not need to be a psychopath to follow destructive
order, new situations can result in abnormal reactions, and things
like the holocaust have potential to occur again.
Social Impact Theory
Proposed by Latane 1981, states that it looks at the attitudes we
encounter as we interact with our social environment, dependant on
numbers, strength, status and immediacy. One effect is ingroup
polarisation (when people become more extreme in their views due
to others), I = F(SIN)
1. Strength: This is how much power you believe the person
influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an
organisation, their orders will have more Strength
2. Immediacy: This is how recent the influence is and how close
to you, from an order a minute ago from your boss standing
right next to you (very immediate) to an email you received
from your boss last week (not very immediate)
3. Numbers: The more people putting pressure on you to do
something, the more social force they will have
Notice how this applies to Milgram’s study and variations.
Milgram also found obedience was lower when the authority
figure was absent (variation #7) or was perceived to have less
strength (variation #13)
5 TERMS OF POWER:
Legitimate – held by those with certain roles in society
Reward – held by those with certain resources e.g. money
Social Psychology
Things they can ask: Milgram’s variations, individual differences
impacting obedience/prejudice, Burger, Milgram’s Baseline, Social
impact theory, Agency theory, Sherif, Practical investigation, Key
question, Realistic group conflict theory, social identity theory.
Milgram’s variations:
- Experiment 7 – Telephone instructions
Experimenter not present, obedience fell to 23% meaning 9/40
listened/obeyed
- Experiment 10 – Run down office block
Same experiment in run down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%,
19/40
- Experiment 13 – Ordinary man
Experimenter leaves the room, and ordinary man gives the
instructions, obedience levels dropped down to 20%, 8/40
Individual differences impacting obedience
Individual differences = a factor that are specific to an
individual, obedience = the tendency of someone to follow
instructions
Gender – doesn’t impact obedience, in Burger’s study
obedience was 70% which had both genders, Milgram’s
baseline had 65%
Culture – Different places in the world are exposed to different
levels of obedience and may impact how people obey certain
orders and to what degree, e.g. Asian vs Western cultures.
Personality – Adornos 1950 Authoritarian personality, explained
through the F scale, authoritarian meaning they are more likely
, to obey orders. Individuals who did the self-reporting data,
respected legitimate power.
Locus of control – includes external and internal loci, external
locus meaning when people believe that the authority figure
controls their life, so more likely to obey, and the internal locus
being the opposite
Burger, 2009
Aim – To investigate obedience by replicating Milgram’s study
in a more ethical manner, and to determine whether situational
factors are still relevant in modern society
Sample – 70 participants: 29 Male, 41 Female, recruited
through advertisements
Procedure – study stopped at 150 volts, participants were
screened for things like previous psychology knowledge and
psychological issues, also promised $55 for 2, 45-minute
sessions
Results – In base condition, 70% went to 150 volts, there was
also a model refusal condition, which had 63% obedience.
There were no statistical differences in gender.
Conclusions - People today will obey to a similar level as found
by Milgram, there’s no difference in gender, and seeing
someone else refuse to obey instructions has no effect on
obedience.
Milgram’s baseline study (1963, variation 5)
Aim – To see if naive participants would obey authority that goes
against their own values, and to create baseline data that would
allow it to be compared to other variations
IV/DV – Structured observation, so no IV, DV – measuring the highest
shock level that participants would go up to, 450 = complete
obedience
, Sample – 40 participants, all male aged 20-50, recruited through
volunteering sampling, newspaper ad for a study on memory, paid
$4 for participating
Procedure – Milgram watched in a one-way mirror, role of
experimenter was taken by teacher Mr Williams, verbal prods e.g. “it
is essential for u to continue”, and shock generator 15-450v, danger
was increased every 15 volts.
Results – 100% obedience till 300v, 13 participants showed nervous
laughter, 65% obedient till 450v and 35% dropped out at 300-375v
Conclusions – Do not need to be a psychopath to follow destructive
order, new situations can result in abnormal reactions, and things
like the holocaust have potential to occur again.
Social Impact Theory
Proposed by Latane 1981, states that it looks at the attitudes we
encounter as we interact with our social environment, dependant on
numbers, strength, status and immediacy. One effect is ingroup
polarisation (when people become more extreme in their views due
to others), I = F(SIN)
1. Strength: This is how much power you believe the person
influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an
organisation, their orders will have more Strength
2. Immediacy: This is how recent the influence is and how close
to you, from an order a minute ago from your boss standing
right next to you (very immediate) to an email you received
from your boss last week (not very immediate)
3. Numbers: The more people putting pressure on you to do
something, the more social force they will have
Notice how this applies to Milgram’s study and variations.
Milgram also found obedience was lower when the authority
figure was absent (variation #7) or was perceived to have less
strength (variation #13)
5 TERMS OF POWER:
Legitimate – held by those with certain roles in society
Reward – held by those with certain resources e.g. money
