social AO3

• Milgram strength and CA

  CA: argue obedience came from knowing shocks fake = questions internal validity

  S: validity - findings supported by Hofling = increase external validity, ppts would not show extreme distress if though fake
• Milgram weakness and CA

  W: generalisability = androcentric, culture bound

  CA: range of occupations = generalisable to target pop
• Agency strength and CA

  S: evidence in Milgram - moral strain and agentic shift shown

  CA: internal validity questioned du to lack of mundane realism (60%ppts questioned legitimacy)
• agency weakness and CA

  W: no account for individual differences - personalities, unscientific

  CA: offers basic foundation to obedience
• Burger strength and CA

  S: generalisability - diverse sample

  CA: volunteer sample = lowers generalisability
• Burger weakness and CA

  W: lab = contrived setting, lack mundane realism = changes obedience = low ecological validity

  CA: lab exp = high control, less extraneous variables, higher internal validity
• Milgram V7 strength and CA

  s: high experimental control = high reliability, lab exp = controlled variables, standardised = cause and effect established

  CA: lack of mundane realism
• Milgram V7 weakness and CA

  W: low external validity and mundane realism

  CA: exp standardised to Milgrams so had to be to allow comparison
• Milgram V10 strength and CA

  S: qualitative and quantitative (interview and voltages) = more analysis tests can be done = more knowledge = more valid

  CA: qualitative data showed ppts concerns over legitimacy = low validity
• Milgram V10 weakness and CA

  W: lack of mundane realism = low external validity, caught onto aim = low internal validity

  CA: standardised procedure = replicable and reliable
• Milgram V13 strength and CA

  S: high experimental control = high reliability, lab exp = controlled variables, standardised = cause and effect established

  CA: lack of mundane realism
• Milgram V13 weakness and CA

  W: lacks internal validity, many cases of derived authority

  CA: maintained controlled design = data meets aim
• Robbers cave strength and CA

  S: reliability - high control = replicable, standardised = reliable

  CA: measures may be inconsistent + subjective between observers
• Robbers cave weakness and CA

  W: generalisability - homogeneous sample, very limited in variety of sample = not representative

  CA: had to be homogeneous due to forming of natural gender subgroups otherwise
• RCT strength and CA

  S: evidence - Sherif - ingroup favoritism for boys in group and hostility due to comp = credible

  CA: provocation needed to trigger the prejudice = comp not only trigger of hostility
• RCT weakness and CA

  W: reductionist - no account for individual differences eg personality - some people aren't prejudice

  CA: a variety of ppl in society, must explain prejudice in at least some
• SIT strength and CA

  S: evidence - Tjafel - boys give more points to ingroup = social categorisation leads to prejudice

  CA: lacks mundane realism
• SIT weakness and CA

  W: elements hard to measure and quantify = hypothetical = reduces reliability

  CA: theory tested lots and qualitative and quantitative data gathered = some validity and reliability
• Social impact strength and CA

  scientific - gives a way to objectively measure and quantify factors = can manipulate them to make predictions = empirical testing = valid

  CA: giving a 'scale' can oversimplify obedience, may be other factors affecting obedience
• Social impact weakness and CA

  Hofling - showed high obedience when immediacy was low/far = goes against theory

  CA: strength of source may have outweighed impact