PSYCHOLOGY OCR CORE STUDIES

• SOCIAL: Key assumptions

  • Other people and the environment influence our behaviour and thought processes.
  • All human behaviour occurs in a social context (even in the absence of others).
  • Our relationships with others influence our behaviour and thought processes.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - aims

  • Investigate how obedient people would be to orders from a person in authority resulting in pain to another person.
  • To see how large an electric shock participants would give to a helpless man when ordered to by a scientist.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - Method

  • Described as a laboratory experiment.
  • One condition, serving as a baseline for variations.
  • Dependent variable: Obedience, operationalized as the maximum voltage given.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - design

  - Milgram called it a pre-experiment with one condition

  - Used as a baseline for follow-up variations.
• SOCIAL AREA: MILGRAM - sample

  • 40 men aged 20-50 recruited through a newspaper ad.
  • Mostly volunteer or self-selecting samples.
  • Diverse backgrounds: 37.5% manual labourers, 40% white-collar workers, 22.5% professionals.
  • All from New Haven, North America.
• Milgram - procedure

  1. Participants promised $4.50 for their time, including travel - only for turning up to the study not completing the procedure

  2. Introduced to a man (confederate) they believed was another participant

  3. Briefed on the experiment's supposed purpose: to investigate punishment's effect on learning

  4. Confederate - a mild-mannered accountant, was actually working for Milgram

  5. The participant always takes on the role of the teacher, whereas the confederate takes on the role of the learner

  6. Learner strapped into a chair with electrodes; shown an electric shock generator

  7. Teacher read word pairs, shocking the learner for mistakes; shocks increased by 15V

  8. The Confederate did not receive real shocks; they pounded on the wall at 300V

  9. When participants protested, they were verbally prodded to continue

  10. Procedure ended when participants refused shocks or reached max voltage
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - results

  Quantitative data: 

  • Average voltage given was 368V 
  • 100% gave 300V+ 
  • 65% gave 450V.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - results

  Qualitative data: 

  • Participants showed signs of tension (groaning, sweating, etc.).
  • One had a severe seizure, stopping the procedure.
  • Most protested but continued due to verbal prods.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - conclusions 


  • People were more obedient to destructive orders than expected.
  • People find obeying destructive orders highly stressful.
  • Situation triggers a conflict: obey authority vs. not harm people.
  • Results support situational over dispositional hypothesis.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM -  Factors for high obedience

  1.  Respectable university environment.
  2. Worthwhile study aim.
  3. Learner and teacher both volunteered.
  4. Design features like payment, increase obligation.
  5. Participants assured shocks are not dangerous.
  6. Learner appeared comfortable with the procedure at 300V.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  
  

  Research Method

  • Laboratory Procedure (Pre-experiment)
  • Highly controlled environment to eliminate extraneous variables.
  • Reliable and replicable.
  • Realism of environment and tasks.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Qualitative data

  Strengths of qualitative data:

  • Participants are able to express how they are truly feeling so is highly valid. 
  • Less likely key observations will be lost.

  Weaknesses of qualitative data:

  • Collected in relatively subjective measures.
  • Can be difficult to make generalisations from the findings. 
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Quantitative data

  
  

  Strengths of quantitative data:

  • Collected using objective measures. 
  • Data collection is reliable. 

  Weaknesses of quantitative data:

  • Methods can limit participants' responses making the data less valid.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Ethical considerations

  •  Distress caused to participants.
  •  Lack of informed consent.
  •  Deception of participants.
  •  Denial of right to withdraw - through verbal prods.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  
  

  Justification for ethics:

  • Deception is allowed if essential and fully debriefed -  which Milgram did
  • Participants generally left study satisfied, glad they took part and learned something useful
  • Studies importance in understanding obedience and historical context e.g. getting a better understanding of the holocaust.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Validity:

  Strengths:

  • The experimenter was in a real power of authority. 
  • There was a noble aim. When leaders commit atrocities they usually say it is for the good of the country or people etc.
  • The electric shows were increased in small increments. So each time they obeyed it was only a small step from the time before. 
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Validity:

  Weaknesses

  • It took place in an artificial environment. 
  • The task itself was artificial, not everyday do we come across an electric shock machine. 
  • Low ecological validity: to the extent to which the findings of a research study are able to be generalised to real-life settings
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Reliability

  Strength: 

  • Fairly average size sample.

  Weakness: 

  • Sample was 40 males, this would not be generalizable to the public, however the intention was always to replicate the study in different populations.
  • Self selection or snowballing, are the most unrepresentative types of sampling methods as people tend to invite people similar to them to participate.
• SOCIAL: MILGRAM - evaluation

  Practical Applications

  • Importance of Research
  • Understanding obedience in atrocities.
  • Predicting and preventing accidents (plane crashes).
  • Implications for accident prevention.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - background

  • Authors were inspired by Milgram's research on obedience – noted a lack of understanding about disobedience and whistle-blowing
  • Whistle-blowing is challenging due to confronting superiors, and there's little research on it.
  • Milgram found people underestimated obedience rates, which led Bocchiaro et al to investigate further.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - aims

  • Investigate rates of obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing in an ethically wrong situation.
  • Examine the accuracy of people's estimates of these behaviors.
  • Explore the role of dispositional factors in obedience, disobedience, and whistle-blowing.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - sample

  • Bocchiaro et al used a student sample of males and female 
  • 96 women and 53 men within their sample of participants.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - method

  • Conducted eight pilot studies with 92 participants to ensure credibility and ethical acceptability.
  • Main study included 149 participants (96 women, 53 men, mean age 20.8) from VU University - amsterdam
  • Participants recruited through university flyers.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - design

  • Laboratory study with payment of seven euros or course credits.
  • Participants were told it was a study on sensory deprivation and asked to write a statement convincing others to participate, emphasising positive aspects.
  • Obedience/disobedience measured by whether they composed the statement.
  • Whistle-blowing measured by completing an ethics form.
  • Participants then completed personality and social value measures.
  • Debriefing emphasised the study's deception, and written consent was obtained.
• Bocchiaro procedure

  1. Participants arrived and were briefed by a stern experimenter

  2. Asked to write a statement promoting sensory deprivation study without mentioning negative effects using words such as 'incredible; 'great' and 'superb'

  3. Offered regular paid work in the future

  4. Left alone in a room with a computer, mailbox, and ethics forms

  5. If a participant believed the study was unethical they had an option of completing a form and putting it in the mailbox (whistle-blowing)

  6. Assessed obedience/disobedience based on statement completion

  7. Assessed whistle-blowing based on ethics form completion

  8. After 7 minutes, experimenter returned and led the participants back to the first room - given a set of dispositional measures, HEXACO-PI-R personality test, The Decomposed Games and religion being questioned as a factor
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - results

  • Participants' estimates of obedience were significantly lower than actual rates.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - results

  ESTIMATIONS:

  • 3.6% thought they would obey
  • 64.5% believed they'd blow the whistle.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - results

  ACTUAL RESULTS:

  76.5% obeyed 

  14.1% disobeyed 

  9.4% blew the whistle.

  • Dispositional factors (personality traits, social value orientation) did not predict behavior.
  • Depth of religious faith showed a slight correlation with whistle-blowing.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - conclusions

  • People are highly obedient, and whistle-blowing is uncommon.
  • People tend to overestimate whistle-blowing and underestimate obedience.
  • Dispositional factors do not seem to influence obedience or whistle-blowing.
  • Results support the idea that people see themselves as less likely to follow destructive orders, similar to previous research.
  • Implications for scenario-based research, as results suggest a lack of validity in estimating behavior.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Research Method:

  Strengths:

  • Conducted as a laboratory procedure, allowing for control of extraneous variables.
  • High level of control in the environment, enhancing reliability.
  • Realistic procedure due to investigating a psychologist conducting a study.

  Weaknesses:

  • Only one condition in the study
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Quantitative data

  Strengths:

  • Gathered quantitative data in percentages, suitable for making comparisons.
  • Enabled comparison between rates of disobedience and whistle-blowing, aligning with study aims.

  Weaknesses:

  • Reliance on quantitative data - reductionist//oversimplifies
  • Lacks detail
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Ethical Considerations:

  Strengths:

  • Minimised stress for participants compared to Milgram's study, no direct harm inflicted.
  • Participants had the opportunity to withdraw their data if they were not satisfied.
  • Extensive piloting ensured participants found the procedure acceptable.

  Weaknesses:

  • Deception was necessary for the study, which can be an ethical issue despite informed consent.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Validity

  Strengths:

  • Unusual for a laboratory study to have good ecological validity since it represented a real-life situation.
  • Despite artificial surroundings, the task was quite lifelike.

  Weaknesses:

  • Lack of dispositional factors (like personality traits) impact explored could be seen as a weakness in understanding underlying causes of behaviours.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Reliability:

  Strengths:

  • Easy to replicate due to the standardisation of conditions.
  • Good internal reliability as all participants had a similar experience.

  Weaknesses

  • none
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Sample Bias:

  Strengths:

  • Large sample size (149 participants) for a laboratory study, reducing the impact of extraneous variables.

  Weaknesses:

  • Volunteer sampling used, leading to potential sample bias as most people do not volunteer and they may share character traits.
  • Sample drawn from undergraduates at a Dutch university may not generalise to other populations - ecological validity.
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation

  Ethnocentrism:

  Strengths:

  • None

  Weaknesses

  • Study's focus on Dutch university students may not represent broader cultural variations.
  • Limited account of cultural differences despite assessing religious affiliation.
  • Can only be generalised to western societies
• SOCIAL: BOCCHIARO - evaluation


  Practical Applications:

  Strengths:

  • Limited discussion on practical applications beyond the interest in whistle-blowing, which is relevant in many fields.
• SOCIAL: COMPARISON - BOCCHIARO + MILGRAM

  
  

  OBEDIENCE:

  SIMILARITIES 

  • Both about social psychology — specifically about obedience to orders or instructions to commit acts that go against the moral codes of the individuals receiving those orders or instructions.
• SOCIAL: COMPARISON - BOCCHIARO + MILGRAM

  RM AND DESIGN - similarities

  • Laboratory procedures with a single condition
  • Both studies were described by the authors as experimental, although they had only a single condition.
  • Both studies conducted in a lab
  • Both involved a situation where participants were aware that they were taking part in research but were not aware of the nature of the study — deception. 
  • In both studies the procedure involved the experimenter giving the participant an instruction. 
• SOCIAL: COMPARISON - BOCCHIARO + MILGRAM

  RM AND DESIGN - differences

  • Milgram – orders were to directly inflict pain on another person and put them in danger. 
  • Bocchiaro – participants were ordered merely to write a message.