Social Approach student book

The Social Approach in Psychology became influential in the 1950s and ‘60s.
Social researchers began studying the situations people act in rather than
dispositional factors like personality. To do this, they developed ingenious
observations and carried out lab experiments to identify and manipulate social
situations.
In the post-WWII years, obedience and prejudice were high on the agenda. This
is because social researchers wanted to answer the questions, Why had the
Holocaust happened? and, Could the Holocaust happen again?
Earlier notions that there was something inherently callous or servile in the
German national character (known as the “Germans Are Different” Hypothesis)
were shown to be unsatisfactory. The growing Civil Rights Movement also drew
attention to ongoing racism and discrimination in America and Europe.
Mindless obedience to orders and hostility to people seen as outsiders were
viewed as symptoms of a ‘Fascist’ mentality and this mentality was seen as
responsible for the rise of Nazism in Europe.
Many Social Psychologists believed that if the causes of obedience and
prejudice could be understood, their effects could be reduced. One day,
fascism, racism and sexism might be abolished by psychology.

The Edexcel Specification expects you to be able to (AO1) know and

understand, (AO2) apply, (AO3) analyse and evaluate the following:

Theories of obedience including Agency Theory (p13) and Social Impact
Theory (p19)

Research into obedience including Milgram’s research (p3) and three
of his variations (#7, #10 and #13, p7)

Research into prejudice including Social Identity Theory (p25) and
Realistic Conflict Theory (p32)

Individual differences in obedience and prejudice

Classic study (p40): Sherif (1954/1961) Intergroup conflict and
cooperation: the Robbers Cave Experiment.

One contemporary study (p47): Burger (2009) Replicating Milgram:
would people still obey today?

One key question (p54) of relevance to today’s society, discussed as a
contemporary issue for society rather than an as academic argument.
Concepts, theories and/or research (as appropriate to the chosen key
question) drawn from cognitive psychology as used in this specification.
Suitable example: How can knowledge of Social Psychology be used to
reduce prejudice in situations such as crowd behaviour and rioting?
The Specification also expects you to study self reports, the Chi Squared Test
and quantitative/qualitative data as methodological issues but these are
detailed in another booklet

1
 Social Approach student book

Obedience may be defined as:

“
Following orders from an authority figure, even when these conflict
with what you know to be right

The most influential research in this area was carried out by Stanley Milgram in
the 1960s. Milgram’s studies were controversial at the time and continue to be
so today, because his conclusions are that there is the potential for Nazism
inside every one of us. There are four studies which you are expected to
understand, apply and evaluate:

Milgram’s original study into obedience (1963)

Three of Milgram’s variations, reported in 1974: specifically,
Variations #7, #10 and #13
To show Knowledge & Understanding (AO1), there is a code to help you,
APRC:
1. Aim: what was Milgram trying to find out? It helps to think of
Milgram having a general research question in mind as well as
something very specific he hoped this study would show
2. Procedure: how was the study carried out? This includes the
sample and how they were recruited, the tasks that the participants
had to complete and the controls that were put in place as well as
any special apparatus that was used
3. Results: what happened at the end of the study? This might involve
scores or behaviours that were observed. It could be quantitative or
qualitative data.
4. Conclusions: what did Milgram think the results meant? How did he
explain what happened?
To show Application (AO2), you should be able to explain how these studies
would be used in the real world.
To show Analysis & Evaluation (AO3), you must discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of the study. There is a code to help you remember this: GRAVE
1. Generalisability: is the sample representative of ordinary people?
2. Reliability: were the procedures consistent and could they be
replicated? Would you get the same results again?
3. Application: who could use the conclusions of this study and what
would they do with them?
4. Validity: is this study really showing what it claims to show? Can its
results be explained in other ways? This includes ecological validity
which is how realistic or artificial the study is
5. Ethics: what ethical criticisms were levelled against Milgram’s
research and how did he defend it?

2
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL STUDY: MILGRAM (1963, 1974) OBEDIENCE TO AUTHORITY

Context
This study is significant for students in
other ways:

It shows how scientific
research proceeds, because
Milgram went on to replicate
his study many times, trying to
see what changes to the
situation would raise or lower
obedience. Burger (2009)
replicates parts of Milgram’s
study to see if the conclusions
still hold true today (SPOILERS:
they do).
This famous (or infamous) study was
carried out by Stanley Milgram at Yale
It illustrates features of the
University in 1961. Milgram was Social Approach, since it
inspired by the televised trial of the explores how situations dictate
Nazi war criminal Adolf Eichmann. He people’s behaviour – as
wanted to test his hypothesis that opposed to the dispositional
ordinary people could be put in a view that our behaviour comes
social situation where they too would from our personality and
do the sort of things that Eichmann values
did – sending hundreds of thousands
It illustrates the power of the
of Hungarian Jews to their deaths at observational method,
Auschwitz. Milgram’s students, when gathering quantitative and
introduced to his idea, thought that qualitative data about
Americans would never make this sort participants in a controlled
of choice – they predicted only about situation
1% would obey. Milgram proved them
wrong.

Observing Obedience
Milgram set up a controlled conscience, so that obeying would be
environment to carry out his a personal struggle. The participants
structured observation. He did this had to be naïve about the situation,
because he wanted to reduce not aware that their obedience was
obedience to its essential decision, being studied.
with no interference from outsiders or
Milgram recruited his naïve
relationship between the person participants through a newspaper ad.
obeying the orders and their victim. They believed they were taking part in
The task had to be something that a memory experiment and would be
went against the participant’s
paid $4 for their time.

3
 Social Approach student book

Milgram watched everything through answer was wrong, the Experiment

a one-way mirror. The role of the ordered the Teacher to press the
“Experimenter” was taken by a stern switch delivering a 15V shock. The
biology teacher in a lab coat called shock went up by 15V with each
“Mr Williams”. wrong answer.
The Learner’s answers were pre-set
and his cries of pain tape-recorded.
The Learner got three-quarters of his
answers wrong. At 300V the Learner
banged on the wall and stopped
answering. The Experimenter ordered
the Learner to treat no answer as a
wrong answer, deliver the shock and
proceed with the next question.
Milgram employed a confederate (or
“stooge”) to help. “Mr Wallace”, a The Experimenter had a set of pre-
man in his 40s, pretended to be scripted “prods” that were to be said if
another participant. After a faked the Teacher questioned any of the
coin-toss, Mr Wallace became the orders. If all four prods had to be
“Learner” and the naïve participant used, the observation would stop. It
became the “Teacher”. The Teacher also stopped if the Learner got up and
watched Mr Wallace being strapped left or reached 450V.
into an electric chair. The Teacher felt Prod 1: Please continue.
a 45V shock to “prove” that the Prod 2: The experiment requires
electric chair was real. Participants you to continue.
were assured that, although the Prod 3: It is absolutely essential
shocks were painful, they would not that you continue.
cause “lasting damage”. Prod 4: You have no other choice
but to continue.

It is important for you to know

the procedure of this study in
detail – including why each of
the features were used: why
did the naïve participants
In the room next door was the shock
receive a 45V shock? why was
generator, a machine with switches
Mr Wallace kept in a separate
running from 15V to 450V and labels
room? why were the prods
like “Slight Shock” or “Danger”.
pre-scripted? and so on.
Mr Wallace learned a list of word-

This basic procedure is
pairs. The Teacher’s job was to read
replicated in Milgram’s
words into the microphone followed
Variations and in the Burger
by four options for the second word in
(2009) Contemporary Study.
the pair. Mr Wallace would indicate
his answer by pressing a button. If the

4
 Social Approach student book

Milgram’s Study
Aim: To find out naïve participants groaning. 14 showed nervous
would obey orders from an authority laughter.
that went against their values; Conclusions: Milgram had a number of
specifically, to see if they would explanations for the surprisingly high
deliver electric shocks to a level of obedience:
confederate sufficiently powerful to
kill someone. Also, to create baseline
Yale University is a prestigious
data to be compared with later setting and the participants
Variations. would be overawed and
convinced nothing unethical
IV/DV: This is a structured could go on here
observation, so there is no IV. Milgram
measured the highest shock level each
The study seemed to have a
participant would go to, treating 450V worthy cause (memory) and
as “complete obedience” – with the was being done to further
later Variation studies, this score of science.
obedience was treated as a DV.
Mr Wallace seemed willing; he
Sample: 40 participants, all men. They had volunteered (or so it
were recruited through newspaper seemed) and it was chance
ads and they were paid $4 once the that made him the Learner (or
study finished. They were aged 20-50. so the participants believed).
Procedure: The procedure is described
The participants had also
above. volunteered and committed
themselves; they were being
Results: The participants were
paid and this carried a sense of
obedient up until 300V; this is the
obligation.
point where the Learner kicked the
wall and stopped answering questions.
The participants had been
Between 300V and 375V, 14 assured that the shocks were
participants dropped out of the study painful but not dangerous.
(by exhausting all 4 “prods” with their
This was a new situation for
questions and arguments). The the participants and they
remaining 26 (65%) carried on to 450V didn’t know what was
shock at the end. appropriate or not.
Milgram also collected qualitative Milgram went on to develop Agency
data. He observed the participants Theory to explain the behaviour he
sweating, trembling, stuttering and observed.

5
 Social Approach student book

The Milgram Variations

Variation #7: Absent Authority
In the original study, the Experimenter
(Mr Williams) sits at a desk right
behind the Teacher.

In 1974, Milgram published Obedience

To Authority, a book describing his
original study and 19 ‘Variations’.
Taken together, these Variations turn In this Variation, the Experimenter
the research into a lab experiment, gives the participants their
with the original study as the Control instructions at the start, then leaves
Group and the Variations as the IV. the Teacher alone in the room. The
The DV remains the level of obedience “prods” are delivered over the
shown, measured by the maximum telephone.
voltage participants would go to.
There was a significant drop in

Variation #5 is the “Empathy obedience, down to 9 (22.5%),
Variation”. This changed the and some participants gave
script so that Mr Wallace lower shocks than they were
mentioned a heart condition told to do (because they
and at 150V started thought they were
complaining about chest pains. unobserved).
More participants dropped out
Milgram concludes that the
150V, long before the Learner physical presence of an
went silent at 300V. However, authority figure is important
participants who continued for obedience.
after 150V seemed to feel they
had “passed a point of no Variation #10: Institutional Context
return” and continued al the The original study was carried out at
way to 450V. Burger (2009) Yale University, which is rather grand.
uses this variation as the basis In this Variation, Milgram moved the
for his Contemporary Study. study to a run-down office in the busy

Variation #8 used a sample of town of Bridgeport. There was nothing
40 women. Their obedience to make the participants link things to
levels turned out to be the the University: Mr Williams claimed to
same as the men’s. work for a private research firm.

Students are required to have specific
There was a drop in obedience

knowledge of these three Variations: to 19 (45.5%), but Milgram
didn’t think this was big
enough to be significant.
Participants showed more
doubts and asked more

6
 Social Approach student book

questions. One of them made
Milgram concludes that the

notes and another thought the status of the authority figure is
study was “heartless”. important, but other features
of the situation (the

Milgram concludes that the
setting is not as important for instructions, the shock
generator) still create
obedience as the status of the
authority figure. obedience.

Variation #13/13a: Ordinary In Variation 13a, with the 16 “rebel”

participants, the confederate suggests
Authority Figure
swapping places: now the confederate
The original study used Mr Williams as gives the shocks and the disobedient
the Experimenter, who looked severe participant writes down the times. The
and wore a lab coat. In this Variation, participant is now a bystander,
Mr Williams explains the procedure to watching someone else deliver the
the participant but then is called away. shocks.
There is a second confederate
present, who seems to be another
All 16 participants protested.
participant, given the job of “writing Five of them tried to unplug
down the times” of each test. With the shock generators or
the Experimenter gone, this restrain the confederate
confederate suggests “a new way of physically. However, 11
doing the study,” taking the voltage up (68.75%) allowed the
by 15V each time there’s a mistake. confederate to go to 450V.

Only 20 participants did this
Milgram concludes that people

are more willing to by
Variation and only 4 (20%)
obeyed by going to 450V. bystanders than to intervene
to prevent the abuse of
authority

Original #7 #10 #13/13a

study (absent (institutional (ordinary
(baseline) authority) context) authority)
Obedience
(participants 65% 22.5% 47.5% 20% / 68.75%
going to 450V)
Expressed doubts, In 13a, 5
Some lied
14 laughed one took notes, physically
Qualitative data about the
nervously one said stopped the
shock level
“heartless” test

“
The social psychology of this century reveals a major lesson: often it is not so much
the kind of person a man is as the kind of situation in which he finds himself that
determines how he will act” - Milgram (1974)

7
 Social Approach student book

The Aftermath of the Study

When the original study was published
A questionnaire was sent out
in 1963, there was a backlash. Several to all the participants in all the
newspapers condemned Yale Variations (see below) and only
University for treating participants so 1% expressed criticism of the
badly. Despite the support of his way they had been treated by
professor (Gordon Allport), Milgram 84% said they were “glad” or
lost his position there, a “very gad” to have
disappointment he never got over. participated.
Child psychologist Diana Baumrind
Milgram pointed out that
(1964) published a criticism of the before the study he had
ethics of Milgram’s study: she approached his own students,
complained that Milgram had ignored colleagues and professional
the “wellbeing” of the participants, psychiatrists and no one had
deceiving them and putting them suspected that obedience
through traumatic stress. Milgram would be as high as it turned
(1964b) replied with these points: out

After the end of the study, The American Psychological
Milgram debriefed his Association (APA) cleared Milgram of
participants (this is now any wrongdoing, but went on to
standard procedure but publish the first “Ethical Guidelines”
Milgram was one of the first for researchers. These guidelines
researchers to do this); he would make it impossible for Milgram
explained the truth to them, to replicate his studies (however, he
introduced them to Mr had already carried out his Variations
Wallace (alive and well) and by 1962). Burger (2009) is an example
checked that they were in a of how MIlgram’s study could be
comfortable mental state. replicated while staying within the
APA Guidelines.

40 participants were
interviewed by a psychiatrist a Milgram died in 1984 after a series of
year later and only 2 expressed heart attacks. Ironically, if the stress of
lasting distress about their part the studies harmed anyone, it was
in the study, but they were Milgram himself!
willing to do it again.

Evaluating Milgram
Generalisability also be “time-locked” in the early
1960s with its rather deferential
A sample of 40 is quite large, but
anomalies (unusually cruel, gullible or culture.
timid people) might spoil the results. When you put all of Milgram’s
The original sample was all-male, variations together, he tested 780
which cannot generalise to women, people, which should remove
and all-American, which may not anomalies. However, some of the
generalise to other cultures. It may Variations (like #13) only tested 20

8
 Social Approach student book

participants, so a few rebellious A serious criticism is levelled by Gina

individuals (like the ones who Perry (2013), that Milgram did not
overpowered the confederate) might follow standardised procedures. John
spoil things. Williams (the Experimenter) admitted
to Perry that Milgram was only strict
Variation #8 tested women, with the
about the pre-scripted “prods” in the
same obedience level (65%) as men.
first study and afterwards Williams
This lends support to the idea tat the
was free to improvise. This made
original sample was representative.
obedience in the Variations seem
Several cross-cultural variations on higher than it really was.
Milgram’s study have been conducted.
Application
All of them also show high levels of
obedience, but the exact numbers The study demonstrates how
vary and they often used different obedience to authority works and this
sorts of tests. For example, Meeus & can be used to increase obedience in
Raaijmakers (1986) found 92% settings like schools, workplaces and
obedience in the Netherlands, but prisons. Authority figures should wear
they used insults rather than electric symbols of authority (uniforms) and
shocks. justify their authority with reference
to a “greater good”.
Burger (2009) produced similar results
to Milgram (70%). However, he only Milgram (1974) links his findings to
ordered participants to go up to 150V. the My Lai massacre. In 1968, a group
of US soldiers (“Charlie Company”)
Reliability
killed the 800 inhabitants of a
Milgram’s procedure is very reliable Vietnamese village. They were
because it can be replicated – obeying the orders of Lt William
between 1961-2 he carried out 19 Calley. The soldiers executed old men,
Variations of his baseline study. women and children. Despite an
Burger (2009) replicated aspects of attempted cover-up, 14 officers were
Variation #5 (heart condition to test eventually tried by a military court,
for empathy) and Variation #17 but only Calley was jailed. His 20 year
(model refusal) as well as Variation #8 sentence was halved on appeal and he
(testing women). Burger followed was later paroled. He said he was only
Milgram’s script wherever possible, following orders from his superiors.
indicating high reliability. Milgram also

Although the My Lai massacre
filmed parts of his study, allowing
viewers to review his findings (inter- can be explained using
rater reliability). Milgram’s study, it also links to
intergroup conflict. Charlie
Features that make for standardised Company had lost nearly 30 of
procedure in this study include the its men in the recent Tet
pre-scripted “prods” used by the Offensive and was keen for
Experimenter, the tape-recorded revenge against the Viet Cong.
responses from Mr Wallace and the They had been told that My Lai
fact that the Teacher cannot see Mr was full of Viet Cong
Wallace (so there will be no sympathizers.
differences in how he looks between
each test).

9
 Social Approach student book

Validity Perry also alleges, after studying

unpublished letters at Yale, that
Milgram’s study was criticised for
several participants did suspect the
lacking ecological validity because the
study was a trick. Some pointed out
task is artificial – in real life, teachers
that the cries seemed to come from
are not asked to deliver electric shocks
the speakers, not the room next door.
to learners. However, Milgram’s reply
Participants in Variation #7 noticed
was that events like the Holocaust are
that, when they pressed a lower
just as unusual and strange and
voltage switch, the cries of pain still
people in these situations felt similarly
intensified.
to his participants: they had been
dropped into an unfamiliar situation Ethics
and didn’t know how to respond. The ethical debate between Baumrind
Some critics claim that the (1964) and Milgram (1964b) has
participants were play-acting: they already been described.
knew (or suspected) that the set-up The main criticism is that participants’
wasn’t real. However, their visible wellbeing was ignored: they were
distress (filmed by Milgram) counts deceived (about the shocks) and did
against this. not give informed consent (they were
Gina Perry (2013) told it was a memory test, not an
claims that obedience test). When they tried to
Milgram’s data is withdraw, the “prods” made this
not to be trusted. difficult for them. This sort of
She alleges that, treatment of participants drags
as an ambitious science into disrepute and makes it
young scholar, harder to recruit for future research.
Milgram twisted The main defence is that the study
the data to make would not have been possible if
it look as if there participants knew what was being
was “a Nazi inside all of us” to make investigated. After all, everyone who
himself famous. In Variation #8 in had the study described to them
particular, the Experimenter would beforehand felt sure that they would
not let the women back out of the disobey.
study even after using 4 prods. This
would make Milgram’s claim that Milgram argues that, after the
women were as obedient as men Holocaust and My Lai, a scientific
invalid. understanding of obedience is so
importance it justifies this sort of
Milgram’s claim that the drop in research. He also downplayed the
obedience in Variation #10 to 47.5% seriousness of the distress, claiming
was “not significant” might be another his participants experience
indication that he was determined to “excitement” similar to watching a
conclude that obedience his high. A scary movie, not lasting trauma.
difference of -17.5% between
experimental conditions would usually Milgram also extensively debriefed his
be significant. participants and went to lengths to
show that no lasting harm had
befallen them.

10
 Social Approach student book

EXAM STYLE ANSWER

Evaluate Milgram’s original study into obedience. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
Description
Milgram recruited 40 men through newspaper ads to take part
in a memory test. He offered to pay them $4 for their time. To get 4 marks for AO1,
The naïve participant became the Teacher and Mr Wallace (in I’m making 4 clear and
different points about
reality, a confederate) became the Learner. The Teacher had
Milgrams study.
to give electric shocks to the Learner when the Learner
couldn’t remember an answer. I’m writing 4
paragraphs, hoping to
The Teacher used a shock generator to deliver shocks that get a point for each.
went up in 15V intervals. Mr Williams, the Experimenter,
delivered 4 verbal “prods” if they questioned his orders. (You have studied
Variations but the
65% of the participants went all the way up to 450V, showing question asks about the
complete obedience. Others disobeyed after 300V, when it ORIGINAL study)
looked like the Learner might be unconscious or dead.
Evaluation
Milgram’s study is low in ecological validity. Giving electric To get 4 marks for AO3,
shocks to a learner is artificial and this means the study I’m making 4 clear and
doesn’t really tell us about why people obeyed the Nazis. different points about
evaluation issues.
For example, Mr Williams assured the participants that the
shocks would do “no lasting damage” – whereas Nazis like Again, I’m writing 4
Adolf Eichmann knew they were sending Jews to their deaths. paragraphs, hoping to
get a point for each.
However, Milgram claims that the participants were in an
(I’ve included some
unusual situation and didn’t know how to behave
facts about the study
appropriately. People involved in the Holocaust were also in a
here too but these are
situation where normal rules didn’t seem to apply. separate from the
Gina Perry accuses Milgram of twisting his results to prove “description” above)
there is “a Nazi inside all of us”. Participants suspected the
shocks weren’t real when screams came from speakers, not from behind the wall.
Conclusion
Milgram’s study is controversial but it seems to show we are To get into the top band
much more obedient than we like to think we are. (7-8 marks) I must
Beforehand, no one thought they would go all the way to remember to write a
450V. Modern replications of Milgram, like Meeus & conclusion.
Raaijmakers or Burger, also show that people find it hard to
disobey authority figures.
Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything Milgram did. I haven’t
mentioned the electric chair or the 45V “test shock”. I haven’t described the “prods” or the
nervous laughter. I haven’t described Milgram’s conclusions.
But I have tried to make the two halves – Description and Evaluation – evenly balanced.

11
 Social Approach student book

There are four theories of obedience and prejudice which you are expected to
understand, apply and evaluate:

Agency Theory

Social Impact Theory

Social Identity Theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1979)

Realistic Conflict Theory (Sherif, 1966)
To show Knowledge & Understanding (AO1), you should be able to:
1. Explain the context of a theory: who came up with it and why?
What were they basing their ideas on and why were these ideas
important? You don’t need to know the dates, but you should
understand the order of the theories and how some of them build
on others
2. Explain the content of a theory: what are the key terms and ideas?
A lot of theories and models can be shown as diagrams or
flowcharts. It’s OK to copy these in the exam but you MUST explain
them too. It’s not an A-Level in drawing diagrams!
3. Explain the research into a theory: what experiments or case
studies of unusual individuals were carried out to support this
study?
To show Application (AO2), you should be able to explain how this theory
would explain real examples of people remembering or forgetting things – or
famous examples of obedience or prejudice like the My Lai massacre.
To show Analysis & Evaluation (AO3), you must discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of the theory and how it compares to other theories. There is a
code to help you remember how to do this: SWAC
1. Strengths: what research supports this theory? This includes
experiments or events in real life. Don’t just describe the support:
explain why these examples back up the theory.
2. Weaknesses: what counts against the theory? This might include
studies with contradictory findings, real world examples that go
against the theory or just missing bits or contradictions in the
theory itself.
3. Application: how can this theory help us? It’s important to
describe what people can do with the theory. This might include
professional people (like nurses or police officers), other
psychologists (who might want to research new things because of
this theory) or members of the public (like yourself)
4. Comparison: how is this theory similar or different to other
theories? Don’t make the mistake of just describing another
theory. You have to focus on the similarity or the difference.

12
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL THEORY: MILGRAM (1973) AGENCY

Context
rational response to a perceived
enemy.
This theory is significant for students
in other ways:

It underlies all Milgram’s
obedience studies, several of
which are mandatory in the
Social Approach.

It is a deterministic theory,
suggesting people have much
less free will than they suppose
This theory was developed by Stanley when it comes to decision-
Milgram, the American psychologist making.
who carried out the famous

It illustrates features of the
Obedience Studies.
Social Approach, since it shows
Milgram developed his ideas as a how decisions that people
response to Nazi war crimes, think are personal to them are
especially the trial of Adolf Eichmann. actually expressions of their
Milgram rejected the dispositional social situation
explanations that these crimes

It ties in to your Key Question
occurred because of something
in Social Psychology, since it
particularly brutal or mindless in the
helps explain prejudice and
German national character. He also
how to reduce it
rejected realist explanations that the
persecution of Jews was some sort of

The Agentic Shift

In the early 1960s, former-Nazi Adolf
Eichmann was put on trial in
Jerusalem for war crimes. Eichmann
had been one of the main organisers
of the Holocaust but, in his trial, he
said he was “only following orders.”
Eichmann was executed for his crimes
against humanity, but critics supposed
this tendency towards blind obedience
was part of the German national
character. Others disagreed, arguing This was Milgram’s opinion and the
that there is blind obedience in inspiration for his observational
everyone. studies.

13
 Social Approach student book

Agency Theory suggests humans have When an authority figure issues an

two mental states: order that goes against our
conscience, we experience moral

Autonomous: In the
strain. This is because we have two
Autonomous State we perceive
ourselves to be responsible for contradictory urges: to obey the
authority figure and to obey our
our own behaviour so we feel
consciences. Going into the Agentic
guilt for what we do
State removes moral strain, because

Agentic: In the Agentic State we regard the authority figure as now
we perceive ourselves to be being responsible for our actions. This
the agent of someone else’s is the appeal of the Agentic State.
will; the authority figure
commanding us is responsible Milgram has an evolutionary
explanation for the Agentic Shift. He
for what we do so we feel not
argues that obedience is a survival
guilt.
trait that enables tribes of early
We perceive some people to be humans to flourish. Even today,
“authority figures”. These people may society could not function without
carry symbols of authority (like a obedience. However, Nazi Germany
uniform) or possess status (like rank). was an example of the Agentic Shift
An order from an authority figure backfiring, because people obeyed
triggers the agentic shift into the orders they should have rebelled
Agentic State. against.

Research into Agency Theory

Milgram’s 1961 study into obedience disobedient; it just increases
was the basis for Agency Theory. their moral strain, making the
Milgram observed the participants Agentic State more tempting.
arrive in an autonomous state, go
Variation #10 used a run-down
through the Agentic Shift, experience
office rather than Yale
moral strain and become agents for
University and obedience
the authority figure, carrying out acts
dropped to 47.5%. This is to be
that went against their conscience.
expected if the Agentic Shift is
In 1974, Milgram published his book triggered by symbols of
Obedience to Authority detailing 19 authority.
“variations” on the original obedience
Other researchers were interested in
study. These support Agency Theory in
why some participants disobeyed.
various ways:
Personality might be a factory.

Variation #5 featured a learner Milgram & Elms (1966) studied the
with a heart condition. original participants and identified an
Obedience dropped slightly, authoritarian personality type that
but not much. Burger (2009) admired rules and was inclined to
also found high (70%) levels of obey. This personality had already
obedience when he replicated been identified by Theodor Adorno
this. This suggests that (1950) and linked to Fascist politics
empathy doesn’t make people and discrimination.

14
 Social Approach student book

Another personality factor is Locus of psychological need to be in charge and

Control (Julian Rotter, 1954), which is disobedience to authority was
a need to be in control of your own explored in the Contemporary Study
behaviour. The link between a by Burger (2009).

Applying Agency Theory (AO2)

The Holocaust average, American obedience came
out 5% lower than non-American
Milgram developed Agency Theory in
studies.
the first place to answer the question,
Why did decent German citizens obey This certainly suggests that genocide
orders from Nazi rulers to commit could happen anywhere. This makes it
genocide? He also addresses a related very important that countries develop
question, Could something like that democratic institutions in which
happen anywhere? authority figures are questioned and
challenged.
Agency Theory suggests that
obedience is a natural impulse and Teaching in Bash Street
therefore, yes, obedience to genocidal You could apply Agency Theory to the
orders could happen anywhere. classroom. The theory suggests that
There have been cross-cultural there is an innate urge to obey
variations of the Milgram study. These someone perceived to be an authority
are important because a tendency to figure. This means teachers should try
obey authority figures might be a to look like authority figures: smart
feature of upbringing (in hierarchical, suits and dresses, ties and badges,
Capitalist societies like the USA) rather symbols of authority all around them,
than an innate human impulse (found the teacher’s desk higher than the
in everyone, everywhere). One of the students’ desks.
famous cross-cultural studies by This would mean students who
Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) found wanted to disobey the teacher’s
similar results in liberal Holland to orders would experience more moral
what Milgram found in 1960s America. strain. It might make more of them
However, this study used a less obedient; it might make others burst
distressing punishment (insults, not into tears or get angry rather than go
electric shocks). Blass (2012) reviewed through the Agentic Shift.
these studies and found that, on

Evaluating Agency Theory (AO3)

Strengths authority of the experimenter. On the
Milgram carried out a lot of research other hand, dispositional factors (like
empathy or gender) don’t seem to
in support of Agency Theory. His
make much difference at all.
“variations” support the idea that
situational factors make participants Later studies (like Burger, 2009) have
more or less obedience, especially backed up Milgram’s conclusions. All
when they relate to the perceived around the world, obedience is high,

15
 Social Approach student book

even when authority figures give well as telling students not to do drugs
orders that are immoral. or crime). This is one of the reasons
why there is such an outcry when a
Agency Theory also explains events
celebrity like a sports star or musician
like the Holocaust, the Rwandan
makes a racist remark or behaves in a
genocide and the ethnic cleansings in
sexist way: as an authority figure, they
Syria today when these crimes are
are encouraging fans to do as they do.
ordered by authority figures.
Agency Theory also suggests there is
Weaknesses
always a danger of blind obedience,
Moral strain is one of the distinctive even from people who have no
features of Agency Theory (it is personal prejudices. To counter this,
missing from Social Impact Theory). society tries to hold authority figures
However it is a problem for the to account through democratic
theory. In Milgram’s observational processes and “checks and balances”
studies, moral strain was shown by the in government, so that no authority
participants who obeyed (weeping, figure has too much power. Holocaust
groaning, shaking, fainting), not by the Memorial Day (27 January) is
ones who disobeyed. Milgram’s theory celebrated each year because Agency
suggests that the Agentic State is an Theory tells us that the Holocaust
escape from moral strain, but this is could happen again, anywhere.
not what is observed in his studies.
Comparison
Milgram’s study suffers from a lack of
The alternative theory is Social Impact
ecological validity, since in real life
Theory which suggests that everyone
teachers are not asked to electrocute
applies Social Force to everyone else
students, nor were wartime Germans
to get what they want. This is similar
asked to do this by the Nazis. The
to Milgram’s idea of the Agentic State,
artificial and unusual nature of the
because people find it hard to resist
supporting research might count
pressures to obey. Both theories
against the theory. Meeus &
regard people as passive, doing
Raaijmakers (1986) replicated
whatever social pressure makes them
Milgram with insults instead of shocks;
do. However, Social Impact Theory
this is much more realistic but this
ignores moral strain.
study still put participants in an
unusual position (making them There are other theories that explain
pretend to interview people for a job obedience. Theodor Adorno (1950)
and deliver insults from a TV screen). argues that some people have an
“Authoritarian Personality” that is
Application
threatened by people who are
The idea of the Agentic Shift may help different and enjoys following rules.
reduce prejudice and discrimination Adorno’s research involved
because authority figures could tell questionnaires (the “Fascism Scale”)
people to be tolerant and and interviews to get quantitative and
understanding of outsiders. In fact, qualitative data. This theory that
this is often done, with celebrities and suggests obedience to evil orders
sporting heroes visiting schools to comes from a dysfunctional
encourage tolerance and equality (as personality, not a social situation.

16
 Social Approach student book

EXAM STYLE ANSWERS

Evaluate the Agency Theory of obedience. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
Description
Agency Theory was developed by Milgram. It says that in the
presence of an authority figure people enter an Agentic State To get 4 marks for AO1,
where they obey orders. I’m making 4 clear and
different points about
In the Agentic State, the person sees themselves as an agent Agecny Theory.
for another person’s will and the authority figure, not them,
I’m writing 4
will take the blame for what they do.
paragraphs, hoping to
The Agentic Shift occurs so that the person can avoid the get a point for each.
moral strain of disobeying an authority figure who orders (I’ve probably included
them to do something that goes against their morals. more than I need in each
Agency Theory may tie in with the Authoritarian Personality paragraph – but I’ve
proposed by Adorno. Authoritarian Personalities enjoy made a point of
following rules and acting as the agents of strong authority including something
figures. about Adorno’s ideas
too)
Evaluation
Agency Theory is supported by Milgram’s observational
studies into obedience where participants obeyed an authority To get 4 marks for AO3,
figure by giving electric shocks to a learner. I’m making 4 clear and
different points about
This has a clear application because Agency Theory says evaluation issues.
people will obey if teachers surrounded themselves with
symbols of authority (such as wearing a uniform and having Again, I’m writing 4
paragraphs, hoping to
the flag in their classroom).
get a point for each.
A different approach is Social Impact Theory which suggests
(I’ve included some
lots of other pressures that make a person obey besides the facts about the theory
authority figure’s status. here too but these are
A problem for Agency Theory is the idea of moral strain, which separate from the
is supposed to go away when people enter an Agentic State. “description” above)
However, Milgram observed distress in the participants who
obeyed, not the ones who disobeyed, which goes against the theory.
Conclusion
I think Agency Theory explains a lot of blind obedience, such To get into the top band
as the Germans who obeyed Nazi orders. It suggests things like (7-8 marks) I must
the Holocaust could happen anyway, which is why we need to remember to write a
be vigilant against a return of Fascism. conclusion.

17
 Social Approach student book

Apply Agency Theory. (4 marks)

A 4-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for AO2 (Application) and gives
you a piece of stimulus material.
There has been a long running conflict between the two neighbouring
countries of Ranzea and Gofani. The president of Ranzea has ordered the
invasion of Gofani to take control of the country. There have been reports of
soldiers from Ranzea carrying out atrocities in Gofani villages.
Use your understanding of prejudice and/or obedience to explain these events.
Agency Theory would explain these events by saying that the
President of Ranzea is an authority figures and the soldiers are To get 4 marks for AO2,
in an Agentic State. I’m making 4 clear and
different applications of
The President probably has symbols of authority, such as Agency Theory.
appearing on TV in a military uniform with the Ranzean flag
The question invites me
behind him.
to use ANY Psychology
The soldiers see themselves as agents of the President’s will, on obedience or
so they do not take any responsibility for what they do. They prejudice but this answer
view the blame for atrocities as going to the President, not to focuses on Agency.
them. Because this isn’t a 8-
Some soldiers might feel moral strain at carrying out these mark or 12-mark essay, I
atrocities, but if they enter an Agentic State this strain will go don’t need a conclusion.
away. Soldiers with an Authoritarian Personality will take this Just the 4 points will do.
way out.

18
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL THEORY: LATANÉ (1981) SOCIAL IMPACT

Context
This theory is significant for students
in other ways:

It underlies Milgram’s
obedience study, which is a
mandatory study for the Social
Approach.

It expands on Social Identity
Theory, which suggests that
people instinctively fall into
This theory was developed by Bibb ingroups and react negatively
Latané (pronounced la-ta-nay), an towards outgroups.
American psychologist who carried

It illustrates features of the
out famous studies into bystander
Social Approach, since it shows
apathy.
how decisions that people
The theory is an attempt to produce think are personal to them are
an underlying law that explains a actually expressions of their
whole set of studies from the ‘60s and group identity and social
‘70s, including Milgram and Tajfel, into pressures
how people conform to the group

It ties in to your Key Question
they are in, follow leaders and imitate
in Social Psychology, since it
each other.
helps explain prejudice and
how to reduce it

Three laws of behaviour

Latané argues that every person is 2. Immediacy: This is how recent
potentially a “source” or a “target” of the influence is and how close
social influence – sometimes both at to you, from an order a minute
once. He thinks there are three rules ago from your boss standing
or laws at work. right next to you (very
immediate) to an email you
Social Force: This is a pressure that
gets put on people to change their received from your boss last
week (not very immediate)
behaviour – if it succeeds, that is
Social Impact. Social force is generated 3. Numbers: The more people
by persuasion, threat, humour, putting pressure on you to do
embarrassment and other influences. something, the more social
Social force is made up of Strength, force they will have
Immediacy and Numbers:
1. Strength: This is how much
power you believe the person
influencing you has

19
 Social Approach student book

Notice how this applies to bringing in a second and a third

Milgram’s study and variations. teacher to repeat the order
Milgram also found obedience doesn’t double or triple the
was lower when the authority Social Force; bringing in the
figure was absent (variation entire school staff won’t be all
#7) or was perceived to have that effective.
less strength (variation #13)
Divisions of Impact: Social Force gets

Latané suggests a mathematic spread out between all the peole it is
equation to work out the Social directed at. If all the Force is directed
Impact (i) in any situation. This at a single person, that puts a huge
is i = f (SIN) where S, I and N pressure on them to conform or obey.
are Strength, Immediacy and But if the Force is directed at two
Numbers. people, they only experience half as
much pressure each. If there are ten
Psychosocial Law: This is the idea that
of them, they only feel one tenth of
the first source of influence has the
the pressure.
most dramatic impact on people, but
that the second, third, fourth, etc
This is known as diffusion of
sources generate less and less Social responsibility – the more of
Force. For example, being watched by you there are, the less
one other person can make you feel personal responsibility each of
awkward, but being watched by two you will feel.
doesn’t make you twice as awkward.

This applies to Milgram too
Increasing the audience to a hundred
because his other variations
or even a thousand doesn’t increase
showed how obedience went
the sense of pressure by as much as
down when the participant had
you would think.
a rebellious partner.

The same applies to authority

Latané has an equation for this
figures. One teacher giving you
too: i = f (1/SIN)
an order generates a lot of
Social Force but, if you resist,

Research into Social Impact

Latané (1981) gives a number of demonstrates divisions of impact
examples of Social Impact. An (also known as diffusion of
interesting one involves the US responsibility).
Christian televangelist Billy Graham
(right). The hypothesis was that Billy
Graham would make more converts in
front of small audiences. Latané
researched the numbers of people
who responded to Graham's appeal
for converts and found that when the
audiences were small, people were
more willing to sign cards allowing
local vicars to contact them later. This

20
 Social Approach student book

Sedikides & Jackson (1990) carried perceived authority of the

out a field experiment in the bird confederate.
house at a zoo. A confederate told
As time passed, more visitors started
groups of visitors not to lean on the
ignoring the instruction not to lean on
railings near the bird cages. The the railing. This also shows Social
visitors were then observed to see if
Force, especially I (Immediacy),
they obeyed. because as the instruction gets less
If the confederate was dressed in the immediate it has less impact.
uniform of a zookeeper, obedience Divisions of impact were also studied.
was high, but if he was dressed
Some visitors were alone but others
casually, it was lower. This were in groups of up to 6. The larger
demonstrates varying Social Force, in the group size, the more disobedience
particular S (Strength) because of the was observed.

Applying Social Impact Theory (AO2)

Different Kinds of Power and referent power because the boy
regards him as his ingroup.
A lot depends on whether you
perceive the person giving the orders Diffusion of Responsibility
to be an authority figure. Being part of a large group makes
French & Raven (1959) identified people feel anonymous and this
different types of authority: (i) reduces their feelings of responsibility.
legitimate power (authority figures It might make them less likely to obey.
with high status), (ii) reward power Latané & Darley (1968) carried out a
(those who have money or who can famous experiment into this.
perform favours), (iii) coercive power Participants sat in booths discussing
(people who can punish you), (iv) health issues over an intercom. One of
expert power (people seen as the speakers was a confederate who
knowledgeable) and (v) referent would pretend to have a heart attack.
power (people who belong to groups If there was only one other
you already respect). participant, they went for help 85% of
This fits in with Social Impact Theory the time; this dropped to 62% if there
because it explains the reasons why a were two other participants and 31%
person’s orders may have Social Force. if there were 4+.
“Referent Power” also applies to No one was giving orders in this study,
Tajfel’s Social Identity Theory because but the rule “go and get help when
it shows that orders coming from a someone collapses” is a sort of order
member of our ingroup carry more that is present all the time in society.
Social Force than orders coming from Following these sort of social rules is
an outgroup member. This is why a called prosocial behaviour and
gang member might have more breaking the rules is antisocial
authority over a young boy than a behaviour. Social Impact Theory
teacher: the teacher has legitimate explains prosocial behaviour as well as
authority but the gang member might obedience.
have reward power, coercive power

21
 Social Approach student book

Evaluating Social Impact Theory (AO3)

Strengths employees over to the Nazis during
WWII while secretly helping many
There’s a growing body of research
others to escape.
supporting Social Impact Theory. In
addition, the theory also makes sense Application
of a lot of Classic studies from the ‘60s The idea of a mathematical formula to
and ‘70s that used to seem unrelated calculate Social Impact is very useful.
– like Latané & Darley (1968) into Latané believes that, if you know the
diffusion of responsibility, Tajfel number (N) of people involved and the
(1970) into intergroup discrimination immediacy (I) of the order and the
and Milgram (1963) into obedience. In strength (S) of the authority figure,
hindsight, all of these studies can be you can calculate exactly how likely
seen as looking at different aspects of someone is to obey (i) using the
Social Impact. formula i = f (SIN). This means you can
There have been more recent predict whether laws will be followed,
additions to Social Impact Theory. whether riots will break out and
Latané et al. (1996) developed whether 9B will do their homework.
Dynamic Social Impact Theory to pay The theory suggests if you want to get
attention to how minorities and people to obey, you need to direct
majorities influence each other, such Social Force at them when they are in
as how people tend to change their small groups and ideally stop them
views to match the group they are in getting together into large groups.
but why they sometimes “stick to their This is why some repressive
guns”. governments try to stop people using
Weaknesses social media and gathering for public
meetings. Because orders need to be
Social Impact pays a lot of attention to
immediate it is important to repeat
the characteristics of the person giving
them often and put them on signs, TV
the orders but not much to the person
adverts and regular announcements.
receiving them. For example, there
may be personality types that are Comparison
particularly compliant (go along with Milgram’s Agency Theory is very
anything) or rebellious. A person may simplistic compared to Social Impact
be happy to go along with some sorts Theory. Milgram suggests we have
of orders but draw the line at others – evolved to go into an obedient mental
such as orders that offend them state around anyone we recognise as
morally or embarrass them socially. an authority. There’s not much
A similar problem is that Social Impact evidence for this in general. Social
Theory treats people as passive. It Impact Theory suggests many features
proposes that anybody will do of Agency Theory are true – that the
anything if the right amount of Social strength (S) of the authority figure is
Force is brought to bear on them. an important predictor of how
However, people sometimes obey obedient someone will be – but there
orders while at the same time are other situational factors as well,
subverting them. An example might by like the numbers of people involved
Otto Schindler who handed Jewish

22
 Social Approach student book

(N) and the immediacy (I) of the authority figure’s status, but this is
orders. hard for Latané to give a mathematical
value to. Similarly, Milgram has an
However, Agency Theory explains
explanation for the shaking and
some things better than Social Impact
weeping his participants engaged in –
Theory. For example, in Variation #10,
moral strain. There’s no discussion of
obedience was lower in a run-down
moral strain in Social Impact Theory,
office compared to Yale University.
which views people as either obeying
Milgram explains this through the
or disobeying and nothing in between.
prestige of the setting adding to the

EXAM STYLE ANSWERS

Evaluate Social Impact Theory as an explanation of obedience. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
To get 4 marks for AO1,
Description I’m making 4 clear and
Social Impact Theory was developed by Bibb Latané. It says different points about
that obedience happens when Social Force is too strong for us Social Impact Theory.
to resist. Social Force can be measured with the formula i = f I’m writing 4
(SIN). paragraphs, hoping to
get a point for each.
S is the Strength of the person giving the orders and this is
based on how they are perceived by others. I is the Immediacy (I’ve probably included
of the order, with recent orders having more Social Force than more than I need in each
old ones. N is the Number of people giving the order. paragraph – but I’ve
made a point of
There are some other factors in Social Impact. For instance, including something
the division of impact means that Social Force gets split about Milgram’s ideas
between the people it is aimed at. This makes it easier to too)
disobey if you are part of a group but harder if you are alone.
Social Impact Theory explains the results in Migram’s experiments, such as why
there was less obedience in Variation #7 when the authority figure spoke down a
telephone.
Evaluation To get 4 marks for AO3,
I’m making 4 clear and
Social Impact Theory has studies to back it up, such as different points about
Sedikides & Jackson who gave orders to visitors at a zoo. Large evaluation issues.
groups of visitors were more likely to disobey, which shows
Again, I’m writing 4
division of impact.
paragraphs, hoping to
The mathematical formula has a clear application. You could get a point for each.
use it to work out exactly how likely someone is to disobey in (I’ve included some
any situation, so long as you can work out the Social Force and facts about the theory
you know how many people are involved. here too but these are
Social Impact Theory is much more complex than Agency separate from the
Theory. It includes the different sorts of authority suggested “description” above)

23
 Social Approach student book

by French & Raven, such a referent authority.

However, Agency Theory includes some things that Social Impact Theory ignores,
such as moral strain. Milgram explains why his participants cried and fainted, but
Social Impact Theory only looks at how likely people are to obey, not how they feel
about it.
Conclusion
Social Impact is a theory that covers a lot more than just To get into the top band
obedience. It also explains diffusion of responsibility. This (7-8 marks) I must
makes it a bit of a vague theory. It’s not a theory of obedience remember to write a
in particular, unlike Agency Theory. conclusion.

Apply Social Impact Theory. (4 marks)

A 4-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for AO2 (Application) and gives
you a piece of stimulus material.
Derek wants to impress the bigger boys in his gang. He brings a knife to
school to show to Troy and Vincent. His form teacher, Miss Earnest, spots the
cigarettes in Derek’s pocket and tells him to hand them in. Troy and Vincent
are in the classroom and Derek refuses. The other students wait to see what
Miss Earnest will do next.
Using your knowledge of psychology, explain Derek’s behaviour and what Miss
Earnest can do to make him follow her instruction.
Social Impact Theory would explain why Derek disobeys. It is
because Miss Earnest has not applied enough Social Force to To get 4 marks for AO2,
make an impact on him. I’m making 4 clear and
different applications of
Miss Earnest has legitimate authority (according to French & Social Impact.
Raven) but Troy and Vincent have referent authority (they are
I’m giving 2
part of Derek’s ingroup) which cancels that out.
explanations for Derek’s
Miss Earnest needs to increase her strength (S). She could behaviour and 2
threaten to punish Derek (which is coercive authority) and to suggestions.
reward him if he obeys her (which is reward authority). She Because this isn’t a 8-
could explain to him about the dangers of knives (which might mark or 12-mark essay, I
give her knowledge authority). don’t need a conclusion.
Alternatively, she could take Derek outside, away from the Just the 4 points will do.
other students and repeat her order. Now that Derek is on his
own there will be no division of impact, making it harder for him to disobey.

24
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL THEORY: TAJFEL & TURNER (1979) SOCIAL IDENTITY

Context
This theory is significant for students
in other ways:

It opposes Realistic Conflict
Theory, which suggests conflict
based on irrational needs for
identity rather than rational
competition for scarce
resources. SIT proposes that
people might make choices
that cost them what they need,
in order to defeat out-groups.
This theory was developed by Henri
It illustrates features of the
Tajfel and John Turner, two British Social Approach, since it shows
psychologists. Tajfel (right) was a how decisions that people
Polish Jew whose family were killed in think are personal to them are
Nazi death camps. He settled in Britain actually expressions of their
but devoted himself to researching group identity and their group
prejudice and discrimination. Social needs
Identity Theory (SIT) says we get our
self-esteem from the groups we
It ties in to your Key Question
belong to. It opposes “Realist” in Social Psychology, since it
theories because it suggests that helps explain prejudice and
group membership by itself is how to reduce it
sufficient to create prejudice, without By the way, Tajfel’s name is
any need for competition over pronounced TIE-FELL.
resources.

Social Identity
It’s widely recognised that people tend Nazis needed. So he looked for a
to identify with their groups. They also different explanation.
tend to have negative views about Social Identity Theory proposes that
some other groups – “outgroups”. But group formation goes through three
why do some outgroups attract
stages:
hostility and discrimination? Tajfel
wondered what made the Nazis 1. Social Categorisation: this is
(powerful and rich) want to destroy seeing yourself as part of a
his Jewish family and neighbours (who group. As well as a personal
were weak and very poor). It didn’t identity (who you see yourself
seem to Tajfel there was any “realistic as) everyone has a social
conflict” going on, because the Polish identity (the groups they see
Jews weren’t in competition with the themselves as being a part of).
Nazis and didn’t have anything the Social identity may involve

25
 Social Approach student book

belonging to groups based on

your gender, social class,
religion, school or friends.
2. Social Identification: once you
have a social identity, you
automatically perceive
everyone else you meet as
either part of your ingroup
(the ones who share the same
social identity as you) or the
outgroup. You pay particular
attention to ingroup members
and adopt their values,
attitudes, appearance and
behaviour.
3. Social Comparison: this is
Not everyone identifies with
viewing your social identity as their ingroup to the same
superior to others; it comes extent. Personality may be a
from regarding the products of variable here, such as Adorno’s
your ingroup (the things your Authoritarian Personality
ingroup does, their attitudes or Type: people who get their
utterances) as better than the self-esteem from social
products of an outgroup. This identity rather than personal
leads to prejudice and, if you identity.
have the power to influence
There needs to be grounds for
the outgroup, it will lead to making comparisons with
discrimination too. other groups. Football fans
Tajffel & Turner argue that self- tend to compare themselves to
esteem is at the core of social identity. supporters of a rival club, but
We need to feel good about ourselves not to teams in much higher or
so we need to feel good about the lower leagues.
groups we belong to.

Research into Social Identity Theory

The most famous research into SIT done by showing them dots on a
was carried out by Tajfel et al. (1970). screen and telling some boys they had
These were known as “Minimal over-estimated and others they had
Groups” studies, because Tajfel was under-estimated the number of dots;
looking at groups that people had the in another Tajfel showed the boys
minimal possible reason to feel loyal paintings by the artists Paul Klee and
to. Wassily Kandinsky, then telling some
boys they had shown preference for
Tajfel recruited Bristol schoolboys
aged 14-15 and divided them into one, some boys the other. In fact, the
boys were assigned to groups
minimal groups. In one study, this was
randomly but they were not told this.

26
 Social Approach student book

Klee Kandinsky

The boys were given the task of The boys would be fair if allocating
assigning points from a book of tables points to two outgroup members or
(Tajfel called them “matrices”). Each two ingroup members. However, if
matrix offered different allocations of allocating to an ingroup and an
points to a pair of anonymous boys. outgroup member, they consistently
The points converted into money – 10 awarded more points/money to boys
points became 1 pence – but the boys in their own group – ingroup
didn’t know which people they were favouritism.
giving points to.

Fairest allocation

If the boys had to choose beween They would do this even if it meant
maximum joint profit (an awarding their ingroup less than the
arrangement which awarded the most maximum ingroup profit. In other
possible points/money to the two words, they would shortchange their
anonymous boys) and maximum ingroup, so long as it gave them an
difference (an arrangement that opportunity to do better than the
awarded more points/money to their outgroup.
ingroup), they would choose
maximum difference.

27
 Social Approach student book

Tajfel concludes that outgroup
The boys would choose fair

discrimination is easily splits of points some of the
triggered – just perceiving time, but Tajfel suggests this is
someone else to be in an less likely to happen when the
outgroup is enough to do it. groups are not “minimal
groups” – when they are based

There was no need for the
on something more important
boys to be in competition –
than counting dots or liking
they chose option that were
artists.
competitive even when the
matrices gave them fair
options as well.

Applying Social Identity Theory (AO2)

Cliques and Football Fans Ideally, people should develop a sense
of personal identity separate from
social identity and base their self-
esteem on that. Then they wouldn’t
have to look down on anyone.
Challenging Perceptions
It’s important to remember that social
identity is a perception, not a fact. You
People often complain about “cliques” only belong to the groups you believe
– groups of friends who think they are you belong to. Many strategies to
superior to everyone else around tackle discrimination and prejudice
them and won’t let other people join work by getting people to expand
their circle. Tajfel explains this their sense of social identity. If people
because the people in the clique base see themselves and their neighbours
their self-esteem on the status of their as all members of a bigger ingroup,
social circle. They over-value the then social comparison will stop.
products of the ingroup (how funny For example, in the 1980s an
their jokes are, how stylishly they American charity single for African
dress) and under-value the products famine relief was entitled “We Are
of the outgroup (ie everyone else). The World”. The lyrics challenge the
Fans behave in the same way. If you idea that starving Africans are an
support a football team, your self- outgroup.
esteem is linked to the success of the Of course, sometimes members of two
team. If the team wins, you feel good. groups can put their differences aside
Even if it loses, you can feel good by and unite against another outgroup –
believing fans of other teams are terrorists, an enemy country,
inferior to you. Football fans show immigrants, etc. Unscrupulous leaders
Social Identification by wearing their may whip up this sort of social
team colours, singing team chants, or identity. For example, the Nazis united
talking incessantly about the new Germans by presenting Jews as a
striker or the old manager. hated outgroup.

28
 Social Approach student book

Evaluating Social Identity Theory (AO3)

Strengths identity for their self-esteem more
than others. A theory of personality
SIT is supported by Tajfel et al.’s 1970
like Adorno’s Authoritarian
study into minimal groups. The
Personality might explain this better.
research showed how boys will
discriminate against an outgroup Application
(even an outgroup that contains their Strategies that increase people’s sense
own friends) and show favouritism to of personal identity may reduce
an ingroup (even an ingroup made up prejudice, especially if they raise self-
of strangers) and that this will happen esteem at the same time. Counselling
when the group identity is based on (especially using Cognitive Therapy)
something as flimsy as “being an over- may be one way of doing this. Religion
estimator” or “preferring the art of sometimes gives people a sense of
Paul Klee”. self-worth, but it can also create a
SIT also provides an explanation for very powerful sense of social identity
why discrimination occurs even when and lead to some of the worst
they outgroup is no threat to the discrimination.
ingroup and there is no competition Encouraging people to see themselves
over resources. If self-esteem is based as part of a larger social identity can
on social identity, then some people combat outgroup discrimination.
need to put down outgroups in order Some people think teaching
to feel good about themselves. “Britishness” in schools may reduce
Weaknesses conflict between groups, if they all see
themselves as British citizens.
The “Minimal Groups” studies that
However, this may backfire if it leads
support SIT have been criticised for
to more conflict with people who are
using artificial tasks that lack
seen as “un-British”. Again, religion
ecological validity. However, Tajfel
can bring together people of many
would contend that, if boys will be
nationalities and backgrounds. As St
discriminatory over trivial and
Paul says: “There is neither Jew nor
pointless tasks like this, how much
Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is
more likely are they to discriminate
there male and female, for you are all
when something important is at stake!
one in Christ Jesus” (Galatians 3: 28).
Another criticism of the studies is that Other religions make similar appeals,
adolescent boys are naturally but they can also create discrimination
competitive and the matrices looked against non-believers.
like a competition of some sort. The
Comparison
boys may have assumed Tajfel wanted
them to “win” at this game. When Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory
participants spoil an experiment by (1966) stands in contrast to SIT. RCT
acting in the way they think (rightly or claims that prejudice is a produced by
wrongly) that the researcher wants, competition and happens when there
this is called demand characteristics. is (or seems to be) a scarcity of
resources like food, money, jobs or
There are gaps in the theory, such as
status.
why some people cling to social

29
 Social Approach student book

RCT is backed up by Sherif’s “Robbers Groups”, this is a study of schoolboys

Cave” study (1954) where boys that may not generalise to adult
showed outgroup discrimination when behaviour. Unlike “Minimals Groups”,
a tournament was arranged between boys squabbling at a summer camp
them. This started with name-calling possessed much more ecological
and food fights but became validity than filling bout books of
increasingly violent. As with “Minimal matrices.

EXAM STYLE ANSWERS

Evaluate the Social Identity Theory of prejudice. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
Description
Social Identity Theory (SIT) was developed by Tajfel & Turner.
It says that between groups is based on the need for self- To get 4 marks for AO1,
esteem and happens even when there is no conflict over I’m making 4 clear and
resources. different points about
SIT.
Social categorisation is when you see yourself as part of a
I’m writing 4
group which becomes your ingroup. Tajfel thinks your self-
paragraphs, hoping to
esteem is linked to how successful your ingroup is.
get a point for each.
Social identification is when you take on the attitudes, (I’ve probably included
behaviours and values of your ingroup. It might include more than I need in each
dressing or acting like other ingroup members. paragraph – but I’ve
Social comparison is when you see your ingroup as better than made a point of
the outgroups you meet. You over-value the products of the including the three
ingroup and under-value the products of outgroups, leading to stages of SIT)
prejudice.
Evaluation
SIT is supported by Tajfel’s “Minimal Group” studies which
showed how boys will discriminate about outgroups even To get 4 marks for AO3,
when social identity is based on something as irrelevant to I’m making 4 clear and
them as modern art. different points about
evaluation issues.
However, these studies are artificial because the boys had to
assign points from books of matrices to strangers, which is not Again, I’m writing 4
paragraphs, hoping to
like real-life racism or sexism which normally involves treating
get a point for each.
actual people badly.
(I’ve included some
On the other hand, Tajfel would say if the boys were prepared facts about the theory
to discriminate against anonymous boys on over pennies on here too but these are
the basis of differences in art, how much more likely they separate from the
would be to discriminate when there are important things at “description” above)
stake.

30
 Social Approach student book

Personality is a variable SIT doesn’t take into account. Adorno suggests that
Authoritarian Personalities are much more likely to discriminate because their self-
esteem is more strongly linked to their social identity.
Conclusion
SIT suggests that intergroup conflict comes from an irrational To get into the top band
side of human nature that will always be with us. It is (7-8 marks) I must
depressing to think that, even if we can abolish hunger and remember to write a
poverty, prejudice will still exist so long as there are groups. conclusion.

Apply Social Identity Theory. (4 marks)

A 4-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for AO2 (Application) and gives
you a piece of stimulus material.
After the release of a popular vampire film some teenagers have split into
two groups. One group loves vampires (‘The Vamps’) whilst the other group
loves werewolves (‘The Howlers’). This situation is causing tension and
college staff are concerned about the amount of name-calling and hostility
between the groups.
Using your knowledge of psychology, explain the conflict between the students
and what the college staff can do about it.
Social Identity Theory (SIT) would explain that the teenagers
have different social identities and view each other as To get 4 marks for AO2,
belonging to outgroups. I’m making 4 clear and
different applications of
Because of Social Comparison they discriminate against Social Identity Theory.
outgroups, which explains the name-calling. They do this
The question doesn’t
because their self-esteem is tied in with their group being
specify SIT – I could
best.
answer with another
The college staff could get the teenagers to focus on how they theory or a mix of two.
all love the same film so really they all belong to the same Because this isn’t a 8-
ingroup. Then the werewolf-fans wouldn’t threaten the mark or 12-mark essay, I
vampire-fans self-esteem. don’t need a conclusion.
The staff could give the teenagers a different outgroup to Just the 4 points will do.
focus on, like a competition against another college. Then the
other college would be the outgroup and the teenagers would “pull together” and
see themselves as one big ingroup.

31
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL THEORY: SHERIF (1966) REALISTIC CONFLICT

Context

It underlies Sherif’s “Robbers
Cave” study, which is a Classic
Study for the Social Approach.

It opposes Social Identity
Theory, which suggests conflict
is not “realist” but is based on
irrational needs for identity.
SIT proposes that people might
make choices that cost them
This theory was developed by Muzafer what they need, in order to
Sherif, an American psychologist who defeat out-groups.
carried out the famous “Robbers
It illustrates features of the
Cave” study into group conflict. Social Approach, since it shows
The theory is a “Realist” theory how decisions that people
because it proposes that conflict think are personal to them are
between groups isn’t based on actually expressions of their
something irrational but on an actual group identity and their group
need for resources. It’s a “conflict” needs
theory because it rejects the idea
It ties in to your Key Question
(common in the ‘60s) that groups in Social Psychology, since it
could share and cooperate. helps explain prejudice and
This theory is significant for students how to reduce it
in other ways:

Conflict between groups

It’s widely recognised that people tend groups that are seeking the same
to identify with their groups. They also limited resources, this will lead to
tend to have negative views about conflict, negative stereotypes and
some other groups – “outgroups”. But beliefs, and discrimination between
why do some outgroups attract the groups. The conflict can lead to
hostility and discrimination but others increasing animosity toward the
are treated neutrally or even groups and can cause an ongoing feud
admired? For example, the British to develop.
have some negative stereotypes about In the case of Britain, France and
the French (eating frogs!) and the Germany, these are all European
Germans (no sense of humour!) but countries that used to compete for
not the Dutch or the Danes. This is imperial colonies and still compete for
what Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) power in Europe. There are only so
tries to explain. many colonies or European
Realistic conflict theory states that jobs/money to go round, so these are
whenever there are two or more limited resources. Countries like the

32
 Social Approach student book

Netherlands and Denmark never
It isn’t important that there

competed with us for power, control should be actual conflicts over
or wealth, so we don’t have negative resources so much as
stereotypes or cruel jokes about them. perceived conflict. For
example, there are people with
Conflict, negative stereotypes and
prejudice against immigrants
beliefs, and discrimination between
because they believe “they are
groups can be reduced in situations
coming over here to take our
where two or more groups are seeking
jobs”. This is quite separate
to obtain some superordinate goals.
from whether immigrants
Superordinate goals are mutually-
desirable goals that cannot be actually do take jobs that
British workers want.
obtained without the participation of
Immigrants might take jobs like
two or more groups.
fruit-picking that British

Cruel jokes about unemotional workers don’t want to do.
Germans and frog-eating

Another related idea is the
French have grown less
Zero-Sum Fate. This is the idea
common since the creation of
that if one side gains, someone
the EU, with British, French
else has to lose out. Some
and German people trading
and working together. They times this might be true, but
not always. Realistic Conflict
have more superordinate goals
occurs when people believe
so the prejudice has
decreased. that an out group can only
benefit at their expense. So, if

After the 2015 Paris attacks, they see out group members
British football fans sang the doing well, they conclude that
French national anthem in they must be losing out
Wembley. The superordinate somehow.
goal of defeating ISIS meant
that negative stereotypes
about the French disappeared.

Research into Realistic Conflict

Sherif carried out the famous children being schooled alongside
“Robbers Cave” study that showed African Americans. RCT would say this
Realistic Conflict in action. This is the is because the white families felt that
Classic Study in Social Psychology so the privilege they enjoyed (wealth,
you will be learning about it better education, better career
elsewhere. prospects) would be threatened if
they had to share it with the children
In the 1970s, the Michigan National
of black families.
Election Studies survey gathered data
on attitudes towards a government If RCT is correct, you would expect
plan to merge schools and bus white negative prejudices to increase when
children to schools alongside black there was a shortage of resources.
children. In these surveys, white Christine Brain (2015) describes the
respondents opposed the idea of their conflict between Russia and Ukraine

33
 Social Approach student book

as a conflict over who controls the Sometimes an ingroup will be in

supply of gas to Europe, since Russian conflict with an outgroup that has low
pipelines have to pass through status and isn’t a real threat. This is
Ukrainian territory. “domination of the outgroup by the
ingroup”. The dominated group might
John Duckitt (1994) argues there are
accept their inferior status or might
two types of realistic conflict,
resent it. The powerful ingroup
depending on whether or not the two
decides whether the rebellion is
groups have equal power. Standard
unjustified (leading to prejudice) or
Realistic Conflict is between two “peer
justified (leading to social change).
groups” who are equal but competing.

Applying Realistic Conflict Theory (AO2)

Cooperation between groups Challenging Perceptions
If conflict comes from a conflict over Quite often, people perceive a
scarce resources, it follows that competition over scarce resources
conflict decreases when cooperation when really there’s enough to go
results in more shared resources. To round. For example, because of falling
reduce prejudice superordinate goals birth rates and an ageing population,
can be set up. This is where the most European countries need
resources can only be won if the immigrants to come and do jobs and
groups cooperate rather than pay taxes – there are too many jobs
compete. that need doing, not too few.
Sherif demonstrated the power of Gordon Allport (1954) proposed the
superordinate goals to reduce conflict Contact Hypothesis, which says that
in the “Robbers Cave” study (1954). the more contact people have with
When the Eagles and the Rattlers had outgroups, the more their prejudices
to work together to fix a water pipe will be reduced. This is called the
and choose movies to watch, the “reconceptualization of group
hostility between the groups lessened. categories”. Allport agrees with Sherif
that the groups must work together
There are real world projects to do the
towards superordinate goals, but also
same thing. The European Union was
with Duckitt that the groups need to
formed to make a future war in
have equal status when they meet. He
Europe impossible by getting
adds that there needs to be personal
European countries to work towards
contact between the groups – they
superordinate goals through trade and
have to mingle and get to know each
moving labour forces. The Olympic
other to challenge stereotypes.
Movement also tries to promote
Another factor is the support of the
peace by getting countries to share
authorities for the meeting – you can’t
superordinate goals of sporting
have authority figures opposing the
achievement that will make them less
contact.
likely to compete over resources.

34
 Social Approach student book

Evaluating Realistic Conflict Theory (AO3)

Strengths prejudice and discrimination. The
ingroup and outgroup need to work
There’s a lot of research in support of
together towards something that is
Realistic Conflict, especially the
valued by both of them; then they see
“Robbers Cave” study and also a lot of
each other as members of the one
attitude surveys like the Michigan
group, with a shared goal of achieving
National Election Studies. It is also
resources through cooperation. This is
backed up by common sense (face
how Sherif defused prejudice in
validity). Football fans tend to have
“Robbers Cave”.
negative stereotypes about rival
teams, but no particular view about Allport’s Contact Hypothesis applies
teams much lower (or higher) in the here, because prejudice will be
league that aren’t in competition with reduced if group members get to
their team. mingle freely with the outgroup and
question their own stereotypes. It is
Extremists who try to whip up
important that leaders and authority
prejudice often claim that outgroups
figures support this mingling. This is
represent a threat to people’s jobs,
the base of multicultural education
education, money or privileges. In
that brings children into contact with
other words, they try to create a
other children of different ethnicity.
perception (which may not be true)
Schools often have days where they
that resources are scarce and the
celebrate the religion, food and dress
outgroup are competitors. This is
of minorities.
exactly what RCT would predict.
Comparison
Weaknesses
Tajfel & Turner’s Social Identity
The “Robbers Cave” study was carried
Theory (1979) stands in stark contrast
out on American schoolboys, not on
to RCT. SIT claims that prejudice is
adults. Testosterone and upbringing
natural and instinctive and happens
might make schoolboys especially
immediately, as soon as you
likely to form tribes and be
categorise yourself as belonging to an
competitive. There’s a danger in
ingroup (social categorisation) and
generalising from them to adult
notice other people belonging to an
behaviour.
outgroup (social comparison). This
Attitude surveys suffer from a prejudice has nothing to do with
“chicken and egg” problem of validity. competition over resources.
Which comes first, the prejudice or
SIT is backed up by Tajfel’s “Minimal
the perception of competition?
Group” studies (1970) where boys
Bigoted people will often create the
showed outgroup discrimination even
idea of competition to justify their
though they weren’t in competition
prejudices, but the prejudices may in
with the outgroup – they would
fact come first. This is the insight from
choose options from the matrix
Social Identity Theory (below).
booklets that offered scarce resources
Application (in points) in order to create
The idea of superordinate goals has a competition rather than the options
clear application for reducing that would give their ingroup more

35
 Social Approach student book

points. As with “Robbers Cave”, this is threatened by people who are

a study of schoolboys that may not different and enjoys disciminating
generalise to adult behaviour. Unlike against outgroups that have less
“Robbers Cave”, assigning points from status. Adorno’s research involved
matrix booklets was deeply artificial questionnaires (the “Fascism Scale”)
and may lack ecological validity. and interviews to get quantitative and
qualitative data. Again, this is a theory
There are other theories that explain
that suggests groups do not need
prejudice as well. Theodor Adorno
competition in order for prejudices to
(1950) argues that some people have
form.
an “Authoritarian Personality” that is

36
 Social Approach student book

EXAM STYLE ANSWERS

Evaluate the Realistic Conflict Theory of prejudice. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
Description
Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) was developed by Sherif. It says
that there is conflict between groups rather than cooperation To get 4 marks for AO1,
and this happens for real reasons, like a lack of resources to go I’m making 4 clear and
round. When competition occurs, prejudice forms. different points about
Realistic Conflict
Scarce resources may be water and food but also things like Theory.
money, jobs, places in schools or even social resources (like
I’m writing 4
friends). This might explain “bitchiness” in school friendship
paragraphs, hoping to
groups. get a point for each.
John Duckitt goes a bit further, suggesting that conflict can (I’ve probably included
happen even when an outgroup has lower status and isn’t more than I need in each
really a competitor over resources. This is because the low- paragraph – but I’ve
status group might resent the high-status group but the high- made a point of
status group doesn’t think this is justified. including something
Conflict can be reduced if the ingroup and outgroup work about Duckitt’s ideas
together towards superordinate goals. This is when they start too)
cooperating rather than competing to achieve the resources
they want.
Evaluation To get 4 marks for AO3,
I’m making 4 clear and
RCT is supported by studies like Sherif’s “Robbers Cave” study, different points about
which showed groups of boys getting into conflict when they evaluation issues.
were put into competition. Sherif used superordinate goals to
remove the competition and the boys became friendly again. Again, I’m writing 4
paragraphs, hoping to
This has a clear application because RCT says you can reduce get a point for each.
prejudice by getting people from different groups to meet and
(I’ve included some
work together in a spirit of cooperation. Allport’s Contact
facts about the theory
Hypothesis says if groups mingle they will lose their here too but these are
stereotypes. separate from the
Social Identity Theory has a completely different view. It says “description” above)
prejudice happens automatically when groups form and
doesn’t require any competition.
SIT is supported by Tajfel’s Minimal Groups study where the boys discriminated
against the outgroup even though they didn’t have to. They did this by assigning
points in an unfair way.

37
 Social Approach student book

Conclusion
RCT suggests there is a real reason for group conflict (or at To get into the top band
least group members believe there is a real reason) but SIT (7-8 marks) I must
suggests there is something instinctive and irrational about remember to write a
prejudice. RCT ignores this irrational side to human nature conclusion.
which is studied by Tajfel, Adorno and Milgram.

Apply Realistic Conflict Theory. (4 marks)

A 4-mark “apply” question awards 4 marks for AO2 (Application) and gives
you a piece of stimulus material.
Ashlinn, Bailee and Raven are three friends who fall out when a new girl, Lilo,
joins their school. Lilo and Raven have a sleepover party together, but Ashlinn
and Bailee go on social media and start untrue rumours about them. Lilo and
Raven respond by spreading their own cruel gossip about Ashlinn and Bailee.
Eventually, the Headmistress has to intervene and call all four girls to her
office.
Using your knowledge of psychology, explain the girls’ conflict and what the
Headmistress can do about it.
Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) would explain the girls falling
out because they have a resource (friendship) that they are in To get 4 marks for AO2,
competition over. Lilo has taken Raven away from Ashlinn and I’m making 4 clear and
Bailee. different applications of
Realistic Conflict.
Sherif would argue that the two groups of girls have equal
I’m giving 2
status but are in competition and this will lead to prejudice.
explanations for the
This is similar to the Eaglers and the Rattlers in the “Robbers
girls’ row and 2
Cave” study. suggestions.
The Headmistress needs to give the girls superordinate goals Because this isn’t a 8-
they can only achieve by cooperating rather than competing. mark or 12-mark essay, I
She could give them the task of working together to organise don’t need a conclusion.
the school prom. Just the 4 points will do.
Allport would say the girls need more contact with each other.
If they mingle socially, Ashlinn and Bailee will get to know LIlo and lose their
prejudices. This will happen because the Headmistress is an authority figure and
supports it.

38
 Social Approach student book

Lots of studies have been carried out into obedience and prejudice but (other
than Milgram) you are expected to know about two in detail. One of them is the
Classic Study – a piece of research from the heyday of Social Psychology that
inspired other researchers who followed after. The other is a Contemporary
Study – a piece of research from the 21st century that shows how Social
Psychology is conducted today, with attention to ethical guidelines,

The Classic Study is Sherif (1954)

The Contemporary Study is Burger (2009)
To show Knowledge & Understanding (AO1), there is a code to help you, APRC:
1. Aim: what were the researchers trying to find out? It helps to think of
the researchers having a general research question in mind as well as
something very specific they were hoping this study would show
2. Procedure: how was the study carried out? This includes the sample
and how they were recruited, the IV and DV and experimental design,
the tasks that the participants had to complete and the experimental
controls that were put in place as well as any special apparatus that
was used
3. Results: what happened at the end of the study? This might involve
scores or behaviours that were observed. It could be quantitative or
qualitative data.
4. Conclusions: what did the researchers think the results meant? How
did they explain what happened?
To show Application (AO2), you should be able to explain how this study would
be used in the real world.
To show Analysis & Evaluation (AO3), you must discuss the strengths and
weaknesses of the study. There is a code to help you remember how to do this:
GRAVE
1. Generalisability: is the sample representative of ordinary people?
2. Reliability: were the procedures consistent and could they be
replicated? Would you get the same results again?
3. Application: who could use the conclusions of this study and what
would they do with them?
4. Validity: is this study really showing what it claims to show? Can its
results be explained in other ways? This includes ecological validity
which is how realistic or artificial the study is
5. Ethics: does this study follow ethical guidelines or are participants
being mistreated in some way? Don’t bother explain why the study
does follow the guidelines: that’s simply to be expected

39
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL CLASSIC STUDY: SHERIF ET AL (1956) ROBBERS CAVE

Context
This study is significant for students in
other ways:

It shows how scientific
research proceeds, because
Sherif keeps changing the
situation the boys are in and
then studies how their
behaviour alters in response to
the change

It illustrates features of the
Social Approach, since it
This study was carried out by Muzafer explores how situations dictate
Sherif in the 1950s. It is an intergroup people’s behaviour – it
study, looking at wat causes groups to illustrates the old proverb “tell
change their behaviours when they me who your friends are and I’ll
come into contact with each other. tell you who you are”
The study explored Sherif’s theory of
It illustrates the power of the
Realistic Conflict, looking at what experimental method,
happens when groups are forced to manipulating an IV and
compete and cooperate. Crucial to this drawing conclusions about
theory is the idea that we divide cause and effect from
people we meet into “ingroup” differences in the DV
members with whom we share goals

It shows the importance of the
and values and “outgroup” members
field experiment, since it tests
with whom we see ourselves in
a group of boys in a realistic
competition.
environment (a summer camp)

The Robbers Cave Park

American summer holidays are very
long and it is common for parents to
send their children away to summer
camp for several weeks. One of these
camps was run by the Boy Scouts at
Robbers Cave State Park in Oklahoma.
Sherif took the opportunity to study a
group of 22 11-year-old boys who
spent 3 weeks at the camp in the
summer of 1954. The boys stayed in
log cabins alongside Moccasin Creek,
where they could swim, and among
woods they could explore.

40
 Social Approach student book

Sherif conducted the study in three interfering. The boys had no

phases and each phase could be idea they were being studied.
considered a condition of the IV,

Sherif chose the boys carefully.
making the study a Repeated
He picked boys who were all
Measures Design because all the boys
from white, Protestant families
took part in every condition (they
in Oklahoma because he didn’t
were stuck in the camp and couldn’t
want any of them to be
go home).
“outsiders”. He screened out

Sherif asked parents not to anyone with trouble at home.
visit their sons, for the reason He picked boys who had been
that it might “make them rated (by their teachers) as
homesick”. Really, he didn’t high in IQ. He split them into
want any extraneous variables groups that were similar in
sporting ability.

Sherif’s Experiment
Aim: To find out what factors make they were alone at the park. Each
two groups develop hostile group had adult participant observers
relationships and then to see how this (camp counselors) who stayed with
hostility can be reduced. Specifically, the boys for 12 hours a day. The
to see if two groups of boys can be observers did not influence the boys’
manipulated into conflict and then decision making.
conflict resolution by working Ingroup Formation lasted a week.
together. Each group of 11 had tasks to
IV: The IV is the stage of the accomplish (eg a treasure hunt with a
experiment: (1) ingroup formation, (2) $10 prize).
friction phase and (3) integration During this time the boys gave their
phase groups names and discovered the
This is a Repeated Measures design. existence of the other group. 2 boys
from one of the groups left due to
DV: Intergroup behaviour was
homesickness.
measured by observing the boys
behaviour and friendship patterns and The friction phase involved a
tape recording their conversations and tournament between the two groups.
recording the phrases they used This involved sports like baseball, tug-
of-war and scavenger hunt but also
Sample: 22 participants (11-year-old
experimental tests, like a bean-
boys) who were split into two evenly-
counting competition.
matched groups of 11 boys. The boys
called themselves the “Rattlers” and A trophy was promised for the
the “Eagles” winners along with prizes like knives
and medals.
Procedure: The boys arrived on
separate buses and settled into their
cabins on two sites. They were
unaware of the other group, think

41
 Social Approach student book

The Eagles launched their own

raid, but brought bats with
them for maximum destruction

When the Eagles won the
tournament, the Rattlers stole
their prizes (medals and
knives)
The two sides met for a fight, but the
camp counsellors intervened and this
In the integration phase, Sherif tried
to bring the two groups together. He Rattlers Eagles
tried “mere contact” by allowing the Outgroup
groups to have dinners and watch friendships at end 6.4% 7.7%
films together in the recreation hall. of friction phase
When this failed, he took a different
Outgroup
approach, blocking the water pipe to
friendships at end
the camp which forced the boys to 36.4% 23.2%
of integration
work together to find the broken
phase
portion of pipe. Other tasks involved
choosing films to watch together, phase ended.
cooperating to pull a (supposedly) In the integration phase, the shared
broken-down truck and pitching tents films and meals deteriorated into
with missing parts. name-called and food-fights. The
Results: Sherif found that the boys shared task fixing the water pipe
required little encouragement to be produced cooperation, but another
competitive. As soon as they found food fight followed. However, each
out about another group in the park, shared task led to reduced hostility. By
they resorted to “us-and-them” the end, the Rattlers shared $5 they
language and wanted a baseball had won to buy soft drinks for
match – so the boys themselves everyone.
initiated that start of the friction Conclusions: Sherif regards the study
phase. as proving his hypotheses about
In the friction phase, the two groups intergroup behaviour – especially
met for baseball and name-calling Realistic Conflict Theory.
started immediately.
The groups formed quickly,

The Eagles burned the Rattlers’ with hierarchies (“pecking
flag and the Rattlers retaliated orders) and leaders, without
by doing the same. any encouragement from the
adults.

After their second flag was
destroyed, the Rattlers did a
When the groups meet in
night raid on the Eagle’s competitive situations, ingroup
cabins, stealing comics and solidarity increases as does
overturning beds outgroup hostility.

42
 Social Approach student book

“Mere presence” by itself share. Sherif calls this working

doesn’t reduce outgroup towards “superordinate goals”
hostility.
An important conclusion from the

Friction is reduced when the study is that, although intergroup
two groups are forced to conflict is inevitable when competition
cooperate, negotiate and is present, it can be reduced.

How Many Studies?

The classic Robbers Cave study was actually the third replication of the test. Sherif
had carried out two earlier studies, in 1949 and 1953.

In the first study, Sherif tried to restore harmony by giving the boys a
“common enemy” to unite against. They did this by beating a softball team
from outside the camp. However, Sherif noticed there were still hostilities
between the Red Devils and the Bull Dogs.

The second study was called off, “owing to various difficulties and
unfavorable conditions, including errors of judgment in the direction of the
experiment,” according to Sherif. Frances Cherry (1995) discovered that this
was because the boys mutinied against the adults – perhaps because they
realised they were being manipulated.
Michael Billig (1976) argued that Sherif’s studies really looked at three groups, not
two, because the adult researchers were the third group that had most power and
manipulated the other two. Billig didn’t know about the mutiny in the 2nd
experiment, but his theory is backed up by it.

Evaluating Sherif et al.

Generalisability representative of young Americans
back in the ‘50s and it certainly isn’t
22 boys is not a large sample. In a
representative of America today,
sample this small, any anomalies (boys
where whites make up 50% of school
with unusual characteristics, like
intake, with the other 50% being
violent bullies) will skew the results.
Hispanic, African American and Asian
However, Sherif went to lengths to
American.
screen the boys beforehand, removing
any from troubled backgrounds or Reliability
with antisocial character traits. Since it involves observation, there are
Only boys were used, so the results problems with reliability in this study.
may not generalise the girls or mixed The observers were only with the boys
sex groups. Crucially, they were all for 12 hours a day and could not see
children, so the results may not or overhear everything that went on.
generalise to adults. Despite this, Sherif took pains to make
The boys were supposed to be “all the study more reliable. He used a
American” types: white, bright and numbered scoring system for the
sporty. This wasn’t entirely boys’ friendship patterns, which

43
 Social Approach student book

collected quantitative data. He also Validity

used multiple observers on occasions, Sherif claimed that, by using several
creating inter-rater reliability. Where different research methods
possible, he tape recorded the boys’ (observing, tape recording, tests,
conversations, so they could be played quantitative as well as qualitative
back and analysed later. data), he was making his study more
Certain aspects of this study could be valid.
replicated, such as the way the boys
were selected and the bean-counting
test along with the tournament and
the prizes. Indeed, Sherif had
replicated the study – twice!
However, other procedures were
developed by Sherif “on the fly” as
events developed (for example, the
boys themselves requested the
baseball match and Sherif had to
The study has ecological validity,
intervene to prevent a fight). These
because these were real boys at a real
things might happen differently if the
summer camp, doing real activities.
study was replicated.
Even the specially created tasks (fixing
Application the broken water pipe, pulling the
The study shows how competition and truck) seemed real to the boys. There
frustration creates hostility towards were some unrealistic features, such
outgroups. In society, this suggests as the camp counsellors not
that discrimination and violence could intervening until the boys were
be reduced if jobs, housing, education actually ready to fight each other.
and other opportunities were shared Although this is a field experiment, it
more fairly between different groups, lacked a Control Group. Sherif does
such as ethnic groups or social classes. not have a “normal” summer camp to
This is the basis for a lot of Left Wing compare his camp to. It may be
political thinking. perfectly normal for food fights and
The study also shows that hostility can raids to happen in summer camps
be reduced if groups are made to where the counsellors aren’t imposing
interact and work together towards discipline. It may be normal for such
common goals. It is not enough for boys to end up as friends after 3
them to be “mere presences” living weeks, regardless of whether they are
alongside each other. This suggests given special tasks to carry out.
ghettos should be discouraged and The outcomes of the two previous
immigrants should be made to take up studies weaken the validity of Sherif’s
the host culture’s language, education conclusions. It looks as though he kept
and pastimes. This is the basis for a lot trying the experiment until he got the
of Right Wing political thinking. results he was looking for. Billig (1976)
suggests a completely different
conclusion: that the Robbers Cave
study shows how two groups behave

44
 Social Approach student book

when they are manipulated by a more so they couldn’t be informed about

powerful third group. everything that was going on.
Ethics The boys could withdraw from the
study and in fact two of them did go
The boys themselves did not give
home in the first week.
informed consent to be in this study
and do not seem to have been It’s debateable whether the boys were
debriefed afterwards – they never harmed by this study. There were
realised they were being raids and food fights. One boy had his
experimented on. They were deceived comics stolen. A fight with weapons
in certain ways (about the broken very nearly broke out. However, these
water pipe being an accident, about might be typical events in American
the food truck breaking down). summer camps, especially in the
rough-and-ready culture of the 1950s
However, the boys’ parents were
(knives were used as prizes, which
aware that this camp was a Social
would never happen today). The boys
Psychology experiment and they did
seemed to enjoy themselves, which
consent on their sons’ behalf.
goes against the idea there was an
However, they were asked not to visit
ethical problem.
the camp and check up on their sons,

EXAM STYLE ANSWER

Evaluate the Classic Study from social psychology. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
Description
Sherif studied 22 American boys at the Robbers Cave
To get 4 marks for AO1,
summer camp. They called themselves the Eagles and the
I’m making 4 clear and
Rattlers. A them-and-us mentality appeared when the
different points about
groups met. Sherif’s study.
Sherif arranged a tournament and the competition led to I’m writing 4
name calling and night raids on each others’ cabins. Sherif paragraphs, hoping to
had to intervene to prevent a mass battle. get a point for each.
In the integration phase of the study, Sherif reduced (I’ve made a point of
hostility by getting the two groups to work together including numbers to
towards superordinate goals. For example, the boys had to show I know details
use tug-of-war ropes to get a truck started. about the study)
The boys became friendly as a result of cooperating.
Eagles’ choices of friendships with Rattlers went up from 7.5% to 23.2%.
Evaluation
Sherif’s study has high ecological validity. The boys were at a real summer camp and
had no idea anything unusual was going on. Activities like pulling the truck seemed
real to them.

45
 Social Approach student book

Sherif’s study is also valid because he used different methods, like observing and
tape-recording the boys. He collected quantitative and qualitative data about their
behaviour.
However, some parts of the study were unrealistic, like the
To get 4 marks for AO3,
bean-counting test, asking questions about their friendship
I’m making 4 clear and
choices and camp counsellors not imposing discipline.
different points about
Because the boys didn’t realise they were in an experiment, evaluation issues.
this means they couldn’t give informed consent. Sherif also Again, I’m writing 4
deceived them (eg telling them the truck was broken when it paragraphs, hoping to
wasn’t really). However, the boys’ parents knew about the get a point for each.
study and agreed to it.
Conclusion
To get into the top band
Sherif’s study shows how intergroup hostility is created and (7-8 marks) I must
how it can be reduced. It is strong evidence in favour of remember to write a
Realistic Conflict Theory and might help us reduce prejudice conclusion.
and discrimination in the real world.

Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything Sherif did. I haven’t
mentioned the “friction” condition or the prizes in the tournament. I haven’t mentioned the
way Sherif screened the boys beforehand. I haven’t described his conclusions.
But I have tried to make the two halves – Description and Evaluation – evenly balanced.

46
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL CONTEMPORARY STUDY: BURGER (2009) REPLICATING MILGRAM

Context

It shows how scientific
research proceeds, because
Burger is replicating parts of
Milgram’s study to see if the
conclusions still hold true
today (if not, they are “time
locked”).

It illustrates features of the
Social Approach, since it
explores how situations dictate
This study was carried out by Jerry people’s behaviour – but it also
Burger. It is a partial replication of the uses features of the Cognitive
famous Milgram study, with Approach, because it looks at
alterations to make it more ethical the influence of personality too
and an IV to test the hypotheses in

It illustrates the power of the
more detail. One of Migram’s
experimental method,
variations was Variation #5, which
manipulating an IV and
included the idea of the learner having
drawing conclusions about
a “heart condition” in the script. In
cause and effect from
Variation #17, there is a second
differences in the DV
teacher (also a confederate), who
encourages the main participant to
It shows the importance of
stop. Burger incorporates both ideas experimental design, since it
into his study. uses Independent Groups
design
This study is significant for students in
other ways:

Replicating Milgram
In the Milgram study, shocks went up beyond 150V after learning about the
to 450V and many participants heart condition, we can assume they
became distressed in the later stage. would go all the way to 450V and
Burger points out that in Variation #5 spare them the distress.
all the participants who did rebel
against authority dropped out by
150V; the 26 participants who were
still obedient after 150V all went on to
the end. 150V was the point where
the heart condition was announced.
This is the “point of no return”. Burger
argues there’s no need to continue
the experiment all the way to 450V: if
participants are prepared to go

47
 Social Approach student book

Burger was also interested in cognitive participants who would go to

factors that Milgram ignored. He 165V would go all the way to
focussed on two traits: empathy and 450V is a big assumption.
locus of control. Empathy is the ability

Notice Burger’s scientific
to put yourself in someone else’s approach. He has identified
position. Would empathic individuals
extraneous variables that
feel more sorry for the learner and might have influenced
want to stop sooner? Locus of control Milgram’s original participants
is the importance that autonomy and (empathy and locus of control)
independence has for you. Would
so in his experiment he puts in
participants with a strong locus of place Control. Burger measures
control resent being ordered about
these traits using
and rebel?
questionnaires then checks at

Burger is trying to make the the end to see if there’s a
study more ethical by not statistical link between scores
putting participants through in the traits and how many
(what he regards as) shocks the participants
unnecessary distress. However, delivered.
his assumption that

Burger’s Experiment
Aim: To find out if the same results as conditions. They were recruited
Milgram’s 1963 study re-occur when through newspaper ads and they were
the study is replicated with modern paid $50 before the study started.
participants in 2009. Also, to see if They were aged 20-81.
personality variables like empathy and Burger actually recruited a lot more
locus of control influence obedience. participants but screened many of
Finally, to see if the presence of a them out. He dropped volunteers who
disobedient “model” makes a had heard of Milgram’s original
difference to obedience levels. experiment, who had studies
IV: The main IV is the base condition Psychology for 2+ years, who had
(same as MIlgram, 1963) compared anxiety issues or drug dependency.
with the “rebellious partner” Procedure: The procedure replicated
condition. Milgram’s 1963 baseline study. The
This is an Independent Groups design. experimenter was a white man in his
30s; the confederate (learner) was in
DV: Obedience is measured by how
his 50s. The script resembled
many volts the last shock to be
Milgram’s but the test shock that the
delivered was, before the participant
participant received was only 15V
refused to go on, exhausted all the
rather than Milgram’s painful 45V. The
“prods” or reached 150V (whichever
participant/teacher watched the
happened first)
learner being strapped into the
Sample: 70 participants (a mixture of electric chair and then sat at the shock
men and women) did the experiment, generator in an adjacent room. The
being randomly put into the two teacher would read out 25 multiple

48
 Social Approach student book

choice questions and the learner used In the “model refusal” condition, a
a buzzer to indicate the answer. If the second confederate pretended to be a
answer was wrong, the experimenter second teacher. This teacher delivered
directed the learner to deliver a shock, the shocks, with the naïve participant
starting at 15V and going up in 15V watching. At 90V the confederate
intervals. teacher turned to the naïve
participant and said “I don’t know
The learner indicated they had a
about this.” He refused to go on and
“slight heart condition” but the
the experimenter told the naïve
experiment replied the shocks would
participant to take over delivering the
not be harmful. At 75V the learner
shocks.
started making sounds of pain. At
150V the learner cried that they Results: Burger found that 70% of
wanted to stop and complained about participants in the baseline condition
their heart condition. were prepared to go past 150V,
compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s
If the teacher moved to deliver the
Variation #5. This sounds like a big
165V shock, the experimenter stopped
difference but it is not statistically
the experiment.
significant given the number of people
involved.
Behaviour Base condition Model Refusal Milgram Variation
#5
Stopped at 150V
12 (30%) 11 (36.7%) 7 (17.5%)
or sooner
Continuing past
28 (70%) 19 (63.3%) 33 (82.5%)
150V
Remember these results are being compared to Milgram’s Variation #5, not to
Milgram’s original 1963 results. Variation #5 included the learner complaining about a
heart condition

Burger also compared men and influenced by situational factors to

women but didn’t find a difference in obey an authority figure, even if it
obedience. Women were slightly less goes against their moral values.
likely to obey in the “model refusal” Burger makes the assumption that any
condition but this was not statistically participant who was willing to go
significant. beyond 150V would have been willing
Empathy did not make a significant to go all the way to 450V the way
difference to obedience. However, in Milgram’s participants did. He argues
the base condition, those who that their “self perception” would
stopped at 150V or sooner did have a have made them do this. People like
significantly higher locus of control to see themselves as consistent; once
(but this was not the case in the they had made a decision to ignore
“model refusal” condition). the heart condition, they would not go
back on that.
Conclusions: Burger concludes that
Milgram’s results still stand half a The “model refusal” results were not
century later. People are still very different from the base condition.

49
 Social Approach student book

This is odd because Social Impact Empathy didn’t make a difference to

Theory suggests the impact of the obedience, which goes against what
authority figure would be lessened if Milgram thought. However, locus of
divided between two teachers rather control did make a bit of a difference,
than focused on one. Milgram found suggesting some people resist the
less obedience in this condition, but agentic state. However, this
he used two rebellious models, not disappeared in the “model refusal”
one. condition and Burger doesn’t have an
explanation for that.

Evaluating Burger
Generalisability By filming the whole thing, Burger
adds to the inter-rater reliability
Burger’s sample of 70 people is larger
because other people can view his
than Milgram’s sample of 40. It covers
participants’ behaviour and judge
a wider age range (Milgram recruited
obedience for themselves.
20-50 year olds, Burger 20-81 year
olds) and two thirds of Burger’s Application
sample were women, whereas The study demonstrates how
Milgram’s were all male. obedience to authority works and this
However, when you add up all can be used to increase obedience in
Milgram’s samples across all his settings like schools, workplaces and
Variations, there are much more than prisons. Authority figures should wear
70 and Milgram did test women in symbols of authority (uniforms) and
Variation #8. justify their authority with reference
to a “greater good”.
Burger also excluded a lot of people
from his final sample, for example Testing people for locus of control
people with emotional issues or some might identify those most likely to be
education in Psychology. This may disobedient – people with a strong
have affected the results and Milgram need to be in control are less likely to
used a wider range of types of people. take orders. Social Impact Theory
suggests strategies for increasing the
Reliability
pressure on these people to be
Milgram’s original procedure is very obedient.
reliable because it can be replicated.
Validity
In 1974, Milgram published the results
of his 19 Variations, which all Milgram’s study was criticised for
replicated his baseline 1963 study. lacking ecological validity because the
Burger is replicating aspects of task is artificial – in real life, teachers
Variation #5 (heart condition to test are not asked to deliver electric shocks
for empathy) and Variation #17 to learners. This criticism still applies
(model refusal) as well as Variation #8 to Burger’s study.
(testing women). Burger followed In other ways the study is valid.
Milgram’s script wherever possible Because the participants were paid
and used the same confederates every fully in advance, we can be fairly sure
time.

50
 Social Approach student book

it was social pressure that made them power to shut it down if it looked like
continue shocking, not a cost/benefit anyone was being harmed.
calculation about whether they Burger reduced the test shock from a
personally would gain or lose money. painful 45V to a mild 15V. He also
Paying in advance is an experimental stopped the study at 150V so he didn’t
Control that Milgram didn’t think of. force anyone to “go the distance” to
However, stopping the study at 150V 450V, which reduced many of
may be invalid. Perhaps participants Milgram’s participants to tears (and
who were prepared to go to 165V three of them fainted).
would still have dropped out later. It is Nonetheless, there are still ethical
a huge assumption to say they would criticisms. Burger deceived his
have continued to 450V. The “model participants just as Milgram had done
refusal;” group, in particular, might – the shocks weren’t real, the
have had second thoughts as the learner’s cries were a tape recording,
shocks got stronger. the learner and second teacher were
Ethics confederates. He did not get informed
consent (as with Milgram, this was
Burger believes his study avoids the
advertised as a memory study),
ethical problems of Milgram’s original.
although he did debrief participants
Burger screened out participants who
afterwards. The BPS Ethical Guidelines
were likely to be distressed by the
say participants must not be
study and employed a trained clinical
distressed; even though no one was
psychologist to help him do this.
reduced to tears, the procedure was
The study was approved by the surely distressing for at least some
university Ethics Panel, who had the participants.

EXAM STYLE ANSWER

Evaluate one contemporary study from social psychology. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for AO1 (Describe) and 4 marks
for AO3 (Evaluate).
Description
Burger replicated the Milgram study into obedience. In
particular, he replicated variation #5 (testing empathy because To get 4 marks for AO1,
I’m making 4 clear and
the learner said he had a heart condition).
different points about
Burger also tested other variables, like whether a “model Burger’s study.
refuser” makes the participant more likely to disobey, whether
I’m writing 4
women are more likely to disobey and whether personality paragraphs, hoping to
affects the results. get a point for each.
Burger hired a clinical psychologist to test all the participants (I’ve made a point of
first and a lot were disqualified because they had emotional including numbers to
issues or they knew enough about psychology to recognise show I know details
that this was a replication of the Milgram study. about the study)
Burger’s version of the study only went up to 150V. If the

51
 Social Approach student book

participant started to deliver the 165V shock, the study ended right away.
Evaluation
Burger’s study has problems with ecological validity just like Milgram. Giving electric
shocks to a learner is artificial and doesn’t happen in real life. That means the study
doesn’t really tell us about why people obeyed the Nazis.
However, Burger did improve the validity by paying the
participants $50 in advance. This removes the confounding To get 4 marks for AO3,
variable that some of them might have continued because they I’m making 4 clear and
were worried they would lose the money (a cost/benefit different points about
analysis, not real obedience). evaluation issues.

Burger’s biggest problem is that he stopped the study at 150V Again, I’m writing 4
paragraphs, hoping to
and assumed that anyone who was prepared to go on would
get a point for each.
have gone to 450V. This might not be true, especially in the
“model refusal” condition where participants might have backed (I’ve included some
out later. facts about the study
here too but these are
However, Burger did this to make the study more ethical than separate from the
Milgram. Delivering the higher shocks to a learner who seems to “description” above)
be dead was very distressing for Milgram’s participants and
Burger spared his participants having to do this.
Conclusion
Burger did what was supposed to be impossible – replicating
Migram ethically. He settles the debate about whether you To get into the top band
would get Milgram’s same results in the 21st century – you (7-8 marks) I must
would! However, he leaves a lot of questions, such as why remember to write a
empathy didn’t make people stop and why the “model refuser” conclusion.
had so little impact.

Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything Burger did. I haven’t
mentioned the “model refusal” condition or the fact that the test shock was reduced to 15V. I
haven’t mentioned the test for locus of control. I haven’t described Burger’s results.
But I have tried to make the two halves – Description and Evaluation – evenly balanced.

52
 Social Approach student book

The Key Question is a question about real life that Social Psychology might
answer.
In the exam you might be given a Key Question to think about along with a
short passage describing it. Or you might be asked about the Key Question you
have researched as part of the Social Approach.
The Key Question presented here is:
How can knowledge of Social Psychology be used to reduce prejudice in

“ situations such as crowd behaviour or rioting?”

Any exam question on this is going to be assessing AO2 (Application).

If you are asked to summarise, outline or describe your Key Question,
then the Examiner want you to outline the key features of crowd
behaviour and perhaps some of the famous examples of racism or riots.
This is like general knowledge and you do not need to start using
psychological terms or theories.

If you are asked to use your knowledge of psychology to explain or
answer the Key Question, this is where you will be applying theories of
prejudice or the findings of famous studies to explain why crowds
produces these behaviours or how the solutions might work.

Keep these two requirements firmly in your mind. They may be asked
separately (for example, as two 4-mark questions) or combined
together (as a single 8-mark question)

You can use the information on the following pages to summarise your Key
Question. There is more here than you need. You may like to choose one
aspect of the Key Issue that interests you – such as the Ferguson unrest – and
follow them up in more detail. Internet links are provided to help you.

53
 Social Approach student book

SOCIAL KEY QUESTION: HOW CAN PSYCHOLOGY HELP WITH PREJUDICE?

Your suggested Key Question is:
How can knowledge of Social Psychology be used to reduce prejudice in

“ situations such as crowd behaviour or rioting?”

Remember it’s a Key QUESTION. If the Examiner asks you what it is, don’t write
“Prejudice”. “Prejudice” isn’t a question. Questions have question marks at the end and
start with a word like “how”.
The exam may ask you to “summarise” your Key Question. This means giving some of
the information below.

The Features of Crowd Behaviour and Riots

Crowd behaviour means how people close defeat and almost always
behave differently when in large in the winning team’s city
groups. It is also known as “mob
Urban riot: a riot in an inner
mentality” or “herd mentality”. It is
city area, triggered by poor
believed to occur because people feel living conditions or
anonymous in crowds and lose their
unemployment
sense of identity.
Riots are when crowd behaviour “Features” means facts
involves lashing out at other people or about your Key Issue –
what forms does it takes,
property. Riots often express protest
what types are there?
or a sense of grievance. The common
types of riots include: (You’re not talking any
Psychology here. It’s

Police riot: when the general knowledge
authorities use really)
disproportionate force on
civilians; this includes when Later you can explain
the social psychology
the police attack peaceful
behind the formation of
protestors, causing them to
ingroups and outgroups.
fight back

Prison riot: a concerted Rioters often hide their identity with
uprising by prisoners, either to masks or scarves, but as more and
express grievances or escape more people join the riot, the risk of

Race riot: a riot involving being identified goes down. This
violence between two ethnic creates a “vicious circle” and the riot
groups, usually a majority spreads. Riots are often contained
group attacking a minority when the police are present in enough
numbers to increase the risk of being

Sports riot: a riot between fans
arrested again.
of two teams, usually after a

54
 Social Approach student book

Racist Chelsea Fans

In February 2015, Chelsea fans Four fans were later identified,
attended a match in Paris against the arrested and banned from attending
French team Paris Saint-Germain. football matches for 5 years. One of
Before the match, there was a racist them lost his job as an accountant
incident on the Paris Métro. because of his involvement.
Souleymane Sylla was repeatedly and Back in England, Chelsea fans raised
violently pushed off the carriage as he money for Mr Sylla to come to London
tried to board the train. The fans on and watch a match. Chelsea FC stated:
the train blocked the door, made “We certainly hope he’ll take us up on
aggressive and insulting hand gestures it so he can meet real Chelsea fans and
and chanted, “We’re racist, we’re experience the true spirit of the club.”
racist and that’s the way we like it”
and “John Terry is racist and that’s the The incident is captured on video
way we like it.” Chelsea captain John
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-
Terry had been cleared of racially england-london-33622106
abusing another player in 2013. The
incident was filmed on a mobile phone Describing this incident would be
by a passerby and also captured on good if you can go on to explain the
CCTV. social psychology behind it and the
Club’s response.

Ferguson Riots
In August 2014, an African-American increased when a police dog urinated
youth, Michael Brown, was fatally shot on the fowers and a police vehicle
by a police officer in Ferguson, crushed the shrine. 150 riot police
Missouri. Although Brown had arrived with tear gas but the rioters
allegedly been involved in a robbery, destroyed a dozen businesses and set
many people felt that the US police two on fire.
were too willing to use force against Riots continued for the rest of the
African American suspects.
week. Many people complained that
A shrine of flowers was set up and a the police used military-style tactics
peaceful protest gathered. Tensions against the crowds, some of whom

55
 Social Approach student book

claimed to be using their right to At the funeral of Michael Brown, the

protest. Eventually, an African- family called for calm. Violence started
American police chief Ron Howard up again when the prison officer who
was put in charge. Howard marched shot Brown was acquitted by a court
alongside protesters in a peaceful and again on the anniversary of the
gathering. shooting.

This BBC video reports on According to The Washington Post,

peaceful protests in Ferguson Ferguson is a community where two-
thirds of the population are black, but
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
in the Ferguson Police Department 48
v=QvaAX3D0Tds
of the 53 officers are white.
This video shows tear gas being
used against crowds when the It was reported in court that Ferguson
verdict was released: police were “twice as likely to arrest
African Americans during traffic stops
https://www.youtube.com/watch? as they were whites” and this had
v=ZxyOTLlbIsM created suspicion and hostility
towards the police.

56
 Social Approach student book

Applying Psychology to the Key Question

Any question on your Key Question will be assessing you on AO2 (Application of
Concepts and Ideas) so as well as telling the Examiner about prejudice and how it
can be tackled, you need to explain the psychology behind these ideas.

You might get a question in two parts: one part asking you to summarise your Key Quest
and then another part asking you to use your psychological knowledge (the “apply”
command from AO2).
Or you might get one question which asks you to explain and apply psychology to your
Key Question: in this case, it’s a good idea to write the answer in two “halves”, getting
all the explanation out of the way then dealing with the AO2 application.

Features Chelsea Fans

“Mob mentality” can be explained by The Chelsea fans saw themselves as an
Social Identity Theory. When people ingroup. Social identification meant
join a large crowd, they change their they all joined in the chanting. Social
social identity because they start to comparison meant they saw Mr Sylla
see the crowd as their new ingroup as an outgroup member, partly
and everyone else as an outgroup. because he was French and their team
This makes them less respectful of was playing a French team but also
property and the law, because these because he was black and they were
are viewed as outgroup products. all white.
A different explanation might be Agency Theory might also explain the
Realistic Conflict Theory, because the racist behaviour, because Chelsea
crowd might really be in competition captain John Terry was perceived (by
of scarce resources with another these fans) to have racist views. If the
group. This is more likely in a race riot fans were in an Agentic State, they
or an urban riot. might have behaved in a racist way in
obedience to John Terry.
Another explanation might be Agency
Theory, because their may be Four fans were singled out a
authority figures organising the crowd. ringleaders and arrested. Social
There might be symbols of authority, Impact Theory would explain how
like placards and slogans. The crowd these men might have influenced the
might feel moral strain about using rest. In a crowded subway train, they
violence, but by entering an Agentic would have been very close to each
State, they feel the organisers are other and had a lot of social impact on
responsible, not them. the fans surrounding them. As fellow
fans, they would have had what
Social Impact Theory would explain
French & Raven call “referent power”.
why the police lose control over a riot
when the numbers get too large By inviting Mr Sylla to a Chelsea
because of division of impact. If the match, home fans are trying to bring
police increase their presence, this him into their ingroup. This will make
restores their social impact. Mr Sylla feel less hurt and angry,
because he will no longer see Chelsea

57
 Social Approach student book

fans or the English as an outgroup. It Duckitt’s theory of “domination of the

may also lessen racism in future, outgroup by the ingroup” applies
because the fans will see Black French here, because many commentators
people like Mr Sylla as “Chelsea fans” (including President Obama) criticised
too and part of their ingroup. the police. This justified the protesters
in what they were doing and explains
Ferguson
why a new police officer was put in
This was both a police riot and a race charge.
riot. The black community of Ferguson
When Ron Johnson marched alongside
sees the white Ferguson PD as an
the protesters, he was joining their
outgroup and the police officers see
ingroup and making his police seem
the black community the same way.
less of an outgroup. This made him
Social comparison means they will
more of an authority figure for the
interpret each other’s behaviour in the
crowds, giving him what French &
worst way: the crowds will see the
Raven call referent power as well as
destruction of the shrine as a
legitimate power and coercive power.
deliberate insult (it may have been
accidental) and the police will see the If the Ferguson PD can recruit more
protesting as criminal behaviour (it African American officers, the black
may have been peaceful). community may see them as less of an
outgroup with more referent power.
There is also an explanation from
However, Realistic Conflict Theory
Realistic Conflict Theory, because the
would say this unrest won’t stop until
black community is poor but
the competition between different
numerous, whereas the white
ethnic groups in America is reduced.
community is wealthy but has the
police on its side. The two groups are
in competition for control of Ferguson.

EXAM STYLE ANSWER

Summarise the key question you have studied from Social Psychology, using your
knowledge of memory. (8 marks)

A 8-mark “evaluate” question awards 4 marks for summarising and 4 marks
for AO2 (Apply).
The Key Question
My Key Question was “How can Social Psychology be used to reduce prejudice in
situations such as crowd behaviour or rioting?”

58
 Social Approach student book

Summary
Crowd behaviour or “mob mentality” occurs when people
behave differently in large groups. It can lead to violence To get 4 marks for AO1,
and vandalism. This is called rioting. I’m making 4 clear and
different points about
One example of crowd behaviour is the racist incident prejudice.
involving Chelsea fans in the Paris subway in 2015. The fans
I’ve referred to 3 topics
refused to let Mr Sylla board a train and chanted racist here, but I could have
chants. referred to just one in
Chelsea FC apologised to Mr Sylla. Other fans raised money detail.
for him to come to London and see “the true spirit of the
club.” The four ringleaders were banned from matches.
An example of rioting would be the Ferguson riots of 2014. When Michael Brown
was shot by a white police officer, there was a protest about racist police tactics that
turned into a riot that lasted for days.
Application
Social Identity Theory explains crowd behaviour because the
people see the crowd as their ingroup but anyone else is To get 4 marks for AO3,
viewed as an outgroup and shown less respect, which may I’m making 4 clear and
lead to vandalism or violence. different points about
evaluation issues.
The Chelsea fans saw Mr Sylla as an outgroup because he was
French and black. Social Identification meant they joined in Again, I’m writing 4
paragraphs, hoping to
chanting together and Social Comparison meant they pushed
get a point for each.
him off the train.
I could have written
By inviting Mr Sylla to London, Chelsea fans are including him more about 2 or 3
in their ingroup. This might make him feel better about tem points, rather than 4
and reduce racist incidents in future. different points.
The Ferguson riots might be because of the racial composition (I’ve started each point
of the Ferguson PD, which is mostly white, whereas Ferguson off with “X can be
is mostly black. This leads each group to treat the other badly, applied to Y”)
which is why the police overreacted and the crowd turned
violent.
Conclusion
SIT suggests we can reduce prejudice by encouraging people
To get into the top band
to view others as members of their ingroup. However,
(7-8 marks) I must
Realistic Conflict Theory would say the Ferguson unrest won’t
remember to write a
stop so long as African Americans have less access to
conclusion.
resources like wealth or jobs or protection by the law.

Notice that for a 8-mark answer you don’t have to include everything about crowd
behaviour. I haven’t mentioned the other types of riots or the precise details of the Ferguson
unrest. I haven’t mentioned the examples of Chelsea chanting or John Terry as Chelsea
Captain. I haven’t described any theories of obedience.
But I have tried to make the two halves – Summary and Application – evenly balanced.

59