Psychology Issues and debates paper 3
Psychological
1.
knowledge/understanding over time(1)
✅
2.Use of psychological knowledge over
time (1) ✅
3. Ethical issues (1) ✅
4. Nature vs nurture (1) ✅
5. Gender and culture (1)✅
6. Reductionism ✅
7. Psychology as a science ✅
8. Practical issues (1)✅
9. Social control
10.socially sensitive
Section B: (24 marks)
, 1. 2 marker ( ao2/a03)
2. 6 marker (ao2/ao3) - explain. how useful (theory) is in
accounting for the findings of unseen study
3. 16 (ao1/ao3) I+D on 2 classic studies
Section C:
1. 12 marker
2. 20 marker
Psychological knowledge over time:
Social:
The evolution of psychological knowledge in the social domain has witnessed significant
shifts since the aftermath of World War II. Post-1945, the prevailing assumption that
'Germans were different' due to the perception that ordinary humans couldn't be
capable of orchestrating genocide was widespread. However, Milgram's (1963) study
tested obedience to an experimenter's order where a participant (the teacher) was
asked to give increasing electric shocks to the learner (a confederate). Milgram found
that most people obeyed (65% fully, 100% up to 300 V). This early evidence showed
that people would obey an authority figure (the experimenter) because the situation
gave the experimenter status - wearing a technician's coat, using scientific equipment
and being at a prestigious location.
Milgram's study can be considered valid as it exhibits a degree of reliability due to its
standardized procedure, including a predetermined script with the 4 prods if the ppts
deviated from shocking such as 1) please continue, 4) you have no other choice, you
just go on. Moreover, the use of a taped response from "Mr. Wallace such as at 315
volts where he Bangs on wall again, then becomes completely unresponsive Creates
consistency allowing for replication and comparison across different trials and
researchers which can be seen through burgers replication.
,From this Milgram developed agency theory which says that we obey when we are in
the agentic state (placing responsibility of your actions onto an authority figure) and
don't in the autonomous state(recognise your free will and take responsibility of your
own actions). This was useful because it provided the early reasons for the process of
obedience. The 65% participants in milgrams baseline study were in an agentic state
because they had been socialised to respond to authority figures, which can also been
seen in sedikides and Jackson’s study with more obeying a uniformed zookeeper giving
orders compared to a zoo keeper wearing casual attire.
However, A weakness of agency theory is evident in individual differences observed in
obedience levels. Despite being placed in the same authoritative context, not all
participants obeyed in Milgram's experiments. About 35% did not follow orders, despite
receiving identical instructions to those who complied. This variability suggests that
factors beyond the agentic state, proposed by agency theory, contribute to obedience,
indicating a need to consider individual differences and other influencing factors in
understanding why people obey or resist authority.
In 2009, Burger replicated Milgram's study and found similar levels of obedience to
authority figures. Despite updated ethical guidelines, Burger's replication revealed that a
substantial 70% of participants were willing to administer shocks past 150v, echoing the
concerning obedience patterns observed in Milgram's original study. This replication
suggests the persistence of the phenomenon of obedience across time in both men and
women, highlighting its robust nature.
Moreover, Burger's study can be viewed as more ethical than Milgram's original due to
several considerations. Burger implemented screening procedures to ensure
participants were psychologically stable, and the experimenter was a trained clinical
psychologist, reducing potential harm. The study received approval from a university
ethics panel, demonstrating a commitment to ethical guidelines. Importantly, Burger did
not compel participants to go to the maximum shock level of 450 volts, stopping at 150
volts, minimizing psychological distress compared to Milgram's study. These measures
aimed to prioritize participant well-being and adhere to contemporary ethical standards.
In conclusion, the evolution of psychological knowledge in the social domain,
particularly regarding obedience, has seen advancements in ethical standards.
However, it is evident that despite these changes, our understanding of obedience has
not substantially transformed. Recent geopolitical conflicts, such as Ukraine and Russia,
underscore the persistent occurrence of blind obedience to authority figures,
, reminiscent of historical atrocities post-World War II. This suggests that while ethical
considerations have evolved, the underlying psychological dynamics of obedience
continue to pose challenges in preventing instances of unquestioning compliance with
authority.
OBEDIENCE
The study of obedience is about understanding why people follow orders. There was
little interest in this prior to the Second World War but the Holocaust drew attention to it,
attempting to find the cause of such behaviour. Milgram's (1963) study tested obedience
to an experimenter's order where a participant (the teacher) was asked to give
increasing electric shocks to the learner (a confederate). Milgram found that most
people obeyed (65% fully, 100% up to 300 V). This early evidence showed that people
would obey an authority figure (the experimenter) because the situation gave the
experimenter status - wearing a technician's coat, using scientific equipment and being
at a prestigious location.
However Milgram's original study lacked certain experimental controls and a clear
independent variable, making it challenging to identify specific causal factors for
obedience. This means that he didn't know the actual reason for the
obedience.Subsequent experiments, such as the telephonic instructions one, aimed to
isolate variables like proximity to establish clearer causal links and enhance the validity
of the findings. These refinements in research design contribute to a more nuanced
understanding of the factors influencing obedience in the Milgram experiments,
therefore increasing internal validity.
Next, Milgram considered the role of the situation using an experimental approach in
order to look for causal effects. He used the 1963 data as a baseline and compared this
to variations, i.e. different IVs such as the experimenter on the phone where the
experimenter left the room, a non-official source of orders (the ordinary man) 20%.. and
rundown office.. (rather than Yale) 45.7% . All of these reduced obedience stats.
Milgram concluded that the situation determined obedience as he had controlled
potential extraneous variables such as the nature of the prods and the shock generator.
These studies contributed to progress by improving the scientific nature of research into
obedience.
These studies gave Milgram the foundation for his agency theory, which represents an
increase in understanding because it is an explanation. It says that we obey when we
are in the agentic state and don't in the autonomous state. This was useful because it
provided the first reasons for people's behaviour. They were in an agentic state because
