Social Psychology : Section C

Here is Your Section C guide to Social Psychology , Remember this involves Milgram: Obedience, Piliavin et.al: Subway Samaritan and Reicher and Haslams BBC Prison study 

 The Assumptions of The Social Approach (2 marks)

 The social approach assumes we learn behaviour in three ways, firstly by Social Influence, which is where we are influenced by others, secondly by Social Interaction- which is the way in which we form relationships with others and thirdly, by Social Cognition- which is how the influence of others and our interaction with others affects the way we think.  

In The social approach there are three main things they are going to ask you to answer which is how the social approach could explain obedience( this is where you would use Milgram), helping behaviour (this is where you would use Piliavin) and group membership (this is where you would use Reicher and Haslam). 

 Here is an Example: 
Describe how the social approach could explain group membership (4 marks) The social approach suggests that situational factors affect group membership, for example if you're pressured by another you might identify with that group. Reicher and Haslam suggested that group membership can be affected by status, for example in their study Reicher and Haslam expected the guards to identify with their roles as they had high status however this did not happen due to the individual differences between them. Similarities and Differences between the Studies in Social Psychology, (6 markers) Similarities between Milgram and Piliavin:- Both took place in the 60's which is when society had more respect for authority and people tended to me more helpful and obedient in comparison to today’s world.- Both participants were influenced by somebody working for the experimenter- Both had bad ethical issues- Both Ethno-centric - Both recorded spontaneous comments  Differences between Milgram and Piliavin:- Milgram used a Laboratory experiment which lacked in ecological validity and was highly controlled where as Piliavin uses a naturalistic controlled observation which was more naturalistic so it boosted ecological validity. Similarities between Piliavin and Reicher and Haslam:- Both looked at helping behaviour- Both stuck to observational ethic guidelines- Both studied people in groups- Both ethnocentric- Both used Quantitative and Qualitative data Differences between Piliavin and Reicher and Haslam - Piliavin studied in the real world where as Reicher and Haslam studied in an artificial set up setting which decreased their ecological validity- Reicher and Haslam used questionnaires and Quantitative data on top of observation to back up results. Similarities between Reicher and Haslam and Milgram:- Both Lab Experiments - Participants unprotected from harm at some point- Both self-selected sample - Both used some sort of observation - Both only used males - Both lacked experimental realism. Differences between Reicher and Haslam and Milgram:- Milgram studied individuals (one participant at a time) where as Reicher and Haslam studied group processes.- Milgrams study was highly unethical where as Reicher and Haslam was ethical. Section C Part C Describe one similarity and one difference between any of the social approach studies (6)* Piliavin and MilgramOne similarity between Milgram and Piliavin's study is that both studies had ethical issues. By this we mean that at some point throughout the study the participants could have been put through a negative experience. For example in Piliavin's study participants were unaware of their participation in their study-use of deception and protection of harm was broken as someone falling over could prove to be a traumatic experience. In Milgram's study deception was used and participants were told that they were doing a study on learning behaviour where as they took a part of a study of obedience in real life. One difference between Piliavin and Milgram is that they both used different experimental designs, by this we mean that both studies were carried out in different ways. Milgram chose to carry his study out via a laboratory experiment which took place in a highly controlled  environment in which participants were not used to where as Piliavin carried out a naturalistic controlled observation which happened on a train and also there is a high possibility that the experiment could happen in real life. Strengths and weaknesses of the Social Psychology Approach (Part D -12 marks) One strength of the social approach is that it uses real life situations to study behaviour; this is a strength because social psychology is interested in human interaction and this is best studied in real life situations where participants have the opportunity to interact. For example in Pilivans study the research took place on genuine NYC Trains which meant that participants were in a naturalistic setting and were unaware of being studied which gave the researchers the chance to observe naturalistic interactions. Another strength of the social approach is that it helps us to understand social behaviour. This is a strength because it means we are able to explain and offer solutions to problems in the real world e.g. behaviour in groups of prisons. For example in Reicher and Haslams study they were able to demonstrate how the breakdown of a group can lead to conditions to which tyranny can flourish and situations become unpleasant. One weakness of the social approach is that ethical problems can arise when studying social behaviour. This is a problem because it can affect reliability of research in this area. For example in Milgrams study participants felt withdraw was impossible due to the prods used so therefore the reliability of this study can be questioned as the results could be due to the influence of the experimenters. Another weakness of the social approach is that it can be ethnocentric. This is a weakness because results gained from one culture may not reflect the behaviour and experiences of another culture. For example in Piliavin’s study the study could not be generalised to other areas or cultures which means that countries in Europe may have shown different results but as the study only took place in New York City it can’t be generalised.