30/01/2023

Major Approaches in
Psychology:
Social Approach
Christopher Giorgio
Module 2C

What is
Attachment?

1
 30/01/2023

Attachment is a key feature of emotional

development. What is
Attachment?
A lot of definitions & research focus on mother-
child attachment, which is often an infant’s first &
most important attachment.

This does not mean that an infant’s primary

attachment is solely with mothers.
• It could be with other female figures, parents, caregivers, etc.
who infants have regular contact.

Definition (Berk, 2013, p. 426)

• Attachment is “the strong, affectionate tie
we have with special people in our lives that
leads us to experience pleasure and joy What is
when we interact with them and to be Attachment?
comforted by their nearness in times of
stress”.
Highlight any words that strike you.

2
 30/01/2023

Definition (Berk, 2013, p. 426)

• Attachment is “the strong,

affectionate tie we have with special What is
people in our lives that leads us to Attachment?
experience pleasure and joy when we
interact with them and to be
comforted by their nearness in times
of stress”.

What is Attachment?
Attachment is a
powerful emotional
relationship between
two people.
(e.g., parent & child)

3
 30/01/2023

1. The infant responds similarly to everyone. Bowlby’s 5

Phases of
2. At 5 months, the infant starts to discriminate
between people (e.g., smiling mainly at mother). Attachment

3. At 7 months, the infant remains close to one

caregiver, & becomes upset when the caregiver leaves
- separation anxiety/protest.

4. From 3 years, the child recognises the caregiver’s

needs.

5. From 5 years, the child has an internal

representation of the child-caregiver relationship.
• Therefore, the attachment remains strong even when
the child does not see the caregiver for some time.

Secure Insecure

Can our earliest

relationships
influence future
ones?

Infant’s first
Any disruptions can
attachments are
have severe
models for future
consequences.
relationships.

4
 30/01/2023

Secure • A strong & contented attachment of an infant

to its mother, including when she returns after
Attachment an absence.

Resistant • An insecure attachment of an infant to its

mother, combined with resistance of contact
Attachment when she returns after an absence.
Attachment Types
(Ainsworth & Bell, 1970;
Main et al., 1985)
Avoidant • An insecure attachment of an infant to its
mother, combined with avoidance of contact
Attachment with her when she returns after an absence.

Disorganised/ • An insecure attachment of an infant to its

Disoriented mother, combined with no reaction, a mixture
Attachment of resistance & avoidance when she returns.

with its mother only

The infant (≈ 12 months) is
Strange observed during 8 short
episodes.
Situation Test
with its mother & stranger
(Ainsworth &
Bell, 1970) The infant spends time:

with the stranger only

on its own

10

5
 30/01/2023

Strange
Situation Test
(Ainsworth &
Bell, 1970)

11

The infant’s reactions are recorded:

• reaction to stranger
Strange • reaction to separation from mother
• reaction to mother’s return (especially important to observe)
Situation Test
Secure The infant is distressed by the mother’s absence, but rapidly
(Ainsworth & (70%) returns to contentment after her return, immediately
Bell, 1970) seeking contact with her.
Clear difference in reaction to mother vs. stranger.

Avoidant The infant shows little distress in mother’s absence & avoids
contact when she returns.
(20%)
Infant treats stranger & mother similarly.

Resistant The infant becomes very distressed by mother’s absence &

resists contact when she returns.
(10%)
Infant is wary of the stranger.

12

6
 30/01/2023

Child’s
internal
working
Strange model

Situation Test Secure Child has a positive Caregiver who is

(Ainsworth & (70%) working model. emotionally available,
Bell, 1970) sensitive & supportive.

Avoidant Child has a working Caregiver who is

(20%) model as unacceptable & rejecting .
unworthy.

Resistant Child has a negative self- Caregiver who is

(10%) image & exaggerates inconsistent.
emotional responses to
gain attention.

13

Infant with this type of attachment lacked any coherent strategy

for coping with the Strange Situation.

Their behavior was a confusing mixture of approach & avoidance.

How would
infants who are Child’s internal working model: those that love me, hurt me.
disorganized/
Caregiver: probably abuses the child.
disoriented react
in strange
situation test?

14

7
 30/01/2023

Dimensional Approach to Attachment

(Fraley & Spieker, 2003)
Assigning children to 3-4 attachment categories is
neat & tidy. Does this reflect reality?

One can use dimensions rather than categories:

Avoidant/Withdrawal vs. Angry/Resistant vs.
Proximity-seeking Emotional Confidence
• The extent a child tries to • The child’s emotional
maintain physical closeness reactions to the attachment
with attachment figure figure’s behaviour

15

Cross-cultural
Differences:
Attachment
Behaviours
(Sagi et al.,
1991)
There are important These may depend
cross-cultural heavily on cultural What do you
differences in expectations of what observe?
attachment behavior. is appropriate.

16

8
 30/01/2023

Cross-cultural
Differences:
Attachment German infants least likely to be securely attached &
Behaviours most likely to be avoidant.

None of the Japanese infants were avoidant.

Very few Israeli infants were avoidant.

17

German infants least likely to be securely attached & most

likely to be avoidant.
- German parents prefer their infants to be independent, non-
clinging, & obedient (Grossman et al., 1985).

Why are there

these cross- None of the Japanese infants were avoidant.
- Japanese mothers in the 1980s practically never left their
cultural infants with a stranger, so being alone with a stranger was a
differences? new experience for infants.

Very few Israeli infants were avoidant.

- These infants lived on a kibbutz (collective farm) & were
mostly looked after by strangers.
- However, they had a close relationship with their mothers &
so tended not to be avoidant.

18

9
 30/01/2023

Theories of Attachment

19

Maternal Sensitivity Hypothesis (Ainsworth et al., 1978) Theories of

• The sensitivity of the mother/caregiver predicts infant attachment Attachment
security.
• Mothers of securely attached children are sensitive to their needs,
responding rapidly & appropriately.

De Wolff & van IJzendoorn (1997) agreed with the hypothesis but
other aspects of mothers’ behaviour were important:
• Stimulation – any action directed at her infant.
• Attitude – mother’s expressions of positive emotion toward her infant.

Lucassen et al. (2011) argued that the infants’ attachment security

also depends on paternal sensitivity, although to a lesser extent.
• The maternal sensitivity hypothesis exaggerates the mother’s role.
Nurture

20

10
 30/01/2023

Temperament Hypothesis (Kagan, 1984)

Theories of
• Genes moderately influence temperament/personality.
• An infant’s temperament/personality influences its attachment
Attachment
to its mother.

Twin Studies (e.g. O’Connor & Croft, 2001) support this:

• Identical twins (share 100% genes) had more similar

attachment styles than fraternal twins (share 50% genes).

Nature

21

An infant’s attachment type depends on a

combination of genetic make-up & maternal
sensitivity (gene-environment interaction).

Research suggests that maternal sensitivity

can be especially valuable with genetically
at-risk infants.

Theories of Attachment

Nature vs Nurture

22

11
 30/01/2023

Psychoanalytic Approach
• According to Freud, infants are in the oral stage of
psychosexual development (0 – 18 months).
• Infants obtain pleasure (id) through oral experiences
(e.g. sucking mother’s breast)
• Therefore, they are initially attracted/attached to their
mothers because they provide food (mum = food).

Behaviourist Approach
• Attachment behaviour does not depend only on provision
of food.
• The experiment on infant monkeys (Harlow, 1959) showed
that infants require safety & comfort – love.
• Infants have this need for love & therefore seek
attachments with figures who provide it.

23

Harry Harlow
Experiment

24

12
 30/01/2023

Disrupt an infant’s
deprivation
attachments
Unfortunately, in
life there are several
events that can: Or even prevent
such attachments privation
being formed

Deprivation
• The state of a child who has formed a close attachment to someone but is later
separated from that person.

Privation
• The state of child who has never formed a close attachment with another person.

25

What events could cause this?

Deprivation &
Privation
Separation/ Anything
Death
Divorce else?

26

13
 30/01/2023

“an infant and young child should experience a

warm, intimate and continuous relationship with
John Bowlby his mother (or permanent mother figure) in
(1907-1990) which both find satisfaction and enjoyment.”
(Bowlby, 1951)

Do you agree with this statement?

What would happen if this maternal bond is

broken?
• Bowlby (1951) proposed the maternal deprivation hypothesis.

27

Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis

Definition:
the notion that a breaking of the bond
between child & mother during the first few
years often has serious long-term effects.
• Effects: intellectual, social & emotional
development of a child is negatively affected.
• Bowlby claimed that these can be
permanent/irreversible in 25% of children.

28

14
 30/01/2023

Monotropy Hypothesis:
the notion that infants have an
innate tendency to form special
bonds with one person.

Maternal • Infants form one strong

attachment, generally the mother.
Deprivation
Hypothesis
Bowlby made two Critical Period:
other assumptions: A period early in life (1-3 years)
during which infants must form a
strong attachment if their later
development is to be satisfactory.
• After, it is not possible to
establish a powerful attachment
to the mother/caregiver.

29

Do you agree with this

hypothesis & the two
assumptions?
Maternal
Deprivation The maternal deprivation
Hypothesis hypothesis is controversial
& has its critics.
Rutter (1981) claimed Bowlby’s
ideas were oversimplified in
three ways.

30

15
 30/01/2023

1. Bowlby failed to distinguish between deprivation &

privation.

Do you remember the difference?

Rutter’s Three
Claims Deprivation: The state of a child who has
formed a close attachment to someone
Privation: The state of child who has
never formed a close attachment with
but is later separated from that person. another person.

Research suggests that the negative effects of privation are

greater than those of deprivation.

31

2. The notion that deprivation causes long-term difficulties is

wrong.
Rutter argued that the effects of deprivation depend on
the reasons for the separation.

Rutter’s Three 3. It is doubtful that negative effects of long-term maternal

Claims deprivation are irreversible.
Rutter argued that these effects could be reversed if
deprived children are placed with a loving family.

Research supports all of Rutter’s claims.

32

16
 30/01/2023

Are there studies that support Bowlby’s maternal

deprivation hypothesis?

Spitz (1945) found that children living in very poor orphanages &
other institutions in South America became apathetic, suffered
from helplessness, and loss of appetite.

Goldfarb (1947) found that children who spent a longer period in

orphanages (3 years) were more likely to become loners &
aggressive, than those who spent only a few months.
• He studied children who had spend their early life in a poor & inadequately
staffed orphanage before being fostered.

33

Case Study:
Cezarina
• Can you apply
Bowlby’s hypothesis
in this case?

• Comment on
Cezarina’s social,
emotional &
intellectual skills?

• Did she catch up?

34

17
 30/01/2023

Prosocial behaviour: Altruism: Empathy:

• Any behaviour that is of • A form of prosocial • the ability to share another
benefit to someone else. behaviour that is generally person’s feelings &
• It includes actions which are costly to the altruistic understand that person’s
cooperative, affectionate, & person. perspective.
helpful to others. • Such behaviour is motivated
• Such behaviour may (not) by the desire to help
be costly to the person someone else, rather than
engaging in such behaviour. gain rewards.

Prosocial Behaviour – Key Terms

35

Development of Prosocial Behaviour

Freud & Piaget emphasised children’s tendency to
engage in antisocial rather than prosocial behaviour.

Research shows that this is an exaggerated account

of children’s selfishness.

Example: Zahn-Waxler et al. (1992)

• Young children engage in prosocial behaviour in
response to another person’s behaviour.
(e.g. sharing food, hugging)
• Prosocial behaviour increases with age.

36

18
 30/01/2023

Svetlova et al. (2010) identified three kinds of

prosocial behaviour in 18-30 month-old children:
• 1. Instrumental helping: assisting another person to
achieve something, e.g. finding a toy. (very common)
Development • 2. Empathic helping: showing concern about
another person. (less common)
of Prosocial • 3. Altruistic helping: giving up an object owned by
Behaviour the child. (least common)
Some apparently altruistic behaviours (e.g. giving a
bottle to a crying baby) may be done to receive
attention/praise rather than genuine altruism.

Pro-social behaviour is limited, & depends on the

child’s development of empathy.

37

1 2 3 4
Stage 1 – Stage 2 – Stage 3 – Stage 4 –
global egocentric empathy for empathy for
empathy empathy another’s another’s life
feelings condition

Development of Empathy (Hoffman, 1987)

38

19
 30/01/2023

Development of Empathy
Stage 1 – global empathy
• Starts during the first year of life.
• Infant cannot distinguish clearly between self & other.
• An infant may start crying when another cries, but this
is an involuntary reaction rather than genuine empathy.

Stage 2 – egocentric empathy

• Starts in the second year of life.
• Child develops sense of self, realising that someone else
is in distress.
• However, child still cannot distinguish clearly between
its own emotional state & that of others.

39

Development of Empathy
Stage 3 – empathy for another’s feelings
• Starts at about 2 or 3.
• Child has a clear awareness of the various emotions
experienced by others & empathises.
• This is genuine empathy.
Stage 4 – empathy for another’s life condition
• Starts in late childhood.
• Child is aware that other people have separate
identities & life experiences.
• Child can thus understand how others are likely to be
feeling even when it is not clear from their behaviour.

40

20
 30/01/2023

Empathy-altruism
hypothesis
(Batson et al., 1981) Theories of
Prosocial
Behaviour
Negative-state
relief model
(Cialdini et al., 1987)

41

According to the
Altruistic behaviour is Two main emotional
hypothesis, altruism
mainly motivated by reactions to observing
occurs in the presence of
empathy. someone in distress:
empathic concern.

Empathy- 1. Empathic concern: 2. Personal distress:

altruism a sympathetic focus on
the other person’s distress
a concern with one’s
discomfort & motivation
hypothesis & motivation to reduce it. to reduce it.

Reactions: Reactions:
compassionate, soft- worried, disturbed,
hearted, tender alarmed

42

21
 30/01/2023

Negative state-relief model

According to the model, someone feeling empathy for a

victim usually feels sad as a result.

Therefore, they help the victim to reduce their own

sadness.

This model suggests that empathy only leads to altruistic

behaviour for the selfish reason that it makes us feel better.

43

Evolutionary Individuals are highly motivated to ensure their

Approach to genes survive.
Altruism Example: parents invest a lot of time & resources in
their children.
• If their children survive & succeed, they will grow up & pass on
their parents’ genes when they have children.

44

22
 30/01/2023

Evolutionary Approach to Altruism

This explains why people behave

altruistically towards their own family.

But why are we altruistic to non-

relatives (even strangers) if we have
nothing to gain?
• Reciprocal altruism can explain this.

45

Reciprocal Altruism (Trivers, 1971)

Definition: The notion that someone

will show altruism towards someone
else if they anticipate that person will
respond altruistically.

This is most likely to occur in two

conditions:
• 1. The cost of helping is low & the gains are high.
• 2. We can identify cheaters (i.e. those who are
helped but do not reciprocate).

46

23
 30/01/2023

Other Reasons for Altruism

Building a reputation for altruism
(Fehr & Fischbacher 2003)
• Explains why people behave altruistically even when
they are unlikely to receive something in return.
• Building an altruistic reputation increases your chances
of being helped by others in the future.
Risk of third-party punishment
(Fehr & Fischbacher 2004)
• Punishing someone else who has treated a third party
unfairly even though it involves a personal sacrifice.
• Such punishment can reduce selfishness & increase
cooperation.

47

Individual Differences

Environmental factors: Genetic factors:

Parental warmth is Twin studies show that
associated with 45% of individual
increased prosocial differences in pro-
behaviour in their social behaviour are
children due to genetic factors
(Daniel et al., 2016). (Knafo et al., 2011)

48

24
 30/01/2023

Cross-cultural Differences
Whiting & Whiting (1975): studied young children in 6 different cultures

Results: 100% Kenyan children scored high in altruism, in contrast to 8%

American children. The other countries placed in between.

49

Cross-cultural Differences
1. Individualism
• Individualistic cultures such as
the USA & Okinawa encourage
competition & personal success.
• This would reduce altruism &
cooperation.

50

25
 30/01/2023

Cross-cultural Differences
2. Collectivism
• Family structures in Kenya & Mexico (collectivist) are
different from their individualistic counterparts.
• They focus on the group’s needs rather than individual’s.
• Families are larger & children are given duties from a
young age (e.g. taking care of siblings).
• This encourages altruistic development in children.

3. Reciprocal Altruism
• People in all cultures expect to be helped in exchange for
helping.
• Collectivist cultures expect to be helped more than
industrialised ones.
• This is because they help more, whilst industrialised
cultures expect less.

51

Encouraging Prosocial Behaviour

Parental Influence:
Parents/Caregivers can be positive role models to promote
altruistic & prosocial behaviour in their children.

Schaffer (1996) identified 4 types of behaviour exhibited by

parents to help achieve this:

• 1. Providing clear & explicit guidelines

• 2. Emotional conviction
• 3. Parental modelling
• 4. Empathic & sincere parenting
52

26
 30/01/2023

Encouraging Prosocial Behaviour

1. Providing clear & explicit guidelines
• Share your toys with other children
• Be kind to other children, even if others are unkind.
• You need to treat everyone the same, even if they are different from you.
2. Emotional conviction
• Providing guidelines using emotional explanations.

3. Parental modelling
• Parents should lead by example.
• Parents should behave altruistically towards their children.
4. Empathic & sincere parenting
• Parents should try & understand their children’s point of view.
• They need to understand their children’s emotions & needs, treating them with warmth & love.
53

Studies have shown that children

Encouraging watching prosocial TV programmes &
Prosocial Behaviour playing prosocial videogames
exhibited more prosocial behaviour.

54

27
 30/01/2023

Television

Encouraging
Children displayed
Prosocial prosocial behaviour
However, prosocial
children are more likely
Behaviour especially when the
altruistic behaviour
to watch prosocial
programmes.
viewed was easy to
What about the others?
replicate/imitate.

55

Videogames

Encouraging Playing prosocial videogames increases prosocial

Prosocial emotions, cognitions & behaviour, whilst
Behaviour decreasing aggressive behaviour in children.

However, prosocial children are more likely to play

prosocial videogames than others.

56

28
 30/01/2023

Social Influence

Definitions:

• Efforts by individuals or groups to change the attitudes and/or behaviour of

others.
• The process whereby attitudes & behaviour are influenced by the real or
implied presence of other people (Hogg & Vaughan, 2005).

This means our mental processes & behaviour are influenced by

other people.

We allow this influence to occur because we want to be

accepted & form part of a group.
57

Social Influence

Social influence can manifest itself in

many ways such as:

Obedience
Conformity
to authority

Majority Minority
influence influence

58

29
 30/01/2023

Conformity

Definition:
Changes in attitudes and/or behaviour because of
group pressure (e.g. persuasion, teasing,
criticism, bullying, etc.)

This occurs because of the need/desire to fit in a

group & not be marginalised.

Example: Agreeing with your friends that a film

was awesome, when you actually did not enjoy it.

59

Conformity can be produced when a large group of people (majority) influence

a smaller group of people (minority), or vice-versa.

Majority influence

Example: Eating sushi (that you dislike)

Occurs when the attitudes/behaviour of the
because all your friends would like to eat it &
majority affects those of a minority.
to prevent feeling excluded.

Minority influence
Occurs when a minority within a group Example: You are a keen hunter & you
changes the attitudes/behaviour of the persuade all your colleagues to vote in favour
majority. of hunting.
60

30
 30/01/2023

Majority Influence

Definition:
When a majority within
a group changes the
expressed attitudes or
behaviour of a minority.

Solomon Asch carried

out the best known
research on majority
influence.

61

Aim: to investigate whether a majority can

Solomon Asch influence a minority even when the situation is
Experiment unambiguous & the correct answer is obvious.
(1951)
Procedure:
• Show participants 3 lines & ask them which one is the
same length as another presented.
• All participants except for one collaborate with the
researcher (i.e. there is only one true participant).
• Although the answer is obvious, the collaborators all
give the same wrong answer.
• The true participant is the last to answer.
• Thus, the participants find themselves in a conflict –
whether to answer correctly or agree with the majority.

62

31
 30/01/2023

Conclusion: Results suggest that the power of majority

influence is very high.
Solomon Asch
Experiment
(1951)
Some participants really did believe that the group’s answers
Results: were correct.

• 37% gave the

wrong answer.
• Only 25% made no However, most participants reported that they did not
believe their incorrect answers. So why did they answer
errors throughout incorrectly anyway?
the experiment.
To respect group To avoid being
cohesion. ridiculed.
63

Solomon Asch
Experiment
(1951)

64

32
 30/01/2023

This was not a true social experiment – Asch used strangers

who did not belong to the same social group.

Criticism of Abrams et al. (1990) argued that conformity would increase if

participants were similar to each other
Asch (e.g. psychology students).
Experiment • Conformity was 58% when participants reported being part of the same
group.
• Conformity decreased to 8% when participants reported not being part
of the same group.

Bond & Smith (1993; 1996) observed conformity decreasing

over time, as society becomes more individualistic, with cross-
cultural differences.
• Conformity is greater in collectivist cultures (e.g. Asia, Africa).
• Conformity is lower in individualistic cultures (e.g. Europe, North
America).

65

Why conform?
Because you want to be
Normative influence liked/respected by others.
This does not lead
people to change
their private opinion.

This leads people to

change their private
Informational opinion.
Why conform?
influence Because you believe in the superior
knowledge/judgement of others.

Why do people conform?

Two reasons (Deutsch & Gerard, 1955)
66

33
 30/01/2023

People conform just to gain approval/avoid disapproval

from others, even if they do not necessarily believe in
Normative what they are doing.
Influence
People thus change their behaviour, but not their
opinion.
• They conform in public to the norms of others, even if these
contradict privately held beliefs.

This happens when the person:

• wants to fit in with the group
• fears being rejected by the group
• publicly accepts the views of the group but privately rejects them

67

People copy other people, assuming they know what they are
doing & they act as information sources for how to behave.

Informational People thus change both their behaviour & their opinion.
Influence
• They conform to the norms of others because they believe they
are right.
This happens when the person:
• lacks knowledge & looks to the group for guidance
• feels the situation is unclear & socially compares their behaviour
with the group
• accepts the views of the group & adopts them as an individual
A private change is a more powerful & long-lasting influence than
publicly conforming.

68

34
 30/01/2023

Factors that increase conformity

1. ambiguity/difficulty of task

• People rely on other people’s responses more

when the task is difficult.

2. relative unimportance of the issue to

the person
• People accept the group response if they are not
personally motivated to examine the issue.
• The agreement of others makes the group
standard seem right.
• There are more rewards & fewer costs to go along
with the group.

69

Factors that increase conformity

3. necessity of making a public response
rather than private one
• People conform to the group because there are social
rewards.

4. similarity of group members

• The more similar people are, the more they conform to

each other.
• People compare their perceptions to those with whom
they share the most with & look for group cohesion.
• Similar people tend to like each other, & thus have
more power to reward/punish each other.
• Example: peer pressure in a group of friends.

70

35
 30/01/2023

Factors that increase conformity

5. interdependence among group members

• High interdependence increases group conformity.
• People have power to reward/punish each other &
members have a high commitment to the group.

6. attractiveness & cohesiveness of group

• Higher attractiveness & cohesiveness increases
conformity.
7. unanimity of majority
• If all members of the majority agree on a response,
conformity increases.

71

Minority Influence

Definition:
When a minority within
a group changes the
expressed attitudes or
behaviour of a majority.

Serge Moscovici
studied minority
influence in depth.

72

36
 30/01/2023

Serge Moscovici (1969) – Minority Influence Theory

Moscovici disagreed with the assumption that the minority cannot have a real
influence on the majority.

He argued that minority influence is different & not necessarily weaker than
majority influence.

Moscovici distinguished between:

Compliance Conversion
73

Compliance
Definition:
Compliance is an outward change in behaviour &
expressed attitudes in response to a request from
another person, or as a consequence of persuasion or
coercion. The source of social influence is perceived to
have power. (Hogg & Vaughan, 2013)

It is involved when a majority influences a minority,

based on the majority’s power.
It usually involves conformity at a public level (not
private) – the individual’s behaviour shows conformity
but private beliefs have not changed.

Compliance occurs rapidly & without much thought.

74

37
 30/01/2023

Conversion
Definition:
Conversion produces a true internal change that persists in the absence of surveillance.
Conformity is not based upon power but of a feeling of confidence & certainty that the beliefs &
actions described by the norm are correct, appropriate, valid & socially desirable.
(Hogg & Vaughan, 2013)

It explains how a minority can influence a majority.

It involves persuading the majority that the minority’s views are correct.

It typically affects private beliefs more than public behaviour.

The minority needs to be consistent, flexible, & committed for change to occur.

Conversion is more time consuming than compliance.

75

Compliance: Conversion:

The influence of a
The influence of a
Compliance & majority on a minority
minority on a majority
based on convincing the
Conversion based on its power. This
majority that its views are
influence is generally on
correct. This influence is
public behaviour rather
on private beliefs more
than private beliefs.
than public behaviour.

76

38
 30/01/2023

Aim: to investigate whether a consistent minority

participants can influence a majority to give an
Moscovici incorrect answer in a colour perception test.
Experiment
Procedure:
• Total participants: 172 – all had good eyesight.
• 6 participants at a time were asked to estimate the colour of
36 slides.
• All slides were blue, of differing brightness.
• 2/6 participants were accomplices of the experimenter.
• There were 2 conditions: consistent & inconsistent.
• Consistent – 2 accomplices called the slides green
throughout the experiment.
• Inconsistent – 2 accomplices called the slides green 24 times
& blue 12 times.

77

Participants in consistent condition yielded & called the

slides green in 8.4% of the trials.
Moscovici 32% reported a green slide at least once.
Experiment
Results & Conclusion Participants in the inconsistent condition yielded &
called the slides green in only 1.3% of the trials.

Conclusion: Minorities can influence a majority but not

all the time & only when they behave in certain ways
(e.g., consistent behaviour style).

78

39
 30/01/2023

Criticism:

• The study was a laboratory experiment – results

may not apply to real-life situations.
Moscovici • Participants were all female – results cannot be
generalised to the entire population.
Experiment:
Criticism & Wood et al. (1994)
Further
• The minority rarely had the immediate & direct
Research change typical of majority influence.
• Minority influence was delayed or indirect.
• However, majority influence impacted private
opinions on topic more than minority influence
(contrary to Moscovici’s theory).

79

Nemeth et al. (1990)

• Minority views are not adopted quickly. Any ensuing

conflict forces people to think more carefully about
an issue.
Moscovici • Minorites make group members engage in more
thorough processing than majorities (as predicted
Experiment: by Moscovici).
Criticism &
Further David & Turner (1999)
Research • Minority influence is found only when it is perceived
to be part of the ingroup.
• Extreme feminist minority views had little impact
on views of the moderate feminist majority. This
changed when both groups were pitted against non-
feminists – minority were now part of ingroup.

80

40
 30/01/2023

In most societies, certain people are given

power & authority over others.
Obedience to
Authority Can you think of examples?

• parents, teachers, managers, police, etc.

Generally such people are respected & their

authority is not questioned.
• If a doctor tells us to take medication three times
daily, we do so without thinking (doctor is the
expert).

81

Majority
influence
Conformity
Social Minority
influence Obedience influence
to authority
Obedience to authority resembles conformity
because both involve social influence.
How are they different?

82

41
 30/01/2023

Research on obedience to authority differs from research

Obedience on conformity in three ways.
to Conformity
Authority
1. Participants are ordered to behave in certain ways.

Obedience: • In conformity studies they are fairly free to decide what to do.
the performance of an action in
response to a direct order. 2. Participants are typically of lower status than the person
Usually the order comers from a issuing orders.
person of high status/authority.
• Participants are usually of equal status in conformity research.
Social power:
the force that can be used by an
individual to change the 3. Participants' behaviour is determined by social power.
attitudes/behaviour of others.
• Conformity studies - it is influenced mostly by the need for acceptance.

83

Obedience to Psychologists are

Authority interested to see how What would happen if
far most people are you were asked to do
willing to obey an something wrong?
authority figure.

The best-known
attempt to answer that
question was by
Stanley Milgram
(1963).

84

42
 30/01/2023

Aim: to investigate whether a situation could be set

Stanley Milgram’s up in which participants were more obedient to
authority than was generally believed to be the case.
Experiment
Procedure:
• Total participants: 40 male volunteers take part in a controlled
observational study.
• The naïve participant is assigned the role of ‘teacher’ (T).
• The collaborator (not a true participant) is assigned the role of
‘learner’ (L).
• The experimenter (E) monitors & gives the teacher commands.
• Learning task: word association – teachers test learners.
• The teacher is instructed to deliver an electric shock to the learner for
each incorrect answer (increasing up to a lethal surge of 450V).
• At various levels, the learner will be heard communicating pain to
electrical shocks (learners are acting – not truly hurt).
• If the teacher is unwilling to administer the shocks, the experimenter
tells him to continue.

85

Conclusion: Ordinary people are likely to follow

orders given by an authority figure, even to the
extent of killing a human being.
Stanley
Milgram’s
Experiment
Criticism
Results:
• 65% participants Study was Participants
Serious ethical
issues:
(teachers) gave conducted in selected
participants did
laboratory through
the lethal shock. conditions & it newspaper
All participants not give
were male. informed
is doubtful if it advertisements
consent & were
applies to real- – self-selected
not free to leave
life situations. sample.
the experiment.

86

43
 30/01/2023

Stanley Milgram’s Experiment

87

How can obedience to authority be reduced?

Milgram identified two main ways of reducing this.

1) Increasing the obviousness of the learner’s

difficulty

2) Reducing the authority/influence of the

experimenter

Research supports this, because participants are

then more likely to identify with the
victims/learners than the experimenter.

88

44
 30/01/2023

How can obedience to authority be reduced?

1) Increasing the obviousness of the learner’s difficulty

Victim could not be seen/heard (obedience 66%).

Victims could be heard but not seen (62%).

Victim was only 1 metre away (40%).

The participant places victim’s hand on shock-plate (30%).

89

How can obedience to authority be reduced?

2) Reducing the authority/influence of the experimenter

The experimenter’s authority can be reduced by changing

the location of the experiment & position of experimenter.
At Yale University: obedience 65%

Experimenter sits next to participant: 65%

At run-down building: 48%

Experimenter gives orders via telephone: 20.5%

Collaborators of experimenter refuse to give shocks: 10%

90

45
 30/01/2023

Reasons for Obedience

Milgram (1974): participants obeyed
because they were in an agentic state.

Participants became an instrument of an

authority figure (experimenter) & stopped
acting according to their conscience.

“I am not responsible because I was

ordered to do it!” Agentic state:
feeling controlled by an
authority figure &
But most participants found it emotionally therefore lacking a
distressing to obey the experimenter. sense of personal
responsibility.

91

Burger (2011) argued Milgram obtained such high

levels of obedience for three reasons:

1) Experimenter told concerned participants that he

took full responsibility for what happened.
• There is less obedience when participants are told they are
responsible for any harm (Tilker, 1970).
Reasons for
2) The ‘learner’ protested only after the 10th shock. Obedience
• More participants would have refused to obey the
experimenter if the learner’s pain had been obvious earlier.

3) The demand increased slowly (+15V increments).

• It was more difficult for participants to notice when they

were asked to behave unreasonably.

92

46
 30/01/2023

Hofling et al. (1966)

He instructed them to give
conducted a study in which 95% of nurses obeyed Dr.
patients a dose of 20mg of a
22 nurses were contacted Smith’s instruction.
drug (Astroten).
by a Dr. Smith.

Nurses should not have The nurses’ training had led

obeyed for two reasons: them to obey doctors
• Dosage was higher than because doctors are
maximum dosage (10mg). perceived to hold a more
• The nurses did not know Dr. powerful position than
Smith. nurses.

Research in Real Life Situations

93

 MATSEC QUESTION - October 2021

 Astrid is a 2-year-old child who cries inconsolably every time her mother leaves her with her
grandmother. The mother consulted a psychologist who referred to her attachment style. She
explained how infants may develop different attachment styles to their caregivers.
 (a) Define attachment. (10%)
 (b) Describe the THREE attachment styles proposed by the study carried out by Ainsworth and
Bell in 1970 and give an example of typical child behaviour for each style. (45%)
 (c) Describe Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis and provide research evidence for it.
(45%)
 Homework to be submitted on Teams in Word (.doc) format.

Homework: Essay

94

47