Welcome to the Core of Social Psychology!
Ever wondered why some people follow orders even when they know they shouldn't? Or why sports fans can go from friendly to hostile just because of the color of a jersey? In this chapter, we dive into the prescribed studies for your Edexcel AS Level. These are the real-life experiments and investigations that provide the evidence for the theories you’ve learned about, like Obedience and Prejudice.
Psychology isn't just about ideas; it's about evidence. By looking at these studies, you’ll see how researchers actually measure human behavior in the lab and in the "real world."
1. The Classic Study: Sherif et al. (1954/1961)
The Robbers Cave Experiment
This is the "grandfather" of research into prejudice. Muzafer Sherif wanted to see if he could create prejudice between two groups of boys and then see if he could fix it.
The Aim
To investigate whether competition for limited resources would lead to prejudice and intergroup conflict, and to see if working together on a common goal could reduce that conflict.
The Procedure
The study took place at a boy scout camp in Robbers Cave State Park, Oklahoma. The participants were 22 boys, aged 11–12, who were all "socially well-adjusted" and from stable, white, middle-class backgrounds. They didn't know each other before the study.
The experiment happened in three stages:
1. In-group Formation: The boys were split into two groups (The "Rattlers" and the "Eagles"). They spent a week doing bonding activities like hiking and swimming. They didn't know the other group existed at first!
2. Friction Phase (Competition): The groups were introduced to each other. The researchers set up a tournament of games (baseball, tug-of-war) with a trophy and prizes for the winners. This created Realistic Conflict.
3. Integration Phase (Cooperation): The researchers tried to reduce the tension. First, they tried "mere contact" (just eating together), which failed. Then, they introduced Superordinate Goals—tasks that required both groups to work together to succeed (e.g., fixing a broken water tank or pulling a "broken-down" truck).
The Results
During the competition, the boys became very hostile. They called each other names, burned the other group's flag, and even raided their cabins. However, after completing the superordinate goals, the hostility dropped significantly. By the end, the boys even chose to ride home on the same bus together!
Evaluation (AO3)
Strengths:
- High Ecological Validity: It was a real summer camp, so the boys acted naturally.
- Application: It shows us how to reduce prejudice in the real world (using shared goals).
Weaknesses:
- Generalisability: The sample was very specific—only 11-year-old American boys. Can we apply this to girls or adults? Probably not!
- Ethics: The boys were deceived (they didn't know it was an experiment) and were intentionally put into stressful, hostile situations.
Quick Review: Think of Sherif’s study as the "Hunger Games" turned into "Bob the Builder." Competition creates the fight; working together (Superordinate Goals) fixes it!
2. Contemporary Study Option 1: Burger (2009)
Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today?
Milgram’s original 1963 study is famous, but it’s often criticized for being unethical. Jerry Burger wanted to see if people would still obey an authority figure in the 21st century, using a much more ethical procedure.
The Aim
To see if the levels of obedience in 2009 would be similar to Milgram's 1963 results, and to investigate if gender or personality affected obedience.
The Procedure
Burger made several "ethical tweaks":
- The 150V Solution: He stopped the experiment at 150 volts. He argued that if someone was willing to go past 150V (the point where the "learner" first protests), they would likely go all the way to 450V.
- Screening: Participants were screened by clinical psychologists to ensure they wouldn't be traumatized.
- Right to Withdraw: Participants were told three times that they could stop at any point and still keep their \$50.
The Results
Burger found that 70% of participants were prepared to go past 150V. This is only slightly lower than Milgram’s original result of 82.5% for that same point. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between men and women.
Evaluation (AO3)
Strengths:
- Ethical: Much better protection for participants than Milgram’s original study.
- Reliability: He followed Milgram's script closely, making it a good comparison.
Weaknesses:
- Internal Validity: Because he stopped at 150V, we don't truly know if they would have gone to 450V.
- Lack of Ecological Validity: It was still an artificial lab task.
3. Contemporary Study Option 2: Reicher and Haslam (2006)
Rethinking the Psychology of Tyranny (The BBC Prison Study)
Zimbardo’s 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment suggested that people automatically become "evil" when given power. Reicher and Haslam disagreed. They believed people only act as a group if they identify with that group.
The Aim
To examine how group behavior changes when people are assigned to unequal groups (Guards and Prisoners) and to challenge the idea that people blindly slip into roles.
The Procedure
15 men were recruited and split into 5 groups of three. One in each group was a "Guard" and two were "Prisoners." The researchers measured their social identification, stress levels, and clinical depression. The study was filmed for the BBC.
The Results
Unlike Zimbardo's study, the Guards failed to form a strong group identity. They felt uncomfortable with their power. The Prisoners, however, eventually formed a strong group identity and challenged the Guards' authority. The system collapsed, and the participants briefly formed a "commune" before it also broke down into a "tyranny" led by a few individuals.
Evaluation (AO3)
Strengths:
- Ethics: Participants were monitored by an independent ethics committee and paramedics.
- Detailed Data: They collected both qualitative (observations) and quantitative (psychological tests) data.
Weaknesses:
- Demand Characteristics: Because it was filmed for TV, did the men act in a way they thought the cameras wanted to see?
- Generalisability: Only 15 men—a very small sample size \( (n = 15) \).
4. Contemporary Study Option 3: Cohrs et al. (2012)
Personality and Prejudice
While Sherif looked at situations (competition), Cohrs wanted to look at Individual Differences. Do certain personality types tend to be more prejudiced?
The Aim
To investigate the relationship between the "Big Five" personality traits, Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA), Social Dominance Orientation (SDO), and prejudice.
The Procedure
This was a correlational study. Researchers used questionnaires to measure the personalities and attitudes of people in Germany. They also used "peer reports"—they asked the participants' friends to rate them too, to make sure the data was accurate.
The Results
- Openness: People who were less "Open to Experience" tended to have higher RWA, which led to more prejudice.
- Agreeableness: People who were less "Agreeable" tended to have higher SDO, which also led to more prejudice.
- RWA and SDO: Both were strong predictors of generalized prejudice.
Evaluation (AO3)
Strengths:
- Reduced Bias: Using peer reports meant participants couldn't just "fake" their answers to look good (Social Desirability Bias).
- Application: Helps us understand how to target anti-prejudice campaigns based on personality types.
Weaknesses:
- Correlation vs. Causation: We can see a link, but we can't prove that personality causes prejudice. Other factors could be involved.
- Sample: Only conducted in Germany; results might differ in other cultures.
Summary Table: Key Takeaways
Sherif (Classic): Focuses on the SITUATION. Prejudice is caused by competition and fixed by cooperation.
Burger (Contemporary): Focuses on OBEDIENCE. Proves that Milgram's findings are still relevant today, even with better ethics.
Reicher & Haslam (Contemporary): Focuses on SOCIAL IDENTITY. People don't just "obey" roles; they have to identify with the group first.
Cohrs et al. (Contemporary): Focuses on PERSONALITY. High RWA and SDO scores are linked to prejudice.
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Mixing up the contemporary studies: You only need to know one of the contemporary studies in depth for the exam, but it’s good to know which one your teacher has chosen for you!
- Vague Evaluation: Don't just say a study is "unethical." Say why (e.g., "It caused psychological distress which violates the BPS code of conduct").
- Ignoring the Sample: Always look at who the participants were. If they were all men or all from one country, the study lacks Generalisability.
Don't worry if the names and dates seem like a lot to remember at first. Try making flashcards with the "Aim, Procedure, Results, Evaluation" (APRE) for each study. You've got this!