SECTION C
SOCIAL APPROACH
G542
CORE STUDIES
Exam Style Question
EXAMPLE
a.
b.
c.
d.
Outline one assumptions/implication of the Social
approach. (2)
Describe how the social approach could
explain__________ . (4)
Describe one similarity and one difference
between any studies that take the social
approach. (6)
Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the social
approach using examples from studies that take
this approach. (12)
Social Approach
BACKGROUND





The main classical approach in psychology. It is
the study of interactions and group behaviour.
We spend much of our time with other people,
family, friends, institutions and culture.
Social means involving two or members of the
same species
Social behaviour involves activity within a group
or between groups
We can study the way people interaction and
influence each other.
AREAS OF INTEREST
Social Approach


Social Psychologists study human behaviour in a
social context.
They often focus on group dynamics, interpersonal
relations and how people interpret and deal with
the behaviour of others.



Milgram, 1963
Reicher & Haslam, 2006
Piliavin , 1969
RESEARCH METHODS
Social Approach



The key methods that social psychologists used
are observations and experiments, although self
report techniques are also used.
Milgram: Laboratory
Reicher & Haslam: Laboratory with self-report
Piliavin: Field
EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ)
Approaches
MILGRAM
January 2011
a. Outline one assumption of the Social Approach. (2)
b. With reference to Milgram’s study describe how the
Social Approach can explain obedience. (4)
c. Describe one similarity and difference between any
studies that take the Social Approach. (6)
d. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Social
Approach using examples from any studies that could be
viewed from this approach. (12)
EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ)
Approaches
REICHER & HASLAM
Example
a. Outline one assumption of the Social Approach. (2)
b. With reference to Reicher & Haslam’s study describe
how the Social Approach can explain tryanny. (4)
c. Describe one similarity and difference between any
studies that take the Social Approach. (6)
d. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Social
Approach using examples from any studies that could
be viewed from this approach. (12)
EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ)
Approaches
PILIAVIN
2009/ 2013 (Same set of questions asked twice)
a. Outline one assumption of the Social Approach. (2)
b. With reference to Piliavin’s study describe how the Social
Approach can explain helping behaviour. (4)
c. Describe one similarity and difference between any studies
that take the Social Approach. (6)
d. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Approach
using examples from any studies that could be viewed from
this approach. (12)
Resources: Social Approach



Internet
PowerPoint
Exam Style Questions (ESQ)
Activity 1
Worksheet 1: KEY WORDS

Complete the key terms related to this topic

You can use the resources and internet to help

Each definition should be at least two sentences long
You should use these terms where appropriate in your
responses to exam questions

Activity 2
Worksheet 2: Assumptions & Evaluation

Complete the summary table

You can use the resources and internet to help
a. Outline one assumptions
of the social approach. (2)
a. Outline one assumptions of the social approach. (2)

2 MARK QUESTION

Point: Assumption of the approach
Elaborate: Provide evidence from the
study.
2. SOCIAL APPROACH
ASSUMPTIONS & EVALUATION
Main Assumptions






What are the main assumptions of
the Social Approach?
What does the social approach
assume about our behaivour?
What has a strong influence on the
way in which we behave?
According to the social approach
what is often a more accurate
explanation of social behaviour?
According to the social approach
what are a major influence on an
individual’s behaviour?
What is social psychology divided
into?
Strengths
What information can the social approach
provide?
What methodology does the social approach
mainly use? Why is this method beneficial?
Limitations
What are the problems with social studies
that use laboratory experiments?
Why is it problematic to use field
experiments? What does the researchers
unable to do?
What ethical issues are raised by social
research?
Why might social studies go out of date?
What can limit the usefulness of social
studies?
2. Key Assumptions of the
Social Approach:
1.
2.
3.
All behaviour occurs within a social context this means
that________________. For
example,_____________________________.
Other people and the society that has been created are a
major influence on people’s behaviour. This means
that___________________________________. For
example,_______________________________.
An individual’s behaviour is affected by situational factors
such as the environment or upbringing. This means
that__________________________________. For
example,_________________________________.
2. Assumptions of the...
Social Approach
Social Psychology is divided into two areas: Social interaction (how
individual’s interact and how status in society influences behaviour);
and social cognition (how thoughts and emotions about current social
situations influence behaviour).



Assumption 1: All behaviour occurs within a social context even when
nobody else is present
Assumption 2: Our behaviour is not always the results of our own free
will. The situation we are in will have a strong influence on how we
behave. The surrounding environment effects an individual’s behaviour,
thought processes and emotions.
Assumption 3: Situational (environment + upbringing) rather than
individual explanations of social behaviour are often more accurate as
context and culture has a strong influence on how we behave.
2. SOCIAL APPROACH
STRENGTHS
STRENGTH 1: The research is often clearly related to real life
situations which can produce insight into human behaviours
which can produce useful information.
STRENGTH 2: A wide range of research methods and
techniques are used to study social interactions.
STRENGTH 3: One strength of the social approach is that it
can explain why people behave in extreme ways.
2. SOCIAL APPROACH
LIMITATIONS
LIMITATION 1: It can reduce the importance of the individual
not taking into account individual differences (underestimates
what people bring into a social situation).
LIMITATION 2: It has one of the worst track records in ethics. Most
social research, because of the necessary complexity to try and create
socially meaningful situations means that ethical guidelines have been
broken through lack of consent, deception etc.
LIMITATION 3: Deterministic and overstates situational factors
and underemphasises the individual differences and the role
of ‘free will’
Activity 3
Worksheet 3: Supporting Research
Complete the summary table on supporting
research for the social approach

You can use the resources and internet to help

b. With reference to
______________ study
describe how the Social
Approach can explain
______ (4)
b. With reference to ______________ study describe how the
Social Approach can explain ______ (4)
PEC
4 MARK QUESTION



Point: Assumption of the approach + a conclusion
from a study (don’t mention who wrote the study yet)
Evidence: Provide evidence from the study.
Comment: Link the study to the point you began
with.
3. SOCIAL APPROACH
SUPPORTING RESEARCH
Study

Identify 3 studies that use the
social approach
BEHAVIOUR & APPROACH
With reference to the relevant study,
describe how the social approach can
explain the following behaviours
•Obedience
•Tyranny
•Helping
SAMPLE
Outline detail of the sample for
each study. Include details such as:
age, gender, ethnicity, total number
METHOD
Identify the main method used
by each study.
If appropriate, include details
of the design, IVs and/or DVs
3. Milgram: Obedience
BEHAVIOUR
& APPROACH
The social approach, as demonstrated through Milgram’s study, could
explain obedience. First, as Milgram himself suggested, the
environment – Yale University – may have influenced participants with
regard to the worthiness of the study and the competence of the
experimented, resulting in high levels of obedience that might not be
found in a less prestigious setting.
Second, the presences of what appeared to be a legitimate authority
figure, dressed in a white lab coat, carrying a clipboard, may have
influenced the participants behaviour, as they believed him (through
socialisation) to be a trustworthy and knowledgeable individual who
should be obeyed.
SAMPLE
40 Male participants. 20-50yrs. Volunteer sampling
METHOD
Laboratory Experiment.
3. How does the social approach explain obedience?
Obedience is explained by:
Socialisation: From a very early age we are taught, firstly by our parents and
then by teachers, to obey through rewards and punishments. This process of
learning norms and values is called socialisation. We learn that obeying
legitimate authority is the ‘right’ thing to do. This could explain the high levels of
obedience (65%) in Milgram’s study.
Agentic State: Milgram suggested that when people work in isolation they rely on
their own conscience, but this becomes suppressed when they work within a social
system, in other words, when people enter a social set up that involves a hierarchy
(layers of power) they automatically see themselves as an agent of others and
their conscience stops operating. This is known as the agentic state. In the agentic
state people do not feel responsible for their own actions, they transfer blame to
the person giving the order – ‘I was only following orders, it’s not my fault!’
In Milgram’s study – participants could have been in the ‘agentic state’ by blaming
the authority figure for what they were doing (shocking innocent person).
Plan your answer: PEC
Point: According to the social approach behavior occurs within a
social context, which has norms and values. Therefore from an
early age we are taught these rights and norms, for example
obeying an authority figure. Therefore, people are likely to be
obedient, even in morally wrong situations if an authority figure
is present.
PEC
Example: For example in Milgram’s study 65% of participants
obeyed the authority figure, even though they knew they were
harming the learner with an electric shocks.
Comment: The Social Approach can therefore explain
obedience, as demonstrated through Milgram’s, study that the
participants obeyed because they have been taught d to obey
an authority figure and therefore, justified their actions with I
was told to give electric shocks.
3. R+H: Tyranny
BEHAVIOUR
& APPROACH
This study focuses on the influence of social interaction and the
effect of group identity and group inequalities. The study shows
oppression to be the product of active processes of social
identification, which can also form the basis is for both tyranny
and resistance. Conflict, abuse and tyranny do not necessarily
result from zombie-like compliance, but rather from individuals
active identification and engagement with the groups that
promote them.
SAMPLE
15 male participants from 332 volunteers (self-selected sample)
METHOD
Laboratory Experiment (although recreation of a real
environment). Could be seen as a controlled case study.
3. How does the social approach explain
Tyranny?
Define tyranny: dominance through threat of punishment and violence
Explain link with social approach:
•
The way in which members of a group behave may be pro or anti
social, and depends on the norms & values of the group social
identity.
 It is the breakdown of groups, and powerlessness that creates the
conditions for tyranny.
 It shows that failing groups create problems for their own members,
and for others, because when people cannot create a social system
they will accept extreme solutions proposed by others.
 This shows that all behaviour is created within a social context and
other people have a major influence on our behaviour.
3. Piliavin: Helping
BEHAVIOUR
& APPROACH
The environment and situation we are in have a major
influence on whether or not individuals will help another
person. This study showed that when in a closed area,
individuals then not to diffuse responsibility by sharing it
among those present; rather they feel personally responsible,
and so offer help to a victim in need of assistance. Findings
from the study showed that the more people that were present
when the incident occurred, the more people went to help the
victim. They also found that the condition of a victim influenced
helping behaviour: if a victim is lame, people are more likely
to help than if the person is drunk.
SAMPLE
4,500 men and women who used the subway between
11.00-3.00pm between April 15th – June 26th 1968. 45%
black 55% white.
METHOD
Field Experiment
3. How does the social approach explain
Helping Behaviour?
Helping behaviour is explained through the cost-reward model in a given situation
(e.g. costs = risk of harm, benefits = feeling good, praise).




They argue that firstly, observation of an emergency situation creates an emotional
arousal in bystanders. This arousal may be perceived as fear, disgust or sympathy,
depending on aspects of the situation.
Study showed that we are more likely to help someone who we perceive as being in
the same ‘group’ as us (evidence of same race helping).
Secondly, we are more likely to help if we see someone else helping (modelling
effect).
One can also see the diffusion of responsibility in different situations whereby
people are less likely to help if they see that other people are present. However,
this effect was not observed in Piliavin’s study as participants couldn’t escape the
emergency situation.
Activity 4
Worksheet 4: Similarities & Differences
Part 1: Brainstorm
Part 2: Grid

C. Describe one similarity and one difference
between any studies that take the social
approach. (6)
How to structure this answer: PEE
Describe one similarity and one difference between any studies that take the
social approach. (6)

Comparison Questions always needs to use:
Point, Evidence, Evidence
Point:

Evidence:

Evidence:
How to structure this answer: PEE
Describe one similarity and one difference between any studies that take the
social approach. (6)
Comparison Questions always needs to use:
Point, Evidence, Evidence



Point: One similarity between Milgram and Reicher and Haslam is
that they both used observation.
Evidence: For example, in Milram’s study he observed how high the
participants gave electric shocks to the ‘learner and also he
observed the reactions’ of the participants as they were
administering electric shocks.
Evidence: For example, in Reicher and Haslam’s study they
observed the participants using video cameras, which recorded the
behaviour of the participants.
4. SOCIAL APPROACH
SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES
Ecological Validity: how realistic is it; can the findings be applied to everyday
life?
Longitudinal and snapshot: is the study conducted over a long period or one
point in time?
Qualitative and Quantitative data: is the data descriptive or numerical?
Usefulness: how is the research useful in terms of how it explains human
behaviour?
Application: how can the results of the research be applied in everyday life
settings
Ethics: consent/informed consent, deception, withdrawal, debriefing,
confidentiality, protection of participants, observation without consent
Generalisability: can these findings be applied to all individuals/situations?
Validity: is the method used within the research measuring what it is supposed
to?
4. SOCIAL APPROACH
SIMILARITIES & DIFFERENCES
Determinism and Free will: Does this study/perspective suggest we
have freewill or that our behaviour/experience is determined
Reductionism and Holism: do the results of the study focus on one
single level of explanation, ignoring others or do they consider many
explanations?
Nature and Nurture: is this characteristic/behaviour due to genetics or
learning?
Individual and situational explanations: can this behaviour be
explained by the situation/environment or is it due to personal
characteristics
Ethnocentrism: can this behaviour be considered to be biased towards
one ethnic group or society?
Psychology as a Science: is the method used within the study rigorous,
ie. objective, reliable, falsifiable?
4. SOCIAL APPROACH
S&D: MILGRAM & R+H
SIMILARITY 1: Both studies measured behaviour in a controlled
environment (lab setting)
SIMILARITY 2: Both studies used the same sampling method.
DIFFERENCE 1: Milgram’s study was extremely unethical, whereas R & H
showed its possible to design a study within an ethical framework.
DIFFERENCE 2: Milgram’s study did not involve a manipulation of an IV to see the
effect it would have on the DV as it was not an experiment. It was an observational
method with features of an experiment (controlled environment). However, R & H had a
number of IVs.
4. Comparison between studies: Milgram & R+H
SIMILARITY






Similarity 1: Both studies measured behaviour in a controlled environment (lab
setting)
Evidence Milgram: In Milgram’s study, obedience to authority was measured in
a controlled setting in a lab unique to individuals (university).
Evidence R+H: Similarly, R+H’s study was carried out in a film studio which was
made into a prison. This was to allow for easier replication and standardised
procedures to be carried out and to measure behaviour in a controlled manner
so a causal link could be established. Both of these studies therefore lack EV as
it was an artificial environment.
Similarity 2: Both studies used the same sampling method.
Evidence Milgram: Milgram’s study used only males and selected them through
a self-selected (volunteer) method. This involved advertising in the newspaper
for males who wanted to take part in a study on memory & learning.
Evidence R+H: Similarly, R & H also used a self-selected method by advertising
in the national press and through leaflets for male participants. In both studies,
from the pool of applicants, participants were chosen of different ages and
backgrounds to ensure diversity.
4. Comparison between studies: Milgram & R+H
DIFFERENCE






Difference 1: Milgram’s study was extremely unethical, whereas R & H showed its
possible to design a study within an ethical framework.
Evidence Milgram: Milgram distressed his participants severely by deceiving them about
the true aim of the study and making them believe that they were giving real shocks to
other human beings. This caused them to sweat, tremble and some had seizures.
Evidence R+H: R & H on the other hand, had paramedic guards on duty to ensure the
study was running smoothly, they carried out medical and background checks to ensure
that participants were not at risk to others and were not psychologically vulnerable. It
was also approved by the ethics committee board and the study could be stopped (which
it was) at any time if it got unethical or distressing for others.
Difference 2: Milgram’s study did not involve a manipulation of an IV to see the effect it
would have on the DV as it was not an experiment. It was an observational method with
features of an experiment (controlled environment). However, R & H had a number of IVs.
Evidence R+H: manipulated permeability (if participants thought they could move
between prisoner & guard groups), legtimacy (when participants were told that there
were actually no differences between groups) and cognitive alternatives (when a new
prisoner arrives who they thought would negotiate between prisoners and guards to find
new regimes for the prison.
Evidence Milgram: Milgram wanted to initially look at different nationalities which would
have been the IV but did not end up doing so therefore his study did not have an IV and
is considered a controlled observation.
4. SOCIAL APPROACH
S&D: MILGRAM & PILIAVIN
SIMILARITY 1: Both studies had problems with ethics and could
both be accused of inflicting harm on participants.
SIMILARITY 2: Both studies gathered quantitative & qualitative
data.
DIFFERENCE 1: : Milgram did debrief his participants whereas Piliavin et al
did not.
DIFFERENCE 2: Piliavin’s study was carried out in a natural environment
whereas Milgram’s study was carried out in a controlled environment (lab).
4. Comparison between studies: Milgram & Piliavin
SIMILARITY



Similarity 1: Both studies had problems with ethics and could both be accused of inflicting
harm on participants.
Evidence M: In Milgram, many participants displayed signs of extreme stress, such as
sweating, trembling and even seizures. This shows that participants were not protected
from harm.
Evidence P: In Piliavin et al’s study, participants – passengers on the subway train who
witnessed someone apparently collapse also may well have experienced some degree of
stress. Watching someone collapse and deciding whether or not to intervene is quite
stressful. Some participants left the carriage indicating that they could not bear to be
close to the situation.
Similarity 2: Both studies gathered quantitative & qualitative data
Evidence M: Milgram’s study used observations in a lab setting to observe participants
reactions/behaviour when shocking another person. In addition, they interviewed participants
after the study using attitude scales to check their state of well-being.
Evidence P: Piliavin et al’s study gathered quantitative data by measuring how long it took
one to help and the % of trials in which help was given by race and condition of victim. In
addition, qualitative data was gathered by noting the comments made by passengers
(participants) on the train.
4. Comparison between studies: Milgram & Piliavin
DIFFERENCE



Difference 1: Milgram did debrief his participants whereas Piliavin et al did not.
Evidence M: In Milgram’s study participants had overtly volunteered to take part in the
experiment and had come to the lab and taken part on a one-to-one basis. Each
participant was reunited with the learner to show that he hadn’t been hurt and the aims
of the deceptions of the study were fully explained.
Evidence P: However, Piliavin et al did not debrief his participants, maybe because there
were so many and it would be difficult to do this (people getting on and off trains) and
maybe because there was someone concern that it might affect people’s behaviour on
future trials if it started to be known that an experiment was taking place involving a
supposed ‘victim’ collapsing.
Difference 2: Piliavin’s study was carried out in a natural environment whereas Milgram’s
study was carried out in a controlled environment (lab).
Evidence P: Piliavin et al chose a subway train in New York where there would be multiple
bystanders but relatively easy to control the interventions – that is someone collapsing. This
means that his study has high EV.
Evidence M: Milgram’s study on the other hand was in Yale University in a lab setting. This
was done to allow for standardised procedures to be used and easier replication and more
control of participants behaviour. They measured obedience by measuring how far up the
shock generator the participant would go if the learner got an answer wrong. This is an
artificial setting and task which makes the study low in EV.
4. SOCIAL APPROACH
S&D: R+H & PILIAVIN
SIMILARITY 1: Both use an experimental method
SIMILARITY 2: Both studies gathered quantitative & qualitative
data.
DIFFERENCE 1: Piliavin chosen a natural situation whereas R & H chose a
controlled situation (lab).
DIFFERENCE 2: The number and gender of the participants varied
in both studies.
4. Comparison between studies: R+H & Piliavin
SIMILARITY



Similarity 1: Both use an experimental method
Evidence P: Piliavin’s study is a field experiment and they manipulated the race and
condition of the victim that collapsed, as well as the timing for the model interventions.
Evidence R+H: Manipulated permeability (if participants thought they could move between
prisoner & guard groups), legtimacy (when participants were told that there were actually
no differences between groups) and cognitive alternatives (when a new prisoner arrives who
they thought would negotiate between prisoners and guards to find new regimes for the
prison. This allows both to see cause & effect.
Similarity 2: Both studies gathered quantitative & qualitative data
Evidence P: Piliavin et al’s study gathered quantitative data by measuring how long it
took one to help and the % of trials in which help was given by race and condition of
victim. In addition, qualitative data was gathered by noting the comments made by
passengers (participants) on the train.
Evidence R+H: also used quantitative data which involved psychometric tests on several
variables such as organisational, social and clinical and they gathered qualitative data
by recording participant’s behaviour through observation.
4. Comparison between studies: R+H & Piliavin
DIFFERENCE



Difference 1: Piliavin chosen a natural situation whereas R & H chose a controlled situation
(lab).
Evidence: Piliavin et al chose a subway train in New York where there would be multiple
bystanders but relatively easy to control the interventions – that is someone collapsing. This
means that his study has high EV.
Evidence R+H: In contrast, R & H did not conduct this study in a real prison. Maybe it was
because we they would not have had enough experimental control over the situation if the
participants were mixing with real prisoners and guards and also because there might be more
ethical dangers if real prisoners or guards became aggressive. This study had low EV as the
setting was artificial and does not really tell us how prisoners and guards behave in a normal
prison.
Difference 2: The number and gender of the participants varied in both studies.
Evidence P: In Piliavin’s study, a large sample was used. This consisted of 4450
males and females who go on the subway train.
Evidence R+H: However, R &H’s sample consisted of 15 participants – 5
guards and 10 prisoners who were all male. This makes the results less
generalisable as they were all male and a small number. However, Piliavin’s is
more representative to the general population as he used both males and
females and a big sample to measure helping behaviour.
Activity 5
Worksheet 5: Strengths & Limitations
D. Discuss strengths and
weaknesses of the
social approach using
examples from studies
that take this
approach. (12)
NB: Each study must
be used at least once
in this question
How to structure this answer: PEC
a.
Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the social approach using examples
from studies that take this approach. (12)
Evaluation Questions always needs to use:
Point, Evidence, Comment

Point 1:The research is often clearly related to real life situations which can
produce insight into human behaviours which can produce useful
information.

Evidence for this:

Comment (why is this a strength):

NB: Each study must be used at least once in this question.
5. SOCIAL APPROACH
STRENGTHS & WEAKNESSES
STRENGTH 1: The research is often clearly related to real life situations which can
produce insight into human behaviours which can produce useful information.
STRENGTH 2: A wide range of research methods and techniques
are used to study social interactions.
STRENGTH 3: One strength of the social approach is that it can explain why
people behave in extreme ways.
WEAKNESS 1: It can reduce the importance of the individual not taking into
account individual differences (underestimates what people bring into a social
situation).
WEAKNESS 2: It has one of the worst track records in ethics. Most social research, because of the
necessary complexity to try and create socially meaningful situations means that ethical guidelines
have been broken through lack of consent, deception etc.
5. SOCIAL APPROACH
STRENGTHS



Point 1: The research is often clearly related to real life situations which can
produce insight into human behaviours which can produce useful information.
Evidence for this: For example, one of the reasons there was so much research
into helping was a national outrage about Kitty Genovese. The general public
could not understand why no one had helped her despite there being a large
number of witnesses. Piliavin helps to explain this phenomenon in terms of his
model of response – there were lower levels of arousal because the witnesses
were some distance from Kitty – upstairs in apartment buildings. Also, the
perceived costs of helping would have been very high – they might face
danger themselves, it might be some sort of trap and so on.
Comment (why is this a strength): This research is therefore helpful for giving
insight into important social questions because it helps one understand the
reasons to why individuals may help or not in different emergency situations
which is relevant to society.
5. SOCIAL APPROACH
STRENGTHS



Point 2: A wide range of research methods and techniques are used to study social
interactions.
Evidence: In Milgram’s study of obedience, a range of methods and techniques were
used. The study was carried out in lab conditions making it experimental in nature and
highly controlled. In addition, an observational technique was used whereby
participants were observed through a one-way mirror on their reactions when shocking
the learner. In addition, participants were interviewed after the study and were given
various attitude scales to ensure they would leave in a state of well-being.
Comment: This increases the validity of the study as various methods were employed in
order to gain both quantitative and qualitative data and using a range of methods
allows for different behaviours to be investigated. For example, using interviews helps
obtain direct information from the participant themselves about how they left and
measuring obedience in an experimental manner can help explain results in a more
causal manner. In addition, an observational technique helps look at participants
behaviour directly by observing them rather than interpreting their behaviour.
5. SOCIAL APPROACH
STRENGTHS



Point 3: One strength of the social approach is that it can explain why
people behave in extreme ways.
Evidence: For example, Milgram concluded that people will harm other
people if they are told to do so by an authority figure. 65% of
participants administered 450 V, as instructed but the authority figure, to
the learner even though they knew that they were hurting them.
Comment: This is strength as the Social Approach can help to explain
events why such events like the Holocaust occurred and therefore prevent
them from occurring again. (notice how this is linking back to the point).
In Milgram’s case he demonstrated the impact of the authority figure and
how authority figures can cause extreme behaviours. (Notice how this is
linking back to the study)
5. SOCIAL APPROACH
WEAKNESSES



Point 1: It can reduce the importance of the individual not taking into account individual
differences (underestimates what people bring into a social situation).
Evidence: In Reicher & Haslam’s study, it does not take into consideration that the
individuals (prisoners) may have a disposition to behave in an aggressive and
uncooperative manner and the guards in that particular study were generally less vocal
and authoritative because of the type of people they were. It may be their personality
that caused the breakdown of the groups to take place rather than the lack of shared
identity between the groups.
Comment: This suggests that studies within the social approach tend to focus more on
the situational factors that cause behaviour to take place rather than what type of
individual takes part in the study and their personality that may cause the behaviour to
occur. Reicher & Haslam focused on the group processes (identification) at the expense
of the personality. Personality is still important and could probably explain why some
people did stand up against the guards and why the guards did not have the power.
The social approach therefore does not take a holistic view.
5. SOCIAL APPROACH
WEAKNESSES



Point 2: It has one of the worst track records in ethics. Most social research, because of
the necessary complexity to try and create socially meaningful situations means that
ethical guidelines have been broken through lack of consent, deception etc.
Evidence: Piliavin’s study was unethical as none of the participants could give their
consent as it was a covert experiment. In addition none of the participants were
debriefed because they were not aware of the experiment in the first place.
Participants were also deceived into believing that someone was ill and drunk and
really needed help. This could have also caused some distress as participants get
worried about their own safety and whether or not they should help etc.
Comment: This is a weakness because one has to ensure that there is no long-term
damage to the participants. However, one has to look at the costs vs benefits and
because social studies look at issues which are part of everyday life, it is difficult to
investigate them without breaking some of these ethical guidelines. However, if the issue
is of benefit to the individual and society (in this case helping behaviour) then the
benefits may outweigh the costs and at times may be justified by some.
Activity 6
Worksheet 6: Social Approach Revision
Outline 3 assumptions of the Social Approach
 Outline strengths
 Outline limitations

D. Discuss strengths and
weaknesses of the
social approach using
examples from studies
that take this
approach. (12)
NB: Each study must
be used at least once
in this question
Activity 7
Worksheet 7: Exam Practice

12 Mark Plan
Discuss the strengths
and weaknesses of the
Social Approach using
examples from any
studies that could be
viewed from this
approach. (12)
EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ)
Approaches
MILGRAM
January 2011
a. Outline one assumption of the Social Approach. (2)
b. With reference to Milgram’s study describe how the
Social Approach can explain obedience. (4)
c. Describe one similarity and difference between any
studies that take the Social Approach. (6)
d. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Social
Approach using examples from any studies that could be
viewed from this approach. (12)
EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ)
Approaches
REICHER & HASLAM
Example
a. Outline one assumption of the Social Approach. (2)
b. With reference to Reicher & Haslam’s study describe
how the Social Approach can explain tryanny. (4)
c. Describe one similarity and difference between any
studies that take the Social Approach. (6)
d. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Social
Approach using examples from any studies that could
be viewed from this approach. (12)
EXAM STYLE QUESTIONS (ESQ)
Approaches
PILIAVIN
2009/ 2013 (Same set of questions asked twice)
a. Outline one assumption of the Social Approach. (2)
b. With reference to Piliavin’s study describe how the Social
Approach can explain helping behaviour. (4)
c. Describe one similarity and difference between any studies
that take the Social Approach. (6)
d. Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the Social Approach
using examples from any studies that could be viewed from
this approach. (12)