Social approach
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- —
- Level
- AS
Learning objectives
—Social approach - main assumptions• Main assumptions of the social approach- Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by social contexts, social environments and groups.- Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by the actual, implied or imagined presence of others.—Milgram (obedience)• Milgram (obedience)- Milgram, S (1963), Behavioral Study of Obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4): 371-78- The study by Milgram investigated the conflict between obedience to authority and personal conscience and how far a person would go in obeying an instruction if it meant harming another person. This includes considering dispositional and situational hypotheses. A laboratory setting was used to measure obedience, described as a 'dependent variable' but there was no independent variable in the main study. The study used observations and an interview as techniques.- Please Note: Milgram conducted many variations on this study. This study did not provide the 'teacher' with voice-feedback from the 'victim'.- The psychology being investigated includes: obedience; social pressure.- For this study, candidates should understand the background, aims, procedure and methodology as appropriate (research method, sample and demographics, sampling technique, experimental design, controls, question types, data-collection technique, and measured and manipulated variables), ethical issues, quantitative and qualitative results and their representation and interpretation, conclusions, and strengths and weaknesses; describe and evaluate the methodology; and relate the study to psychological issues and debates.—Perry et al. (personal space)• Perry et al. (personal space)- Perry, A, Mankuta, D and Shamay-Tsoory, S G (2015), OT promotes closer interpersonal distance among highly empathic individuals. Social, Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 10(1): 3-9- The study by Perry et al. investigated personal space (interpersonal distance). They tested how empathy and oxytocin affected the perception of personal space using a placebo to compare to oxytocin. Two experiments used different techniques to measure interpersonal distance and questionnaires were also used. Experiment 1 used a computerised version of the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance Scale. In Experiment 2, participants chose between pictures of different rooms.- The psychology being investigated includes: interpersonal distance (personal space); social hormones; empathy.- For this study, candidates should understand the background, aims, procedure and methodology as appropriate (research method, sample and demographics, sampling technique, experimental design, controls, question types, data-collection technique, and measured and manipulated variables), ethical issues, quantitative and qualitative results and their representation and interpretation, conclusions, and strengths and weaknesses; describe and evaluate the methodology; and relate the study to psychological issues and debates.—Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)• Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans)- Piliavin, I M, Rodin, J and Piliavin, J A (1969), Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13(4): 289-99- The study by Piliavin et al. tested bystander apathy. The study investigated how bystanders behave in real life situations and the factors that can affect their desire to help. This includes considering diffusion of responsibility. The study was a field experiment and used observations as a technique.- The psychology being investigated includes: bystander apathy; diffusion of responsibility.- For this study, candidates should understand the background, aims, procedure and methodology as appropriate (research method, sample and demographics, sampling technique, experimental design, controls, question types, data-collection technique, and measured and manipulated variables), ethical issues, quantitative and qualitative results and their representation and interpretation, conclusions, and strengths and weaknesses; describe and evaluate the methodology; and relate the study to psychological issues and debates.
The social approach explains influence from context, groups and the presence of others
Two assumptions define the approach: behaviour, cognition and emotion are influenced by social contexts, environments and groups; influence can come from the actual, implied or imagined presence of other people.
| Social source | Meaning | Core-study example |
|---|---|---|
| Actual presence | Another person/group is physically present | Milgram's experimenter gives orders; subway passengers witness a collapse |
| Implied presence | Rules, roles or authority carry expected social consequences | Yale setting and experimenter role legitimise continued shocks |
| Imagined presence | A represented other changes judgement without a live person | Perry participants imagine themselves as animated figures approach |
| Social context/group | Situation and surrounding people change response options/costs | Victim condition and nearby bystanders alter helping |
A strong application names the social source, the context/role/group cue, the measured response and the comparison that shows influence. 'People conform because society' is too vague; specify authority pressure, target familiarity, perceived need, group composition or responsibility.
| Study | Social factor | Interacting factor | Bounded lesson |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milgram | Legitimate authority and escalating commitment | Personal conscience/distress | Situation can overpower predicted disposition for many, not all |
| Perry | Social identity of approaching figure | Empathy and oxytocin | Social salience depends on person and target |
| Piliavin | Public emergency and nearby bystanders | Victim condition/race and group composition | Helping reflects perceived costs, need and social expectations |
Social influence is probabilistic, not total control. Biological variables (oxytocin), individual empathy/conscience and prior experience can interact with context; an effect of actual/implied/imagined others does not erase agency or prove one universal social rule.
Milgram measured destructive obedience under escalating legitimate authority
Aim: measure how far ordinary people obey a legitimate authority when orders conflict with conscience and appear to harm another person, testing situational against dispositional expectations. Forty volunteer men aged 20-50 from New Haven and nearby areas responded to newspaper/direct-mail recruitment, represented varied occupations/education and were paid.
This baseline 1963 study is a controlled laboratory observation/interview with one main condition: obedience was called a dependent variable, but there was no independent variable in this main study. Do not import later variations. In this syllabus version the learner did not give voice feedback.
| Stage | Standardised event | Psychological function |
|---|---|---|
| Role allocation | Both slips said 'teacher'; confederate became learner | Deception fixes participant role |
| Credibility | Learner strapped to chair/electrode; teacher received real 45 V sample | Makes apparatus and possible pain believable |
| Paired-associate task | Teacher read word pairs and punished errors with increasing shock | Creates gradual, rule-bound escalation |
| Generator | 30 switches, 15-450 V in 15 V steps, labels from Slight Shock to Danger/XXX, lights/buzz | Quantifies maximum obedience and intensifies commitment |
| Resistance | Learner pounded wall at 300/315 V then stopped responding; experimenter used ordered prods | Pits conscience/ambiguity against authority |
| End/debrief | Stop after refusal following prods or 450 V; interview, reconciliation/dehoaxing | Collects qualitative response and attempts ethical repair |
| Evidence | Result | Meaning |
|---|---|---|
| Maximum shock | 26/40 (65%) pressed 450 V | Obedience greatly exceeded prior expectations |
| Minimum stopping point | All 40 continued to at least 300 V; 14 eventually refused | Situation was powerful but not irresistible |
| Tension | Sweating, trembling, stuttering, lip-biting, groaning, nail-digging, nervous laughter; one seizure | Obedience coexisted with severe conflict rather than sadistic enjoyment |
| Comments/interviews | Participants voiced concern and denied enjoying harm | Qualitative data expose conscience/responsibility conflict |
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Highly standardised apparatus, script, 45 V sample and prods permit replication | No IV means the baseline cannot by itself establish which situational feature caused obedience |
| Behavioural voltage plus observations/interviews provide quantitative and qualitative triangulation | Volunteer male New Haven sample and prestigious Yale context limit population/cultural/setting generalisation |
| Credible setup reveals behaviour unavailable through hypothetical prediction | Laboratory learning/shock task may not represent every real authority relation, despite strong involvement |
| Debrief/reconciliation and follow-up attempted restoration | Deception, lack of informed consent, pressure against withdrawal and intense psychological harm are major ethical costs |
Application: in hospitals or organisations, make individual responsibility explicit, require independent checking, normalise questioning, and provide a clear escalation/withdrawal route when authority orders conflict with safety. This transfers the responsibility and legitimacy mechanisms, not the electric-shock procedure.
A result is '26 reached 450 V'; a conclusion is that legitimate authority and displaced responsibility can lead ordinary people to harm despite distress. Do not say everyone obeyed fully, that participants were sadistic, or that one condition proves authority alone caused each decision.
Perry et al. found oxytocin changed personal space differently by empathy
Personal space is an invisible, context-sensitive boundary used to regulate interaction. Perry et al. tested whether oxytocin (OT) changes preferred interpersonal distance depending on empathy. The recruited sample was 54 male University of Haifa undergraduates, aged 19-32 (mean about 25.3), with normal/corrected vision and no psychiatric/neurological history; empathy grouping used the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (high group around score 40 or ≥0.5 SD above mean).
| Control/design | Exact feature | Purpose |
|---|---|---|
| Repeated measures crossover | OT and saline placebo sessions one week apart | Each participant acts as own control |
| Administration | 24 IU intranasally, three drops per nostril, supervised | Standardises treatment |
| Timing | About 45 minutes before testing | Allows OT level to plateau |
| Double blind/placebo | Participant/administrator condition knowledge controlled | Reduces expectancy and observer effects |
| Individual difference | IRI empathy score/group | Tests interaction rather than universal OT effect |
| Experiment | Task | Operational distance measure |
|---|---|---|
| 1: computerised CID | Imagine self at centre of circular room; friend, stranger, authority or ball approaches from one of eight entrances for up to 3 s | Press spacebar to stop figure, or trial ends at collision |
| 2: room choice | Choose among coloured rooms with chairs/objects at varying spacing, believing a later personal conversation would use a computer-calculated room | Selected chair/interpersonal distance; cover story reduces obvious demand |
| Result | Correct interpretation |
|---|---|
| Friend allowed closer than stranger; stranger needed greatest distance | Imagined social identity affects personal space |
| Under OT, high-empathy participants preferred closer distances than placebo/low-empathy participants | OT's effect depends on empathy; it is not a universal closeness hormone |
| Low-empathy trend could move in the opposite direction | Social-salience effects differ by person/context |
| Experiment 2 showed the same conditional closer-distance pattern; average object angle was unaffected | Convergence across different indirect tasks supports construct interpretation |
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Placebo, double blind, crossover, fixed dose/timing improve internal validity and reliability | Animations and room pictures are indirect/artificial; real invasion may produce different behaviour |
| Two tasks and IRI permit convergent and interaction evidence | Male Israeli student volunteers limit gender/age/cultural generalisation |
| Continuous/choice quantitative data support precise comparison | IRI self-report is subjective and group cut-offs simplify empathy |
| Controlled OT administration and debriefing support safety/ethics | OT risks require screening/consent; Experiment 2 deceived participants about a personal conversation and could cause stress |
Application must preserve interaction: do not administer OT as a generic social aid. In space design or support, consider relationship, empathy, culture and individual preference, and use consensual distance choices rather than assuming one optimal interpersonal distance.
The claim is OT × empathy × social target, not 'OT makes people friendly'. Pressing a spacebar or choosing a room operationalises preferred distance but does not directly measure every real encounter, trust, attraction or empathy itself.
Piliavin et al. tested real helping in a trapped subway emergency
Aim: observe whether real subway passengers help a collapsed stranger and how victim condition/race, model timing/location and group composition affect helping, testing bystander apathy and diffusion of responsibility. It was a covert field experiment/structured observation on New York subway trains with naturally occurring passenger samples.
| Element | Operational detail |
|---|---|
| Team | Four students per trial: two male actors (victim/model) and two female covert observers; teams boarded through different doors |
| Victim | Male aged about 26-35, white or Black, casual clothes; either ill with cane or smelled of alcohol and carried bottle in bag |
| Collapse | Victim stood by a pole in the critical area and collapsed after about 70 seconds |
| Model | White male aged 24-29 in casual clothes; helped after set delay/from set area if no passenger had helped |
| Measures | Latency/frequency and identity/race/sex of helpers, number in critical/adjacent areas, movement and spontaneous comments |
| Comparison | Result | Interpretation |
|---|---|---|
| Ill/cane vs drunk | Ill victim received spontaneous help on 62/65 trials (about 95%); drunk victim on 19/38 (50%) and more slowly | Perceived need/deservingness and possible cost/risk strongly shape helping |
| Group composition | More males in the critical area predicted faster help | No simple diffusion-of-responsibility effect here; trapped context may raise arousal/cost of non-help |
| Race | Limited overall race effect, but same-race helping was stronger especially for the drunk condition | Race interacted with ambiguous/high-cost need; do not claim broad prejudice proof |
| Sex/comments | Men provided most first help; comments such as 'it's for men to help' showed social role expectations | Qualitative evidence explains some observed choices |
The cost-reward account: witnessing need creates arousal; a bystander weighs costs of helping (risk, effort) against costs of not helping (distress, blame). A cane victim appears genuinely ill and low-risk; a drunk victim may seem self-caused or risky. In a subway car, leaving is difficult, so larger groups can increase available helpers rather than diffuse responsibility.
| Strength | Limitation |
|---|---|
| Real passengers/emergency context gives high ecological validity and low demand characteristics | Train composition, crowding, repeated routes and uncontrolled events reduce internal validity/replicability |
| Behavioural latency/frequency plus comments provide quantitative/qualitative triangulation | Passenger demographics were estimated; individuals may appear on more than one trial and cannot be fully sampled |
| Standard victim collapse/model/observer roles support comparison in the field | New York subway and historical context constrain cultural/time generalisation |
| Practical insight into emergency design/helping | No informed consent, deception, covert observation, no practical withdrawal/debrief, and possible distress/privacy harms are substantial |
Application: make emergencies unambiguous, identify a specific helper ('you in the blue coat'), reduce perceived danger and clarify the needed action. This can lower uncertainty/diffused responsibility, but Piliavin itself found plentiful helping—especially for a clearly ill victim—so do not begin from 'bystanders never help'.
Bystander apathy means witnesses are less likely to intervene, not that no one helps. The group result contradicted a simple larger-group diffusion prediction in this setting. Separate victim condition, race, number of males and model intervention; each addresses a different comparison.