independent variable in milgram experiment

The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience

May 3, 2023

Discover the intriguing Stanley Milgram Experiment, exploring obedience to authority & human nature. Uncover shocking results & timeless insights.

Main, P (2023, May 03). The Stanley Milgram Experiment: Understanding Obedience. Retrieved from https://www.structural-learning.com/post/stanley-milgram-experiment

What was the Stanley Milgram experiment?

The Stanley Milgram experiment is one of the most famous and controversial studies in the history of psychology. The study was conducted in the early 1960s, and it examined people's willingness to obey an authority figure , even when that obedience caused harm to others. In this article, we'll take a closer look at the Milgram experiment, its significance, and its impact on psychology.

The Milgram experiment was designed to test people's willingness to obey authority, even when that obedience caused harm to others. The study involved three participants: the experimenter, the learner, and the teacher. The learner was actually a confederate of the experimenter, and the teacher was the real participant.

The teacher was instructed to administer electric shocks to the learner whenever the learner gave a wrong answer to a question. The shocks started at a low level and increased in intensity with each wrong answer. The learner was not actually receiving shocks, but they pretended to be in pain and begged the teacher to stop. Despite this, the experimenter instructed the teacher to continue shocking the learner.

The results of the Milgram experiment were shocking. Despite the learner's protests, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.

The Milgram experiment is perhaps one of the most well-known experiments on obedience in psychology . Milgram's original study involved 40 participants who were instructed to deliver electric shocks to a confederate, who pretended to be receiving shocks.

The shocks were delivered via a "shock machine" and ranged in severity from slight shocks to severe shocks. Despite the confederate's cries of pain and protest, the majority of participants continued to administer shocks up to the maximum level, demonstrating high rates of obedience to authority figures.

Milgram's experiments on obedience generated a great deal of interest and controversy in the scientific community. The results of his study challenged commonly held beliefs about human behavior and the limits of individual autonomy . The study also raised important ethical concerns and spurred a renewed focus on informed consent and debriefing in behavioral research.

In subsequent variations of the experiment, Milgram sought to explore the factors that influenced obedience rates, such as the presence of peers or the proximity of the authority figure. These variations provided further insight into the complex nature of obedience and social influence .

The Milgram experiment remains a significant and influential study in the field of social psychology, providing valuable insights into the power of authority and the limits of individual autonomy. Despite its ethical concerns, Milgram's study continues to be discussed and debated by scholars and students alike, highlighting the enduring impact of this groundbreaking behavioral study.

Who was Stanley Milgram?

Stanley Milgram was a renowned American social psychologist who was born in New York City in 1933. He received his PhD in Social Psychology from Harvard University in 1960 and went on to teach at Yale University, where he conducted his famous obedience experiments. Milgram's research focused on the areas of personality and social psychology, and he is best known for his studies on obedience to authority figures.

Milgram's obedience experiments were controversial and sparked a great deal of debate in the field of psychology. His research showed that ordinary people were capable of inflicting harm on others when instructed to do so by an authority figure. Milgram's work had a profound impact on the field of social psychology and influenced other researchers, such as Philip Zimbardo , to study similar topics.

Milgram's contributions to the field of social psychology were significant, and his obedience experiments remain some of the most well-known and widely discussed studies in the history of psychology. Despite the controversy surrounding his work, Milgram's research continues to be taught in psychology courses around the world and has had a lasting impact on our understanding of obedience, authority, and human behavior.

Milgram's Independent Variables

As we have seen, in Stanley Milgram's famous experiment conducted at Yale University in the 1960s, he sought to investigate the extent to which ordinary people would obey the commands of an authority figure, even if it meant administering severe electric shocks to another person.

The study of obedience to authority figures was a fundamental aspect of Milgram's research in social psychology. To explore this phenomenon, Milgram manipulated several independent variables in his experiment. One key independent variable was the level of shock administered by the participants, ranging from slight shocks to increasingly severe shocks, labeled with corresponding shock levels.

Another independent variable was the proximity of the authority figure, with variations of physical proximity or remote instruction via telephone.

Additionally, the presence or absence of social pressure from others and the authority figure's attire, varying between a lab coat and everyday clothing, were also manipulated.

Through these carefully controlled independent variables, Milgram examined the obedience rates and the level of obedience demonstrated by the participants in response to the concrete situation created in his experiment.

Change of Location

One significant factor that influenced the results of the Milgram experiment was the change of location. Originally conducted at Yale University, the experiment was later moved to a set of run-down offices in Bridgeport, Connecticut. This change had a profound impact on the rates of obedience observed in the study.

In the original experiment at Yale University, the obedience rates were shockingly high, with approximately 65% of participants following the instructions of the authority figure to administer what they believed to be increasingly severe electric shocks to another person. However, when the experiment was relocated to the less prestigious and less authoritative setting of run-down offices, the obedience rates dropped significantly to 47.5%.

This change in location created a shift in the dynamic of the experiment . Participants were less likely to view the authority figure as credible or legitimate in the less prestigious environment. The environment in run-down offices appeared less official and therefore may have weakened the perceived authority of the experimenter. This resulted in a lower level of obedience observed among the participants.

The change in location in the Milgram experiment demonstrated the influence of contextual factors on obedience rates. It highlighted how obedience to authority figures can be influenced by the specific setting in which individuals find themselves. The study serves as a reminder that obedience is not solely determined by individual characteristics but is also shaped by situational factors such as the environment and perceived authority.

In conclusion, the change of location from Yale University to run-down offices had a significant impact on the obedience rates in the Milgram experiment. The move resulted in a drop in obedience, suggesting that the context in which the experiment took place influenced participants' responses to authority .

One important aspect of Stanley Milgram's obedience experiment was the role of the experimenter's uniform, specifically the lab coat. The uniform or attire worn by the authority figure in the experiment played a significant role in influencing obedience levels among the participants.

The lab coat served as a symbol of authority and expertise, creating a sense of credibility and legitimacy for the experimenter. By wearing the lab coat, the authority figure appeared more knowledgeable and trustworthy, which influenced participants to follow their instructions more readily.

The uniform also helped establish a clear power dynamic between the authority figure and the participants. The experimenter's attire reinforced the perception of being in a formal and professional setting, where obedience to authority was expected.

Milgram's experiment included variations to the uniform to examine its impact on obedience levels. In some versions of the experiment, the experimenter wore regular clothing instead of the lab coat. This modification significantly reduced the perceived authority of the experimenter, leading to lower levels of obedience among the participants.

By manipulating the presence or absence of the lab coat, Milgram demonstrated how even a simple change in attire could influence obedience levels . This emphasized the role of external factors, such as the uniform, in shaping human behavior in a social context.

Touch Proximity Condition

In the Touch Proximity Condition of the Milgram experiment, participants were subjected to a unique and intense situation that aimed to test the limits of their obedience to authority. In this particular condition, when the learner refused to participate after reaching 150 volts, the participants were required to physically force the learner's hand onto a shock plate. This manipulation was intended to eliminate the psychological buffer that existed between the participants and the consequences of their actions.

The introduction of touch proximity significantly altered the dynamics of the experiment. The physical act of forcing the learner's hand onto the shock plate made the participants more directly responsible for the pain and discomfort experienced by the learner. This direct physical connection to the consequences of their actions created a profound impact on the participants, leading to a notable decrease in obedience levels.

In the Touch Proximity Condition, obedience rates dropped to just 30%, highlighting the significant influence of the removal of the buffer between the participants and the consequences of their actions. The participants were confronted with the immediate and tangible effects of their obedience, which made it much more difficult to justify their continued compliance.

Overall, the Touch Proximity Condition revealed the critical role that the removal of psychological distance plays in obedience to authority. By eliminating the buffer between the participants and the consequences of their actions, Milgram's experiment demonstrated the tremendous impact that immediate physical proximity can have on individuals' behavior in a difficult and morally challenging situation.

Two Teacher Condition

In Milgram's Two Teacher Condition, participants were given the opportunity to instruct an assistant, who was actually a confederate, to press the switches administering electric shocks to the learner. This variation aimed to investigate the impact of participants assuming a more indirect role in the act of shocking the learner.

Surprisingly, the results showed that in this condition, a staggering 92.5% of participants instructed the assistant to deliver the maximum voltage shock. This high rate of obedience indicated that participants were willing to exert their authority over the assistant to carry out the harmful actions.

The Two Teacher Condition aligns with Milgram's Agency Theory, which suggests that people tend to obey authority figures when they perceive themselves as agents carrying out instructions rather than personally responsible. In this variation, participants may have seen themselves as simply giving orders rather than directly causing harm, which diminished their sense of personal responsibility and increased their obedience.

This condition demonstrates how the dynamic of obedience can change when individuals are given the opportunity to delegate harmful actions to others. It sheds light on the complex interplay between authority figures, personal responsibility, and obedience to explain the unexpected and alarming levels of compliance observed in the Milgram experiment.

Social Support Condition

In the Social Support Condition of Stanley Milgram's experiment, participants were not alone in their decision-making process. They were joined by two additional individuals who acted as confederates. The purpose of this condition was to assess the impact of social support on obedience.

The presence of these confederates who refused to obey the authority figure had a significant effect on the level of obedience observed. When one or both confederates refused to carry out the harmful actions, participants became more likely to question the legitimacy of the authority figure's commands and were less willing to comply.

The specific actions taken by the two confederates involved expressing their refusal to deliver the electric shocks. They openly dissented and voiced their concerns regarding the ethical implications of the experiment. These actions served as powerful examples of disobedience and created an atmosphere of social support for the participants.

As a result, the level of obedience decreased in the presence of these defiant confederates. Seeing others defy the authority figure empowered participants to assert their own autonomy and resist carrying out the harmful actions. The social support provided by the confederates challenged the participants' perception of the experiment as a concrete situation and encouraged them to question the legitimacy of the authority figure's instructions.

Overall, the Social Support Condition demonstrated that the presence of individuals who refused to obey had a profound influence on the level of obedience observed. This highlights the importance of social support in challenging authority and promoting ethical decision-making.

Absent Experimenter Condition

In Stanley Milgram's famous obedience experiment, the proximity of authority figures played a crucial role in determining the level of obedience observed. One particular condition, known as the Absent Experimenter Condition, shed light on the impact of physical proximity on obedience.

In this condition, the experimenter instructed the teacher, who administered the electric shocks, by telephone from another room. The results were striking. Obedience plummeted to a mere 20.5%, indicating that when the authority figure was not physically present, participants were much less inclined to obey.

Without the immediate presence of the experimenter, many participants displayed disobedience or cheated by administering lesser shocks than instructed. This deviation from the experimenter's orders suggests that the absence of the authority figure weakened the participants' sense of obligation and decreased their willingness to comply.

The findings of the Absent Experimenter Condition highlight the significant influence of proximity on obedience. When the authority figure was physically present, participants were more likely to obey, even when faced with morally challenging actions. However, when the authority figure was not in close proximity, obedience rates dramatically decreased. This emphasizes the impact of physical distance on individuals' inclination to follow orders, indicating that proximity plays a crucial role in shaping obedience behavior.

Milgram's Absent Experimenter Condition underscored the importance of physical proximity with authority figures in determining obedience levels. When the experimenter instructed the teacher by telephone from another room, obedience fell to 20.5%, revealing the diminished compliance when the authority figure was not physically present.

Milgram's Legacy and Influence on Modern Psychology

The Milgram experiment was significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it highlighted the power of obedience to authority, even in situations where that obedience causes harm to others. This has important implications for understanding real-world situations, such as the Holocaust, where ordinary people were able to commit atrocities under the authority of a fascist regime.

Secondly, the experiment sparked a debate about the ethics of psychological research . Some critics argued that the study was unethical because it caused psychological distress to the participants. Others argued that the study's findings were too important to ignore, and that the benefits of the research outweighed the harm caused.

Stanley Milgram's study of obedience is widely recognized as one of the most influential experiments in the history of psychology. Although Milgram faced significant criticism for the ethical implications of his work, the study has had a lasting impact on our understanding of the power of authority and social influence.

Milgram's legacy can be seen in a variety of ways within the field of personality and social psychology. For example, his research has inspired a multitude of studies on the impact of social norms and conformity on behavior, as well as the importance of individual autonomy and free will in decision-making processes.

In addition, Milgram's influence can be seen in modern psychological research that utilizes variations of his study to explore new questions related to social influence and obedience. One such example is the Milgram Re-enactment, which sought to replicate the original study in a more ethical and controlled manner. This variation of the study found that individuals were still willing to administer shocks to the confederate, albeit at lower levels than in Milgram's original study.

Milgram's work has also had a significant impact on the way that researchers approach the treatment of participants in psychological experiments. The ethical concerns raised by Milgram's study led to a renewed focus on informed consent and debriefing procedures, ensuring that participants are aware of the potential risks and benefits of their involvement in research studies.

Milgram's legacy is one of both controversy and innovation. His study of obedience has contributed greatly to our understanding of human behavior and has served as a catalyst for important ethical discussions within the scientific community . While his work may continue to generate debate, there is no doubt that Milgram's contributions to the field of psychology have had a profound and lasting impact.

Milgram's Relationship with Other Prominent Psychologists

Stanley Milgram was a highly influential figure in the field of social psychology, and his work has been cited by a number of other prominent psychologists throughout the years. One of his contemporaries, Albert Bandura, was also interested in the power of social influence and developed the theory of social learning , which explored the ways in which people learn from one another and their environments.

Gordon Allport was another important figure in the field of social psychology, known for his work on personality and prejudice. Allport's research was highly influential in shaping Milgram's own understanding of social influence and obedience.

Milgram's infamous obedience studies demonstrated how individuals could be led to obey authority figures and commit acts that violated their own moral codes. Zimbardo's Stanford Prison Experiment similarly showed how individuals could adopt new identities and exhibit aggressive and abusive behavior when placed in positions of power. Both studies highlight the importance of social context in shaping behavior and have had a significant impact on our understanding of the role of situational factors in human behavior.

Jerome Bruner, another influential psychologist , was known for his work on cognitive psychology and the importance of active learning in education. Although Bruner's work was not directly related to Milgram's study of obedience, his emphasis on the importance of individual autonomy and active learning aligns with some of the key themes in Milgram's work.

Roger Brown, a psychologist known for his research on language and cognitive developmen t, also shared some common ground with Milgram in terms of their interest in human behavior and social influence. Finally, Solomon Asch , another prominent psychologist, conducted important research on conformity that helped to lay the groundwork for Milgram's own study of obedience.

Milgram's work was highly influential and contributed significantly to the field of social psychology. His relationship with other prominent psychologists reflects the collaborative and interdisciplinary nature of psychological research and highlights the ways in which researchers build upon one another's work over time.

Criticisms of the Milgram Experiment

Despite its significance, the Milgram experiment has been heavily criticized by some psychologists. One of the main criticisms is that the study lacked ecological validity - that is, it didn't accurately reflect real-world situations. Critics argue that participants in the study knew that they were taking part in an experiment, and that this affected their behavior.

Another criticism is that the experiment caused psychological distress to the participants. Some argue that the experimenter put too much pressure on the participants to continue administering shocks, and that this caused lasting psychological harm.

The Impact of Milgram's Research on Social Psychology

The Milgram experiment, conducted at Yale University in 1961, shocked the world with its findings on obedience to authority. Despite its groundbreaking contribution to the field of personality and social psychology, the study has also faced significant criticism for its treatment of participants.

Critics have raised concerns about the potential psychological harm inflicted on participants, who were led to believe that they were administering painful electric shocks to a real victim. Nevertheless, the Milgram experiment remains a critical turning point in the history of experiments with people.

It has had a profound impact on psychology, inspiring numerous studies that continue to shed light on obedience, conformity, and group dynamics. It has also sparked important debates about the ethics of psychological research and raised awareness of the importance of protecting the rights and well-being of research participants .

Real-Life Examples of Obedience Leading to Human Catastrophe

Stanley Milgram's obedience experiments have had profound implications for understanding human behavior, especially in contexts where obedience to authority might have contributed to catastrophic outcomes. Here are seven historical examples that resonate with Milgram's findings:

• Nazi Germany : The obedience to authority during the Holocaust, where individuals followed orders to commit atrocities, can be understood through Milgram's experiments. The willingness to administer "lethal shocks" to human subjects reflects how ordinary people can commit heinous acts under authoritative pressure.
• My Lai Massacre : American soldiers massacred hundreds of Vietnamese civilians during the Vietnam War. Milgram's work helps explain how soldiers obeyed orders despite the moral implications, emphasizing the power of authority in a difficult situation.
• Rwandan Genocide : The obedience to ethnic propaganda and authority figures led to the mass killings in Rwanda. Milgram's experiments shed light on how obedience can override personal judgment, leading to an unexpected outcome.
• Jonestown Massacre : Followers of Jim Jones obeyed his orders to commit mass suicide. Milgram's findings on obedience help explain how charismatic leaders can exert control over their followers, even to the point of death.
• Chernobyl Disaster : The obedience to flawed protocols and disregard for safety by the plant operators contributed to the catastrophe. Milgram's work illustrates how obedience to procedures and hierarchy can lead to disaster.
• Iraq War - Abu Ghraib Prison Abuse : The abuse of prisoners by U.S. military personnel can be linked to obedience to authority, a phenomenon explored in Milgram's experiments. The willingness to inflict harm under orders reflects the human participants' compliance in his studies.
• Financial Crisis of 2008 : Blind obedience to corporate culture and regulatory authorities contributed to unethical practices leading to the global financial meltdown. Milgram's insights into obedience help explain how organizational pressures can lead to widespread harm.

These examples demonstrate the pervasive influence of obedience in various historical and contemporary contexts. Milgram's experiments, documented in various Stanley Milgram Papers and the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , continue to be a critical reference in understanding human behavior.

The documentary film "Shocking Obedience" further explores these themes, emphasizing the universal relevance of Milgram's work. His experiments remind us of the human capacity for obedience , even in the face of morally reprehensible orders, and continue to provoke reflection on our own susceptibilities.

Key Takeaways

• The Milgram experiment was a famous and controversial study in psychology that examined people's willingness to obey authority.
• Participants in the study were instructed to administer electric shocks to a learner, even when that obedience caused harm to the learner.
• The results of the study showed that the majority of participants continued to administer shocks to the maximum level, even when they believed that the shocks were causing serious harm.
• The study has been heavily criticized for lacking ecological validity and causing psychological distress to participants.
• Despite the criticisms, the Milgram experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology and has inspired numerous other studies on obedience and authority.

In conclusion, the Milgram experiment remains an important and controversial study in the field of psychology. Its findings continue to influence our understanding of obedience to authority.

Further Reading on the Milgram Experiment

These papers offer a comprehensive view of Milgram's experiment and its implications, highlighting the profound effects of authority on human behaviour.

1. Stanley Milgram and the Obedience Experiment by C. Helm, M. Morelli (1979)

This paper delves into Milgram's experimen t, revealing the significant control the state has over individuals, as evidenced by their willingness to administer painful shocks to an innocent victim.

2. Credibility and Incredulity in Milgram’s Obedience Experiments: A Reanalysis of an Unpublished Test by G. Perry, A. Brannigan, R. Wanner, H. Stam (2019)

This study reanalyzes an unpublished test from Milgram's experiment , suggesting that participants' belief in the pain being inflicted influenced their level of obedience.

3. The Man Who Shocked the World: The Life and Legacy of Stanley Milgram by R. Persaud (2005)

Persaud's paper discusses the profound impact of Milgram's experiments on our understanding of human behavior , particularly the willingness of people to follow scientific authority.

4. Replicating Milgram: Would people still obey today? by J. Burger (2009)

Burger's study replicates Milgram's Experiment 5 , finding slightly lower obedience rates than 45 years earlier, with gender showing no significant influence on obedience.

5. Personality predicts obedience in a Milgram paradigm. by L. Bègue, J. Beauvois, D. Courbet, Dominique Oberlé, J. Lepage, Aaron A. Duke (2015)

This research explores how personality traits like conscientiousness and agreeableness, along with political orientation and social activism, can predict obedience in Milgram-like experiments.

These papers offer a comprehensive view of Milgram's experiment and its implications, highlighting the profound effects of authority on human behavior .

Enhance Learner Outcomes Across Your School

Download an Overview of our Support and Resources

We'll send it over now.

Please fill in the details so we can send over the resources.

What type of school are you?

We'll get you the right resource

Is your school involved in any staff development projects?

Are your colleagues running any research projects or courses?

Do you have any immediate school priorities?

Please check the ones that apply.

Download your resource

Thanks for taking the time to complete this form, submit the form to get the tool.

Analysing Milgram's Experiment

Analysis of milgram's experiment.

Milgram's (1963) experiment showed that ordinary people are obedient to authority. There were pros and cons to the experiment.

• Strict control of variables - variables could be controlled because the experiment was done in a laboratory. We should be able to establish cause and effect.

• Low ecological validity - participants were in an artificial situation (they wouldn't naturally be in a situation of shocking people). This means the study has low ecological validity (can't be generalised easily).
• Deception - participants weren't able to give informed consent because they didn't know the real nature of the experiment. They weren't told they could withdraw.
• In Milgram's defence, no formal ethical guidelines existed at the time.

Cons (continued)

• Milgram backed up his results by saying that participants' displays of stress showed that they thought the experiment was genuine.

1 Social Influence

1.1 Social Influence

1.1.1 Conformity

1.1.2 Asch (1951)

1.1.3 Sherif (1935)

1.1.4 Conformity to Social Roles

1.1.5 BBC Prison Study

1.1.6 End of Topic Test - Conformity

1.1.7 Obedience

1.1.8 Analysing Milgram's Experiment

1.1.9 Agentic State & Legitimate Authority

1.1.10 Variables of Obedience

1.1.11 Resistance to Social Influence

1.1.12 Minority Influence & Social Change

1.1.13 Minority Influence & Social Impact Theory

1.1.14 End of Topic Test - Social Influences

1.1.15 Exam-Style Question - Conformity

1.1.16 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Social Influence

2.1.1 Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.2 Short-Term vs Long-Term Memory

2.1.3 Long-Term Memory

2.1.4 Support for the Multi-Store Model of Memory

2.1.5 Duration Studies

2.1.6 Capacity Studies

2.1.7 Coding Studies

2.1.8 The Working Memory Model

2.1.9 The Working Memory Model 2

2.1.10 Support for the Working Memory Model

2.1.11 Explanations for Forgetting

2.1.12 Studies on Interference

2.1.13 Cue-Dependent Forgetting

2.1.14 Eye Witness Testimony - Loftus & Palmer

2.1.15 Eye Witness Testimony Loftus

2.1.16 Eyewitness Testimony - Post-Event Discussion

2.1.17 Eyewitness Testimony - Age & Misleading Questions

2.1.18 Cognitive Interview

2.1.19 Cognitive Interview - Geiselman & Fisher

2.1.20 End of Topic Test - Memory

2.1.21 Exam-Style Question - Memory

2.1.22 A-A* (AO3/4) - Memory

3 Attachment

3.1 Attachment

3.1.1 Caregiver-Infant Interaction

3.1.2 Condon & Sander (1974)

3.1.3 Schaffer & Emerson (1964)

3.1.4 Multiple Attachments

3.1.5 Studies on the Role of the Father

3.1.6 Animal Studies of Attachment

3.1.7 Explanations of Attachment

3.1.8 Attachment Types - Strange Situation

3.1.9 Cultural Differences in Attachment

3.1.10 Disruption of Attachment

3.1.11 Disruption of Attachment - Privation

3.1.12 Overcoming the Effects of Disruption

3.1.13 The Effects of Institutionalisation

3.1.14 Early Attachment

3.1.15 Critical Period of Attachment

3.1.16 End of Topic Test - Attachment

3.1.17 Exam-Style Question - Attachment

3.1.18 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Attachment

4 Psychopathology

4.1 Psychopathology

4.1.1 Definitions of Abnormality

4.1.2 Definitions of Abnormality 2

4.1.3 Phobias, Depression & OCD

4.1.4 Phobias: Behavioural Approach

4.1.5 Evaluation of Behavioural Explanations of Phobias

4.1.6 Depression: Cognitive Approach

4.1.7 OCD: Biological Approach

4.1.8 Evidence for the Biological Approach

4.1.9 End of Topic Test - Psychopathy

4.1.10 Exam-Style Question - Phobias

4.1.11 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Psychopathology

5 Approaches in Psychology

5.1 Approaches in Psychology

5.1.1 Psychology as a Science

5.1.2 Origins of Psychology

5.1.3 Reductionism & Problems with Introspection

5.1.4 The Behaviourist Approach - Classical Conditioning

5.1.5 Pavlov's Experiment

5.1.6 Little Albert Study

5.1.7 The Behaviourist Approach - Operant Conditioning

5.1.8 Social Learning Theory

5.1.9 The Cognitive Approach 1

5.1.10 The Cognitive Approach 2

5.1.11 The Biological Approach

5.1.12 Gottesman (1991) - Twin Studies

5.1.13 Brain Scanning

5.1.14 Structure of Personality & Little Hans

5.1.15 The Psychodynamic Approach (A2 only)

5.1.16 Humanistic Psychology (A2 only)

5.1.17 Aronoff (1957) (A2 Only)

5.1.18 Rogers' Client-Centred Therapy (A2 only)

5.1.19 End of Topic Test - Approaches in Psychology

5.1.20 Exam-Style Question - Approaches in Psychology

5.2 Comparison of Approaches (A2 only)

5.2.1 Psychodynamic Approach

5.2.2 Cognitive Approach

5.2.3 Biological Approach

5.2.4 Behavioural Approach

5.2.5 End of Topic Test - Comparison of Approaches

6 Biopsychology

6.1 Biopsychology

6.1.1 Nervous System Divisions

6.1.2 Neuron Structure & Function

6.1.3 Neurotransmitters

6.1.4 Endocrine System Function

6.1.5 Fight or Flight Response

6.1.6 The Brain (A2 only)

6.1.7 Localisation of Brain Function (A2 only)

6.1.8 Studying the Brain (A2 only)

6.1.9 CIMT (A2 Only) & Postmortem Examinations

6.1.10 Biological Rhythms (A2 only)

6.1.11 Studies on Biological Rhythms (A2 Only)

6.1.12 End of Topic Test - Biopsychology

6.1.13 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Biopsychology

7 Research Methods

7.1 Research Methods

7.1.1 Experimental Method

7.1.2 Observational Techniques

7.1.3 Covert, Overt & Controlled Observation

7.1.4 Self-Report Techniques

7.1.5 Correlations

7.1.6 Exam-Style Question - Research Methods

7.1.7 End of Topic Test - Research Methods

7.2 Scientific Processes

7.2.1 Aims, Hypotheses & Sampling

7.2.2 Pilot Studies & Design

7.2.3 Questionnaires

7.2.4 Variables & Control

7.2.5 Demand Characteristics & Investigator Effects

7.2.6 Ethics

7.2.7 Limitations of Ethical Guidelines

7.2.8 Consent & Protection from Harm Studies

7.2.9 Peer Review & The Economy

7.2.10 Validity (A2 only)

7.2.11 Reliability (A2 only)

7.2.12 Features of Science (A2 only)

7.2.13 Paradigms & Falsifiability (A2 only)

7.2.14 Scientific Report (A2 only)

7.2.15 Scientific Report 2 (A2 only)

7.2.16 End of Topic Test - Scientific Processes

7.3 Data Handling & Analysis

7.3.1 Types of Data

7.3.2 Descriptive Statistics

7.3.3 Correlation

7.3.4 Evaluation of Descriptive Statistics

7.3.5 Presentation & Display of Data

7.3.6 Levels of Measurement (A2 only)

7.3.7 Content Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.8 Case Studies (A2 only)

7.3.9 Thematic Analysis (A2 only)

7.3.10 End of Topic Test - Data Handling & Analysis

7.4 Inferential Testing

7.4.1 Introduction to Inferential Testing

7.4.2 Sign Test

7.4.3 Piaget Conservation Experiment

7.4.4 Non-Parametric Tests

8 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1 Issues & Debates in Psychology (A2 only)

8.1.1 Culture Bias

8.1.2 Sub-Culture Bias

8.1.3 Gender Bias

8.1.4 Ethnocentrism

8.1.5 Cross Cultural Research

8.1.6 Free Will & Determinism

8.1.7 Comparison of Free Will & Determinism

8.1.8 Reductionism & Holism

8.1.9 Reductionist & Holistic Approaches

8.1.10 Nature-Nurture Debate

8.1.11 Interactionist Approach

8.1.12 Nature-Nurture Methods

8.1.13 Nature-Nurture Approaches

8.1.14 Idiographic & Nomothetic Approaches

8.1.15 Socially Sensitive Research

8.1.16 End of Topic Test - Issues and Debates

9 Option 1: Relationships (A2 only)

9.1 Relationships: Sexual Relationships (A2 only)

9.1.1 Sexual Selection & Human Reproductive Behaviour

9.1.2 Intersexual & Intrasexual Selection

9.1.3 Evaluation of Sexual Selection Behaviour

9.1.4 Factors Affecting Attraction: Self-Disclosure

9.1.5 Evaluation of Self-Disclosure Theory

9.1.6 Self Disclosure in Computer Communication

9.1.7 Factors Affecting Attraction: Physical Attributes

9.1.8 Matching Hypothesis Studies

9.1.9 Factors Affecting Physical Attraction

9.1.10 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 1

9.1.11 Factors Affecting Attraction: Filter Theory 2

9.1.12 Evaluation of Filter Theory

9.1.13 End of Topic Test - Sexual Relationships

9.2 Relationships: Romantic Relationships (A2 only)

9.2.1 Social Exchange Theory

9.2.2 Evaluation of Social Exchange Theory

9.2.3 Equity Theory

9.2.4 Evaluation of Equity Theory

9.2.5 Rusbult’s Investment Model

9.2.6 Evaluation of Rusbult's Investment Model

9.2.7 Relationship Breakdown

9.2.8 Studies on Relationship Breakdown

9.2.9 Evaluation of Relationship Breakdown

9.2.10 End of Topic Test - Romantic relationships

9.3 Relationships: Virtual & Parasocial (A2 only)

9.3.1 Virtual Relationships in Social Media

9.3.2 Evaluation of Reduced Cues & Hyperpersonal

9.3.3 Parasocial Relationships

9.3.4 Attachment Theory & Parasocial Relationships

9.3.5 Evaluation of Parasocial Relationship Theories

9.3.6 End of Topic Test - Virtual & Parasocial Realtions

10 Option 1: Gender (A2 only)

10.1 Gender (A2 only)

10.1.1 Sex, Gender & Androgyny

10.1.2 Gender Identity Disorder

10.1.3 Biological & Social Explanations of GID

10.1.4 Biological Influences on Gender

10.1.5 Effects of Hormones on Gender

10.1.6 End of Topic Test - Gender 1

10.1.7 Kohlberg’s Theory of Gender Constancy

10.1.8 Evaluation of Kohlberg's Theory

10.1.9 Gender Schema Theory

10.1.10 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 1

10.1.11 Psychodynamic Approach to Gender Development 2

10.1.12 Social Approach to Gender Development

10.1.13 Criticisms of Social Theory

10.1.14 End of Topic Test - Gender 2

10.1.15 Media Influence on Gender Development

10.1.16 Cross Cultural Research

10.1.17 Childcare & Gender Roles

10.1.18 End of Topic Test - Gender 3

11 Option 1: Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1 Cognition & Development (A2 only)

11.1.1 Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development 1

11.1.2 Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development 2

11.1.3 Schema Accommodation Assimilation & Equilibration

11.1.4 Piaget & Inhelder’s Three Mountains Task (1956)

11.1.5 Conservation & Class Inclusion

11.1.6 Evaluation of Piaget

11.1.7 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 1

11.1.8 Vygotsky

11.1.9 Evaluation of Vygotsky

11.1.10 Baillargeon

11.1.11 Baillargeon's studies

11.1.12 Evaluation of Baillargeon

11.1.13 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 2

11.1.14 Sense of Self & Theory of Mind

11.1.15 Baron-Cohen Studies

11.1.16 Selman’s Five Levels of Perspective Taking

11.1.17 Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.18 Evaluation of Biological Basis of Social Cognition

11.1.19 Important Issues in Social Neuroscience

11.1.20 End of Topic Test - Cognition & Development 3

11.1.21 Top Grade AO2/AO3 - Cognition & Development

12 Option 2: Schizophrenia (A2 only)

12.1 Schizophrenia: Diagnosis (A2 only)

12.1.1 Classification & Diagnosis

12.1.2 Reliability & Validity of Diagnosis

12.1.3 Gender & Cultural Bias

12.1.4 Pinto (2017) & Copeland (1971)

12.1.5 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Diagnosis

12.2 Schizophrenia: Treatment (A2 only)

12.2.1 Family-Based Psychological Explanations

12.2.2 Evaluation of Family-Based Explanations

12.2.3 Cognitive Explanations

12.2.4 Drug Therapies

12.2.5 Evaluation of Drug Therapies

12.2.6 Biological Explanations for Schizophrenia

12.2.7 Dopamine Hypothesis

12.2.8 End of Topic Test - Schizoprenia Treatment 1

12.2.9 Psychological Therapies 1

12.2.10 Psychological Therapies 2

12.2.11 Evaluation of Psychological Therapies

12.2.12 Interactionist Approach - Diathesis-Stress Model

12.2.13 Interactionist Approach - Triggers & Treatment

12.2.14 Evaluation of the Interactionist Approach

12.2.15 End of Topic Test - Scizophrenia Treatments 2

13 Option 2: Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1 Eating Behaviour (A2 only)

13.1.1 Explanations for Food Preferences

13.1.2 Birch et al (1987) & Lowe et al (2004)

13.1.3 Control of Eating Behaviours

13.1.4 Control of Eating Behaviour: Leptin

13.1.5 Biological Explanations for Anorexia Nervosa

13.1.6 Psychological Explanations: Family Systems Theory

13.1.7 Psychological Explanations: Social Learning Theory

13.1.8 Psychological Explanations: Cognitive Theory

13.1.9 Biological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.10 Biological Explanations: Studies

13.1.11 Psychological Explanations for Obesity

13.1.12 Psychological Explanations: Studies

13.1.13 End of Topic Test - Eating Behaviour

14 Option 2: Stress (A2 only)

14.1 Stress (A2 only)

14.1.1 Physiology of Stress

14.1.2 Role of Stress in Illness

14.1.3 Role of Stress in Illness: Studies

14.1.4 Social Readjustment Rating Scales

14.1.5 Hassles & Uplifts Scales

14.1.6 Stress, Workload & Control

14.1.7 Stress Level Studies

14.1.8 End of Topic Test - Stress 1

14.1.9 Physiological Measures of Stress

14.1.10 Individual Differences

14.1.11 Stress & Gender

14.1.12 Drug Therapy & Biofeedback for Stress

14.1.13 Stress Inoculation Therapy

14.1.14 Social Support & Stress

14.1.15 End of Topic Test - Stress 2

15 Option 3: Aggression (A2 only)

15.1 Aggression: Physiological (A2 only)

15.1.1 Neural Mechanisms

15.1.2 Serotonin

15.1.3 Hormonal Mechanisms

15.1.4 Genetic Factors

15.1.5 Genetic Factors 2

15.1.6 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 1

15.1.7 Ethological Explanation

15.1.8 Innate Releasing Mechanisms & Fixed Action Pattern

15.1.9 Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.10 Buss et al (1992) - Sex Differences in Jealousy

15.1.11 Evaluation of Evolutionary Explanations

15.1.12 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Physiological 2

15.2 Aggression: Social Psychological (A2 only)

15.2.1 Social Psychological Explanation

15.2.2 Buss (1963) - Frustration/Aggression

15.2.3 Social Psychological Explanation 2

15.2.4 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 1

15.2.5 Social Learning Theory (SLT) 2

15.2.6 Limitations of Social Learning Theory (SLT)

15.2.7 Deindividuation

15.2.8 Deindividuation 2

15.2.9 Deindividuation - Diener et al (1976)

15.2.10 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

15.2.11 Institutional Aggression: Prisons

15.2.12 Evaluation of Dispositional & Situational

15.2.13 Influence of Computer Games

15.2.14 Influence of Television

15.2.15 Evaluation of Studies on Media

15.2.16 Desensitisation & Disinhibition

15.2.17 Cognitive Priming

15.2.18 End of Topic Test - Aggression: Social Psychology

16 Option 3: Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1 Forensic Psychology (A2 only)

16.1.1 Defining Crime

16.1.2 Measuring Crime

16.1.3 Offender Profiling

16.1.4 Evaluation of Offender Profiling

16.1.5 John Duffy Case Study

16.1.6 Biological Explanations 1

16.1.7 Biological Explanations 2

16.1.8 Evaluation of the Biological Explanation

16.1.9 Cognitive Explanations

16.1.10 Moral Reasoning

16.1.11 Psychodynamic Explanation 1

16.1.12 Psychodynamic Explanation 2

16.1.13 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 1

16.1.14 Differential Association Theory

16.1.15 Custodial Sentencing

16.1.16 Effects of Prison

16.1.17 Evaluation of the Effects of Prison

16.1.18 Recidivism

16.1.19 Behavioural Treatments & Therapies

16.1.20 Effectiveness of Behavioural Treatments

16.1.21 Restorative Justice

16.1.22 End of Topic Test - Forensic Psychology 2

17 Option 3: Addiction (A2 only)

17.1 Addiction (A2 only)

17.1.1 Definition

17.1.2 Brain Neurochemistry Explanation

17.1.3 Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.4 Evaluation of a Learning Theory Explanation

17.1.5 Cognitive Bias

17.1.6 Griffiths on Cognitive Bias

17.1.7 Evaluation of Cognitive Theory (A2 only)

17.1.8 End of Topic Test - Addiction 1

17.1.9 Gambling Addiction & Learning Theory

17.1.10 Social Influences on Addiction 1

17.1.11 Social Influences on Addiction 2

17.1.12 Personal Influences on Addiction

17.1.13 Genetic Explanations of Addiction

17.1.14 End of Topic Test - Addiction 2

17.2 Treating Addiction (A2 only)

17.2.1 Drug Therapy

17.2.2 Behavioural Interventions

17.2.3 Cognitive Behavioural Therapy

17.2.4 Theory of Reasoned Action

17.2.5 Theory of Planned Behaviour

17.2.6 Six Stage Model of Behaviour Change

17.2.7 End of Topic Test - Treating Addiction

Jump to other topics

Unlock your full potential with GoStudent tutoring

Affordable 1:1 tutoring from the comfort of your home

Tutors are matched to your specific learning needs

30+ school subjects covered

Agentic State & Legitimate Authority