Aim: To find out if gender has an effect in obedience.
Hypothesis (Non-directional): It is predicted that there would be a significant difference in levels of obedience between males and females.
Method: Survey Variables: DV – score of obedience out of 50 IV – Difference in gender
Sample: Opportunity, 24 ppts (9 male & 16 female) ages 16-79
Controls: Standardized procedure, same instructions, same questionnaire, time of day, way of approach to stop extraneous variables.
Procedure: Ppts were approached and asked to take part in the research. They were told they had the right to withdraw at any point. They ppt was allowed to complete the questionnaire without researcher pressure or a set time limit. Majority of the ppts remained anonymous. They were given a full debriefing at the end.
Results: female mean 27.9 Male mean 28.2
Conclusion: results show that there is no sig difference between obedience in males & females.
Thematic analysis: Ppts pointed out for the qualitative questions ‘what types of people would you obey’ made reference to ‘authority’ and ‘uniform’ specifically such as police officers, doctors or politicians showing the status is what gives the obedience.
‘under what circumstances would you obey someone’ answered with dangerous situations, when having to obey the law, knowing them personally or if others around them obey.
Improvements: use a wider sample possibly which isn’t an opportunity sample. Use more distracter questions so ppts don’t display socially desirable answers
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
| High R – questionnaires gathered quantitative data through closed questions – data can only be analysed in an objective way reducing researcher bias.
High R – questionnaires and instructions were standardised meaning everyone received the same procedure – easier to retest the procedure to test for consistency of findings. Application – study found that there was not a sig difference between gender obedience levels – males and females should be treated equally in jobs and education on obedience terms. High V – questionnaires collect both qualitative and quantitative data through opened and close questions – provide both objective and rich in-depth data which can be analysed in greater detail. |
Low G – used an opportunity sample which consisted of 24 people from the same location – cannot generalise to a wider or whole population.
Low internal V – subjects may of guessed the aim of the study by the questions provided as there was not enough distractor questions – could provide socially desirable answers. Low r- the questionnaire contained some open questions, meaning that qualitative data was collected – means that the data is subjectively analysed and produce researcher bias answers.
|