QCE Psychology - Unit 4 - Social psychology

Classic social psychology studies and ethics

Learn the findings, mechanisms and limitations of Asch, Milgram and Haney–Banks–Zimbardo while evaluating ethics, demand characteristics and reproducibility.

Part of the free QCE Psychology notes library for Unit 4: Social psychology.

Updated 2026-08-08 - 4 min read

QCAA official coverage - Psychology 2025 v1.3

Exact syllabus points covered

  1. Describe the findings of historical social psychological research, with reference to Asch’s (1955) research on conformity
  2. Describe the findings of historical social psychological research, with reference to Milgram’s (1963) research on obedience
  3. Describe the findings of historical social psychological research, with reference to Haney, Banks and Zimbardo’s (1973) research on status, roles and power.
  4. Evaluate historical social psychological research, considering the ethical and procedural challenges involved in producing reproducible results when conducting research in social psychology, e.g. consider critiques of the Stanford Prison Experiment with respect to demand characteristics, data collection issues and the experience of participants (Le Texier 2019)
  5. Evaluate historical social psychological research, considering the ethical and procedural challenges involved in producing reproducible results when conducting research in social psychology, e.g. consider the effect that Milgram’s (1963) study of obedience had on ethical guidelines for psychological researchers.

Classic studies are not stories to memorise uncritically. For each, separate the manipulated social situation, observed behaviour, proposed mechanism, evidence limits and ethical consequences.

Evidence and critique map for classic social studies

Original Sylligence diagram for psychology classic studies evidence.

Evidence and critique map for classic social studies

Asch (1955): conformity

Participants judged line lengths while confederates sometimes gave a unanimous incorrect answer. The critical finding was that social pressure changed some responses even when the perceptual task was clear. Variation across participants and trials matters: the result was not universal conformity.

Possible mechanisms include normative influence—avoiding rejection or standing out—and informational influence—doubting one's judgement when others agree.

Methodological evaluation considers artificiality, cultural and historical context, deception and whether verbal line judgements generalise to consequential group decisions.

Milgram (1963): obedience

Participants were instructed by an experimenter to administer apparently increasing shocks to a learner after errors. Many continued further than everyday intuition predicted, despite signs of distress.

The study supports the power of situational factors such as authority legitimacy, graded commitment and institutional context. It does not show that participants lacked responsibility or that personality never matters.

Ethical concerns include deception, distress, constrained perception of withdrawal and debriefing. Milgram's work influenced modern scrutiny of informed consent, right to withdraw, risk and researcher responsibility.

Haney, Banks and Zimbardo (1973)

In the Stanford Prison study, participants assigned prisoner and guard roles behaved in troubling ways within a simulated prison. The study became associated with effects of roles, status and power.

Modern evaluation must address serious challenges:

  • possible demand characteristics and researcher involvement
  • incomplete or selective data recording
  • non-standardised interactions
  • participant expectations and performance
  • limited sample and setting
  • participant distress and blurred researcher–superintendent roles

Le Texier's 2019 critique is relevant to whether common textbook claims exceed the evidence. The appropriate conclusion is not that roles never matter; it is that this study cannot, by itself, cleanly establish a universal role effect.

Compare the evidential claims

| Study | Social process | Strongest defensible claim | Main caution | | --- | --- | --- | --- | | Asch | conformity | unanimous group responses can change public judgements | artificial task and historical/cultural boundary | | Milgram | obedience | authority context and escalating commitment can produce high compliance | major ethical issues and interpretive debate | | Prison study | roles, status, power | a coercive simulated institution produced harmful behaviour | demand characteristics and weak control threaten causal inference |

Worked evaluation

Reproducibility and historical context

Exact replication may be unethical. Researchers can use partial replications, archival evidence, simulations or converging field data. A concept can remain important even when a famous demonstration is criticised; confidence should depend on the wider evidence base.

Cultural and historical movements influence what researchers ask, how participants interpret authority and what society accepts as ethical. This is part of evaluation, not an excuse to dismiss all older research.

Try it yourself

Common exam traps

  • stating that every Asch participant conformed
  • treating obedience and conformity as identical
  • reporting the maximum shock as if it was physically delivered
  • using “unethical” without specifying harm, deception or withdrawal
  • presenting the prison study as uncontested proof
  • assuming non-replication automatically means fraud or zero effect

Sources

Finished reading? Practise this topic free

Open Psychology past questions with this Unit 4 topic carried into the question bank, then save your progress for the next review.

Practise this topic free. Free to start. No payment details are required. Exact question coverage depends on the available past-paper syllabus mapping.