1: SOCIAL Flashcards
What is the agency theory?
Agency Theory suggests humans have two mental states:
Autonomous: In the Autonomous State we perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own behaviour so we feel guilt for what we do
Agentic: In the Agentic State we perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone else’s will; the authority figure commanding us is responsible for what we do so we feel not guilt.
We perceive some people to be “authority figures”. These people may carry symbols of authority (like a uniform) or possess status (like rank). An order from an authority figure triggers the agentic shift into the Agentic State.
What is moral strain?
When an authority figure issues an order that goes against our conscience, we experience moral strain. This is because we have two contradictory urges: to obey the authority figure (and society’s expectations) and to obey our consciences (and keep our own self-image as “a good person”).
Moral strain might appear as physical distress, like shaking or weeping. Milgram points out that his own participants used “defence mechanisms” (a term originally used by Freud) to lessen the moral strain:
Denial: some of the participants in Milgram’s study minimised the pain they were causing to the Learner, convincing themselves that the shocks weren’t dangerous (even though “DANGER” was written on the shock generator); Milgram argues that many people in Nazi Germany did this, refusing to believe what was going on in the death camps
Avoidance: many participants tried not to look at the Experimenter or even look up from the shock generator
Degree of Involvement: some participants only flicked the switches on the shock generator lightly, as if this would somehow lessen the pain
Helping the Learner: other participants tried to help the Learner by stressing the correct answer on the memory test; in Variation #7, some participants deliberately gave a weaker shock rather than the stronger shock because they thought no one was watching
Going into the Agentic State removes moral strain, because we regard the authority figure as now being responsible for our actions. This is the appeal of the Agentic State.
Suggest some evidence to support the agency theory.
Milgram’s famous 1961 study into obedience was the basis for Agency Theory. Milgram observed the participants arrive in an autonomous state, go through the Agentic Shift, experience moral strain and become agents for the authority figure, carrying out acts that went against their conscience.
In 1974, Milgram published his book Obedience to Authority detailing 19 “variations” on the original obedience study. These support Agency Theory in various ways:
Variation #5 featured a learner with a heart condition. Obedience dropped slightly, but not much. Burger (2009) also found high (70%) levels of obedience when he replicated this. This suggests that empathy doesn’t make people disobedient; it just increases their moral strain, making the Agentic State more tempting.
Variation #10 used a run-down office rather than Yale University and obedience dropped to 47.5%. This is also to be expected if the Agentic Shift is triggered by symbols of authority.
Other researchers were interested in why some participants disobeyed. Personality might be a factory. Milgram & Elms (1966) studied the original participants and identified an authoritarian personality type that admired rules and was inclined to obey. This personality had already been identified by Theodor Adorno (1950) and linked to Fascist politics and discrimination.
Another personality factor is a need to be in control of your own behaviour. The link between a psychological need to be in charge and disobedience to authority was explored in the Contemporary Study by Burger (2009)
Apply the agent shift to real life.
The idea of the Agentic Shift may help reduce prejudice and discrimination because authority figures could tell people to be tolerant and understanding of outsiders. In fact, this is often done, with celebrities and sporting heroes visiting schools to encourage tolerance and equality (as well as telling students not to do drugs or crime). This is one of the reasons why there is such an outcry when a celebrity like a sports star or musician makes a racist remark or behaves in a sexist way: as an authority figure, they may be encouraging their fans to do as they do.
Evaluate the Agency Theory of obedience. (8 marks)
(see psychology wizard for exemplar essay)
What was the aim in Milgram’s 1963 study?
To find out naïve participants would obey orders from an authority that went against their values; specifically, to see if they would deliver electric shocks to a confederate sufficiently powerful to kill someone. Also, to create baseline data to be compared with later Variations.
Describe the procedure in Milgram’s 1963 study.
Milgram set up a controlled environment to carry out his structured observation. He did this because he wanted to reduce obedience to its essential decision, with no interference from outsiders or relationship between the person obeying the orders and their victim. The task had to be something that went against the participant’s conscience, so that obeying would be a personal struggle. The participants had to be naïve about the situation, not aware that their obedience was being studied.
Milgram recruited his naïve participants through a newspaper ad. This is a volunteer sample. They believed they were taking part in a memory experiment and would be paid $4 for their time.
Milgram watched everything through a one-way mirror. The role of the “Experimenter” was taken by a stern biology teacher in a lab coat called “Mr Williams”.
Milgram employed a confederate (or “stooge”) to help. “Mr Wallace”, a man in his 40s, pretended to be another participant. After a faked coin-toss, Mr Wallace became the “Learner” and the naïve participant became the “Teacher”. The Teacher watched Mr Wallace being strapped into an electric chair. The Teacher felt a 45V shock to “prove” that the electric chair was real. Participants were assured that, although the shocks were painful, they would “not cause lasting damage”.
In the room next door was the shock generator, a machine with switches running from 15V to 450V and labels like “Slight Shock” or “Danger”.
Mr Wallace learned a list of word-pairs. The Teacher’s job was to read words into the microphone followed by four options for the second word in the pair. Mr Wallace would indicate his answer by pressing a button. If the answer was wrong, the Experiment ordered the Teacher to press the switch delivering a 15V shock. The shock went up by 15V with each wrong answer.
The Learner’s answers were pre-set and his cries of pain tape-recorded. The Learner got three-quarters of his answers wrong. At 300V the Learner banged on the wall and stopped answering. The Experimenter ordered the Learner to treat ‘no answer’ as a wrong answer, to deliver the shock and proceed with the next question.
The Experimenter had a set of pre-scripted “prods” that were to be said if the Teacher questioned any of the orders. If all four prods had to be used, the observation would stop. It also stopped if the Learner got up and left or reached 450V.
Please continue.
The experiment requires you to continue.
It is absolutely essential that you continue.
You have no other choice but to continue.
What was the IV and DV of Milgram’s 1963 study?
This is a structured observation, so there is no IV. Milgram measured the highest shock level each participant would go to, treating 450V as “complete obedience” – with the later Variation studies, this score of obedience was treated as a DV.
What was the sample for Milgram’s 1963 study?
40 participants, all men aged 20-50. They were recruited through volunteer sampling: Milgram posted newspaper ads and they were paid $4 for turning up to a “study of memory”.
What were the results of Milgram’s 1963 study?
The participants were obedient up until 300V; this is the point where the Learner kicked the wall and stopped answering questions. Between 300V and 375V, 14 participants dropped out of the study (by exhausting all 4 “prods” with their questions and arguments). The remaining 26 (65%) carried on to 450V shock at the end.
Milgram also collected qualitative data. He observed the participants sweating, trembling, stuttering and groaning. 14 showed nervous laughter.
What conclusions did Milgram draw from him 1963 study?
Milgram concludes you don’t have to be a psychopath to obey immoral orders: ordinary people will do it in the right situation.
What is the right situation? Milgram had a number of situational explanations for the surprisingly high level of obedience:
Yale University is a prestigious setting and the participants would be overawed and convinced nothing unethical could go on here
The study seemed to have a worthy cause (memory) and was being done to further science.
Mr Wallace seemed willing; he had volunteered (or so it seemed) and it was chance that made him the Learner (or so the participants believed).
The participants had also volunteered and committed themselves; they were being paid and this carried a sense of obligation.
The participants had been assured that the shocks were painful but not dangerous.
This was a new situation for the participants and they didn’t know what was appropriate or not.
Milgram went on to develop Agency Theory to explain the behaviour he observed.
Describe the generalisability of Milgram’s studies.
Volunteers are likely to be particularly obedient (after all, they want to be doing the experiment). On the other hand, volunteers tend to listen to instructions and take the procedure seriously, which is representative of people in real life situations of power being misused.
A sample of 40 is quite large, but anomalies (unusually cruel, gullible or timid people) might spoil the results. The original sample was all-male, which cannot generalise to women, and all-American, which may not generalise to other cultures. It may also be “time-locked” in the early 1960s with its rather deferential culture.
When you put all of Milgram’s variations together, he tested 780 people, which should remove anomalies. However, some of the Variations (like #13) only tested 20 participants, so a few rebellious individuals (like the ones who overpowered the confederate) might spoil things.
Variation #8 tested women, with the same obedience level (65%) as men. This lends support to the idea tat the original sample was representative - but see Gina Perry’s criticism and below
Several cross-cultural variations on Milgram’s study have been conducted. All of them also show high levels of obedience, but the exact numbers vary and they often used different sorts of tests. For example, Meeus & Raaijmakers (1986) found 92% obedience in the Netherlands, but they used insults rather than electric shocks.
Burger (2009) produced similar results to Milgram (70%). However, he only ordered participants to go up to 150V.
How reliable were Milgram’s studies?
Milgram’s procedure is very reliable because it can be replicated – between 1961-2 he carried out 19 Variations of his baseline study. Burger (2009) replicated aspects of Variation #5 (heart condition to test for empathy) and Variation #17 (model refusal) as well as Variation #8 (testing women). Burger followed Milgram’s script wherever possible, indicating high reliability. Milgram also filmed parts of his study, allowing viewers to review his findings (inter-rater reliability).
Features that make for standardised procedure in this study include the pre-scripted “prods” used by the Experimenter, the tape-recorded responses from Mr Wallace and the fact that the Teacher cannot see Mr Wallace (so there will be no differences in how he looks between each test).
A serious criticism is levelled by Gina Perry (2012), that Milgram did not follow standardised procedures. John Williams (the Experimenter) admitted to Perry that Milgram was only strict about the pre-scripted “prods” in the first study and afterwards Williams was free to improvise. This made obedience in the Variations seem higher than it really was.
How can we apply Milgram’s studies to the real world?
The study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces and prisons. Authority figures should wear symbols of authority (uniforms) and justify their authority with reference to a “greater good”.
Picture
Milgram (1974) links his findings to the My Lai massacre. In 1968, a group of US soldiers (“Charlie Company”) killed the 800 inhabitants of a Vietnamese village. They were obeying the orders of Lt William Calley. The soldiers executed old men, women and children.
Despite an attempted cover-up, 14 officers were eventually tried by a military court, but only Calley was jailed. His 20 year sentence was halved on appeal and he was later paroled. He said he was only following orders from his superiors.
Although the My Lai massacre can be explained using Milgram’s study, it also links to intergroup conflict. Charlie Company had lost nearly 30 of its men in the recent Tet Offensive and was keen for revenge against the Viet Cong. They had been told that My Lai was full of Viet Cong sympathizers.
With a better understanding of blind obedience, tragedies like this could be prevented in future. For example, soldiers could be trained to report and refuse orders that would be war crimes
Describe the validity of Milgram’s studies.
Milgram’s study has been criticised for lacking ecological validity because the task is artificial – in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners. However, Milgram’s reply is that events like the Holocaust were just as unusual and strange and that people in these situations felt similarly to his participants: they had been dropped into an unfamiliar situation and didn’t know how to respond.
Some critics claim that the participants were play-acting: they knew (or suspected) that the set-up wasn’t real. However, their visible distress (filmed by Milgram) counts against this.
One of the main critics is Australian psychologist Gina Perry, who wrote a book debunking Milgram called Behind The Shock Machine (2012). Perry challenges the validity (and generalisability and reliability) of Milgram’s procedures.
Picture
Perry claims that Milgram’s data is not to be trusted. She alleges that, as an ambitious young scholar, Milgram twisted the data to make it look as if there was “a Nazi inside all of us” to make himself famous. In Variation #8 in particular, Mr Williams (the Experimenter) would not let the women back out of the study even after using 4 prods. Supposedly, Milgram encouraged this because it was important for his theory that men and women should both experience the Agentic State (otherwise it looks like male obedience isn’t really obedience at all - it’s just aggression). If Perry’s accusations are correct, this would make Milgram’s claim that women were as obedient as men invalid.
Perry also alleges, after studying unpublished letters at Milgram’s old department at Yale, that several participants did suspect the study was a trick. Some of them wrote to MIlgram and pointed out that Mr Wallace’s cries of pain seemed to come from the speakers, not the room next door. Participants in Variation #7 noticed that, when they pressed a lower voltage switch instead of the higher one, the cries of pain still intensified.
Other participants were suspicious of the shabby state of the electrodes on the electric chair.
At that time in America, the most popular TV show was Candid Camera, in which members of the public were set up for elaborate pranks and secretly filmed. Some participants wondered if this might be an episode of Candid Camera.
Milgram certainly ignored these suspicions and reported that his participants believed 100% in the realism of the study.
Milgram’s claim that the drop in obedience in Variation #10 to 47.5% was “not significant” might be another indication that he was determined to conclude that obedience his high. A difference of -17.5% between experimental conditions would usually be significant.
How ethical were Milgram’s studies?
The main criticism is that participants’ wellbeing was ignored: they were deceived (about the shocks) and did not give informed consent (they were told it was a memory test, not an obedience test). When they tried to withdraw, the “prods” made this difficult for them. This sort of treatment of participants drags science into disrepute and makes it harder to recruit for future research.
The main defence is that the study would not have been possible if participants knew what was being investigated. After all, everyone who had the study described to them beforehand felt sure that they would disobey.
Milgram argues that, after the Holocaust and My Lai, a scientific understanding of obedience is so importance it justifies this sort of research. He also downplayed the seriousness of the distress, claiming his participants experience “excitement” similar to watching a scary movie, not lasting trauma.
Milgram also extensively debriefed his participants and went to lengths to show that no lasting harm had befallen them.
Evaluate Milgram’s original study into obedience. (8 marks)
Milgram’s original study had a small sample that didn’t generalise to women or non-Americans. (AO1) It was 40 New Haven men, but, in later Variations, Milgram also tested women and they behaved the same way.
Milgram’s study is low in ecological validity because the situation he put his participants through was not like obeying a real authority figure. (AO1) Giving electric shocks to a learner is artificial and this means the study doesn’t really tell us about why people obeyed the Nazis, only how they behave in psychology experiments.
However, the study probably was valid because the participants showed genuine distress, which shows they thought it was real. (AO1) Most of them shook or moaned and some cried or laughed hysterically.
Gina Perry accuses Milgram of twisting his results to prove there is “a Nazi inside all of us”. She argues his conclusions are invalid because the participants suspected it was unreal. (AO1) Some participants said that they suspected the shocks weren’t real when screams came from speakers, not from behind the wall.
Conclusion
Milgram’s study is controversial but it seems to show we are much more obedient than we like to think we are. Beforehand, no one thought they would go all the way to 450V. Modern replications of Milgram also show that people find it hard to disobey authority figures.
Describe Milgram’s variation 5 study.
Variation #5 is the “Empathy Variation”. Milgram changed the script so that Mr Wallace mentioned a heart condition at the start and at 150V he started complaining about chest pains. Compared to the baseline study, more participants dropped out at 150V, long before the Learner went silent at 300V. However, participants who continued after 150V seemed to feel they had “passed a point of no return” and continued all the way to 450V. Burger (2009) uses this variation as the basis for his Contemporary Study.
Describe Milgram’s variation 8 study.
Variation #8 used a sample of 40 women. Their obedience levels turned out to be 65%, the same as the men’s.
Describe Milgram’s variation 7 study, the results and conclusion.
ABSENT AUTHORITY
In the original study, the Experimenter (Mr Williams) sits at a desk right behind the Teacher.
In this Variation, the Experimenter gives the participants their instructions at the start, then leaves the Teacher alone in the room with the shock generator and a telephone. If the Teachers have questions or doubts, they must phone the Experimenter. The “prods” are delivered over the telephone.
There was a significant drop in obedience, down to 9 (22.5%), and some participants gave lower shocks than they were told to do (because they thought they were unobserved).
Milgram concludes that the physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience.
Describe Milgram’s variation 10 study, the results and conclusion.
INSTITUTIONAL CONTEXT (the "Bridgeport" Variation) The original study was carried out at Yale University, in rather grand surroundings.
In this Variation, Milgram moves the study to a run-down office in the busy town of Bridgeport. There is nothing to make the participants link things to the University: Mr Williams claims to work for a private research firm.
There was a drop in obedience to 19 (45.5%), but Milgram didn’t think this was big enough to be significant. Participants showed more doubts and asked more questions. One of them made notes as if they intended to make a complaint later and another one objected that the study was “heartless”.
Milgram concludes that the setting is not as important for obedience as the status of the authority figure.
Describe Milgram’s variation 13/13a study, the results and conclusion.
ORDINARY AUTHORITY FIGURE
The original study used Mr Williams as the Experimenter, who looked severe and wore a lab coat. In this Variation, Mr Williams explains the procedure to the participant but then is called away. Crucially, Mr Williams does not tell the Teachers to increase the shock by 15V with each incorrect answer.
There is a second confederate present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of “writing down the times” of each test. With the Experimenter gone, this confederate suggests “a new way of doing the study,” taking the voltage up by 15V each time there’s a mistake.
Only 20 participants did this Variation and only 4 (20%) obeyed by going to 450V.
Milgram concludes that the status of the authority figure is important, but other features of the situation (the instructions, the shock generator) still create obedience.
In Variation 13a, Milgram uses the 16 “rebel” participants from Variation #13.
In other words, as soon as the participants in Variation #13 rebelled, Milgram moved into the procedure for #13a with them. From the participants’ viewpoint, it seemed like the same study continuing, not a new one starting.
The confederate suggests swapping places: now the confederate gives the shocks and the disobedient participant writes down the times. The participant is now a bystander, watching someone else deliver the shocks.
All 16 participants protested. Five of them tried to unplug the shock generators or restrain the confederate physically. However, 11 (68.75%) allowed the confederate to go to 450V.
Picture
Milgram concludes that people are more willing to be bystanders than to intervene to prevent the abuse of authority
What did Diana Baumrind criticise about Milgram’s studies in 1964?
Child psychologist Diana Baumrind (1964) published a criticism of the ethics of Milgram’s study: she complained that Milgram had ignored the “wellbeing” of the participants, deceiving them and putting them through traumatic stress.
What 3 things is social impact theory affect by?
Strength: This is how much power you believe the person influencing you has. For example, if the person has rank in an organisation, their orders will have more Strength
Immediacy: This is how recent the influence is and how close to you, from an order a minute ago from your boss standing right next to you (very immediate) to an email you received from your boss last week (not very immediate)
Numbers: The more people putting pressure on you to do something, the more social force they will have
Who proposed the social impact theory and when?
Latané in 1981
Describe the divisional effect proposed by Latané for social impact theory.
Increasing the strength, immediacy and/or the number of sources increases the impact of the source. Increasing the strength, immediacy and/or the number of targets decreases the impact of the source.
What is the law of diminishing related to social impact theory?
Once the group is bigger than three, each additional person has less of an influencing effect.
What did Sedikides and Jackson find in 1990?
Sedikides & Jackson (1990) carried out a field experiment in the bird house at a zoo. A confederate told groups of visitors not to lean on the railings near the bird cages. The visitors were then observed to see if they obeyed.
If the confederate was dressed in the uniform of a zookeeper, obedience was high, but if he was dressed casually, it was lower. This demonstrates varying Social Force, in particular S (Strength) because of the perceived authority of the confederate.
As time passed, more visitors started ignoring the instruction not to lean on the railing. This also shows Social Force, especially I (Immediacy), because as the instruction gets less immediate it has less impact.
Divisions of impact were also studied. Some visitors were alone but others were in groups of up to 6. The larger the group size, the more disobedience was observed.
Who proposed that Immediacy is less important than strength? (related to social impact theory)
Hofling et al. (1966) found that 95% of nurses obeyed to takes orders of doubling a patients medical dosage over the phone despite the source not being present.
What research supports social impact theory?
There’s a growing body of research supporting Social Impact Theory. In addition, the theory also makes sense of a lot of Classic studies from the ‘60s and ‘70s that used to seem unrelated – like Latané & Darley (1968) into diffusion of responsibility, Tajfel (1970) into intergroup discrimination and Milgram (1963) into obedience. In hindsight, all of these studies can be seen as looking at different aspects of Social Impact.
There have been more recent additions to Social Impact Theory. Latané et al. (1996) developed Dynamic Social Impact Theory to pay attention to how minorities and majorities influence each other, such as how people tend to change their views to match the group they are in but why they sometimes “stick to their guns”.
What are some objections to social impact theory?
Social Impact pays a lot of attention to the characteristics of the person giving the orders but not much to the person receiving them. For example, there may be personality types that are particularly compliant (go along with anything) or rebellious. A person may be happy to go along with some sorts of orders but draw the line at others – such as orders that offend them morally or embarrass them socially.
A similar problem is that Social Impact Theory treats people as passive. It proposes that anybody will do anything if the right amount of Social Force is brought to bear on them. However, people sometimes obey orders while at the same time subverting them. An example might be Oskar Schindler who handed Jewish employees over to the Nazis during WWII while secretly helping many others to escape.
Apply social impact theory to the real world.
The idea of a mathematical formula to calculate Social Impact is very useful. Latané believes that, if you know the number (N) of people involved and the immediacy (I) of the order and the strength (S) of the authority figure, you can calculate exactly how likely someone is to obey (i) using the formula i = f (SIN). This means you can predict whether laws will be followed, whether riots will break out and whether 9B will do their homework.
The theory suggests if you want to get people to obey, you need to direct Social Force at them when they are in small groups and ideally stop them getting together into large groups. This is why some repressive governments try to stop people using social media and gathering for public meetings. Because orders need to be immediate it is important to repeat them often and put them on signs, TV adverts and regular announcements.
Evaluate Social Impact Theory as an explanation of obedience. (8 marks)
Social Impact Theory is credible because studies back it up. (AO1) Sedikides & Jackson who gave orders to visitors at a zoo. Large groups of visitors were more likely to disobey, which shows division of impact.
The mathematical formula has a clear application. You could use it to work out exactly how likely someone is to disobey in any situation. (AO1) The formula i = f (SIN) can be used so long as you know how many people (N) are involved.
Social Impact Theory is much more complex than Agency Theory. (AO1) It includes the different sorts of authority suggested by French & Raven, such a referent authority.
However, Agency Theory includes some things that Social Impact Theory ignores, such as moral strain. (AO1) Milgram explains why his participants cried and fainted, but Social Impact Theory only looks at how likely people are to obey, not how they feel about it.
Conclusion
Social Impact is a theory that covers a lot more than just obedience. It also explains diffusion of responsibility. This makes it a bit of a vague theory. It’s not a theory of obedience in particular, unlike Agency Theory.
What 4 factors affect obedience?
- Personality
- Situation
- Gender
- Culture
What 3 situation factors affect obedience?
LEGITIMACY
Reducing the authority figure’s perceived legitimacy reduces obedience e.g. dress code.
PROXIMITY
Increased distance between the authority figure and the participant decreases obedience.
BEHAVIOUR OF OTHERS
Witnessing disobedience in others increases defiance.
Meeus and Raajmakers (1955) found obedience drops when the experimenter is absent (36%) and when two peers rebel (16%)
- however personality is also important.
How do school use psychology to bring about obedience of students?
Schools use psychology to bring about obedience. School uniform is a good way of deindividuating students, which should make them more obedient (according to Zimbardo, 1968). Of course, this strategy can backfire. There is the danger that deindividuated students will end up obeying the wrong authority figures, like bullies and trouble-makers.
Isolation also increases obedience, so separating students from their friends and sitting them far apart helps (and small class sizes make it easier to do this). This also makes it easier for the teacher to be physically close to students - especially naughty ones who like to sit at the back - because distance from the authority figure increases disobedience.
Prestigious settings improve obedience. Some teachers put symbols of authority on or near their desks - flags, awards, certificates and so on. Teachers try to look prestigious, with suits, ties and formal dress codes. Milgram’s Variations support this strategy, although Milgram is clear that being physically nearby is more important for an authority figure than just looking physically imposing.
