Alternate Explanations For Social Influence Flashcards
Name three alternate explanations for obedience
Agentic state/shift
Legitimacy to authority
Dispositional explanation
What’s legitimacy to authority, and what is it a theory for
Within society there are hierarchy’s.
Obedience = people obeying those key figures that have power, e.g; police, teachers, bouncers…
People obey them because authoritative figures have that authority because it is agreed by society, therefore we accept that level of authority as legitimate.
some authority have power to punish
We are taught since childhood that we must accept figures of authority.
Legitimate authority can become destructive as shown in Milgrams study when experimenter gave out the prods.
studies evident for legitimacy to authority
Miranda - 90% of students went to 450 v in spain
Kilman - 16% of participants in australia went to 450 v
Mantell - 84% of participants went to 450 v in germany
Milgram - 65% went to 450 v
Pros/cons of legitimacy to authority
PROS
cultural differences can be explained: different cultures have different hierarchies/ figures.
Australian and German replication of Milgrams research is explained.
Study supports explanation that people will obey depending on social hierarchy. If all people obeyed same then this wouldn’t support the theory.
Shows uniform/location increases obedience.
Mantell 1974 - germany
Kilman 1971 australia
Miranda ‘81 - over 90% students went to 450 v
Difference between legitimacy to authority and agentic shift/state
Legitimate authority - conscious decision: following an authoritative figure because you recognise that they have power over you and they know better. You think they are an expert but also they have the ability to punish. Would only work in that specific situation because of factors: uniform and authority. ( eg that ms gave)
Agentic state - unconsciously obeying someone because of their power and diffusing your responsibility. Factor proximity ( physically ) affect this with evidence of Milgrams variations
What is the dispositional explanation
dispositional explanation: explanation for human behaviour that highlights the importance of personality
Authoritarian personality: people who are susceptible to obeying people of authority
How authoritarian personalit is developed (4)
originates in childhood due to harsh parenting
Harsh parenting= strict discipline, expectation of loyalty, high standards and criticisms of failures
Parents give conditional love ( love based on behaviour of the child)
Conditional love creates resentment and hostility in the child, and they displace this onto others
This is why authoritarian individuals appear to hate socially inferior people
Adorno aim and conclusion
Dispositional explanations of obedience: FACISM
Facism = ruling that advocates total control of people
ADORNO: set out to test whether facism is related to authoritarian personality
He investigated caused of obedience in 2000 white middle class Americans, particularly attitudes toward other racial groups
Multiple scales were used to investigate obedience rates such as the ‘F-scale = potential for fascism scale’
C
Authoritarian people have tendencies to be more obedient to authority
Conventional attitudes towards sex, gender and race
They believe society needs strong leaders to enforce traditional rules about religion and family in society
Everything is either right/wrong no uncertainty
How is facism linked to the dispositional explanation
Dispositional explanations of obedience: FACISM
Facism = ruling that advocates total control of people
ADORNO: set out to test whether facism is related to authoritarian personality
He investigated caused of obedience in 2000 white middle class Americans, particularly attitudes toward other racial groups
Pros / cons of Adornos findings
P (3)
C (6)
Milgram and Elms (1966)
obedient participants scored higher on the F-scale in comparison to the disobedient participants
Obedient participants were also less close to their fathers in childhood ( found out in post experiment interview)
The results imply facist right wing views - explains why only 65% were obedient cause of individual differences.
Political Bias: only measures tendency to extreme right-wing beliefs. What about let-wing beliefs? Obedience isnt accounted for on the whole political spectrum
Acquiescence and social desirability bias: acquiescence bias= tendency to agree with everything, this is as a result of all the questions being worded in the same direction.
Education; confounding variable
Middendorp and Meleon ( 1990 ) : less educated people are more likely than well educated people to display authoritarian personalities. This shows that levels of education are a strong variable.
Nature/ Nurture:
Adorno et al; authoritarianism was the same as having a psychological disorder. The cause is from the personality of the individual (nature) but is originally caused by treatement from parents (nurture) . Therefore obedient behaviour is determined by experiences and not free will
(DETERMINISTIC)
Situational variables had the highest impact on obedience which might undermine dispositional explanation
- link could be correlation not causation: rating high on the f-scale for eg doesn’t cause obedience. Its a correlation but not a cause.
What is a reason for conformity
Give supporting study
Social roles -
Zimbardos Standford prison experiment
Believed that people conform to roles in society not because they are naturally likely
To see if power conduct influences behaviour
What is the situational explanation
What is the dispositional explanation
1; agentic shift and legitimacy to authority
2; authoritarian personality
Pros/cons of zimbardos experiment
P: 2
C:2
Pros
control variables were strong: participants were checked to be ‘emotionally stable’ before the experiment and then assigned to random roles. Rules out researcher bias, increases inter-researcher reliability and the certain personality/mental extraneous variables of the participants.
Increases internal validity of the study
Cons
lacks mundane realism: participants were merely play acting rather than conforming to a role cause none of them would ever need to be that role. Their behaviour was biased on stereotypes rather than expectations. One of the guards even said he’d based his behaviour on a TV character. This howeeer is combatted by Zimbardo who beleived the situation was very real to the participants cause 90% of the conversations was about prison life. > one participant said they felt it was a real prison run by psychologists not gov, and so increases internal validity.
Zimbardo exaggerated the results: 1/3 of the guards behaved brutally, the rest were actively kind to them and tried to help and support them, shows that zimbardos conclusion may be an over exaggeration of the amount of sever behaviour
Study that supports agentic state
blass and schmitt - 2001 : supports agentic state
students watched og study and said the experimenter was responsible for harm cause to the learner. they were at the top of the social hierarchy and had legitimate authority
