Individual Differences In Obedience Personality Locus Of Control Flashcards
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
theory
- Rotter believes that some people feel that their entirely controlled their actions while others believe they are victim of Fate
- the more they believe either one of them determines where they appear on The Dimension of high internal to High external locus of control
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
High internal locus of control
- They believe what happens to them is a consequence of their own behaviour
- they often succeed in difficult or stressful situations
- they actively seek information
- they make better leaders
- resist pressure from others
- and they’re less likely to obey or conform
- and a more likely to remain independent
- better academic achievements
- low cigarette smoking and lower hypertension and heart attacks rates
- less likely to be influenced by others
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
High external Locus of control
- they believe what happens to them is controlled by external factors such as luck and Fate
- they are helpless and difficult or stressful situations
- they are more likely to be affected by authority figures with high social status this is because following orders is less stressful than attempting to do it by themselves so they follow it because they are helpless in stressful situations
- low efforts to do with health and psych adjustment
- in non-responsive environments they have the greatest sense of satisfaction
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
Evidence + Milgram 1974
milgram 1963 locus of control
Milgram (1974)
- found 35% of people who had disobeyed in his original 1963 experiment were more likely to have an internal locust control when the people who obeyed
- they also scored higher in measures responsibility
- this is evidence to support locals of control as it was found that people who disobeyed in his study were more likely to have an internal locus of control which correlates with internal locus of control being less obedient
- therefore meaning that milgram 1974 support locus of control
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
Evidence -
Schurz 1985 milgram ultrasound auzies
Schurz (1985)
- did a milgram-esque study with 56 Australian partisipants giving increasingly painful bursts of ultrasound to a learner
- they were told the max level would cause damage
- 80% of participants went to the max level of ultrasound
- the results showed no relation between locus of control and obedience
- the 20% who took greater responsibility of our actions were more likely to be internal loads of control and external however this was not a significant relation
- hence the conclusion that locus of control has no significant relation to obedience and the four providing evidence opposing locus of control as it goes against the core elements that Locus have control is linked to obedience
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
How good is research +
Schurz 1985 test retest
Schurz 1985
- this to the good cash retest reliability as it uses the same formula as milligrams 1963 study and burgers 2009 study as well as milligrams of variations
- this consists of participants causing an increasing amount of perceived pain to a confederate learner each time the Confederate learner gets a set question incorrect
- in both mg and burgers studies they used electric shocks
- in schurz study they use births of ultrasound
- in all studies participants would hold that the highest level may cause damage to the learner or it was hintted via the use of labels “XXX 450V milgram 1963”
- in all studies the perceived pain caused to the learner was not real but acted
- therefore meaning that this study had high test Root test reliability as the formula for the study has both previously been done and has been replicated afterwards
Meaning that this is good research to oppose locus of control
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
How good is research -
Milgram 1974 eco
Milgram 1974
Due to it looking at his original 1963 study which was a lab study which therefore has low ecological validity due to being in an artificial environment it cannot be certain if participants would disobey in a real life setting and if participants were to disobey in real life setting if any of them would have an internal locus of control
Therefore milgrams 1974 study is poor research to support locus of control as it has low ecological validity and therefore we are unable to determine if the results would be similar ( if participants would disobey and if said participants would have internal locus of control) if it were to take place in real life setting
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
Comparison to agency Theory + and -
—
‐ Agency Theory has been found to occur in real life such as in 2004 where it was revealed in a photograph that Iraqi Prisoners of War being mistreated by US soldiers after being ordered by a superior to do so
- once they got the order they had the agentic shift and went from an autonomous state to an agentic state and follow the order to mistreat The Prisoners
- whereas Locus of control has evidence mainly from milgram-esque lab studies which, in comparison are Incredibly low in ecological validity and are less applicable to real life
- meaning that agency Theory is the better explanation of obedience than locus of control due to being more likely to occur in real life
However +
It is extremely difficult to determine objectivly when somebody is in an agentic state and when the agentic shift occurs
- whereas rotter created a questionnaire to determine if somebody had a internal or external locus of control making it objectively measurable
- this therefore means that locus of control is a more accurate and internaly valid (objective based on facts not bias oppinions) way of determining if somebody is more obedient or not than agency Theory meaning that it is a better Theory on obedience than agency Theory
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
Conclusion application
School and generals
In conclusion locus of control is a good explanation of obedience that while not being extremely high ecological validity it makes up for this by being high in internal validity via objectiveness in its way of determining where somebody lies on the locus of control scale
- it’s also backed by various scientific studies such as milgram 1974
Lucas of control is extremely applicable this is due to obedience only being part of its uses
An application locus of control is that it can be used to determine to students this more likely to be academically successful as having a high internal locus of control means that they resist pressure from others and seek more information than succeed in stressful situations such as exams
- High internal locus of control being good leaders and coping well with stress means that they would also be extremely useful as generals in an army as they will be able to lead soldiers while withstanding the pressure and stress from that line of work
ID: Perosnality: Obedience
Locus Of Control Rotter 1966
order 8mk
in and ex locus of control explained
E- Schurz ultrasound
H+ test retest
C- eco agency theory
conclusion and aplication to millitary
if time
add Milgram 1974 and how its low eco
and how agency theory isnt as internaly valid with its measuring
and aplication to education
