locus of control as an explanation of obedience Flashcards
why was the LOC personality theory developed?
due to the thought that an increase in empathy towards those who are suffering as a result of obedience may lead to an increase in resistance towards destructive orders (dissent)
who may be more likely to help victims and disobey destructive authority? what could this explain?
- children who have been socialised from a young age to help others due to a sense of community or religious groups may be more likely to help victims and disobey destructive authority.
- this could explain why some individuals chose to shelter jews during the Nazi regime.
what might those who are able to emphasise with a victim be? what can this be explained by?
they may feel more in control of their own actions and understand the effect their actions will have on others.
this can be explained by having an internal LOC
what are those with an internal LOC more likely to do?
they are more likely to disobey as they understand the consequences of harming people and are in more control
what are high internals likely to believe?
- they have a great deal of personal control over their actions and behaviours and will take responsibility over them, e.g. saying things like, “this happened because I made it happen”
- what happens to them is seen as a product of their own ability and effort
what do high externals believe?
- their behaviour is caused by external influences such as fate or luck.
- they say things such as “i was in the wrong place at the wrong time”
what did Rotter suggest about high externals?
- they display less efforts to deal with their health
- show lower levels of psychological adjustment
- as they believe they don’t have control over their behaviours
- they are much more likely to obey authority figures rather than remaining independent
strengths
Oliner and Oliner compared “rescuers” who sheltered the Jews in Nazi Europe with “non-rescuers” and found that the “rescuers” reported having an upbringing with social norms such as helping other, one woman stated, “how could one not have helped such a man”. Therefore, showing how people who are able to emphasise with victims are more likely to show disobedience to destructive authority and are more likely to have had an upbringing that taught to help others.
Blass found that high internals were more likely to disobey (37%) compared to high externals (23%)
in Milgram’s electric shock experiment. Therefore, showing those with a high internal LOC are more likely to disobey orders by an authority figure.
weaknesses
Oliner and Oliner’s reports may have been biased. This is because Oliner himself escaped from the Bobowa Ghetto in Poland and was sheltered by a non-jewish woman who helped him survive the holocaust. Therefore, the results on how empathy may increase disobedience to destructive authority figures may lack validity as there could have been another factor affecting disobedience.
Agency theory may be a better explanation of obedience. The difference between 37% and 23% is not that large, suggesting that LOC cannot be the sole reason for obedience towards authority figures. Milgram found that when asked by an authority figure to give out electric shocks, 65% went up to the full 450V, suggesting they may have gone into the agentic state and given up their free will and control due to the prescence of an authority figure. Therefore, showing that LOC theory is reductionist and is a narrow explanation.
application
The Rotter scale can be used as an objective measure of personality and to screen people with a higher external locus of control to provide them with therapies which could help them increase their empathy and therefore dissent towards orders, decreasing blind and destructive obedience. Children should also be socialised from a young age to show empathy and help others.
