Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology > MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- obedience > Flashcards

MT1 intro to social/developmental psych- obedience Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
Psychology 101 flashcards GRE® Psychology flashcards AP® Psychology flashcards
1
Q

Who is Adolf Eichmann

A

One of the chief Nazi architects behind the mass murder of Jews in concentration camps

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What did Arendt claim about Eichmann

A

Any of us, put in the position to follow evil orders, will follow them
Eichmann was a normal person

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What did Milgram’s (1963, 1974) studies of obedience to authority aim to assess initially

A

Cross-cultural differences in levels of obedience

Aimed to use more consequential behaviour than Asch’s line length studies

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What did naive participants and experts predict would happen in Milgram’s studies

A

Minimal levels of obedience to administer potentially lethal shocks

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was Milgram’s study advertised as

A

Advertised as study of ‘memory’ in local newspaper

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- initial procedure (settin up situation)

A

Experiment was described as involving role of punishment in learning
Participant and confederate ‘co-participant’ allocated roles by rigged ballot, participant assigned teacher
Learner strapped to a chair and electrodes attached

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- what were teachers instructed to do

A

Test memory for word pairs via intercom

Every incorrect answer required punishment using a higher-level electric shock

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- describe the shock machine

A

Shock switches increased in 15v increments up to 450v
375V switch said ‘danger severe shock’
450v switch said ‘XXX’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- describe the learner’s scripted responses in the ‘new baseline’ condition

A

At 150V- complains of heart problem, asks to be let out
300V- learner refuses to answer anymore, get me out of here
330V- learner is silent, no further sound

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- what happened if the teacher expressed reluctance to continue

A

Experimenter gave a series of ‘prods’-

1) Please continue
2) The experiment requires that you continue
3) It is absolutely essential that you continue
4) You have no other choice, you must go on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- what did the experimenter reply to teachers asking about the danger of the shocks

A

Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so go on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- what did the experimenter reply to teachers pointing out the learner did not wish to continue

A

Whether the learner likes it, you must go on until he has learned all of the word pairs correctly

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V when no feedback from learner

A

Almost everyone

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V when learner bangs on wall

A

65%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V in baseline condtion (learner screams and complains by intercom)

A

62.5%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

How many participants in Milgram’s study delivered 450V in new basline condition (learner reports heart condition)

A

65%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

Describe the qualitative observations of participants in Milgram’s study

A

Fidgeting, shaking, nervous laughter, groaning, 3 had full-blown uncontrollable seizures- intense psychological conflict

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

Milgram’s study procedure- what were the 4 variations of contact with learner

A

Pounding- learner bangs on wall
Hearing- escalating screams and complains via intercom then no sound
Seeing- teacher and learner together in same room
Holding- teacher presses learner’s hand onto shock plate

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What is a limitation of the various conclusions made by milgram across his experiments

A

Most experiments vary factors as part of a single experiment, but most of Milgram’s conclusions involve comparing different experiments where different things happened- may be other variables impacting differences in results

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

How many participants gave 450V when seeing the learner

A

Around 40%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

How many participants gave 450V when holding learner’s hand onto shock plate

A

Around 30%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

What is the effect of increasing proximity between teacher and learner

A

Levels of contact increase and suffering is witnessed more directly and learner humanised, obedience decreases

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

What were the 2 different social support conditions for Milgram’s experiment

A

Two experimenters, disobeying co-participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What was the effect of decreased proximity between experimenter and teacher in Milgram’s experiments

A

Telephone instructions given by experimenter over the phone decrease obedience greatly to 21%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

Social supports conditions, Milgram- two experimenters condition

A

When 2 experiments argued about whether the shocks should be delivered, 18/20 participants stopped after 150v when the learner refused to continue, and no participants delivered 450V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

Social support conditions, Milgram- disobeying co-participants condition

A

When 2 confederates acting as additional teachers refused to continue, 10% of participants went to 450V
There is ‘identification with the disobedient confederates and the possibility of falling back on them for social support’ (1965)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

Effect of experimenter status Milgram

A

When another participant took over as experimenter (reduced status), obedience decreased- 20% of participants went to 450V

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

Effect of institutional prestige- Milgram

A

When the experiment took palce in a shabby office in an industrial city rather than at Yale University) decreased prestige, 48% of participants proceeded to 450V- decreased obedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

Summarise the factors contributing to increased obedience

A 
Legitimacy of experimeter (and institutional context)
Distance between teacher and learner
Proximity of experimenter and teacher
Lack of social support for disobedience
(Haslam et al, 2014)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

List the ethical issues of Milgram’s studies

A

Lack of informed consent (withheld information would have affected whether they agreed to participate), experimenter’s denial of participants’ right to withdraw, participants suffering during procedure, negative after-effects

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

Describe the negative after-effects of Milgram’s studies

A

Participants had the knowledge afterwards they had delivered lethal electric shocks, huge moral burden

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Kelman quote on moral issues of Milgram’s studies

A

Kelman (1967 p4) ‘Do we, for the purpose of experimentation, have the right to provide such potentially disturbing insights to subjects who do not know that this is what they are coming for?’

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What is the aim of a debrief

A

Putting participants back into the same state of mind they would have been if they had not taken the study

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

Describe one participants reaction to Milgram’s debrief

A

They were angry they had been deceived, were embarrassed they had been deceived and gone so far, and questioned what if they had had a heart problem??

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What was the split of participants being glad vs sorry to have taken part in Milgram’s study

A

84% were glad to have taken part (though may have been rationalising their participation and making themselves feel better) while 1.3% were sorry to have taken part

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

How many participants reported being bothered by the study since taking part

A

30% of particpants said they had been bothered by the study since taking part, while 7% said they had been bothered quite a bit

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

What did Kohlberg say about who was responsible for the pain inflicted on learners

A

Milgram was unwittingly the moral victim of the ‘authority of science’, and inflicted pain on others for the greater social welfare (1974)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What did Brandt say about tMilgram’s results

A

Had Milgram analysed his procedure beforehand he would have known his study’s results- since he was willing to make his participants suffer in the name of science, his participants would do the same

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
39
Q

How do sociocultural factors cause obedience (Milgram, 1974)

A

People are socialised into obeying authorities (eg parents, teachers, bosses), and expect authority figures to be legitimate and trustworthy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
40
Q

What is Milgram’s theory of the agentic shift as an explanation for obedience?

A

Participants switched from seeing themselves as personally responsible to seeing themselves as the agent of the experimenter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
41
Q

What are binding factors as reasons for disobedience

A

Subtle creation of psychological barriers to disobedience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
42
Q

What are binding factors in Milgram’s study

A

eg gradual increase in shock level of only 15V each time, experimenter develops relationship with teacher, verbal prods, calmness of experimenter

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
43
Q

What are situational factors in the context of obedience

A

Strong context overrides influence of individual personality

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
44
Q

What are two socio-relational factors of Milgram’s experiments

A

Arguments presented by experimenter, relative identification with experimenter and learner

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
45
Q

Socio-relational factors, arguments presented experimenter

A

Gibson (2013) argued paritcipants weren’t just obeying orders but succumbing to the persuasive arguments of experimenter (eg no permanent tissue damage)- when direct orders were given in prod 4, participants failed to continue

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
46
Q

Socio-relational factors, relative identification with experimenter and learner

A

Participants acceded to experimenter’s wishes because of his physical presence and their commitment to the experiment’s apparent goals- identification with the victim reduced obedience (eg physically/emotionally closer)

47
Q

How many participants in Milgram’s original study refused to continue to the 450V shock level

A

35%

48
Q

Evidence that disobedience is sanctioned by society

A

Moral rebels eg whistleblowers are frequently harassed or ostracized and rarely receive their reserved respect (Monin et al, 2008)

49
Q

Study showing decrease in whistleblowing as employment time increases

A

Whistleblowing becomes less likely the longer someone remains part of an organisation (Goldie et al, 2003) probably because of social identification and/or increasing awareness of potential costs

50
Q

How many subjects stopped at 300V in Milgram’s experiment (1963)

A

300V (where the victim kicks the wall and stops providing answers)

51
Q

Why did Milgram (1963) suggest participants may have obeyed because of the experiment’s worth

A

May have believed the experiment was designed for a worth purpose, advancement of knowledge about learning/memory, and obedience is an instrumental element of this situation

52
Q

Why did Milgram (1963) suggest participants may have obeyed because of commitments involved

A

Victim has voluntarily submitted and (intitially) consented to the experimenter’s authority so has an obligation to the experimenter
Subject has also made a commitment to the experimenter, has also been paid upfront

53
Q

Why did Milgram (1963) suggest participants may have obeyed because of the novelty of the situation

A

There is ambiguity around what a psychologist may reasonable require of his subject and their corresponding rights, and no opportunity to discuss with others- situation is novel with no comparable stsndard

54
Q

Results of variant where authority is an ordinary person and lab-coated scientist receives shocks

A

All participants stop at the 150v mark

55
Q

What concept does Milgram argue is important in explaining the effects of proximity

A

‘Incipient group formation’ (1964)-in the proximity and touch conditions, the teacher and learner don’t have a wall between them and the teacher has an ‘ally close at hand and eager to collaborate in a revolt’

56
Q

Study criticising agentic state as an explanation for Milgram’s results

A

Mantell and Panzarella (1976)- no evidence the different levels of obedience witnessed across study variants relate o differences in the extent participants enter into an agentic state

57
Q

How does Darley (1992) criticise the agentic state concept

A

Agentic state is conceptualised as an all-or-nothing affair that doesn’t accomodate different degrees of obedience, notion of a ‘trigger’ than switches us between both states

58
Q

How is the agentic state explanation overly simplistic of reality

A

Reduces a multi-vocal reality, where the participant must chose which voice to heed and how to balance their relationship with authority/learner, to a univocal account

59
Q

How did Bettelheim (2004) criticise the ethics of Milgram’s studies

A

They said they were ‘in line with the human experiments of the Nazis

60
Q

What is one alternative paradigm to Milgram’s studies

A

Giving negative feedback to job applicants to make them more nervous (Meeus and Raaijmakers, 1986)

61
Q

Suggestion of binding effects of gradual increase in shock level

A

Packer (2008)- no qualitative breakpoint that would justify participants beginning to disobey, 150V breakpoint when learner first objects acts as this

62
Q

Example of a study looking at historical disobedience from a psychological perspective

A

Rochat and Modigliani (1995)- analysis of resistance to oppression of minorities by villagers of Le Chambon in France in WW2, looking at conditions that promoted this resistance

63
Q

New approach that allows us to address real harm in obedience studies without actually harming participants

A

VR simulations of the Milgram paradigm show behaviour closely corresponds to that seen in the original paradigm (Slater et al, 2006)

64
Q

Explanation of obedience in terms of role positions

A

Meeus and Raajimakers (1995)- obedience is because of a cultural tendency to identify with the social system and see our fellow citizens in terms of specific role positions- participants relate to the learner in terms of heir role

65
Q

Rochat and Modigliani (1995)- application of social relationships o Chambon villagers

A

Villagers were descendents of Persecuted Protestant minority so felt similarity with the persecuted and likened the government to their own persecutors
Persecutors become ‘hem’ and persecuted became ‘us’

66
Q

Evidence for participants being convinced rather than ordered until he final prod

A

Burger (2009)- every time the experimenter gives the final prod (direct order), participants refuse to continue

67
Q

What is obedience?

A

Complying with orders from a person of higher social status within a defined hierarchy (Miller, 1995)

68
Q

How does obedience link to norms?

A

Obedience is an example of legitimate power functioning, where an internalized framework of norms, values and customs specifies that such influence is appropriate (Turner, 1991)

69
Q

In Milgram’s studies, no participant stopped before…

A

300v

70
Q

What was the level of obedience if an obeying peer was present

A

92% (Milgram, 1974)

71
Q

What term did Milgram use to refer to the gradual increase in shock levels

A

‘Entrapment’

72
Q

Results of Milgram asking participants to create a ‘responsiblity clock’ dividing up responsibility

A

Disobedient and obedient participants attributed equal responsibility to the experimenter, but disobedient participants saw themselves as more responsible ans the learner less so than obedient participants (Milgram, 1974)

73
Q

Effect of authoritarian personality on obedience

A

Individuals with an authoritarian personality are more obedient to authority (Elms and Milgram, 1966)

74
Q

Supporting replication of Milgram’s study

A

Burger- replicated Milgram’s paradigm only up to 150v
Using the fact that 79% of Milgram’s ppts who exceed 159V went to 450V, Burger’s rate of full obedience to 150V was only slightly lower

75
Q

Statistic showing early resistance is important in Milgram’s study

A

Only 17% of those showing early signs of protest delivered shocks more than 150V

76
Q

Metanalysis of where disobedience is most likely in Milgram’s obedience experiments

A

Packer (2008)- disobedience most likely at 150V, ‘critical decision point’ where participants acknowledge the learners’ right to terminate the experiment should override their obedience

77
Q

Criticisms about the internal validity of Milgram’s study

A

Lab context prevented subjects from seeing their behaviour as truly harmful, and experiments also lack mundane realism

78
Q

How do conceptual replications of Milgram’s findings respond to criticisms of its internal validity ?

A

They suggest Milgram succeeded in operationalisating the construct of destructive obedience to authority, including the impact of varying conditions on obedience rates (Miller, 1995)

79
Q

How can he representativeness of the lab be seen as irrelevant in milgram’s studies

A

Milgram’s objective was to learn more about the general problem of destructive authority in a conceptually systematic manner (1964) not to replicate Nazi Germany

80
Q

Argument that the lack of external validity of experiment actually strengthens the case for Milgram’s results’ ecological validity

A

Mook (1983)- even though many criticise the paradigm’s external validity as the experimenter can’t punish disobedience, obedience was STILL so high, suggesting the effect may be greater in real life

81
Q

Which part of Milgram’s experiments end to be generalised to other settings

A

Not the literal findings, but the processes underlying the experiments are generalised (eg binding factors, effecs of proximity) with focus on the importance of ‘specific situational pressures’ over dispositional factors

82
Q

How can Milgram’s studies be argued to have ecological validiity

A

The capacity of Milgram’s paradigm to make salient events like the Holocaust and allow its examination, as well as stimulate intellectual inquiry, qualifies as a powerful form of ecological validity

83
Q

Study supporing the generalisation of Milgram’s studies to crimes of obedience

A

Brief et al (1991)- subjects will resolve an ethical dilemma in a management decision in the direction favoured by the authority they are accountable to, with 77% opting to continue marketing a potentially dangerous drug when the board chairman advocated for it

84
Q

What are ‘crimes of obedience’?

A

Kelman and Hamilton (1989)- focus is on socially destructive acts that can’t be explained without considering the role of authorization eg Watergate scandal, Ford Pinto inquiry

85
Q

How do Kelman and Hamilon (1989) endorse the generalisability of Milgram’s experiments

A

They argue he research lab in its bureuacratic sructure is a setting for a crime of boedience- Milgram utilised the social definition of the experimental situation itself as a vehicle for studying obedience

86
Q

What does Browning (1992) analyse in terms of he generalisability of Milgram’s results

A

Analyses a large no of German police involved in the massacre of Jews, most of which were normal people

87
Q

How does Browning’s (1992) analysis of German police support Milgram’s insights

A

Direct proximity to the horror of the killing increased disobedience, yet the men felt barely any responsiblity for their actions due to the division of labour and removal of killing process to death camps
Without direct surveillance, many policemen did not comply with orders

88
Q

What does Darley (1992) describe about the evolution of evil within organisations

A

Darley (1992) psychological changes occur in those whos social organisation pressures them into committing evil acts continually, through a ‘conversion process’ people can become dispositionally evil

89
Q

How does Rosenblatt (1994) describe the evolution of evil in the tobacco industry

A

Rosenblatt (1994)- individuals tend to adopt the values of the company, loyalty supercedes objectivity as the company absorbs its employees into its moral universe

90
Q

What do analyses of he evolution of evil in workplaces (Darley, 1992: Rosenblatt, 1994) rely on in terms of Milgram’s theory

A

Milgram’s theoretical ideas of binding forces in escalating actions and the development of self-justifying rationalisaions for destrucive behaviour

91
Q

How does Staub (1989) criticise the generalisability of Milgram’s findings

A

Evil is a social-psychological phenomenon reflecting important processes, including initial feelings of hostility, so he obedience paradigm is not generalisable to contexts of genocide as Milgram’s subjects were strongly opposed to hurting the victim

92
Q

Evidence that participants in milgram’s study are just role-playing?

A

Multiple role-playing versions of the original obedience experiments have found obedience levels comparable to he originals (eg Geller, 1975)

93
Q

Study showing effec of humane model on obedience studies

A

Rosenhan (1969)- viewing a humane model who stopped at 210V reduced participants’ obedience rate to 58%

94
Q

Issues of Milgram’s 4-part proximity series (1965)

A

Remote and voice-feedback conditions yield almost identical obedience rates
Difference in obedience rates between proximity and touch conditions is also not significant
Why are the differences not commensurate with the differences in proximity?

95
Q

What is the result of the issues of Milgram’s 4-part proxmity series?

A

We can’t specify the underlying situational aspects that do/don’t lead to changes in obedience, have not been demonstrated in an orderly way

96
Q

Study showing authoritarian personality and shocking oneself

A

Miller (1975)- a small but sigificant correlation betwee authoritarianism and obeying order to shock oneself, in line with ‘authoritarian submission’

97
Q

What is authoritarian submission

A

Submissive uncritical attitude towards idealised moral authorities’ of ingroup (Adorno et al, 1950)

98
Q

Criticism of Milgram’s studies- participants trusted that harm wasn’t occuring

A

Mixon (1971)- if subjects were sure learner was being harmed, virtually everyone would disobey. Ppts expect nothing truly harmful will occur in a scientific experiment and have every reason to assume ppts will be kept safe

99
Q

Study supporting idea that trust leads to more obedience

A

Miller (1975)- more trusting subjects were significantly more likely to follow instructions to receive shocks than less trusting subjects

100
Q

Study criticising idea tha trust leads to more obedience

A

Holland (1967)- no relationship between trust (measured by Rotter’s interpersonal trust scale) and obedience

101
Q

Study supporting effect of hostility on obedience

A

Haas (1966)- significant positive correlation between degree of obedience and hostility when company management staff asked to critically evaluate their superiors and indicate who should be fired

102
Q

How may beliefs about external controlling influences affect obedience

A

Beliefs about ceding vs retaining personal control are salient and predisposing factors in obedience to authority

103
Q

What study suggests Milgram’s participants saw through the deception but hid their knowledge from the experimenter- procedure

A

Holland (1967)- 3 conditions, condition 2 subjects are told to ‘watch carefully so they can figure out what the experiment is really about’ but to act as a real subject would, condition 3 subject were told the shocks were much weaker than indicated bu to hide his knowledge from the experimenter

104
Q

What study suggests Milgram’s participants saw through the deception but hid their knowledge from the experimenter- results

A

Holland (1967)- 3 conditions did nto differ signficantly and from Milgram’s results, experimenter could not identify which of the 3 conditions a subject was in

105
Q

How did further analysis of Holland’s experiment (1967) demonstrate he influence of locus of control

A

Found a signficant IE x Condition interaction, that showed the drop in obedience in condition 2 was largely due to the internal’s obedience scores while externals showed no drop at all- assuming those in condition 2 felt most coerced by the experimenter, this is consistent with other findings on the relationship between I-E and social influence

106
Q

Quote supporting the results of Holland’s I-E locus of control study

A

Strickland (1977)- ‘internals not only resist influence by react more strongly than externals to the loss of personal freedom (…) in some cases by engaging in behaviours that are oppositional to the responses desired by the experimenter agent who is attempting to manipulate or change behaviour’

107
Q

Study suggesting that I-E locus of control is not predictive of obedience

A

Schurz (1985)- a 3 factor version of Rotter’s I-E scale could not predict obedience when subjects were instructed to apply painful ultrasound stimulation to a learner…BUT disobedient subjects had significantly higher pulse rates when they disobeyed and a greater tendency to accept responsibility for their actions than obedient subjects

108
Q

Describe the procedure of the study into the role of religious orientation in obedience

A

Bock (1972)- varied the authority between ‘scientific’, ‘religious’ and ‘neutral’ (salesman who knew little about the experiment) using all Christian subjects

109
Q

Bock’s (1972) study into religious orientation and obedience- what main effect was discovered

A

An authority main effect- both scientific and religious authorities yielded higher obedience than the self-decision ‘neutral’ condition, but the different between scientific/religious was not significant

110
Q

What is locus of control

A

Rotter’s (1966) internal versus external control (I-E) measures how much a person feels their behaviour is controlled by external influences (eg chance/luck/fate) and how much personal agency they have

111
Q

Bock’s (1972) study into religious orientation and obedience- what caused people’s obedience scores in authority conditions relative to control condition to increase

A

As people go from least to most religious, their obedience scores relative to control condition increase-

112
Q

Bock’s (1972) study into religious orientation and obedience- how receptive to authority was the least religious/antireligious people?

A

Either no authority was more effective in eliciting obedience than the neutral authority, or at most only the scientific authority was more effective

113
Q

Under what condition are dispositional factors stronger predictors of behaviour

A

When there is a heightened sense of self awareness, compared to when awareness is directed outwrads, following Duval and Wichlund’s (1972) theory of objective self-awareness)

114
Q

How may Milgram’s subjects have had low self awareness

A

Hunt (1979)- the subject’s high degree of task absorption and narrowed focus means they are very similar to a hypnotised subject
A lot of outward focus on working the shock machine

Psychology (8 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions