NOT ON ALEVEL 1.1.1 theories of obedience - 1.1.3 factors affecting obedience Flashcards
what is the definition of obedience
meaker: a form of social influence whereby an individual is influenced by a real / imagined pressure from another
what is the definition of conformity
the tendency to align your attitudes, beliefs and behaviours with those around you. it’s a powerful force that can take the form of overt social pressure / subtler unconscious influence
what is agency theory
people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions
describe the agentic state
meaker: if a person is perceived as having more authority than us, we make the agentic shift. we follow their orders sometimes without question / fear / retaliation, and we may believe we have no choice but to obey. this creates moral strain as we may do things that we would not normally choose to do
textbook: When we are in the agentic state, we become the agent of the authority figure, meaning that we believe that we are acting on their behalf and that responsibility for our actions lies with them. We may follow the orders of the authority figure feeling that we have no choice but to obey and this may lead us to do things that we might not normally choose to do. milgram believe that this agentic state is what leads people to commit acts of destructive obedience
give an example of agentic state
milgram 1963
in his experiment the normal citizen listened to the authority (person in a lab coat) despite being under moral strain (electrocuting).
milgram explained that the normal citizen shifted from an autonomous state (free will) to the agentic state.
define autonomous state
meaker: in this state we recognise our own free will and able to make our own decisions .the person follows their own personal moral code of conduct rather than deferring responsibility to others. we take responsibility for our own actions
textbook: in this state, our behaviour is self-directed. We are at liberty to choose how to behave. We take greater responsibility for the consequences of our actions and, dependent upon the situation, We will be more likely to exercise our personal Understanding of right and wrong to guide our choices. We operate in this state when we are on our own, with peers or with people who we perceive to be below us in the social hierarchy
what is moral strain
meaker: moral discomfort caused when a person behaves in a way which conflicts with their beliefs about right and wrong
textbook: In this state, people may experience symptoms of anxiety, especially when obeying orders that result in harm and Milgram called this moral strain. For example, if we believe that harming people is wrong, yet we also know that our actions have resulted in harm, these two conflicting ideas lead to cognitive dissonance, a state of mental conflict that leads to moral strain. However, for the majority of people this strain is not sufficient to provoke defiance and milgram explains that powerful binding factors ensure that the individual remains in the agentic state and does nothing that might jeopardise the status quo status quo
what is cognitive dissonance
festinger 1957
changing your beliefs to make yourself feel better
evaluate milgram’s agency theory: strength
A strength of Milgram‘s theory is that it is supported by his 1963 study. In this study he found that 100% of participants administered a shock of 300 volts to a Confederate as a punishment for making a mistake on a Word learning task. Also 65% of participants went up to the final 450 V switch, beyond the shock labelled “danger extreme shock”. This supports milgram’s suggestion that in the face of legitimate authority people are highly likely to carry out orders, despite high levels of moral strain
Another strength of the agency theory is its application and that it can be applied to a variety of military strategies. Milgram claimed that obedience occurs when binding factors out weigh moral strain — Military strategies can reduce moral strain and ensure obedience. For example, using de humanising language to refer to the enemy and euphemisms such as “collateral damage” ( the unintentional deaths of civilians in pursuit of a legitimate military target) thus, by minimising moral strain, authority figures ensure that soldiers remain in the agentic state, even when ordered to commit barbourous acts eg torture (gibson and haritos-fatouros 1986)
evaluate milgram’s agency theory: weakness
however Perry 2012 claims that the participants saw through the deception. She examined recently released evidence from the Yale university archives which revealed that many participants questioned whether the shocks were real. It also shows that across all of Milgram‘s variation studies more than 60% of participants disobeyed the experimenter. This reinterpretation of Milgram‘s data raises questions about the validity of agency theory as an explanation of obedience
also another weakness is that agentic shift does not appear to be inevitable. Rank and Jacobson 1977 found that 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed a Doctor, who ordered them to administer an overdose of the drug Valium. Despite the doctor being an obvious source of authority, the vast majority of the sample remained autonomous. The data shows that the nurses did consider themselves responsible for their actions i.e. no a Gentic shift
there are alternative ways to explain obedience, e.g. reicher et al 2012 Explained obedience from the perspective of social identity theory, using the concept of engaged followership. People obey leaders who are seen to be part of their social group, so the followers identify with the leader. Disobedience occurs when followers failed to identify with the leader. This alternative theme/theory is important as it helps to explain when and why people disobey was agency theory does not not
strengths of agentic state/ shift
- offers a credible explanation for obedience
- helped to explain real life situations like the holocaust where people “would not freely deport people to the concentrations camps in an autonomous state but were in fact following orders from an authorities figure”
weaknesses of the agentic state/ shift
- does not include individual differences
- difficult to measure autonomous or agency
- no direct evidence of evolutionary basis of obedience
what is social impact theory
an explanation to the extent of which other people’s real or imagined presence can alter the way an individual feels or acts
according to social impact theory what are the 3 laws of behaviour
- social effect
2, psychosocial law
- divisions of impact / diffusion effect
who thought of social impact theory
latané 1981
he argued that every person is potentially a source / target of social influence
according to social impact theory what is the social effect
the likelihood that a person will respond to social influence will increase with…
- strength
- immediacy
- number
according to social impact theory’s social effect what is “strength”
how important the influencing group of people are to you (eg status, authority, age)
according to social impact theory’s social effect what is “immediacy”
how close the group are to you at the time of the influence attempt (eg proximity, distance etc)
according to social impact theory’s social effect what is “number”
how many people there are in the group (sources + targets)
according to social impact theory what is the psychosocial law
the first source of influence has the most dramatic impact on people
give an example of psychosocial law
the multiplicative effect - Berkowitz and Milgram 1969
between 1-15 confederates congregated on the street and cranes their necks to look up at the sixth floor of a building. passes by also started to look up but the effect eventually levelled off
according to social impact theory what is the “divisions of impact”
the ability of the speaker to persuade the audience is divided among many members of the audience
according to social impact theory what is the diffusion effect (divisions of impact)
the more of you there are, the less personal responsibility each of you will feel
like if all the force is directed at a single person that puts a huge pressure on them to obey but if it is directed at two it is half as much pressure
evaluation of social impact theory
IMPACTS
Individuals are passive receivers of others’ behaviour
Mainly ignores individual differences
Predicting behaviour in unusual circumstances is useful
Application of principles can be observed in every day behaviour
Cannot predict what will happen if 2 equal groups impact on one another
Target + source interactions can not be explained
Supported by Sedikides
in support of social impact theory, what did Sedikides + Jackson 1990 do / find
they had a confederate dress up as a zoo keeper in a zoo and said you can’t lean on that railing.
58% people listened to him as he was in uniform compared to when he was in casual dress (35% obedient) which shows social force as the instruction had less impact when said more times
as a weakness of social impact theory; what did hofling 1966 do / find
hofling arranged for an unknown doctor to phone 22 nurses and ask each of them to administer an overdose of a drug that was not on their ward list
95% of the nurses started to administer
= shoes social influence in terms of authority (strength) however does not correlate with the idea of immediacy
Milgram’s variations:
what was the experiment 7 variation
the telephonic instructions
where at first the experimenter was in the room giving the instructions, but then left and continued to give the instructions via telephone
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 7s aim
to see if having the experimenter in the room would affect the level of obedience
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 7’s procedure:
there was physical distance between the experimenter and the teacher.
initial instructions were given face- to - face, and then the experimenter would leave the room and would continue to give the instructions via a telephone
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 7’s results?
the number of participants willing to give 450 volts SHARPLY FELL from 65% to 22.5%.
also ppts continues to give lower shocks rather than increasing the voltage, and when the experimenter asked about this they would lie, saying that they had increased the shocks
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 7’s conclusion
when the experimenter is not face - to - face with the participant, it is easier not to obey
physical presence was an important force. if the experimenter returned to the laboratory, then obedience was obtained again.
milgram’s variations:
what was the experiment 10 variation
the rundown office block
to see if the outcome would be similar compared to the original research at the prestigious yale university
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 10s procedure
same procedure as the original although the building was sparsely furnished and a rundown commercial office building was used in the town of bridgeport.
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 10s results
participants had more doubts, questioning the legitimacy of the research, saying that the study was “heartless”
however obedience did not drop that much. 47.5% gave the full 450 volts compared to the 65% in the original yale uni research
this was a lower level or obedience however milgram did not think it was a significant difference
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 10s conclusion
the idea of having a legitimate setting is barely significant.
ppts questioned the credentials of the company on arrival, but still obeyed
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 13
ordinary man gives orders
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 13’s aim
to see whether an order given by someone without authority is followed
in particular to see if an order given by an ordinary man.
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 13’s procedure
the experimenter gives in the instructions about administering the shock but then gets “called away” and leaves the room.
there is an accomplice in the room, who the other participants think is another participant. and the accomplice makes the suggestion of increasing the shocks one at a time as the victim makes a mistake
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 13’s results
only 20% of the ppts gave the full 450 volts and 80% ppts broke away from the ordinary man’s instructions, even though the accomplice urged them to continue
when the ppts refuses the orders of the ordinary man, there was an adaption to the experiment: the accomplice suggested that he and the ppt swapped roles and the ppt took over the recording
16/20 watched the distressing scene as the ordinary man gave shocks. all 16 protested & 5 tried to disconnect the generator or physically restrain the accomplice
the remaining 11 allowed the experiment to continue to the end showing a 68.75% obedience level
milgram’s variations:
what was experiment 13’s conclusion
levels of obedience fell dramatically with an ordinary man who had no perceived authority.
ppts did not like seeing the ordinary man giving the shocks but were not able to prevent it
what is the definition of dissent
having opinions that differ from others
define resistance
ability to withstand the pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority
define personality
an individual’s characteristics set of behaviours, attitudes, interests and capabilities
define gender
a person’s sense of maleness or femaleness, including attitudes or behaviours of that gender
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
what are the two examples of individual differences in terms of affecting obedience
personality and gender
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of personality, explain how the authoritarian personality affects obedience
according to adorno et al 1950 the higher up the f scale, the more obedient you are
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of personality, explain how the internal and external locus of control (LOC) affects obedience
according to rotter 1966
the internal LOC = take responsibility for their actions as they believe they are in control of their actions
external LOC = take less responsibility for their actions and dissent
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of personality, evaluate the authoritarian personality
supporting evidence = elms and milgram 1966
competing argument = reductionist + hyman and sheatsley 1954 believed the authoritarian personality may be caused by lower level of education
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of personality, evaluate the internal and external locus of control (LOC)
supporting evidence = miller 1975 where the experimenter told ppts to grasp live electric wires. externals obeyed high status more than low status and internals were unaffected by status
competing argument = Schutz 1985: austrian ppts were instructed to give painful doses of ultrasound to a female student. those ppts who were fully obedient did not differ significantly than those who resisted in terms of their score on a questionnaire measuring LOC therefore suggesting that personality has little impact on obedience
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of gender, give evidence that women are more obedient
sheridan and kings 1972
participants ordered to give real electric shocks to a live puppy.
100% women obeyed and 54% men obeyed
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of gender, give evidence that men are more obedient
kilham and mann 1974
they replicated milgram’s story and found that 40% males obeyed compared to 16% of females
factors affecting obedience: individual differences
in terms of gender, and moral reasoning what did gilligan 1982 theorise/ find
ethics of justice = makes
ethics of care = female
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
what are the 3 factors that can affect obedience in terms of situation
legitimacy
proximity
behaviour of others
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of situation how does legitimacy affect obedience
how the person is dressed / status affects the obedience they will receive
by reducing the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure it also reduces obedience
also by reducing the status of a venue (eg run down office block) also reduces obedience
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of situation how does proximity affect obedience
when the distance between the authority figure and participant is increased, obedience reduces (eg milgram telephone)
latené 1981 “immediacy” in social impact theory supports
buffers: physical/ psychological barriers to communication (eg milgram’s exp 3 when removing the wall obedience = 40%)
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of situation how does the behaviour of others affect obedience
2 rebellious experimenters
- exposure to role models who are disobedient decreases obedience
- milgram exp 17 (two peers rebelled 2 confederates (teachers) who refused to carry on) obedience dropped to 10%
therefore the presence of others may affect behaviour
evaluate situation as a factor affecting obedience
supporting evidence:
meeus + raajmakers 1995 asked participants to insult a Confederate who was applying for a job. More than 90% delivered all 15 insults compared 36% when the experiment left the room and 16% when they had witness two rebellious stooges similar to the Milgram experiment
competing argument: however in Milgram variations, there were individual differences for example some people refused to continue to the higher shock levels despite the situation of pressures to obey and this shows that personality must play a part
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of culture how does the background affect obedience
hofstede 2011
six dimensions which allow for comparisons to be made between countries with regard to cultural values
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of culture how does the individualism - collectivism affect obedience
I VS WE
Individualist cultures value personal autonomy. Self-reliance (I)
Collectivist culture for example China “we are one” obey as they feel obligated so will override the desire to rebel.
Individualist cultures may be less obedient as they value interdependence/self-determination. like western cultures
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of culture how does the PDI (power distance index) affect obedience
HOFSTEDE 2017
hierarchy. PDI,
how excepting people are of hierarchical order and inequality in society.
High PDI is the ideal boss, benevolent autocrat a kind ruler.
Identification with the values of this culture would lead to a person to be highly obedient and people from nations low on this dimension might be more likely to show resistance
factors affecting obedience: situation and culture
in terms of culture how does the interaction effects affect obedience
India, women: mothers replication of Milgram study in India. Despite high PDI 77% there was a low obedience score of just 42.5% GUPTA 1983
similarly females were less obedient than men in HOFESTEDE 1917 study
RAJAGOPALAN ET AL Indian women may be expected to be submissive but at home women have authority
