NOT ON ALEVEL 1.1.1 theories of obedience - 1.1.3 factors affecting obedience

Question 1

what is the definition of obedience

Answer 1

meaker: a form of social influence whereby an individual is influenced by a real / imagined pressure from another

Question 2

what is the definition of conformity

Answer 2

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

Question 3

what is agency theory

Answer 3

people will obey an authority when they believe that the authority will take responsibility for the consequences of their actions

Question 4

describe the agentic state

Answer 4

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

Question 5

give an example of agentic state

Answer 5

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.

Question 6

define autonomous state

Answer 6

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

Question 7

what is moral strain

Answer 7

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

Question 8

what is cognitive dissonance

Answer 8

festinger 1957

changing your beliefs to make yourself feel better

Question 9

evaluate milgram’s agency theory: strength

Answer 9

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)

Question 10

evaluate milgram’s agency theory: weakness

Answer 10

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

Question 11

strengths of agentic state/ shift

Answer 11

1. offers a credible explanation for obedience
2. 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”

Question 12

weaknesses of the agentic state/ shift

Answer 12

1. does not include individual differences
2. difficult to measure autonomous or agency
3. no direct evidence of evolutionary basis of obedience

Question 13

what is social impact theory

Answer 13

an explanation to the extent of which other people’s real or imagined presence can alter the way an individual feels or acts

Question 14

according to social impact theory what are the 3 laws of behaviour

Answer 14

1. social effect

2, psychosocial law

3. divisions of impact / diffusion effect

Question 15

who thought of social impact theory

Answer 15

latané 1981

he argued that every person is potentially a source / target of social influence

Question 16

according to social impact theory what is the social effect

Answer 16

the likelihood that a person will respond to social influence will increase with…

1. strength
2. immediacy
3. number

Question 17

according to social impact theory’s social effect what is “strength”

Answer 17

how important the influencing group of people are to you (eg status, authority, age)

Question 18

according to social impact theory’s social effect what is “immediacy”

Answer 18

how close the group are to you at the time of the influence attempt (eg proximity, distance etc)

Question 19

according to social impact theory’s social effect what is “number”

Answer 19

how many people there are in the group (sources + targets)

Question 20

according to social impact theory what is the psychosocial law

Answer 20

the first source of influence has the most dramatic impact on people

Question 21

give an example of psychosocial law

Answer 21

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

Question 22

according to social impact theory what is the “divisions of impact”

Answer 22

the ability of the speaker to persuade the audience is divided among many members of the audience

Question 23

according to social impact theory what is the diffusion effect (divisions of impact)

Answer 23

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

Question 24

evaluation of social impact theory

Answer 24

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

Question 25

in support of social impact theory, what did Sedikides + Jackson 1990 do / find

Answer 25

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

Question 26

as a weakness of social impact theory; what did hofling 1966 do / find

Answer 26

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

Question 27

Milgram’s variations:

what was the experiment 7 variation

Answer 27

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

Question 28

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 7s aim

Answer 28

to see if having the experimenter in the room would affect the level of obedience

Question 29

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 7’s procedure:

Answer 29

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

Question 30

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 7’s results?

Answer 30

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

Question 31

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 7’s conclusion

Answer 31

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.

Question 32

milgram’s variations:

what was the experiment 10 variation

Answer 32

the rundown office block

to see if the outcome would be similar compared to the original research at the prestigious yale university

Question 33

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 10s procedure

Answer 33

same procedure as the original although the building was sparsely furnished and a rundown commercial office building was used in the town of bridgeport.

Question 34

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 10s results

Answer 34

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

Question 35

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 10s conclusion

Answer 35

the idea of having a legitimate setting is barely significant.

ppts questioned the credentials of the company on arrival, but still obeyed

Question 36

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 13

Answer 36

ordinary man gives orders

Question 37

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 13’s aim

Answer 37

to see whether an order given by someone without authority is followed

in particular to see if an order given by an ordinary man.

Question 38

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 13’s procedure

Answer 38

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

Question 39

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 13’s results

Answer 39

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

Question 40

milgram’s variations:

what was experiment 13’s conclusion

Answer 40

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

Question 41

what is the definition of dissent

Answer 41

having opinions that differ from others

Question 42

define resistance

Answer 42

ability to withstand the pressure to conform to the majority or to obey authority

Question 43

define personality

Answer 43

an individual’s characteristics set of behaviours, attitudes, interests and capabilities

Question 44

define gender

Answer 44

a person’s sense of maleness or femaleness, including attitudes or behaviours of that gender

Question 45

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

what are the two examples of individual differences in terms of affecting obedience

Answer 45

personality and gender

Question 46

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of personality, explain how the authoritarian personality affects obedience

Answer 46

according to adorno et al 1950 the higher up the f scale, the more obedient you are

Question 47

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of personality, explain how the internal and external locus of control (LOC) affects obedience

Answer 47

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

Question 48

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of personality, evaluate the authoritarian personality

Answer 48

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

Question 49

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of personality, evaluate the internal and external locus of control (LOC)

Answer 49

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

Question 50

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of gender, give evidence that women are more obedient

Answer 50

sheridan and kings 1972

participants ordered to give real electric shocks to a live puppy.

100% women obeyed and 54% men obeyed

Question 51

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of gender, give evidence that men are more obedient

Answer 51

kilham and mann 1974

they replicated milgram’s story and found that 40% males obeyed compared to 16% of females

Question 52

factors affecting obedience: individual differences

in terms of gender, and moral reasoning what did gilligan 1982 theorise/ find

Answer 52

ethics of justice = makes

ethics of care = female

Question 53

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

what are the 3 factors that can affect obedience in terms of situation

Answer 53

legitimacy

proximity

behaviour of others

Question 54

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of situation how does legitimacy affect obedience

Answer 54

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

Question 55

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of situation how does proximity affect obedience

Answer 55

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%)

Question 56

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of situation how does the behaviour of others affect obedience

Answer 56

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

Question 57

evaluate situation as a factor affecting obedience

Answer 57

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

Question 58

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of culture how does the background affect obedience

Answer 58

hofstede 2011

six dimensions which allow for comparisons to be made between countries with regard to cultural values

Question 59

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of culture how does the individualism - collectivism affect obedience

Answer 59

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

Question 60

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of culture how does the PDI (power distance index) affect obedience

Answer 60

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

Question 61

factors affecting obedience: situation and culture

in terms of culture how does the interaction effects affect obedience

Answer 61

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