Obedience Flashcards
What is obedience?
- compliance with an order, request or law or submission to another’s
authority - change of an individual’s behaviour to comply with a demand by an
authority figure
What request is there for obedience?
There is a direct request to change our behaviour. The request to change our behaviour is usually from just one person.
Who is influencing us?
How does the person influencing us act?
An example?
The person influencing us is of a higher status (they have authority). The person influencing us doesn’t necessarily act in the same way as. For example, a teacher may ask you to be quiet whilst they continue to talk.
What is obedience usually seen as?
Obedience is usually seen as a positive action which we don’t mind admitting to.
What do many historians argue?
What does Milgram’s study attempt to do?
They argued that the destruction of Jews, gypsies, homosexuals and many others because of character defect which makes Germans more obedient. Milgram’s study is an attempt to test the Germans are different hypothesis.
What does the German hypothesis states?
It states that German’s have a basic character deficit which means they have readiness to obey people in authority.
What did Milgram argue?
Milgram argued that people would commit atrocities if required to do so by an authority figure.
Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)
AIM
To investigate how far people will go in obeying an authority figure.
Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)
PARTICIPANTS
40 males, 20-50 years old, from New Haven (America). They were volunteers recruited through a newspaper advertisement. It would take one hour at Yale University. They were paid 4.5 dollars for turning up.
Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)
PROCEDURE
They were met by a young man in a grey lab coat who introduced himself as the experimenter. They were paid the money and they were introduced to another participant (confederate). The experimenter told the p’s he was investigating the effects of punishment on learning. The two men drew lots to decide who would be the teacher and the learner in the experiment. This was rigged so the confederate was always the learner. The learner had to learn a list of word pairs given to him. The teacher had to test him by saying a word and asking the learner to recall its pair from the list. The teacher was asked to administer an electric shock every time the learner made a mistake, increasing the level of shock each time.
The learner gave mainly wrong answers and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock which was received in silence until they got to shock level 300 volts. At this time the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. When the “teacher” turned to the experimenter for guidance, he was given the standard instruction, “an absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer”. After the 315 volt shock the learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner- no answers and no pounding on the wall. If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of 4 standard prods, which were repeated if necessary:
• Please continue
• The experiment requires that you continue
• It is absolutely essential that you continue
Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)
PROCEDURE
The learner gave mainly wrong answers and for each of these the teacher gave him an electric shock which was received in silence until they got to shock level 300 volts. At this time the learner pounded on the wall and then gave no response to the next question. When the “teacher” turned to the experimenter for guidance, he was given the standard instruction, “an absence of response should be treated as a wrong answer”. After the 315 volt shock the learner pounded on the wall again but after that there was no further response from the learner- no answers and no pounding on the wall. If the teacher felt unsure about continuing, the experimenter used a sequence of 4 standard prods, which were repeated if necessary:
* Please continue
* The experiment requires that you continue
* It is absolutely essential that you continue
If the teacher asked whether the learner might suffer permanent physical injury, the experimenter said, “ Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so please go on.”
If the teacher said the learner clearly wanted to stop, the experimenter said:
Whether the learner likes or not, you must go on until he has learned all the word pairs correctly. So please go on.
The experiment stopped when the teacher refused to continue and disobeyed the experimenter’s request or had reached the maximum shock on the scale (450 volt).
The participant was then fully debriefed as to the real nature of the experiment, reintroduced to the learner in a friendly way and re-assured that no damage had been done since the learner had not really received any shocks at all.
Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)
RESULTS
Levels of obedience expected:
Psychology students and psychiatrists had been asked what percentage of participants would administer the highest shock of 450 volts. The answers ranged from 1-3, with the mean of 1.2
Levels of obedience obtained:
Participant’s realization of the shock effects
In the post experimental interview the participants were asked “how painful to the learner were the last few shocks that you administered to him?” The mean response was 13.42 out of 14- “extremely painful:”
Behavioural reactions of the participants:
“Participants were observed to sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips, groan and dig their fingers into their flesh. One sign of tension was the regular occurrence of nervous laughing fits. Full blown uncontrollable seizures were observed for 3 participants. In the post experimental interviews participants took pains to point out that they were not the sadistic types, and that their laughter did not mean they enjoyed shocking the victim”. Milgram (1963)
All participants were debriefed. They were also sent follow up questionnaires. 84% reported that they felt glad to have participated and 74% felt they had learned something of personal importance,
Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)
CONCLUSION
Participants showed obedience to unjust authority beyond what anyone expected in spite of the emotional strain generated by the procedure. He disagreed with the view that the Germans are different.
When did the participants obey the most in Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)?
They obeyed the most when two teachers were in the room telling them to do it.
When did the participants obey the least in Milgram’s electric shock study (1974)?
They obeyed the least when the experimenter was absent and told them via message.
What were the variations of Milgram’s original experiment?
- Original Remote Victim Experiment
- Vocal Feedback Condition
- Two Teacher Condition
- Shift or Setting Condition
- Social Support Situation
- Proximity Condition
- Touch Proximity Condition
- Absent Experimenter Condition
- Lack of Uniform
What were the results of the Original Remote Victim Experiment?
65% continued to maximum shock level
What were the results of the Vocal Feedback Condition?
Standardized by the use of tape recordings (62.5% to maximum shock level)
75 volts: moans/groans
150 volts: requested to be excused
195 volts: “let me out! My heart is bothering me”
285 volts: agonized screams
300 volts: kicked wall and begged for release
315 volts: no further responses
What were the results of the Two Teacher Condition?
The teacher was paired with another teacher who is actually a confederate of the experimenter who actually von delivered the shocks while the actual participant only read out the words (92.5%)
What were the results of the Shift or Setting Condition?
In interviews following the
first experiment, many participants said they continued giving the shocks because the research was being carried out at Yale University, a highly prestigious institution. So, Milgram transferred the experiment to a rundown office in downtown Bridgeport. (47.5%)
What were the results of the Social Support Situation?
The teacher was paired with two other teachers who are actually confederates. They were told to refuse to obey at 150 volts and then at 210 volts and move out of the room. (10%)
What were the results of the Proximity Condition?
The learner was moved into the same room so the teacher could see his agonized reactions. (40%)
What were the results of the Touch Proximity Condition?
The teacher or the participant
had to push the learners hand onto the shock plate. (30%)
What were the results of the Absent Experimenter Condition?
After giving the essential
instructions the experimenter leaves the room and gives further instructions over the phone. (20%)
What were the results of the Lack of Uniform?
In the original the experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a uniform). In a variation the experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call right at the start of the experiment. The role was taken over by an ordinary member of the public ( a confederate) in everyday clothes. Obedience was 20%.
What varying subjects did they use to study obedience?
Gender
What were the results of the Gender study?
Women were found to show similar levels of obedience by Milgram.
What varying settings did they use to study obedience?
- Sheridan and King (1972) - puppy love
- Bickman (1974) - the power of uniforms
- Hoffling et al (1966) - nurses
What is the method/procedure & results on Sheridan and King (1972)?
Students trained a puppy to learn a discrimination task by punishing it with increasingly severe real electric shocks whenever it made an error.
Although the puppy actually received only a small shock, the participants could see and hear its squeals.
After a while, an odourless anaesthetic was released into the puppy’s cage, causing it to fall asleep. Although participants complained about the procedure (and some even cried), they were reminded that the puppy’s failure to respond was a punishable error, and that they should continue to give shocks. 75% of participants delivered the maximum shock possible. All the female participants went to the maximum level of shock but only 54% of the males did.
How does this Sheridan and King study support the validity of Milgram’s original experiment?
- Women are more obedient
- This study supports Milgram’s study by showing that women can be obedient but it also doesn’t support as only 54% of the males did, unlike Milgram’s study
- Questions Milgram’s validity as he found similar levels of obedience but it shows women are more obedient
What is the method/procedure & results on Bickman (1974)?
Three male researchers gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in New York The researchers were dressed in one of three ways: in a suit and tie, a milkman’s uniform, or a guard’s uniform.
They gave various orders for example:
• Pointing to a bag on the street - “Pick up this bag for me”
• Nodding in the direction of a confederate - “This fellow is over parked at the meter, but doesn’t have any change. Give him a dime”.
Bickman found that participants were most likely to obey the researcher dressed as a guard (80%) than the milk man or civilian (40%).
- field experiment
Why is Bickman’s study more valid than Milgram’s?
It’s more valid because it’s a field experiment so they would be acting normally so there would be no demand characteristics whereas in Milgram’s it was a lab experiement.
What ethical code is infringed in Bickman’s?
Informed Consent
What is the method/procedure on Hoffling et al (1966) ?
Done to overcome the criticism against the artificial environment in Milgrams study. Twenty two nurses working in various American hospitals received telephone calls from a “stooge” Dr. Smith of the psychiatry department, instructing them to give a patient Mr. Jones 20 mg of a drug called Astrofen (lethal drug).
Dr. Smith said that he was in a desperate hurry and would sign the drug authorization form when he came to see the patient in 10 minutes. The label on the box containing Astrofen (which was actually a harmless sugar pill) clearly stated that the maximum daily dose. Also she would be breaking the rules requiring written authorization before any drug is given and that a nurse be absolutely sure that Dr. Smith is a genuine doctor. Of a control group of 22 different nurses asked this same question, 21 said they would not have given the drug without written authorization, especially as it exceeded the maximum daily dose. A real doctor was posted nearby, unseen by the nurse, and observed what the nurse did after the telephone call. 21 out of the 22 nurses obeyed without hesitation. This has been criticized for not being valid since the nurses were not familiar with the drug. When the study was replicated using valium not many nurses were ready to administer it without checking again with the doctor, pharmacy or supervisor.
Why did the nurses obey in Hoffling et al’s study?
- Due to the presence of a legitimate authority figure (doctor)
- It was perceived as urgent
What are the methodological issues in Milgram’s experiment?
- sampling
- experimental realism
- ecological validity
What is Experimental Realism?
This measures whether the experimental design actually did the job it set out to do. If the experimental set up was not believable then the participants probably wouldn’t behave as they would normally in such situations.
What is the issue with sampling?
The sample was unrepresentative because they only used male participants and volunteers.
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Sampling?
- Tested over 1000 participants from a typical American town.
- Tested 40 women. 65% administered shocks up to 450 volts. Comparable to obedience shown by men.
What is the issue with Experimental Realism?
It lacks experimental realism (Orne & Holland) as participants did not believe they were giving electric shocks to another person and obedience was due to demand characteristics.
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Sampling?
- 70% participants reported that they believed the set up.
- The genuine distress of the participants counts against this
criticism - Sheridan’s study with puppies used real shocks and people
showed high obedience levels (75%)
What is the issue with Ecological Validity?
It lacks ecological validity because of the artificial situation and payment might have made them feel obliged to continue
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Ecological Validity?
- Field studies have found higher rates of obedience
- Hofflings hospital study, Bickman’s uniform study
- People obey in real life because of social contracts
What is the Theoretical evaluation?
What are the ethical issues in Milgram’s experiment?
- Informed Consent
- Deception
- Right to Withdraw
- Protection from Harm
- Socially Sensitive Research
What is the issue with Informed Consent?
Consent was given to participate in a study on effect of punishment on learning not obedience
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Informed Consent?
- Deception was necessary
- Help people to review value systems be aware of destructive obedience
What is the issue with Deception?
- Not told of true nature of experiment
- Made to believe they were giving real electric shocks
- Believed learner was real participant
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Deception?
- Deception was essential
- Everyone was fully debriefed
- Shown that the learner was unharmed and had not receive any shocks
What is the issue with Right to Withdraw?
- Those wishing to stop were told they had no choice but to go on
- It was made difficult
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Right to Withdraw?
- They could have left no one was physically restrained
- He was measuring whether people would withdraw from the study
What is the issue with Protection from Harm?
Cause Distress to the participants:
- Seizure
- Guilt or lack of self esteem
What was Milgram’s defence in relation to Protection from Harm?
- Results were unexpected (thought everyone would stop before 300 Volts)
- All were debriefed and reassured
- Made to meet the learner to see he had come to now harm
- All were examined by a psychiatrist after one year and no signs of harm were observed
- Follow up survey a year later showed:
80% - more experiments like Milgrams
70% - learnt something of personal value
84% - glad to have participated
15% - Neutral
1.3% - Sorry to have participated
What is the issue with Socially
Sensitive Research?
His situational explanation of obedience offers an alibi/excuse for evil behaviour- may be offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest that the Nazi’s were victims of the situation- not in their control.
What are Situational Factors that affect Obedience to Authority?
- Location (lab experiments, Yale Uni, random office)
- Uniform
- Proximity of the authority figure: absent experimenter
condition - Proximity of the victim (learner): proximity and touch proximity condition
How does Location affect Obedience to Authority?
When at Yale Uni 65% went to max shock level but the participants said they continued giving shocks because it’s a highly prestigious institution but when they went to a rundown office only 47.5% went to the highest shock level.
How does Uniform affect Obedience to Authority?
In the original study, the experiments (authority figures) wore grey lab coats (65%)
How does Proximity of the authority figure: absent experimenter condition affect Obedience to Authority?
When the authority figure left the room and sent the message over text the obedience was lower (20%). But when there was two authority figures, the obedience went up (92.5%)
How does Proximity of the victim (learner): proximity and touch proximity condition affect Obedience to Authority?
Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational factors on obedience. In a field study in New York City, Bickman found that
people were more likely to obey a person dressed as a guard than one dressed in a milkman.
What is a Strength of Milgram’s study?
Other studies have demonstrated the influence of these situational factors on obedience. In a field study in New York City, Bickman found that
people were more likely to obey a person dressed as a guard than one dressed in a milkman.
What is an another Strength of Milgram’s study?
Another strength of Milgrams variations is that he systematically altered one variable at a time (e.g. proximity) to see the effect on the level of obedience. All the other variables and procedures were kept the same when the study was replicated over and over again. This is a strength because it implies that the findings can be repeated and that they are reliable.
What is an another Strength of Milgram’s study?
His findings have been replicated in other cultures and gender and findings have been supportive of his original research. This implies that his conclusions about obedience are not limited to American males, but
are valid across cultures and apply to females.
as well.
What is a Weakness of Milgram’s study?
Participants in the variations might have worked out that the procedure was faked. This may have led to demand characteristics. This is a limitation because it would be unclear if the results are due to obedience or because the particants saw through the deception and acted accordingly - decreasing internal validity.
What is another Weakness of Milgram’s study?
Most replications of the variations have been in developed societies which are culturally similar to the US. So the findings may not apply to collectivistic cultures.
What is another Weakness of Milgram’s study?
Milgrams findings from his variations suggest that situational factors affect obedience. This has been critised by Mandel who argues that this offers an excuse for evil behaviour.
What are the psychological explanations of Obedience?
- agentic theory
- legitimacy of authority
What influenced Milgram to argue the agentic theory?
During the Nuremberg trials of the Nazis, many pleaded that they were not guilty as they were only obeying orders. This lead Milgram to argue that when people obey orders they do not feel responsible for their actions, instead they see themselves as agents” for what they perceive as person with legitimate authority. They can act against their moral values but feel unable to stop.
What are the 2 states of behaviour when people are in a social situation?
- autonomous state
- agentic state
What is the autonomous state?
mental state where we feel free to behave according to our principles and values, and feel a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
What is the agentic state?
A mental state where we feel no responsibility for our behaviour because we believe that we are acting for an authority figure as their agents.
What is it called when people move from autonomy to agency?
A mental state where we feel no responsibility for our behaviour because we believe that we are acting for an authority figure as their agents.
What two things must be in place in order for a person to enter the agentic state from autonomous state?
• The person giving the orders is perceived as being qualified to direct other people’s behaviour. That is, they are seen as legitimate authority due to their position in social hierarchy
• The person being ordered about is able to believe that the authority will accept responsibility for what happens.
What do individuals feel when they act against their moral values?
When acting against their moral values they experience high anxiety, moral strain as they realise that what they do is wrong but they feel powerless in disobeying.
Why do individuals remain this agentic state?
They remain in an agentic state because of binding factors - people use strategies to reduce the degree of moral strain people shift the responsibility for the results of their actions on the figure of authority who gave the orders, shifting responsibility to the victim or deny the severity of the resulting damage.
What is a strength of the Agentic Theory?
Bass and Schmitt (2001) showed a film of Milgram’s study to students then asked them who they thought was responsible for the harm done to Mr Wallace they blamed the
“experimenter”. They saw the experimenter as a legitimate authority figure. This supports the agentic state because it suggests that the experimenter takes the responsibility.
What is a weakness of the Agentic Theory?
There could be alternative reasons for why people obey an authority figure. It could be due to personality rather than the situation.
What is a weakness of the Agentic Theory?
However Agentic shift is a limited explanation. It does not explain behaviour in some research findings. a) The agentic shift predicts that the nurses should have shown levels of anxiety similar to Milgram’s participants as they understood their role in the destructive process - but this wasn’t the case.
b) Another example is of the German battalion 101 where men obeyed orders to shoot civilians despite the fact they did not have direct orders to do so - they had been told they could be assigned to other duties if they preferred. So they did not act due to agentic but due to autonomous.
What is the legitimacy of authority?
From an early age we are socialised to accept that people who have justified authority due to their position in the social hierarchy have the right to tell us what to do since it keeps society functioning smoothly.
Who are we more likely to obey?
We are more likely to obey people who we perceive as to have authority over us. This authority is justified by the person’s credentials and by their position of power within a social hierarchy.
What is a strength of a legitimacy of authority explanation?
There is a research support for the explanation. Holfing’s study supports the explanation (21/22 nurses obeyed). There are real life examples of obedience due to perception of legitimate authority such as the My Lai massacre in 1968 in Vietnam where nearly 504 unarmed civilians were killed by American soldiers, women gang raped, all animals killed. Their defence was that they were following orders. These studies are strengths of the legitimacy of authority explanation as they listen to people who have higher authority than as they are seemed as legitimate and legal. The consequences wouldn’t be their responsibility, it would be the authority person responsibility.
What is another strength of a legitimacy of authority explanation?
Studies have shown that countries differed in degree to which people are traditionally obedient to authority based on how children are raised to perceive authority figures. This shows that in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and lead to higher obedience. This is a strength since it increases the validity of the explanation.
What are other explanations of obedience?
- gradual commitment (the foot in the door technique)
- buffers
What is gradual commitment (the foot in the door technique)?
- once people comply to one order they are more likely to comply more
- we have a desire to appear consistent
What are buffers?
any aspect of a situation that prevents the individual from having to confront the consequences of their actions e.g. the wall in Milgram’s electric shock study
What are the dispositional factors of obedience?
These are factors which relate to the individual differences of the person who obeys and not the situation.
What did Adorno want to understand?
Adorno and his team wanted to understand the behaviour of the Nazis during the Holocaust. However their focus was very different, they looked at personality factors and tried to identify personality traits to explain their behaviour.
What is the Authoritarian Personality (Adorno, 1950)?
Authoritarian Personality is a type of personality that was susceptible to obeying people in authority. They are submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
What are the characteristics of the Authoritarian Personality?
- conformist/ conventional attitudes towards gender and race
- obedient/ service towards people of perceived higher status
What is the aim of Adorno’s study?
To investigate the causes of obedient personality
What is the procedure of Adorno’s study?
he carried on with his study on over 2000 white middle-class Americans. His tests were designed to reveal unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups. A number of scales were developed to measure this including the
• potentiality for fascism (F Scale) to measure authoritarian personality.
What are examples of items from the F scale?
- obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues children should learn.
- there is hardly anything lower than a person who doesn’t feel a great love, gratitude and respect for their parents.
What is the findings of Adorno’s study?
Adorno et al found a positive correlation between the authoritarian personality and prejudice. He found that these people have fixed stereotypes about other groups and showed excessive respect and deference to those of higher status. Women obey more than men. Women are more obedient than men.
Why do people develop an authoritarian personality?
Suggests it was the result of harsh parenting. This parenting style involves conventional attitudes towards gender and race. They are harsh to lower status are obedient + respectful towards higher authority. These experiences create hostility (unconscious feelings). This leads to authoritarian personality (respecting/ obeying authority)
What is a strength of Adorno’s study?
Milgram conducted interviews with a small sample of fully obedient participants, who scored highly on the F scale. This is a strength because it shows that there is a correlation between obedience and authoritarian.
What are weaknesses of Adorno’s study?
It seems to have political bias. It seems to measure extreme right wing political beliefs. However rigid thinking and intolerance of
different views have been found equally on the extreme left wing politics such as Chinese Marxism. So this explanation is not a
comprehensive dispositional explanation that can explain obedience across the political spectrum.
This explanation cannot explain obedience of entire social groups. E.g. the anti semitic nazi state. Individuals displayed obedience but they could not all have had the same personality. The social identify theory probably would be a better
explanation.
What are more weaknesses of Adorno’s study?
The studies supporting authoritarian personality have found a positive correlation between some variables such as authoritarian parenting and development of an authoritarian personality. This however is a limitation because it does not establish a cause and effect relationship between authoritarian personality, parenting style and obedience.
The explanation is based on flawed methodology. The scale has been criticized becaue all the statements are same direction - this could lead to acquiescence. You could get a high score on authoritarianism by ticking the same line of boxes. So people may not actually have an authoritarian personality but are merely (acquiescers). Affects the reliability and validity of the explanation.
What are weaknesses of Adorno’s study?
Adorno interviewed the participants about their childhood experiences- but the researchers knew the test scores and the hypothesis of the study. This is a limitation as it could lead to demand characteristics.
Measurement of authoritarian personality relies on self report data - may be unreliable.
Situational factors have a greater influence on obedience than dispositional factors because if personality affected obedience then it would be the same across situations.
What does resisting social influence refer to?
Refers to the ability of people to withstand the social pressure to conform to the majority or obey authority. This ability is influenced by both situational and dispositional factors.
What are the 2 explanations for resisting pressures to obey?
- social support - situational explanation
2.locus of control - dispositional explanation
What is social support?
- resistance to obedience or conforming increases when there is social support (when we see someone else doing it).
- defiance/ non conformity is more likely if others are seen to resist the influence.
Why is social support an explanation for resisting pressures to obey?
- It breaks the unanimous position of the majority in conformity situations and challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure in obedience situations.
- Disobedient peers act as role models on which the individuals can model their behaviour.
- Seeing others disobey/ not conform gives the observer the confidence to do so too. The individual now can make an independent assessment of the reality
- Social support leading to resistance to influence can be explained by reduced normative pressure
What is evidence of social support - that can help people resist conformity -?
Asch shows that if there a non-conforming ally ( presence of a dissenter) then conformity drops to 25%. However if the model then started to conform then the participant also conformed so the change is short-lived.
What is a strength of social support on resistance to conformity?
There is research support for the impact of social support on resistance to conformity. Allen and Levine (1971) replicated Asch’s experiment with two conditions. In the first condition there was invalid social support - the dissenter wore thick glasses (implying he had poor vision). In the second condition they provided valid social support - the supporter had normal vision.
Both conditions reduced the amount of conformity showing that an ally is helpful in resisting conformity and freeing yourself from group pressure
What is another strength of social support on resistance to conformity?
Allen and Levine found that the response position of the person providing social support affects whether the participant resists the majority. Support was significantly more effective if the confederate answered first rather than fourth in a replication of Asch’s line judgement task. This may be that the correct first answer, confirms the participant’s initial commitment to the correct response and this persists even though the other group members disagree.
What is evidence of social support from an obedience research?
The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey.
In one of Milgram’s variations the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine participant was joined by a disobedient confederate. The other person’s disobedience acts as a model for the participant to copy and that frees him to act from his own conscience.
What is locus of control?
LOC is how much a person believes that they have control over events that happen in their lives. This is measured along a scale with internal control at one end and external control’ at the other end.
Who are more likely to resist pressure?
People with an internal locus of control are more likely to resist pressure to conform and are less likely to obey than those with an external locus of control.
What does Rotter believe?
He believes that some people have an Internal Locus of Control and others have an External Locus of Control.
What is an Internal Locus of Control?
Believe that things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves - due to their ability and effort.
What are people high on internality less concerned with?
People high on internality are less concerned with social approval, and are better able to resist social influence. They take responsibility for their actions.
What are Characteristics of an Internal Locus of Control?
- Active seekers of information- less likely to rely on opinion of others.
- More achievement oriented - more likely to be leaders than followers.
- Better able to resist co-ercion from others
- More self confident
- Take personal responsibility for their actions- so base decisions on own beliefs.
What is an example of Internal Locus of Control?
Example: I failed my exam
“I really should have studied more. I know that I didn’t put as much effort into revision as I could have.”
What is an External Locus of Control?
Tend to believe that whatever happens to them is determined by external factors such as influence of others or luck - things are out of their control.
What are Characteristics of an External Locus of Control?
People high on externality approach events with a passive, fatalistic attitude, taking less responsibility for their actions, are less independent and more likely to accept the influence of others.
What is an example of External Locus of Control?
Example: I failed my exam
“I had a rubbish teacher. My little brother kept interrupting me when I tried to revise. The exam was on a really bad day.”
Evaluation of the effect of locus of control on independent behaviour - resistance to influence
Holland replicated Milgram’s electric shock study
Explain Holland’s study
Holland replicated Milgram’s study
and tested participants, he grouped them into internals and externals. He found that 37% of the internals did not continue to the highest shock ( showed resistance) compared to 23% of the externals who did not continue. This increases the validity of the LOC explanation in explaining resistance.
What is a weakness of locus of control in relation to resistance to influence?
However not all research supports this link between LOC and resistance. Twenge (2004) analysed data from American obedience studies over a 40 year period and found that resistance to obedience has increased over time but so has externality. If resistence was linked to an internal locus of control then we should expect people to have become more internal and not external. This challenges the link between internal LOC and increasing resistant behaviour.
What is another weakness of locus of control in relation to resistance to influence?
Rotter (1982) argues that LOC is more important in new situations, in familiar situations we tend to refer back to previous experience. So it has very little influence on our behaviour in familiar situations.
This is a limitation because it implies that LOC can explain resistance in only limited situations.
What are the other explanations on resistance to social influence?
• Personal experience including education: Educate people about the problems of blind obedience. It has been found that when individuals learn about the results of social psychological research such as Milgram’s study, they sometimes change their behaviour in light of the new knowledge.
• Questioning the motive of the person giving the order
• Individual differences : people with high self esteem, confident personality or no need for social approval are less likely to go along with the group
What are the other explanations on resistance to social influence?
• Cultural factors: individuals from societies that stress the importance of personal determination (individualistic cultures) are more likely to resist the pressure to conform than those from collectivist cultures.
• Reactance/ Boomerang effect ( study this under the last section on social change)
• Gender: Males have been shown to be more independent than women.
What are inverse of factors affecting obedience and conformity which will lead to defiance and non -conformity?
• Increased distance between the participant and the authority figure also affects defiance. In Milgrams study defiance increased when the orders were given over the phone.
• Low status of location (Milgram’s study in a rundown office)
• Increased distance between the participant and victim
What are inverse of factors affecting obedience and conformity which will lead to defiance and non -conformity?
• Lack of uniform
• Being in an autonomous state
• Not legitimate authority
• Not an ambiguous task
What is a social change?
Social change is when a society adopts a new belief or way of believing that then becomes widely accepted as the norm.
What is on example of a social change?
One example of social change is attitudes towards homosexuality. Although it was an imprisonable offence in the UK until 1967, public attitudes have changed over time and most people now regard being gay as a normal variation of human behaviour.
Eventually new laws have been created to protect the rights of gay people, and in 2005 same sex civil partnerships were introduced
This represents a huge change in society in a relatively short period of just 50 years.
What is Minority Influence?
Minority Influence refers to situations where one person or a small group of people ( a minority) persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviour
What does Minority Influence lead to?
It leads to internalisation in which both public behaviour and private beliefs are changed by the process.
How is Minority Influence different from conformity?
This is different from conformity where the majority of a large group of people influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people.
How do minorities bring about social change?
Minorities bring about social change through internalisation ( both public and private behaviour and beliefs are changed), by being consistent, flexible and committed. Through social crypto-amnesia and the snow ball effect, gradually the minority turns into the majority.
What is the aim of Moscovici (1969)?
To investigate the process of innovation by looking at how a consistent minority affect the opinions of a larger group, possibly creating doubt and leading them to question and alter their views
What is the method of Moscovici (1969)?
The group of participants were first given an eye test to check that they were not colour blind. They were then placed in a group of four participants and two confederates. They were all shown 36 slides that were different shades of blue and asked to state the colour out loud. There were two groups in the experiment.
- In the first group the confederates were consistent and answered green for every slide.
- In the second group the confederates were inconsistent and answered green 24 times and blue 12 times.
What is the findings of Moscovici (1969)?
In the consistent group 8.42% of trials resulted in P’s answering green (agreeing with the minority). 32% of the P’s agreed at least once. In the inconsistent group 1.25% of trials resulted in P’s answering green.
What is the conclusions of Moscovici (1969)?
The study suggested that minorities can change the opinion of the majority, particularly if they are consistent.
What happened in Clark’s (1996) ‘twelve angry men experiment’?
270 college students were asked to role play the part of jurors and read a summary of a court case presented in the film Twelve Angry Men. The students who were all unfamiliar with the film had to decide whether the accused was guilty.
Participants were given a summary of a murder case and the jury’s decision about key pieces of evidence. The persuasiveness of the arguments and the views of the jury were manipulated. The participants were asked their views about the guilt of the defendant at various stages. Clark found that participants were most persuaded when they heard consistent persuasive arguments from the minority jury members and when they learned that more than one juror had defeated from the majority position.
What does research that ___ is the most behavioural characteristic?
Research shows that consistency is the most important behavioural characteristic that the minority should possess in order to influence the majority.
What did Moscovici say it’s important for the minority to show?
Moscovici also suggested it is important for the minority to show commitment and flexibility.
Explain Consistency in relation to Minority Influence
Minority influence is effective if the minority keeps the same beliefs, both over time and in between all the individuals that form the minority.
What is Synchronic Consistency?
They are all saying the same thing
What is Diachronic Consistency?
They’ve been saying the same thing for some time now.
Why consistency?
They reassess the situation and rethink their own views more carefully because if there must be a reason why the minority thinks this way.
Explain Commitment in relation to Minority Influence
Activities must create some risk to the minority to demonstrate Commitment to the cause. E.g. they’ve made some personal sacrifice.
Why Commitment?
This shows that they are not acting out of self interest. It suggests confidence, courage in the face of a hostile majority. It shows that the minority are willing to suffer for their views and this persuades others to Tu them seriously. This is called the augmentation principle.
Explain Flexibility in relation to Minority Influence
Minority should be prepared to adapt their view point and accept reasonable and valid counter arguments. Extreme consistency can be counterproductive.
Why Flexibility?
If a minority is too rigid in views then there is a risk that they will be viewed as being narrow minded, unbending, refusing to see anyone else’s opinion. This is off putting to a majority and is unlikely to lead to any conversion to the minority position.
The key is to have a balance between consistency and flexibility
Social Change through Minority Influence
- Drawing Attention to an Issue: If minority views are different from the majority’s it creates a conflict that people want to reduce.
- Cognitive Conflict: The conflict created will require the members of the majority to think more deeply about the issues as their views are being challenged.
- Consistency of Position: Moscovici showed that consistency increases the chances of changing the majority’s views.
- The Augmentation Effect: The minority appears willing to suffer for their cause so is taken more seriously by the majority.
- The Snowball Effect: A minority converts a small group of people to their views, this group converts other people. Over time the original minority view can become the view of the majority.
- Social Cryptoamnesia: Minority ideas are assimilated into the majority viewpoint without those in the majority remembering where the ideas came from.
