Obedience Flashcards
Explanations for Conformity (Deutsch and Gerrard 1955) and evaluations
Deutsch and Gerrard (1955) propose a two process theory
Information Social Influence - cognitive process when someone is new to a situation and may conform so we can be correct as well
Normative Social Influence - Confrming so we can be socially accepted to a new group. Emotional process which can lead to internalisation
ISI - Lucas Et Al gave students difficult mathematical problems and the student with poor mathematical ability conformed the most
ISI and NSI work together- Deutsch and Gerrard propose 2 processes but in reality both processes are involved at the same time shown with Aschs experiment
Aschs findings , variations and evaluation
In Asch’s findings- he found the naive participant gave the wrong answer 36.8% of the time even though the answer was unambiguous meaning they conformed to avoid rejection (NSI)
In Ash’s variation he changed the Group size and found that 3 was a big enough majority to conform to others
Asch also changed the Unanimity by including a dissenter in the confederates. He found that the dissenter helped the naive participant to think independently and conformity decreased
Asch also changed Task Difficulty and found people conformed more because of ISI
Asch Evaluations such as only using male students from an individualist culture meant Asch’s results could only apply to American men thus lacking validity
Asch’s experiment was repeated by Perrin and Spencer (1980) using engineering students and found that the conformity was much lower meaning Asch’s study is inconsistent across each situation and time period
Ethical issues because naive participants were deceived and didn’t give informed consent
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment
Zimbardo assessed students for emotional wellbeing and then randomly assigned them to the role of Guard or Prisoner. The experiment was to appear realistic
Guards and Prisoners had their own uniform and Guards were made to almost dehumanise prisoners - calling inmates by numbers
In the experiment they found that a rebellion had started on the 2nd day from the prisoners as they felt as if they were being oppressed however the guards overcame the rebellion and harassed prisoners. Guards enjoyed their roles and Prisoners showed symptoms of mental instability
From this entire experiment, all participants conformed to their role in the prison which showed the power of the situation to influence people’s behaviour
Zimbardo’s Stanford prison experiment Evaluations
Fromm (1973) argued that Zimbardo was exaggerating the results. Only 1/3rd of guards showed brutal behaviour whilst some even helped the prisoners. - This shows that people could still exercise their wrong and right choices even with pressure to conform to a role
One strength of the study is that there was strong internal validity in the study due to the fact that Zimbardo prepared the study by emotionally testing the participants before they participated in the study and furthermore he randomly picked the roles of prisoner 9r guard for the participants in order to negate personal difference
Ethical Issues were also raised because the participants could not leave the experiment. They were sent to Zimbardo as the superintendent and the conversation acted as if they were asking to be released from prison. Forgot his responsibilities as a researcher. Zimbardo failed to break the line between reality and the study which is unethical since participants must always be aware of the fact that they can withdraw from the study
Stanley Milgram 1963 Obedience study
Milgram recruited 40 male participants of varying skill. They were chosen to be teachers. In the room there was an experimenter with them and on the other side of the wall was a Student. Who was being tested. The participant (teacher) had to administer shocks to the student if they got the question in a memorisation test wrong. Shocks got increasingly intense and went up to 450v.
If a teacher wouldn’t continue, the experimenter would give ‘prods’ such as Please continue or You have no other choice.
They found that over 65% of participants continued to 450v and qualitative data also showed sings of discomfort. All participants were debriefed
Milgram Obedience study Evaluations
When Milgram’s study was replicated in the french TV show, The game of Death (2010)- they found similar results - 80% of people moved to the highest voltage of 460v and showed similar signs of stress meaning that Milgrams results were not a one off chance occurrence but an actual conclusion on obedience to authority
Orne and Holland +some others argued that people in Milgram’s study could have continued knowing the shocks were not real. This is evident with recordings showing many were skeptical about the shocks meaning the experiment lacked internal validity
Ethical Issues with the study such as deception were present because the participant believed that the role of the teacher or the student was picked at random when in reality it wasn’t. This was seen as deception and a betrayal of trust
Milgram’s study on situational variables
Situational Variables - Factors that influence the level of obedience which are related to the external circumstance
Location : when location changed to run down office - obedience fell by 17.5%
Proximity : The closer the teacher got to the learner, the less obedient the teacher was. With an electroshock plate, the obedience dropped from 65 to 20.5%
Uniform : When experimenter was in casual clothes, obedience dropped the most to 20% which was the lowest
Situational variables Evaluations
Bickman (1974) in a field study used 3 outfits; Guard outfit, Suit, Milkman outfit and found when given orders, people followed the guard the most. This shows that outfits can be situational factors which is a strength of Milgrams study
Cultural support was a strength of Milgrams research. The experiment was replicated in Spain and found a 90% obedience rate. This means Milgrams conclusions could be generalised to western cultures. However, some did. argued that it was only replicated in western societies.
Obedience Alibi was an accusation that Milgram was seemingly victimising the Nazis or other horrific crime by claiming they were only obeying authority. This runs the risk of trivialising genocide.
Obedience - Psychological Factors
Obedience was argued to occur as if they are acting on someone’s behalf. The process of this was that people were in a state on Autonomy but they then underwent Agentic shift as they percieved someone as a figure of authority meaning they were then in an Agentic state
Binding factors allowed minimal ‘moral strain’ to be done to the participants by shifting responsibility on to learner- He was foolish to volunteer
Legitimacy of authority is agreed upon society so it can function smoothly. This allows specific people such as the experimenter to have some authority above us. However, this can be used for destructive reasons such as the use of ‘Prods’ in Milgram’s obedience study.
Psychological Factors Evaluations
Blass and Schmitt (2001) showed students a recording of Milgrams study and most agreed that the experimenter was at fault which shows that the experimenter was a figure of legitimate authority and that was the reason why participants obeyed
Agentic shift is a limited explanation because not everyone had obeyed and some stopped meaning they resisted authority. Agentic state does not explain the resason for this meaning this can only account for some situations
Cross cultural research in other countries showed different rates of Obedience which may show that authority is perceived differently in societies meaning there is validity in the explanation for legitimacy of authority.
Disposition explanations for Obedience EFFECTS OF AND HOW AUTHORITARIANISM ARISES
Dispositional explanations are explanations for behaviour which are highlighted by the importance of the individuals personality
Adorno et al (1950) invented the F-scale which identifies people with authoritarian personalities. They had controversial statements and people were to agree/disagree
Adorno (1950) found that people who scored high, identified themselves more and had a greater respect for strong people or figures of authority. They also looked down on the weak. They also showed a cognitive style in which they thought stereotypes distinguished people. It was either right or wrong for them and uncertainty made them uncomfortable. High correlation between Prejudice and Authoritarianism
Adorno believed that authoritarianism arises when children are subject to harsh parenting. This creates resentment in the child and these fears are then displaced on to ones perceived to be weaker - Scapegoating and psychodynamic explanation
Dispositional explanations Evaluations
Research support says that when studying the link between Obedience and authoritarianism, the results are merely a correlation meaning there could be a third factor and doesn’t mean they cause each other. Third factor could be low education
F-scale subject to bias because it only studied the idea of left wing authoritarianism even though the right wing ideologies are similar and both could show complete obedience. Adorno did not take this into account which is a limitation as he didn’t study the whole political spectrum
The F-scale was flawed as people could get a high F-scale score if they simply agreed with everything. This is bad because Acquiesces could get a result just because they tend to agree more than others-only interviewed people high F-scores - informational bias
Resistance to Social Influence ASCH AND JULIAN ROTTER
Resistance to Social influence - The ability to withstand social pressures to go with majority or obey authority
As seen in Asch’s study a dissenter allows someone to think independently from others but this autonomy only remains until dissenter is present meaning easier on people to resist social influence if other people do so. The dissenter acts as a model
Julian Rotter proposes Loci of control (LOC)
internal locus of control - people feel responsible for events in their life
External locus of control - people believe things happen out of control
People have a balance of high intLOC and low ExtLOC or vice Versa.
People with intLOC think about their actions meaning they are more self confident and less need for social approval meaning they have greater resistance to social influence.
Resistance to social influence Evaluations
Research support for the resistance of Obedience shows that when Gamson et al was making a smear campaign for an oil company, the obedience rates were much lower -88% of people didn’t conform
Research support for the resistance of conformity shows that when a dissenter was present for Asch’s study, even if the dissenter had trouble seeing the lines, had still allowed the participant to think independently- free from the pressure of the group
Whilst the idea of LOC’s had validity due to their results, there was contradictory research as when Twenge et al (2004) had found that people became more resistant to obedience but also showed more signs of external LOC’s during a 50 year period meaning Rotter did not account for changing cultures
Minority influence 3 FACTORS PLUS EFFECT
The 3 factors in a minority influence of becoming majority is
-Consistency is important as it can increase the amount of interest over time and make people aware of the arguments raised
-Commitment shows demonstration of and dedication to their cause. This can manifest itself in the augmentation principle wherein people do something for the cause
-Flexibility -it is important to not repeat the same argument but to also adapt to the opposing view and raise counter arguments. It is important to strike a balance between these 3 factors
People of a minority make it easier for others to conform to a minority. This means more and more people join the minority and this is the ‘snowball effect’
