Obedience Theories

Question 1

Who proposed Social impact theory

Answer 1

Latane(1981)

Question 2

What did Latane propose

Answer 2

we are greatly influenced by actions of others ; can be persuaded, inhibited, threatened+supported by others, leads us to change how we act in reponse.

Question 3

1)What is social impact theory

Answer 3

-look at functioning of individuals in presence of others
-Latane looks at attitudes+impact of others on an individuals attitudes
-SIT affected by our social environment+variety of opinions we encounter as social beings

Question 4

What is social impact

Answer 4

-any individual feelings, thoughts, or behaviour that is exerted by the real, implied, or imagined presence or actions of others—(Nowak et al 1990)

Question 5

2)what is social impact theory

Answer 5

-social functioning, according to SIT can be explained by looking at functioning of individuals: however functioning of individuals can be seen as affected by their social group.
-individuals functioning socially may behave differently from their behaviour as individuals
-concluded that there’s probably laws about individuals functioning in a social context that laws about individual functioning cannot explain.

Question 6

3)social impact theory

Answer 6

-studies support even just knowing that others have certain opinion can change beliefs, usually attitudes change to be closer to those at source of influence(groups attitudes-few change attitudes of majority
-according to latane+ wolf(1981) size+status of group will affect when an individual attitudes are influenced. However main point is that others+group influence can affect an individual behaviour

Question 7

4)social impact theory

Answer 7

-social identity theory reflects the same idea as social impact theory -people move towards their groups norms + attitudes
-1 aspect can be group polarsation_ is team for group tending to have more extreme ideas t attitudes than the individuals in the group. Might be to give a group identity or to make it seem important.
- is example of how attitudes of group are different from attitudes of individuals within group

Question 8

Social impact theory obedience eval

Answer 8

• views individuals as passive receivers of others behaviour towards them, disregarding active nurture of social interaction+what bring to situation. Everyone’s different, so theory oversimplify nature of human interaction and ignore differences between us.
  -useful as general formulation and can predict behaviour under certain conditions.
  -theory limited in type of social situation able to explain,when 2 groups impact with each other eg groups that are equal in number,strength+immediecy

Question 9

Social impact theory eval strength

Answer 9

-reliable-set out clearly, same predictions will occur
-using mathematical formula, predictions can be made to help society in control of its members, can mean controlling obedience that’s to the detriment of society
As theory of obedience —————————
-SIT acknowledges strength as feature of groups, includes power of persuasion, as well as how much authority they have, suits the idea that people obey those in authority

Question 10

Social impact theory weakness

Answer 10

-features of individuals aren’t taken into account, like some more easily persuaded, these likely to affect impact of others on individual
-theory discusses social influence in general rather than specifically looking at obedience or issues around group behaviour, such as social loafing-term for those who are in group but don’t contribute to groups decisions or actions
As theory of obedience—————————
-obedience is behaviour by someone in response to someone else in specific situation+not about influence of groups on behaviour, so only the features of obedience that involve groups are addressed

Question 11

Social impact theory linking to milgram work on obedience

Answer 11

• M looked at behaviour of individuals in experimental situation + then derived from that how people behave socially. He brought in presence of 2 others
  -meeus and raajjmakers (1986) replicated to extent, found individuals behaviour in a group was different from the behaviour, supported social impact theory
  -perhaps presence of others had backed individuals attitudes + feelings of reluctance to obey, that was reason for reduces obedience if other ‘peers rebelled’
  -M studies about behaviour not attitudes, thought he did measure feelings + emotions of participants when carrying out orders, this can be seen as being about attitude as participants distress at having to administer punishment does suggest their attitude didn’t match their behaviour

Question 12

Social impact theory looking for laws of behaviour

Answer 12

-latane claimed it’s not difficult to study group influence when small-group behaviour, but as complexity of behaviour increases, studying laws of how individual function socially becomes harder,
-Nowak et al (1990) considered how to get to laws of such behaviour in math way. Used computer simulation using rules that govern how individuals react to their social environment. Could predict behaviours of members of society, behaviour at group level + a system could perhaps provide rules that are more than total or rules about individual behaviour.
-society can benefit + use such rules to predict public opinion

Question 13

Social impact theory mathematical model

Answer 13

-i=f(SIN)
-i is magnitude of impact
-f is function
-S is strength of sources(e.g. powers of persuasion)
-I is immediecy of sources(how close they are, e.g. in time + space)
-N is number of sources(1 or more people or groups)

Question 14

Social impact theory issues and debates

Answer 14

-reductionism
-SIT can generate laws of behaviour by considering effects of time + space on how individuals affect 1 another + also how impact of other is affected by: 1)number of people in environment 2)immediecy if impact 3)strength of impact
-strength of message or influence is greater if there’s lot of people in agreement-change in attitude by individual heating that message is likely
-strength of message also stronger if it’s given by someone individual sees as expert-Milgram

Question 15

Who created agency theory

Answer 15

Milgram 1973, 1974

Question 16

What is moral strain

Answer 16

When people become uncomfortable with their behaviour because they feel that it’s wrong and goes against their values

Question 17

How did people experience moral strain in Milgram basic study

Answer 17

-participants heard cries of victim
-might have feared retaliation from victim
-Had to go against their own moral values
-conflict between needs of victim and needs of authority
-participants wouldn’t want to harm someone because this would go against their opinion of themeselves

Question 18

What does agentic state mean

Answer 18

They were agents of experimenter and obeyed his orders

Question 19

What does autonomous state mean

Answer 19

Under one’s own power to make one’s own decisions

Question 20

Milgram agentic state

Answer 20

Agreed to take part, participants in basic study obeyed until shock level reached 300volts

Question 21

Milgram autonomous state

Answer 21

Participants weren’t simple agents of experimenter, grey technicians coat that the experimenter wore and Yale uni setting added to power of experimenter and to the role of participants as agents

Question 22

Milgram agency theory

Answer 22

-used idea of being in an agentic state to put forward his agency theory
-idea that our social system leads to obedience.
-If people see themselves as individuals, they’ll respond as individuals and will be autonomous in a situation. E.g. in threatening situation, may avoid aggression and turn away. Likely to happen because avoiding aggression means avoiding getting hurt and aids survival

Question 23

What is evolution theory

Answer 23

Ides of natural selection-any tendency that aids survival would lead to the gene or gene combination for that tendency being passed on to

Question 24

How does evolution theory affect agency theory

Answer 24

-Suggests avoiding aggression is a good survival strategy
-early humans had better survival chance if they lived in social groups-leaders + followers
-l+f tendencies can be passed on genetically
-according to agency theory- agentic state is what led participants in Milgram basic study to obey. It involves shift in responsibility from person in authority giving the order-responsibility ‘given’ to 1 doing ordering

Question 25

Agency theory-shift in responsibility evidence

Answer 25

-Gupta(1983) studied obedience in India, with procedure modelling Milgrams
-after experiment asked her participants to allocate responsibility
-both male + female participants
-Males more defiant

Question 26

Milgram-agentic state

Answer 26

-as well as it being survival strategy, people also learn it from parents
-hierarchies in families and schools-clear who’s got power. In agentic state, people don’t feel responsible for their actions. Feel they got no power,might as well act against moral code, like in Milgrams
-Milgrams-victim near to teacher-less obedience, suggests learners felt they had to take greater responsibility for what they were doing
-diff variation experimenter ordered participants to stop, they all stopped.reinforces idea they were agents of experimenter cus they obeyed + stopped when they could
-people are in agentic state when they see person giving orders as having legitimate authority + when they see that person taking responsibility for them following the orders

Question 27

Agency theory eval strengths

Answer 27

-theory helps to explain issue that triggered Milgrams research into obedience-Holocaust, where Jews etc slaughtered. Eichmann said he was obeying orders-agency theory helps to explain why he (+others) obey to such a degree.
-Agency theory, rooted to theory of natural selection, helps to explain seemingly inexplicable actions like Holocaust + other atrocities like My Lai massacre , where US soildiers obeyed order to kill women + children in village, when this clearly not something soldiers should do

Question 28

Agency theory eval weakness

Answer 28

-other possible explanations for obedience like social power. French + Raven proposed 5 diff kinds of power
-legitimate power-Milgram would have
-reward power-Milgram have cus he paid participants
-Coercive power-Milgram gave ppts small shocks so felt they could punish them. Did say they could keep money so wouldn’t thought he could punish by taking money
-expert power-Milgram knowledgeable
-Referent power-those who can win people over-prob not seen Milgram in this light

Question 29

Agency theory and SIT comparison as obedience explanation

Answer 29

-agency theory about obedience scientifically, people are agents of authority in society
-However, agency theory describes rather than explain obedience, this is circular argument possibly not useful
-SIT is good theory to apply as it incorporates various factors about obedience, like why their obedience might be affected if have someone else on their side
-However, SIT doesn’t relate to individual factors of obedience, like effect of situation or personality
-overall SIT less useful theory of obedience as wasn’t designed to explain obedience specifically, rather how people affected by influence of others. Agency theory arose from work in obedience so’s more focused on obedience. Both offer understanding why people obey others in society.

Question 30

Factors affecting obedience-effects of situation on obedience

Answer 30

-as the situation changed in Milgrams variations, so did the obedience level, even thought procedure remained same.
-In 2 variations, Meeus and Raajmakers found similar effects-changing the situation lowered obedience. The finding from this study and Milgrams work provide strong evidence for there being situational effects on obedience.
-these studies were experiments, carried out in an artificial setting, so lacked ecological validity. Validity is about getting results that apply in real life; ecological validity is validity of setting. If situation isn’t natural, perhaps conclusions regarding the effect of situation aren’t sound
-participants might have been different in terms of personality, as there was variation in obedience, with some going to 450 volts in Milgrams basic study and others stopping earlier.