obedience theories Flashcards
who made agency theory
Milgram 1973
what is the basis of agency theory
that obedience is a result of hierarchical social systems
autonomous state
we perceive ourselves as responsible for our own behaviour
feel guilty if action goes against morals
agentic shift
the process of when a person gives up their responsibility and follows orders from authority
agentic state
perceive ourselves as the agent of someone elses will
authority is responsible so we don’t feel guilty
moral strain
two contradictory urges - to obey authority or our own consciences
denial
coping mechanism for moral strain
thinking pain caused can be minimised by by denying any damage is being caused
avoidance
coping mechanism for moral strain
trying to remove self from situation/blame e.g. by not looking
evidence supporting agency theory
Milgram variations research - situational factors make ppts more/less obedient while dispositional factors don’t make a difference
Blass and Schmidt - showed 38 students a film of Milgram’s study and asked who was responsible for harm to learner, students blamed experimenter due to legitimate, expert authority
Kelman and Lawrence - found male Americans regarded Calley’s actions in My Lai Massacre as normal as he was following orders of legitimate authority
applications supporting agency theory
WW2 following of orders without question
explanation of states of obedience
plausible explanation for why atrocities are committed - M
evidence disagreeing with agency theory
Perry 2012 - claims ppts guessed that shocks weren’t real, across all Milgram’s variations over 60% of ppts disobeyed experimenter so validity of his findings is lowered however original results showed 100% administered 300V, 65% 450V so in face of authority obedience increases despite moral strain
House 1991 - charismatic leader theory disagrees with ordinary man, people can be convincing despite their hierarchical position
limitations of agency theory
can’t explain individual differences in obedience, neglects 35% of ppts who didn’t obey, agency theory doesn’t reflect his interviews of disobedient ppts
agentic shift is an abstract concept - can’t be measured so credibility is reduced
doesn’t explain why agentic shift only occurs in some situations - alternative bases of power theory by French and Raven may be more credible
who made social impact theory
Latane 1980
what are the two types of person involved in social influence according to social impact theory
source (influencer)
target (influenced)
what is social impact theory based on
strength
immediacy
numbers
strength
how much power the source is perceived to have
high rank = obey orders due to conformity
low status = not motivated to trust orders
immediacy
how recent the influence is/proximity
high immediacy = high urgency = high pressure
however dispositional factors may influence this - high immediacy can cause demotivation
number
amount of people pressuring you
more people = high social impact so more obedient
however first source is often the most influential
multiplication of impact
more sources on target = more force on one person
division of impact
force spread out between targets = pressure lowered
diffusion of responsibility
evidence supporting social impact theory
Gameson 1982 - when subjects rebelled they rebelled as a group, when they conformed they conformed as a group, supports idea of social influence
Jackson 1990 - obedience decreases with less authority, high proximity and high group size
strengths of social impact theory
uses a mathematical formula (i=SIN) - if S, I, N can be measured influence on individuals can be measured so useful predictive power in society and high credibility
limitations of social impact theory
ignores situational factors by assuming social behaviour can only be understood by interaction with others - e.g. Milgram’s lab setting at Yale may have increased obedience as much as experimenter
ignores individual differences/dispositional factors - e.g. Milgram found those who witnessed effect of war were less obedient (didn’t go to 450V) so past experiences have more effect than situation
can only explain limited types of social situation, can’t predict outcome if two equal groups impact each other
reductionist - ignores situation, input of wider society and oversimplifies interaction alternative theory of authoritarian personality
not only an obedience theory so not focussed on individual obedience
who made the theory of authoritarian personality
Adorno 1954
authoritarian personality
person who is likely to treat authority figures with extreme respect, very obedient
highly sensitive to totalitarian and antidemocratic ideas
why may an authoritarian personality be formed
conditional love and strict parenting so more submissive
F-scale
psychometric test to determine likelihood to be authoritarian personality - high score = authoritarian = more obedient
strengths of F-scale
can explain individual differences - people with this personalities adopt collective ideologies while independent people disobey
validated by conformity methods and clinical interviews - objective and scientific
limitations of F-scale
Hyman and Sheatsley 1954 - lower educational level was better explanation, so situation may be the cause of this personality instead of social interactions
based on flawed methodology - acquiescence bias, all questions on questionnaire worded in same direction, may give false data/demand characteristics
who made locus of control theory
Rotter 1966
locus of control
some people feel they are entirely in control of their actions, others are victims of fate
high internal locus of control
highly responsible
less obedient
high external locus of control
less responsible
more affected by authority figures
what is the idea behind locus of control
everyone is in a continuum between high internal and external
what evidence supports locus of control theory
Blass 1991 - 37% of high internals disobeyed in Milgram situation compared to only 23% disobedience for high externals
