Other factors involved in the resistance of obedience Flashcards
How does systematic processing affect obedience?
Individuals are less likely to obey orders that have negative consequences. However , the expectation I many institutional setting (e.g army) is that orders should be compiled with immediately without thought - much of military training is concerned with achieving such a mind-set as in conflict situations immediate obedience is required
What research supports systematic processing?
Martin et al (2007) found that when participants were encouraged and allowed to consider an unreasonable order they were less likely to obey therefore demonstrating affect of systematic processing on resisting social influence
Taylor et al (1997) reported that disobedience increases when people are encouraged to question the motives of the authority figures issuing an order - suggesting that systematic processing works by reducing the legitimacy of authority figures
How does morality affect obedience?
Research has shown that individuals make decisions on whether to obey or not based on moral considerations are more resistant to obedience than those who do not
What research supports morality?
Milgrim (1974) - reported that one participant who did not fully obey stated in a post-study interview that he was a vicar and his disobedience had been based on his obeying a higher authority (God) - religious morality
Kohlberg (1969) - gave moral dilemmas to participants from the Milgrim study finding that those who based decisions on moral principles were less obedient
How does personality affect obedience?
Although there is little evidence to support the idea of there being personality characteristics which help resist social influence, research does suggest that individuals who can empathise with the feelings of others are more able to resist orders with destructive consequences
What research supports personality?
Oliner and Oliner (1988)- compared a sample of 406 people who has sheltered Jews in Nazi Europe to 126 who hadn’t. It was found that those who had rescued Jews reported being brought up in homes that stressed helping others and emphasised their empathy with the suffering of the Jewish people
What was the Moscovici study and what was the aim?
(1969) - Studied the influence of a consistent minority on the response of a majority in a colour perception test
Aim was to investigate the role of a consistent minority upon the opinions of a majority in an unambiguous situation
What was the procedure of Moscovici’s study?
Participants were placed into 32 groups of six , each group = four real participants and two confederates
Participants told that it was an investigation into perception
Each group was shown 36 blue slides with filters varying the intensity of the colour
In the consistent condition the confederates answered incorrectly that the slides were green - in the inconsistent condition the confederates argues that 24 of the slides were green and 12 were blue - answers given verbally and in the presence of the rest of the group
What were the findings of the Moscovici study?
There was an 8.2% agreement with the minority in the consistent condition, with 32% agreeing at least once. There was only 1.25% agreement in the inconsistent condition
Why is Moscovici’s study important?
Supports minority influence - a type of social influence that motivated individuals to reject established majority group norms
What were the conclusions of the Moscovici study?
Although the consistent condition finding of 8.2% seems a small figure it is significantly higher than the inconsistent condition figure (1.25%) and shows that although majority influence is relatively small, consistency is the important variable
What are the strengths of Moscovici’s study?
Research studies generally support Moscovici’s findings (e.gMeyers et al 2000…)
Consistent minorities have even greater influence on private attitudes (separate experiment where answers given privately in another consistent condition - even greater agreement
What are the weaknesses of Moscovici’s experiment?
Only used female participants as he thought they’d be more interested in colours so results not generalizable to males
Unethical as it involved deceit - informed consent couldn’t be given
The study doesn’t identify important factors in minority influence like group size , status , degree of organisation ect
