Paper 1 - Social Influences Flashcards

Question

What was the aim of the Milgram shock study?

Answer 1

How far will people go to obey an authority figure.

Answer 2

- Ppt’s (1 ppt in each trial) = 40 white American males that volunteered (from advert in the local paper). - Ppt met ‘Mr Wallace’ (a confederate) in the waiting room of Yale university. - Ppt & Mr Wallace draw straws to assign the role of teacher or learner - this is fixed! The teacher is ALWAYS the teacher (happened by chance). - Mr Wallace is taken to a room & the ppt (teacher) watches him be hooked up to an electric shock machine, Mr Wallace complains of a weak heart - he’s vulnerable (ppt then gets a 45v shock from this machine - the only real shock given). (Give a pain measure and so ppt knows the machine is real). - Ppt is then taken to another room, where an experimenter, Mr Williams is in a white lab coat - Ppt is sat in front of a shock switch machine with switches starting from 15v-450v, each switch increased by 15v each time. Mr Williams (confederate) the experimenter is in the room (wears a white lab coat - signifies on else subject/authority) - Teacher reads word pairs out to learner, learner responds, if word pairs are incorrect the teacher has to give an electric shock to Mr Wallace which increases 15v each time. - The learner, Mr Wallace, does protest/scream/moans - this is a recording so is standardised (every ppt gets this, same into in same order = control) - If the ppt (teacher) refused to continue/questioned the experimenter, Mr Williams had to use probes : “you must go on”, “the experiment requires you to continue”, “please continue” - Mr Wallace did not answer from 315v (illusion he had died)

Answer 3

Results - 100% went to 300v, 65% went to 450v (all ppts debriefed & met Mr Wallace after, 1 year later in a follow up 84% said they were happy they took part). Conclusion - People will obey a legitimate authority figure.

Answer 4

+ Bearoris : French TV show. Ppts paid to give FAKE electric shocks when ordered to by the TV presenter. Ppts did show anxiety like in Milgram's Study (backs up milgram). + Hofling : nurse told over the phone to give a high dosage of an unknown drug to patients by an ‘on call doctor’ (21/22 obeyed = backs up milgram.

Answer 5

Rank & Jacobson : nurses told to give high dosage of Valium to patients from a known doctor (only 2/18 obeyed so goes against milgram)

Answer 6

Informed consent : no, ppts told it was on teaching & learning Deception : Ppt told experiment was on teaching & learning Mr Wallace was a confederate and so was Mr Williams Screams/answers were a recording Straws were fixed Shocks were fake Right to Withdraw : Yes/felt they couldn’t due to probes Protection from Harm : Ppts had a full blown seizure. All showed signs of stress/anxiety.

Answer 7

Who were the ppts? White American males (gender bias, cultural bias) How were they obtained? Volunteers (increase motivated / specific type of person) Individualistic or Collectivist? Only explains individualistic culture (obedience rate) What was the method used? Lab experiment (shows cause & effect, standardised procedure)

Answer 8

Location Proximity Uniform

Answer 9

Location Original : Yale University Obedience = 65% when to 450v Variation : Run-down, inner city, office blocks = obedience decreased to 47.5% Why (A03) : The location is no longer legitimate, loses pressure and prestigious

Answer 10

Proximity Original : Teacher & experimenter in the same room, learned in a different room Variation : 1.Teacher (ppt) and learner in the same room = obedience decreases to 40% Why (A03) : Ppt can now see the pain they are inflicting, they go into the autonomous state (take responsibility for their actions) 2. Teacher (ppt) puts learners hand on a shock plate = obedience decreases to 30% Why (A03) : Ppt is in autonomous state and is personally administering the pain, they feel responsible and can see the consequences 3. Experimenter gives orders over the phone = obedience decreases to 20.5% Why (A03) : The pressure from the authority figure is no longer present, easier to defy an order

Answer 11

Uniform Original : Experimenter wears grey/white lab coat Variation : Experimenter is ‘called’ away in an emergency, he is replaced by a man/experimenter wearing everyday clothes = obedience decreases to 20% Why (A03) : No longer legitimate or recognised as an authority figure (they’re equal)

Answer 12

Bickman : A confederate dressed in a security guard uniform, suit or milkman uniform asked people on the streets of New York to pick rubbish up and bin it. Ppts were twice more likely to obey the security guard compared to the man in a suit. (Security guard has legitimate power) (very few obeyed the milkman, it is a uniform, but does not hold legitimate power)

Answer 13

Orne & Holland : The experiment and situational variables may have caused demand characteristics, depending on how good the confederates acted (in proximity variation) AND questions were raised on how necessary it was for the experiment to be called away and replaced by a man in everyday clothes (we don’t know if ppts were obeying or play acting) Mandel : Situational variations oversimplify the happenings during WW2 and are offensive as it does just justify that officers were just following orders as they said (taking no responsibility)

Answer 14

Goes from autonomous state to agentic state due to perceived authority

Answer 15

1. Agentic state 2. Legitimacy of Authority - In a given society

Answer 16

Destructive behaviour happens when we act as agent for an authority figure. Personal responsibility is passed to the authority figure. There must be binding factors. The request us made by legitimate authority figure in a legislate setting, this allows the person to recede their moral strain (pass blame on to victim) like in WW2 concentration camps. The opposite sate is autonomous state which is where you take full responsibility

Answer 17

Backs up Hofling ‘on call doctor’ was a legitimate authority figure Backs up Milgram, Mr Williams was the clear authority figure, the request was legitimate and the setting was legitimate (ppts were in the agentic state) Blass & Schmitt : Showed students clips of Milgram’s experiment and asked who was responsible. (Students said Mr Williams - backs up ppts were in agentic state)

Answer 18

Doesn’t explain Rank & Jacobsons findings, the result was legitimate, by a legitimate authority figure in a legitimate setting (suggests innate tendencies must play a part) Doesn’t explain the gradual & irreversible transition doctors in concentration camps made. (They were once high standing citizens but in the camps committed some of the most horrific crimes against humanity (experiments)

Answer 19

Society is structured by a hierarchy - we learn in childhood who has authority. Legitimacy is agreed through social agreement, we give up some independence to these people to ensure society runs efficiently. These people are usually indentifiable by uniform. Have the power to punish. We learn this in childhood and it is reinforced throughout childhood (at school).

Answer 20

Kilham repeated Milgram experiment in : Australia (16% went to 450v), Germany (85% went to 450v). In certain cultures it is embedded that legitimate authority figures can demand authority.

Answer 21

Doesn’t explain why some people defy an order (this explanation cannot explain Rank and Jacobson results (doctor legitimate), there must have been innate tendencies)

Answer 22

My Lai 500 unarmed civilians were gunned down, women raped, building blow up and village burned down. Soldiers facing charges said ‘I was following orders’ - backs up legitimate of authority in the real world.

Answer 23

Personality is 60-70% innate The authoritarian personality forms from Diathesis (a genetic predisposition) stress (an environmental trigger) -> this is strict parenting in childhood

Answer 24

They have a blind obedience to authority They are submissive to authority Hostile to those deemed inferior Saw the world as black and white (right or wrong, no grey areas) Rigid thinkers This is caused by strict parenting -> they are very strict, enforce high expectations, highly critical & only give conditional love (e.g. only love you if you get an A). These expectations are caused by hostility in the child, they cannot express their feelings therefore displace it onto those seen as interior.

Answer 25

The F-Scale (Facism - For right political views)

Answer 26

Looked at the attitudes of 2000 white middle class Americans Ppts completed the F-Scale, they rated themselves strongly agree -> strongly disagree on statements like “obedience and respect for authority are important virtues for children to learn”. Findings : Authoritarians identified with strong people & disapproved of the weak. They had distinctive prejudices about other groups of people. Could this explain WW2 : All the officers at the camps had the authoritarian personalities?

Answer 27

Elms & Milgram : interviewed 20 obedient (went to 450) & 20 disobedient (only went to 300v) ppts from the ordinal study & asked them to compare the F-Scale. Obedient ppts scored higher on the F-Scale. This can explain Milgram’s findings, those with an authoritarian personality went to 450v. HOWEVER during the interviews ppts spoke fondly of parents, they were not strict and dad did not physically punish. Therefore the explanation is weak as the authoritarian personality is said to be caused by strict parenting.

Answer 28

The F-Scale is a self-report method, people can lie about their answers to be socially desirable. Therefore lacks validity explaining personality type. Adorno only found a correlation between harsh parenting and authoritarian personality. Therefore cannot infer cause and effect, it just shows there is a relationship. Doesn’t show causation and is overall a weak explanation, situational variables hold stronger variables. Millions of Germans showed obedience of anti semitic beliefs - but all cannot have the authoritarian personality. Social identity theory would be a better explanation (belonging to a group & sharing same values, morals and belief.

Answer 29

Social support Locus of control

Answer 30

An ally that breaks the pressure, allowing you to go against the majority/ defy an order. Conformity : In the Asch variation “lack of group agreement,” when 1 confederate gave the other incorrect answer conformity dropped to 5%. Social support allows pressure to be broken and confidence to give own answer. Obedience : In a ‘dissenter’ variation, another ‘teacher’ is in the room with the ppt, he refuses to continue, obedience drops to 10%. Social support allows the ppt to act on their own conscious. The social support models possible behaviour.

Answer 31

+ Albrecht : To stop pregnant girls smoking they were paired with an older, non-smoking buddy. They were less likely to smoke than a control group (no buddy) = social support has a powerful place in society to change behaviour. + Gamson : Ppt’s were placed in groups rebelled = social support leads to greater resistance. + Allen & Levine : In an Asch like study, when one confederate went against the majority but wore thick jokey glasses & complained he couldn’t see, conformity still dropped. The person breaking the pressure does not need to be legit, the pressure just needs to be broken by some support

Answer 32

A sense of what directs our lives: Internal locus of control: Independent Goal orientated Take responsibility Higher intelligence (Able to resist social influence) External locus of control: Dependent Fatalistic Things just happen Rely on social approval (Do not resist social influence)

Answer 33

+ Holland : Repeated Milgram’s study and got ppt’s to complete a questionnaire to determine their LoC. (37% of internals did not go to 450v, 23% of externals did not go to 450v, internals more likely to defy orders) - Twenge : An analysis over the last 40 years has found that people have became more independent but more external (suggests the LoC explanation is not valid as this should not happen) - Rotter : Stated that LoC is only applicable in new situations (therefore an incomplete explanation as it cannot explain defiance in known situations)

Answer 34

Minority influence leads to internalisation (accept view publically & private) There are 3 elements to allow/help the minority became the majority

Answer 35

Consistency Commitment Flexibility This leads to the snowball effect. Over time people become converted, this is a Gradual process - a few people join, then a few more, and more to a tipping point in which the minority become the majority.

Answer 36

Always keep the message the same (appear confident & unbiased) Synchronic Consistency (saying the same thing) Diachronic Consistency (saying the same thing over a period of time)

Answer 37

If you engage in risk taking behaviour you are likely to grab public attention. Even more so if the behaviour is risky/inconveniences you, this shows you are fully committed to the cause (augmentation principle)

Answer 38

You are more persuasive if you show willingness to listen to others views. Show flexibility and people are more likely to come on board with the new view

Answer 39

+Moscovici -> 4 ppts, 2 confederates were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue. In condition … 1. Confederates consistently said the slides were green, ppts conformed 8.42% of time. 2. Confederates inconsistently said the slides were blue or green. Ppts conformed 1.25% of the time. +Nemeth: Ppts put into groups of 4, they had to agree on the amount of compensation to give a ski lift victim (accident). 1 ppt was a confederate in each group. 1. Inflexible condition (confederate would not change his amount = no effect on majority) 2. Flexible condition (confederate compromised and offered a slightly higher fee= majority more likely to compromise) Flexibility is an important element

Answer 40

-Studies like Moscovici are artificial judging line colour is unrealistic to everyday minority influence situations. Therefore they lack mundane realism and caution should be taken when applying them to real minority influence situations. -Most studies do not capture the commitment element that minority influence causes, therefore again lack mundane realism (ie. fathers 4 justice climbing Houses of Parliament) -Studies lack mundane realism (again) as majorities in real life have power and status not just numbers.

Answer 41

Social change causes internalisation to happen, this is public & private acceptance. People go through a conversion process. This happens on a larger scale / worldwide compared to the minority influence.

Answer 42

1. Draw attention (raise awareness to the new view) 2. Cognitive conflict (a thinking conflict between the new view and your current view happens. If the new view seems credible it will lead to deeper thinking) 3. Consistency (always keep the message the same - appear confident and unbiased = more influential) 4. Augmentation (commitment) (if you engage in risk taking behaviour or things that inconveniences you, you grab the attention of the public) 5. Snowball effect (over time people gradually become converted. Slowly people joined the cause, then a few more & more to a TIPPING POINT when the minority became the majority. 6. Social cryptomnesia (over time people have no memories of the change of view, we forget there was an old view)

Answer 43

1. Drawing attention to the issue: The suffragettes used different tactics to draw attention to the fact women were denied voting rights 2. Cognitive conflict: Between the current situation and the position encouraged by the Suffragettes 3. Consistency of position: The Suffragettes were consistent in their views, regardless of the attitudes of those around them. They used educational, political and other tactics with the same message. 4. The augmentation principle: The Suffragettes risked imprisonment, their argument was augmented 5. The snowball effect: Universal Suffrage was finally accepted by the majority of people in the UK. 6. Social cryptomnesia: People today don’t know any different, because they only know a time when women has rights and were equal.

Answer 44

SAME AS MINORITY INFLUENCE + Nolan Moscivici: 4 ppts, 2 confederates were shown 36 slides of different shades of blue. In condition … Confederates consistently said the slides were green, ppts conformed 8.42% of time. Confederates inconsistently said the slides were blue or green. Ppts conformed 1.25% of the time. Nolan: Put messages on homes on the street. “Most residents are trying to reduce their energy consumption”. This led to more people reducing. Normative social influence is also an important element of social change. Nemeth: Ppts put into groups of 4, they had to agree on the amount of compensation to give a ski lift victim (accident). 1 ppt was a confederate in each group. Inflexible condition (confederate would not change his amount = no effect on majority) Flexible condition (confederate compromised and offered a slightly higher fee = majority more likely to compromise)

Answer 45

Studies like Moscovici are artificial judging line colour is unrealistic to everyday minority influence situations. Therefore they lack mundane realism and caution should be taken when applying them to real minority influence situations. Most studies do not capture the commitment element that minority influence causes, therefore again lack mundane realism (ie. fathers 4 justice climbing Houses of Parliament) Studies lack mundane realism (again) as majorities in real life have power and status not just numbers. Mackie goes against the view that minority influence leads to deeper processing. Majorities actually lead to deeper thinking as we believe other if they think as we do. If the majority thinks differently this causes pressure to change our view. The effects of solid change may be (indirect: people lose sight of the central/main issue, I.e. global warming for recycling) & (delayed: the effects won’t be seen in our lifetime)