PAPER 1- TOPIC 1 SOCIAL INFLUENCE ✅ Flashcards
Definition of obedience
directly following orders, usually from a figure of authority, to avoid a consequence
Explain the obedience experiment
•Milgram’s experiment 1963
- 40 American males age 20-50
- met a confederate and an experimenter (wearing lab coat)
- drew lots to see who was teacher and learner (real P always teacher)
- has to administer an electric shock every time leaner for a question wrong (P was told it was a memory test linked to how pain increases it)
- if the P asked to stop, the experimenter gave prompts to continue
- experiment ended after 4 prompts or the max 450V was reached
Findings of Milgram’s research
- All P’s delivered shocks up to 300V
- 65% delivered the maximum (deadly) 450V (much higher than the estimation of 3% from the 14 psychologists asked to predict the behaviour)
- P’s also were observed to show signs of extreme tension: sweating, trembling, nail biting and 3 had seizures
Strengths of Milgram’s research
•Findings replicated in French TV show ‘the game of death’
- P’s paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other P’s (actors) in front of audience
- 80% delivered max shock
- physical observation identical to that of the P’s in Milgram’s study: nail biting, nervous laughter
- shows reliability
•similar study was carried out by Sheridan and King by giving real shocks to puppies in vision of P (in order from experimenter)
- despite real distress of animal 100% of female and 54% of male P’s delivered supposedly the fatal shock
- increase validity as shows findings were accurate despite fake shocks
Weaknesses of Milgram’s research
• low validity as 50% of people believed the shocks were real and of those 2/3 disobeyed
-suggests they responded to demand characteristics and did not express their real or natural behaviour
•ethical issues
- protection of P’s- under emotional duress. 3 had seizures
- deception- P’s didn’t know the learner was confederate and the shocks were fake
- right to withdraw- needed to ask more than 4 times to be able to leave
What are situational variables
Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person’s behaviour
Milgram’s 3 variations (situational variables)
•Proximity
- increased proximity from P to learner means they can’t psychologically distance themselves from their actions so obedience decreases (when in same room 65% obey to 40% )
•Location
-less prestigious environment gives study less legitimacy and authority- believe the experimenter shares the authority of the environment
(seedy office block 65% to 47.5%)
•Uniform
-recognised as authoritative so encourage obedience, without uniform seems less legitimate, authoritative and important
(experimenter in lab coat swapped with ordinary person in everyday clothes- 65% obey to 20%)
define proximity
physical distance of an authority figure to the person they are giving orders to
(distance of P to learner)
describe touch proximity variation
results
P had to force learner’s hand onto electroshock plate when they answered incorrectly and refused to put it there
- obedience dropped to 30%
describe remote instruction variation
results
experimenter left room and gave instruction by telephone
- obedience dropped to 20.5%
- more pretended to give shocks
define uniform
outfit of person of authority who is giving orders
- people of authority usually have outfits symbolic to their authority, entitling them to obedience
define location
the place that the order is given in
- the status and prestige of location dictates level of obedience
Strengths of the influence of situational variables on obedience
•Support of uniform as a SV from Bickman’s research
- three confederates in uniform of a milkman, a security guard and a suit and tie
- asked GP to pick up litter- more likely to do it if wearing security guard uniform
•Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures
- study (Meeus) on Dutch P’s who were ordered to say stressful things to desperate interviewees
- 90% obeyed shows reliability of Milgram’s findings -also replicated proximity and same findings (when experimenter not present obedience decreased dramatically)
Weaknesses of Milgram’s situational variables
•Research from Smith and Bond found shows different cultures have different notions about role of authority
- western countries and non western countries don’t have same views
- findings don’t apply to all people so not generalisable
•some P’s may have known that the procedure was faked
- situations like replacing experimenter with member of public is so contrived that many P’s would have realised the truth
- unclear whether findings are genuinely due to obedience or demand characteristics
- ….% of people went to 450V
- When venue was moved to seedy office block - ……%
- When teacher and learner in same room - ……%
- Experimenter in lab coat replaced by member of public in everyday clothes - …..%
- 65% of people went to 450V
- When venue was moved to seedy office block - 47.5%
- When teacher and learner in same room - 40%
- Experimenter in lab coat replaced by member of public in everyday clothes - 20%
Define agentic state
include binding factors
- mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour
- instead blame any negative consequence on the authority figure giving the order
- become an agent of their orders
- stay in this state due to binding factors (aspects that allow the person to minimise the damaging effect of thief behaviour)
e. g. denial
define binding factors
examples
aspects of a situation, that cause the person to remain in the agentic state
- minimising the damaging effects of their behaviour and so reduce their ‘moral strain’
- shift responsibility to victim
- deny any damage they were doing
define moral strain
do agents have it
- state of high anxiety when agent’s actions conflict with their personal morality
- agents do have it but feel powerless to disobey
autonomous state
opposite of agentic state
behave based on own principles, feel a sense of responsibility for our actions
moving from autonomous to agency is agentic shift
Define Legitimacy of authority
more likely to obey someone who we deem to have power or authority over us
- authority is justified (as legitimate) by the individual’s position of power in the social hierarchy
- taught to accept society’s hierarchy: that some people have power than us, and we should hand control of power to them
dangers of legitimacy of authority
it becomes destructive when powerful and charismatic leaders (e.g Hitler, Stalin) order their people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways
-shown in MIlgram’s study as 65% of p’s administered lethal 450V electric shock to learner
1 Strength 1 weakness of legitimacy of authority
STRENGTH
•explains cultural differences in obedience
-countries differ in obedience (some accept it more cuz of their society structure)
-German Milgram P’s obeyed 85%, Australian Milgram p’s obeyed 15%
- can see effect that society structure has on how obedient people are
WEAKNESS
•doesn’t explain all instances of disobedience
-Rank study where 16 of 18 nurses refused orders from an authoritative doctor to give an excessive dosage to patient
-nurses were disobedient even tho work in a strict social hierarchy
Strength and weakness of agentic state
STRENGTH
•Milgram support
-most p’s questioned who was responsible when giving the shocks and the experimenter said that he was
-the P’s perceived they were no longer responsible and so proceeded with the shocks
WEAKNESS
•doesn’t explain other research
-Rank nurse study
-16/18 nurses didn’t give excessive drug to patent even tho the doctor ordering had authority
-nurses remained autonomous
-agentic shift only accounts for some situations of behaviour
The 2 psychological explanations for obedience
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
What are dispositional variables
Individual characteristics and personality that influence behaviour
Difference between dispositional and situation explanations for conformity
dispositional- personality affects behaviour and obedience
situational- features of immediate environment that influence behaviour
describe Adorno’s dispositional explanation for obedience
Adorno believed that high obedience level was basically a psychological disorder
he believed the cause of the disorder was the personality of the individual, not the situation (challenges Milgram’s research)
outline Adorno’s description of the authoritarian personality
- show an extreme respect to authority
- believe in strong leaders to enforce traditional values (love of country, family and religion) into weak society
- contempt for socially inferior
- see everything as right or wrong (inflexible outlook)
- conventional attitudes for sex, race and gender
- see society as weak
Describe Adorno’s research on dispositional explanations for obedience
-using the F scale, studied 2000 middle class white American’s unconscious attitude to other racial groups
Found that people with high scores:
- identified with ‘strong’ people
- were contempt of ‘weak’
- had high servility and excessive respect to authority
- conscious of status
- they had certain cognitive style - creating perceptions of distinct stereotypes and categories of people
Origins of the authoritarian personality
comes from harsh parenting in childhood
- conditional love
- impossibly high standards
- extremely strict discipline
- severe criticism of commonly perceived failure
creates resentment and hostility in child
can’t displace on parents due to fear of punishment
children therefore grow up to displace these emotions onto those socially inferior, or those in other social groups (scapegoating)
Strengths of authoritarian personality
Milgram research support
- interviewed some who were in his original obedience study
- they completed F scale
-The 20 obedient P’s in the first Milgram experiment scored higher than the disobedient P’s
Weakness of authoritarian personality
- counterpoint to Milgram’s research support
- the obedient P’s had unusual characterstics for an authoritarian
- they didn’t glorify their fathers or experience high levels of punishment as a child
•doesn’t explain obedience in pre war Germany were millions of people were anti-semetic
- these people can’t all have an authoritarian personality
- lower validity
Social influence includes…
And is influenced by…
Obedience & Conformity
situational, psychological and dispositional factors
Two reasons people resist pressures of social influence
Locus of control- internal and external
Social support- other people resisting influence makes it easier for others to aswell
External locus of control
person who believes their behaviour is caused primarily by external circumstances (e.g fate, luck), don’t take responsibility for their actions
more likely to conform, as depend on opinions of others and believe things are out of their control
Internal locus of control
A person who believes their behaviour is caused primarily by their own decisions, take responsibility for their actions
less likely to conform and more likely to resist, as:
- take responsibility for their actions and experiences so don’t depend on opinions of others
- tend to be more self confident
- tend to be of higher intelligence
describe locus of control as a continuum
its a scale/contiuum
people are not internal or external, but they are positioned on a scale between High internal and high external
Define social support
idea that when other people resist social influence it makes it easier for an individual to do the same, act as model for independent behaviour
more independent, free to follow conscience and choose
Examples of how social support helps people resist
conformity
obedience
conformity decreases
When asch added a dissenter the pressure to conform dropped
- as showed majority isn’t unanimous, leading to more dissent
obedience decreases
When Milgram added a disobedient confederate the P feels more free to act from his own conscience, as the dissenter acts as a model of dissent for P to copy
-obedience to 450V went from 65% to 10%
Strength of social support as causing social resistance
•research support
- Gamson told P’s to produce evidence as a group to help an oil company attempt to damage someone’s reputation through a smear campaign
- found higher levels of resistance (88%) than Milgram because they were in groups
•Allan et al
- did an Asch style task with a dissenter
- many more refused to conform with a dissenter involved
Strength and weakness of locus of control as causing resistance to social influence
Strength
•Holland repeated Milgram’s study but measured whether these p’s were internal or external
-found that internals showed greater resistance to authority (increase validity)
WEAKNESS
•Twenge et al
-analysed data from LOC studies over 40 years
-Data showed that over time people more resistant to obedience but also more external
-challenges LOC which suggests that people would be less obedient and internals
Define minority influence
a small proportion of larger group or society persuade others to adopt their beliefs or behaviours, leads to internalisation of their private and public attitudes
As more people convert the snowball effect occurs
define the snowball effect
over time more people become converted to minority position
more this happens, the higher rate of conversion (snowball effect)
minority view eventually becomes the internalised majority view and social change occurs
define the idea of deeper processing
people pay more attention to views that are new or they don’t currently agree with, and then think more deeply about the view
(especially if committed, consistent and flexible)
3 processes that make minority influence more effective
•Consistency-stick with their argument and beliefs
(synchronic- all people say same thing)
(diachronic- saying the same thing for a while now)
-consistency draws attention to belief and makes people rethink own views
•Flexibility- prepare to adapt POV
-relentless consistency may be counter productive as may be seen as rigid/dogmatic and off putting — reducing minority influence
strike a balance between consistency and flexibility
•Commitment- demonstrates dedication to beliefs
- sometimes dangerous activities done to draw attention
- risk or self sacrifice shows greater dedication
- causes more attention to be payed to them, if minority puts themselves at risk (augmentation principle)
Nemeth study
- created a mock jury and one confederate who were deciding on a compensation amount for a skier
- confederate started very low
- when he refused to change MI was very low
- when he compromised towards the majority they were more likely to compromise too
Moscivi study
- Split P’s into groups of 6 (2 confederates 4 P’s) and told them to identify the colour of 36 blue coloured slides that varied in intensity, on a board
- one group had consistent confederates (always say green)
- one group had inconsistent confederates (said blue 12 times, green 24)
- They had to identify the colour of the blue slide
Findings of moscivi study
- When green was said every time the MI was 8.42%
- When blue was said 1/3 of time and green 2/3 the MI dropped to 1%
Strengths of minority influence
•Moscivi Research
-supports consistency as a factor increasing minority influence
•Nemeth Research
-supports the fact that flexibility has a positive impact on minority influence
Weaknesses of minority influence
•Artificial tasks used
(Moscivi’s and Asch’s)
-no real life impact and so doesn’t reflect real world tasks (poor external validity)
•low power of minority influence
Moscivi’s figure for agreement with consistent majority was only 8%
-MI is rare and not a useful concept
NOT IN ADVANCED INFO
Stages of how minority influence creates social change
with example
- Drawing attention
-social proof shown of a problem through drawing attention
++e.g. civil rights marches - Consistency
-maintain views over time
++e.g. millions of people marching for the same message - Deeper processing
- activism leads to people thinking more deeply about the view
e. g. people realised the discrimination - Augmentation principle
- extreme actions with personal risk reinforces the message
- e.g. freedom riders being beaten - Snowball effect
- as more people backed the minority, it cussed even more people to start backing it
- e.g. MLK got the attention of government and lots of people started backing it - Social cryptomnesia
- people have a memory of change but not how it came about
Other data .. & Conclusions of Milgram’s experiment
• he asked psychology students to predict P’s behaviour - estimated 3% would go to 450V • all Ps were debriefed, assured their behaviour was normal and sent a follow up questionnaire • Milgram suspected there were certain factors in the situation that encouraged obedience , he conducted further studies to investigate them
