Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Psychology - Social influence > Psychology - Social Influence - Obedience > Flashcards

Psychology - Social Influence - Obedience Flashcards

1
Q

Obedience

A

A form of social influence where an individual follows a direct order from a figure of authority who has the power to punish the individual.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

What was the aim of the Milgram (1963) study?

A

To investigate the level of obedience participants would show when an authority figure tells them to administer electric shocks to another human being and to test the ā€˜Germans are differentā€™ hypothesis

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

What participants did Milgram (1963) use?

A

Used volunteer sampling method with 40 male participants that were paid $4/hour. They were then paired with a learner, Mr Wallace (confederate), and told that they were the teacher.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

What was the method of the Milgram (1963) study?

A

Pps witnessed the learner get taken to a room and having electrodes attached to them. The teacher and researcher would be in a room with an electric shock generator and switches. If the learner got a question wrong they would have to be shocked and the voltage would increase each time. they were given prods to continue.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What was the range of voltages of electric shocks given in Milgramā€™s (1963) study?

A

ranged from 15 - 450 volts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What were the 4 Prods given to participants to continue Milgramā€™s study?

A
  • Please continue/ Please go on - The experiment requires that you continue - It is absolutely essential that you continue - You have no other choice, you must go on
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What had Milgram predicted before the study?

A

That 2% would shock to the highest level and most would quit early on

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

What had the 14 psychology students that Milgram asked to predict the participants behaviour say?

A

No more than 3% would continue to 450 volts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

To which voltage did all participants shock up to in Milgrams study?

A

300 volts

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

How many pps in Milgrams study shocked up to 450 volts?

A

0.65

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

What was the result of the Milgram (1963) study?

A

All participants shocked up to 300 volts and 65% shock up to 450 volts. 5 refused to continue after 300 and 2 stopped at 330. 14 participants defied the experimenter and 26 obeyed. 35% stopped before 450 volts.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

How were participants acting during Milgramā€™s (1963) study?

A

Showed signs of nervousness and tension (sweating, trembling, stuttering)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

How many participants in Milgramā€™s (1963) study showed common signs of tension through laughing fits?

A

14/40

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

How many participants in Milgramā€™s (1963) study had full-blown uncontrollable seizures?

A

3

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

What was the conclusion of the Milgram (1963) study?

A

the ā€˜Germans are differentā€™ hypothesis was not supported. people obey authority even if their actions may be detrimental

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

What were the consequences of the Milgram (1963) study?

A
  • Some subjects suffered extreme nervous tension and nervous laughter - Participants were obviously physically sweating and continually asking for reassurance - One participant had an epileptic fit
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

What were the strengths of Milgramā€™s research?

A

Good external validity - Show relationship between authority figure and participants - Hofling et al (1966) on obedient nurses supports this - Supporting replication, Le Jeu De La Mort, The game of death in 2010

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

What was the procedure of Hofling et al (1966)?

A

22 nurses in different hospital received calls from a confed (Dr Smith of the Psychiatric Department) to give a patient 20mg of a made up drug and that the doctor would sign the form in 10 mins (max dose was 10mg)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

What was the result of Hofling et al (1966)?

A

In questionnaires most nurses said they would not obey such an order, in reality 21/22 nurses that recieved a call complied without hesitation and 11 later said they didnā€™t notice the dosage discrepancy

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
20
Q

What did Rank and Jacobson (1977) query about Hofling et al (1966) study?

A

The fact that the nurses has no knowledge of the drug involved and that they had no opportunity to seek advice from anyone of equal or higher status

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
21
Q

what was the procedure of Rank and Jacobson (1977)?

A

Replicated Hoflingā€™s experiment but the instruction was to administer valium at 3 times the recommended level. The telephoned instruction came from a real known doctor on the hospital staff and nurses could consult

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
22
Q

what were the results of Rank and Jacobson (1977)?

A

2/18 abided

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
23
Q

Le Jeu De La Mort, The Game of death (2010)

A

Documentary about reality TV and replicates Milgrams study. The participants believed they were on a reality tv show called La Zone Xtreme and were paid to give fake shocks when ordered by the presenter.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
24
Q

What were the results of Le Jeu De La Mort, The Game of death (2010)?

A

80% of participants gave the max of 460 volts to a man and displayed similar behaviour to Milgramā€™s participants

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
25
Q

What were the weaknesses of Milgramā€™s research?

A

Low internal validity, Ethical issues

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
26
Q

How is there low internal validity in Milgramā€™s study?

A

demand characteristics, Orne and Holland (1968), Perry (2013)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
27
Q

What did Orne and Holland (1968) argue about the internal validity of Milgramā€™s study?

A

Participants behaved the way they did because they didnā€™t really believe in the set up and guessed that they were not really giving electric shocks to the learner so the study isnā€™t measuring what it intends to

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
28
Q

What did Perry (2013) find about Orne and Hollands argument about the low internal validity of milgrams study?

A

She listened to tapes of Milgrams participants and many of them expressed doubts on whether the shocks were real or not.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
29
Q

How is there ethical issues with Milgramā€™s (1963) study?

A

deception, not fully informed, difficult to withdraw, long term harm

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
30
Q

How did Baumrind criticise the ethics of Milgrams study?

A

Milgram made the participants believe the roles were random but the participant was always the teacher. The fact that milgram made his participants believe the shocks were real. He disliked deception

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
31
Q

What are the three situational variables of obedience?

A

Proximity, Location, Uniform

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
32
Q

Proximity

A

How physically close the authority figure is to the participant/ how physically close the participant is to the victim and what effect this has on obedience.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
33
Q

What effect did the proximity of remote instructions have on obedience?

A

In remote instruction obedience dropped to 20.5

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
34
Q

What effect did the proximity of being in touch have on obedience?

A

In touch proximity obedience dropped to 30%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
35
Q

What effect did the proximity of being in the same room have on Obedience?

A

In the same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
36
Q

How is the effect of Location on obedience shown by Milgram?

A

Changed location to a run down building instead of Yale University and obedience fell to 47.5%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
37
Q

How is the effect of Uniform on obedience shown by Milgram?

A

When the uniform was changed from a grey lab coat to a confederate in every day clothes, obedience dropped to 20%

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
38
Q

What are the strengths of Milgramā€™s variations?

A

Research support, Cross Cultural replications, Control of variables

39
Q

What is the cross cultural replications of milgramā€™s variations?

A

Miranda et al (1981) found obedience rates in Spanish students were 90%

40
Q

What is an issue with the cross cultural replications of milgramā€™s variations?

A

Smith and Bond (1998) pointed out that Milgramā€™s study was replicated in developed societies similar to the US such as Spain and Australia so it may not be able to be generalised across all countries

41
Q

What is the research support of milgramā€™s variations?

A

Bickman (1974)

42
Q

Bickman (1974) - Procedure

A

Three male researchers gave orders to 153 randomly selected pedestrians in NYC. Researchers dressed in one of three ways: a suit, milkmanā€™s uniform or guards uniform. Gave various orders

43
Q

What orders were given in Bickmanā€™s (1974) study?

A

Pointing to a bag on the street and saying ā€˜pick this bag up for meā€™. Nodding in the direction of a confed and saying ā€˜this fellow is over parked at the meter but doesnā€™t have any change give him a dimeā€™

44
Q

What were the results of Bickmanā€™s (1974) study?

A

Pps most likely to obey the researcher dressed as a guard (80%) than the milkman or civilian (40%)

45
Q

How was there good control of variables in Milgramā€™s Variations?

A

Only altered one variable but kept the rest constant and replicated it on 1000 pps

46
Q

What are the weaknesses of Milgramā€™s variations?

A

Lack of internal validity, Obedience alibi

47
Q

How is there a lack of internal validity in Milgramā€™s variations?

A
  • Orne and Holland criticised the original study on the grounds that the pps had worked out that the whole procedure was a set up (maybe through the 4 prompts)
48
Q

What happened when Milgram replaced the experimenter in the variations research with a member of the public?

A

Obedience went down to 20%

49
Q

What is the obedience alibi in Milgramā€™s variation studies?

A

David Mandel (1998) argues that the situational variables make them an excuse for evil behaviour and sees these variables as feeble excuses.

50
Q

David Mandel (1998)

A

argues that the situational variables make them an excuse for evil behaviour and sees these variables as feeble excuses

51
Q

What are the explanations for obedience?

A

The agentic state, Legitimacy of authority, (Authoritarian personality)

52
Q

What is an agent?

A

Someone who acts for or in place of another

53
Q

Agentic state

A

A state in which a person carries out orders with little personal responsibility

54
Q

What is the basis of the Agentic State Theory?

A

Explains the importance of responsibility. people operate in two ways in social situations. As independent individuals or in an agentic state.

55
Q

How does Milgram believes people act as independent individuals? (AST)

A

People are aware of the consequences of their actions and make decisions knowing they will be held accountable for their actions. Automatic state.

56
Q

What is the automatic state as part of the agentic state theory?

A

How people act as independent individuals (aware of consequences)

57
Q

How does Milgram believe people act when in an agentic state?

A

They see themselves as under the authority of another, not responsible for the actions they take. They often carry out orders without question

58
Q

Agentic shift

A

The change from an autonomous state to an agentic state.

59
Q

When does Milgram suggest an agentic shift occurs?

A

When a person perceives someone else as a figure of authority. This other person has greater power because of their position in a social hierarchy.

60
Q

Why does Milgram believe individuals remain in the agentic state?

A

Due to binding factors

61
Q

Binding factors

A

Aspects of the situation that allow a person to minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce moral strain. They shift responsibility to the victim.

62
Q

How do binding factors help the individuals?

A

Helps the person feel calm and in control because they feel that what they are doing is not their fault and that they are merely agents following orders

63
Q

How did Milgram apply the agentic state theory to his own study?

A

Argued that participants viewed themselves as subordinates of the experimenter not responsible for their own actions

64
Q

How did Milgramā€™s study support his application of the AST to his study?

A

When the participants were debriefed after the original electric shock experiment many reported that they knew it was wrong to deliver dangerous electric shock but they felt expected to obey

65
Q

What are the strengths of Agentic state explanation for obedience?

A
  • Blass and Schmitt (2001) research support
66
Q

Blass and Schmitt (2001)

A

showed Milgrams study and asked who was responsible for the harm and they blamed the experimenter and not the participant and explained that he was at the top of the social hierarchy so participants were agents

67
Q

What are the weaknesses of Agentic state explanation for obedience?

A
  • doesnā€™t explain why some people didnā€™t obey in Milgramā€™s and Hoflingā€™s study - Research refuted the idea that Naziā€™s behaviour can be explained by the agentic state
68
Q

How did research evidence refute the idea that the Naziā€™s behaviour can be explained by the AST as a weakness of AST explaining obedience?

A

Mandel (1998)ā€™s research of the German Reserve Police Battalion

69
Q

Mandel (1998) research of the German reserve police battalion

A

men obeyed orders to shoot civilians in Poland (despite not even being given direct orders) and they still chose to do it

70
Q

Legitimate Authority

A

A recognised and official authority in society so some people are granted the power to punish others, Uniforms can symbolise this.

71
Q

What are the strengths of legitimate authority explanation for obedience?

A
  • Legitimate authority figures are important - Explains how obedience leads to real life war crimes (Kerman and Hamilton (1989), My Lai Massacre) - Explains cultural differences (Kilham and Mann (1974))
72
Q

Why are legitimate authority figures important for society?

A

Needed in a well-functioning ordered society thus a strength of the explanation

73
Q

How does the legitimate authority explanation explain how obedience leads to real life war crimes?

A

Kelman and Hamilton (1989)ā€™s argument that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of the power of the hierarchy of the US army

74
Q

Kelman and Hamilton (1989)

A

In the My Lai Massacre 504 civilians were killed, women raped, buildings blown up, and animals killed. Only 1 soldier was found guilty by the same defence as the Naziā€™s showing legitimate authority explanation works in real life.

75
Q

What are the weaknesses of legitimate authority explanation for obedience?

A
  • Not all legitimate authority figures should be obeyed
76
Q

What example shows that should we not obey all legitimate authority figures?

A

Harold Shipman a well known doctor who killed over 200 patients without suspicion

77
Q

What is a dispositional explanation for obedience?

A

authoritarian personality

78
Q

Who proposed a dispositional explanation of obedience?

A

Adorno (1950)

79
Q

Adorno et al (1950)

A

An individuals personality determines their behaviour not situational influences

80
Q

Authoritarian personality

A

More likely to obey authority figures and demonstrate particular personality traits.

81
Q

How are authoritarian personalities developed?

A

due to receiving harsh discipline from parents during their upbringing such as physical punishment so they become submissive to all authority figures

82
Q

Authoritarian personality traits

A
  • servile towards people of higher status - hostile towards people of lower status - preoccupied with power - inflexible in beliefs and values - conformist and conventional - categorise people as us or them - dogmatic
83
Q

What was developed to measure authoritarian personalities?

A

F (Fascism) scale

84
Q

Who did Adorno test with the F Scale?

A

2000 middle class white americans

85
Q

Strengths of the authoritarian personality explanation for obedience

A

Research support

86
Q

What is the research support for authoritarian personality?

A

Elms and Milgram (1966), Miller (1975) and Altemeyer (1981)

87
Q

Elms and Milgram (1966)

A

Follow up study to Milligrams with 20/20 obedient and disobedient to each complete the MMPI scale and then open questions about parental relationships.

88
Q

What is the research support for the authoritarian personality explanation for obedience

A

Elms and Milgram (1966), Miller (1975), Altemeyer (1981)

89
Q

Elms and Milgram (1966)

A

The F Scale (and therefore ā€˜authoritarian personalityā€™) predicted who would obey an unjust authority figure better than an alternative personality questionnaire (the MMPI). Obedient people scored high on the F Scale and were less close to their father

90
Q

Miller (1975)

A

found people who scored high on the Fscale were more likely to obey even if it meant harming themselves

91
Q

Weaknesses of authoritarian personality explanation for obedience

A

Limited explanation, Methodological problems

92
Q

How is there limited explanation into the authoritarian personality explanation for obedience?

A
  • doesnā€™t explain why majority of Germany are obedient but not so have authoritarian personality - Social identity theory is more relevant
93
Q

How is there methodological problems into the authoritarian personality explanation for obedience?

A
  • Questions worded in the same direction so easy to get high - interviewer bias

Psychology - Social influence (4 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2025 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions