S1W10-Major

Question 1

Compliance

Answer 1

the process of doing what one is asked or required to do by regulation.

Question 2

Conformity

Answer 2

the convergence of one’s thoughts, feelings and behaviours with external standards

Question 3

Obedience

Answer 3

the process of doing as one is told by an authority figure.

Question 4

Autokinetic effect

Answer 4

visual illusion where a spot of light (projected onto a screen) in a dark room will appear to move, even though it stays still.

Question 5

Sherif (1935) method

Answer 5

Autokinetic effect

Participants were tested in threes.

With two people with similar estimates and one completely different.

Each person had to say aloud how much the light moved.

Question 6

Sherif (1935) results

Answer 6

Group converged to a common estimate.

Person whose estimate was different conformed with other two.

In ambiguous situations, a person will look to others for guidance

People will adapt to the group norm in the hope that they know better

Question 7

Informational influence

Answer 7

Dependence on others for information and to resolve ambiguity (can cause actual cognitive change).

Believe a group is better informed than them.

Question 8

Asch (1951) method

Answer 8

1 participant, 7 actors.

Say aloud which line was like the target.

Participant went last.

Actors wrong on 12 trials (critical trials).

Question 9

Asch (1951) results

Answer 9

33% conformed on the critical trials (average).

50% conformed on 6+ trials

5% conformed on all trials

75% conformed at least once

25% of never conformed

In the control group less than 1% gave wrong answer

Question 10

Normative influence

Answer 10

They want to fit in with the group.

Need for approval.

Question 11

Mori & Arai (2010) (glasses)

Answer 11

Criticised Asch for using confederates (may act unnaturally).

Instead used 3D glasses and overlay techniques to distort the lines.

Tested in groups of 4.

One person wore different glasses so saw differently.

Women generally conformed with the group norm but men did not.

The different results could have been due to cultural differences (in Japan).

Question 12

Hodges & Geyer (2006)

Answer 12

Asch’s subjects didn’t conform most of the time (%).

Shows people’s tendency to tell the truth even when others do not.

Show people’s concern for others and their views.

Asch’s subjects had demands placed on them:

o Truth (expressing own view accurately)

o Trust (taking seriously the value of others’ claims)

o Social solidarity (commitment to integrate views of self and others)

Question 13

Internal attribution

Answer 13

the outcome was caused by something about the person

Question 14

External attribution

Answer 14

the outcome was caused by something about the situation

Question 15

Milgram experiments (1963)

Answer 15

21 experiments total (740 participants)

Initial experiment: 100% of participants delivered the highest electrical shock (300V)

Classic experiment: 62.5% went to 450V shock level

Lower rates depending on condition – but always high.

Question 16

Implications of Milgram experiments

Answer 16

Highly unintuitive and unflattering.

Focused on the situation rather than the person.

Question 17

Milgram why did people obey?

Answer 17

Foot-in-the-door technique (gradual build-up of shocks)

Proximity of ‘learner’ to participant

Proximity of experimenter to participant

Group pressure

Legitimacy of authority

Participant agentic state

Question 18

Agentic state

Answer 18

Allow others to direct their actions, and then pass off the responsibility for the consequences to the person giving the orders.

Question 19

Sheridan & King (1972) - puppy

Answer 19

In Milgram – the closer the teacher was to the learner the lower obedience.

Milgram could be due to ‘poor acting’.

Same as Milgram but learner was a puppy and the shocks were genuine.

Puppy stood to right/left depending on light.

If the puppy got it wrong the participant had to shock.

20/26 went to maximum voltage despite being upset

The only six that refused were men.

Question 20

Reicher & Haslam (2011)

Answer 20

Explain Milgram through a social identity theory

Participants identify with either experimenter or learner, and act accordingly.

If there is no verbal response from the learner 100% shock maximum.

If the learner complains or sounds hurt the obedience reduces to 62.5%.

Different conditions = different results due to social identification with learner/experimenter.

Question 21

Russell (2010) - criticism of Milgram

Answer 21

Classic study was calculated to get positive results.

Introduction of learner’s feedback.

Careful choice of actors.

Carefully spaced increments on shock machine.

Question 22

Burger (2009) - replicating Milgram

Answer 22

Milgram unethical later on

If someone went past 150V they shocked max.

More ethical to test whether people get up to 150V

Most people did

Criticism:
•	Cultural changes
•	Heavy screening
•	Can't see the emotional side of it like Milgram (were they actually upset?)
•	Loss of power

Question 23

Milgram as persuasion not obedience

Answer 23

Most weren’t orders:
• “Please continue”

Only the last prompt was:
• “You have no choice”

Question 24

Stanford Prison Experiment (Zimbardio ,1971)

Answer 24

24 male students randomly assigned as ‘prisoners’ and ‘guards’

Day 2:

Prisoner rebellion & authoritarian backlash

Stripping prisoners of privileges and clothes

Denying use of toilet

Clean toilets with hands

Day 6:

Termination

One prisoner already left due to distress & paranoia

Question 25

Comparison of Milgran & Zimbardio

Answer 25

Milgram:

Under the right circumstances ordinary people do apalling things

Participants are reluctant

Zimbardio:

Guards applied creativity and enthusiasm to their roles

Less reluctant to be obedient and inflict harm

Only experimental manipulation was role assignment so difficult to know what factors were important in obedience.

Question 26

Three main factors of obedience

Answer 26

o Authority
o Group pressure
o Norms