Section 1 : Social Influence - Obedience To Authority Flashcards
What is obedience
A type of social influence
Acting in response to a direct order, usually from an authority figure
Who studied obedience
Milgram
Milgram Procedure
Laboratory experiments
40 American male participants
draw lots - determine teacher or learner
confederate always learner
experimenter wore a grey lab coat
They watched them get strapped to the chair and shock generator
word pairs ober intercom, if wrong delivered increasing eletric shock
300V - learner pounded on the wall and gave no further responses.
participants hesitated experimenter used standardised prods eg the experiment requires you continue
shocks increased in 15V intervals up to 450V
Milgram Debrief
It included an interview, questionnaires and reunited the learner (confederate) with the participant
Milgram Findings
-65% Participants administered 450V
-None stopped before administering 300V
-Most participants showed signs of stress e.g. sweating, groaning and trembling, three had seizures
Milgram Conclusions
Ordinary people will obey orders from an authorative figure to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience
Milgram Weakness
Low Internal Validity
Orne and Holland argued participants may have guessed shocks were fake
Study may not have been testing obedience
Perry listened to recordings, concluded 50% pts believed shows were real
participants may have been displaying demand characteristics
Milgram Strength
Research Support
Sheridan and King, participants gave shock to puppy, given orders by experimenter
-54% men and 100% women gave ‘fatal’ shock
-Supports behaviour in Milgram’s, when these participants behave obediently when believed shocks were real
Milgram Strength
Support from Other Studies
Hoflings (1966) experiment USA, 22 night nurses, telephones by unknown doctor (confederate) told to give an overdose of medication, 21 nurses obeyed, this shows obedience in a real life setting
95%
Milgram Strength
Support from Other Studies
Burger 2009 - variation of study max 150 V, was more ethical, found similar levels of obedience, 46 years later, temporal validity
Milgram Strength
Support from Other Studies
Beauvois, game show, participants paid to give fake electric shock to actor, 80% delivered shock
Identical results to Milgram’s study about obedience to authority
Milgram Alternative Explanation
Social Identity Theory
Explains Obedience:
People identify themselves with social groups
We make ourselves similar with these groups and the differences between our group and others
Participants continues as they identified with the experimenter and scientific community
Prods were effective
Milgram Weakness
SIT - empirical support (evidence through real world support)
conclusions abt blind obedience may not be justified
Haslam et al, participants obeyed when experimenter gave first 3 verbal prods “The experiment requires you continue”
When fourth prod given, disobeyed “You have no choice you must go on”
Social Identity theory - participants obeyed when they identified with aims of the research
When obeying blindly to authoritative figure, they refused
-SIT provides more valid interpretation of results
SIT
Alternative Explanation for obedience
Weakness
- underestimates influence of authority, shifts focus to group identity
-SIT does not account eg for situational pressures
Milgram Weakness
Ethical Issues
Participants were deceived
Thought allocations of teacher and learner was random
Thought shocks were real
Dealt with via debrief
Baumrind, argued deception can have serious consequences
Milgram Weakness
Ethical Issues
Advantages and disadvantages
Participants were deceived
Thought allocations of teacher and learner was random
Thought shocks were real
Dealt with via debrief
Baumrind, argued deception can have serious consequences
positives:
-participants were debriefed after experiment (84% said they pleased in taking part)
-at the time of experiment there weren’t any formal ethical guidelines meaning technically milgram didn’t break any
did milgram’s experiment hold ecological validity
Milgram’s participants did a task that they were unlikely to encounter in real life, meaning the study lacks ecological validity. But, it was a lab experiment meaning there was good control of variables so it is possible to establish cause and effect
what situational factors might’ve affected obedience
presence of allies
proximity of victim
proximity of authority
location of experiment
did the presence of allies affect obedience - how did milgram show this
yes - having allies makes it easier to resist orders. when there were 3 teachers (1 participant and 2 confederates, the real participant was less likely to obey if the two others refused to obey
Milgram Proximity
original - 65%
proximity V - Obedience dropped to 40% with the learner in the same room
touch v - 30% when the participant had to put the learners hand on the shock plate.
Proximity of authority - experimenter gave instructions via telephone, obedience 20.5%
Proximity made learners suffering harder to ignore
reduced proximity, psychologically distance from consequences of actions, physically separated from learner, teacher less aware of harm
Milgram Location
Run down office building, seemed less legitimate
obedience dropped to 48%
uni - setting was legitimate, trusted prestegious
Milgram Uniform
Experimenter called away
role taken by member of public, in ordinary clothes
obedinece fell to 20%
uniform - symbol of legitimate authority recognised by society, without uniform, lower in hierachy, less deserved of obedience
Milgram Situational Variables
Strength
Research support
Bickman
field experiment in New York,three confederates dressed in suit, milkmans outfit, security guards uniform, confederates asked the public to perform tasks eg pick up litter
Twice as likely to obey security guard than the one in jacket and tie
Conclude - situational variables eg uniform have effect on obedience
Milgram Situational Variables
Strength
Cross-cultural replications
Meeus and Raaijimakers
more realistic research, Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to confederate in job interview
90% of participants obeyed, proximity results replicated - when authoritative figure not present, obedience decreased
results generalisable across cultures and genders
Milgram Situational Variables
Weakness
Lacks Generalisability cultures
Smith and Bond
Most studies took place in western cultures
two replications in diff cultures in Jordan and India, Milgram’s findings may not generalise to everywhere
lacks generalizability
Milgram Situational Variables
Weakness
Low Internal Validity
Low internal validity
Orne and Holland argued participants may have thought procedure was fake
also more likely in variations due to extra manipulation of the variables eg when experimenter replaced with member of the public
unclear if findings due to obedience or demand characteristics (play acting)
Milgram
Situational Variables
ISSUE
Milgrams research findings support a situational explanation for obedience
BUT
Mandel - argued this gives an excuse for evil behaviour
eg Holocaust, offensive to survivors, suggests Nazis simply obeyed orders
Milgram also ignores role of dispositional factors eg personality - implies Nazis had an excuse, blame others, victims of situational factors
What theory made by Milgram explains obedience
Milgram’s agency theory
Agentic State - When someone acts as someone’s agent, takes no personal responsibility for their actions
Autonomous state - behaves according to own principles, feels responsibility for actions
Agentic shift - shift from autonomous to agentic, occurs when we percieve an authorative figure, due to position in social hierachy
Binding factors - allow person to reduce moral strain, eg shift responsibility to victim, deny damage done to victim
What is an Agentic state
When someone acts as someone’s agent, rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions
When is someone said to be in the Agentic state
When people behave on the behalf of an external authority (do as they are told)
What is the opposite of behaving on the behalf of an external authority
The opposite is behaving autonomously
autonomous - acting independently
What does autonomous mean
Not following orders
What did Milgram’s agency theory state
Stated that when we feel we’re acting out the wishes of another person (being their agent), we feel less responsible for our actions
Where was the effect of Milgram’s agency theory seen in his research
When some participants were concerned for the welfare of the learner and asked who would take responsibility is the learner was harmed. When the experimenter (authority) took responsibility, often the participant would continue
What was the Agentic state encouraged by
The set up of the experiment. The participants voluntarily entered a social contract with the experimenter to take part and follow the procedure of the study
What is the Agentic shift
When people can start off acting in an autonomous way (thinking for themselves) by then become obedient
How did Milgram’s participants undergo an Agentic shift
Binding Factor
When participants arrived for the experiment they were in an autonomous state but as soon as they started following orders they underwent an agentic shift and entered and agentic state
Aspects of a situation - reduce moral strain
Milgram’s agency theory
Strength
Agentic shift has research support
most participants asked experimenter who was respinsible if learner was harmed
experimenter -I am respinsible
participants proceeded
acted more easily as an agent, not presonally responsible
Milgram’s agency theory
Weakness
Agentic shift does not explain research findings
Rank and Jacobson, nurses disobeyed doctors, abt overdosing drug
doctor, figure of authority, nurses remained autonomous, did not make shift, true of some Milgrams pts
Agentic shift only explains obedience in some situations
Milgram’s agency theory
Weakness
Obedience alibi revisited
Men of Battalion 101, didnt have direct orders to shoot civilinas
perfomed massacre
behaved autonomously
agentic shift not required for destructive behaviour
What were the binding factors that Milgram claimed that might’ve kept his participants in the Agentic state
-Reluctance to disrupt the experiment
-Pressure of the surroundings
-The insistences of the authority figure
What was meant by the binding factor reluctance to disrupt the experiment
Participants had already been paid so many have felt obliged to continue
What was meant by the binding factor of pressure of the surroundings
The experiment took place in a prestigious university.
This made the experimenter seem like a legitimate figure of authority
What was meant by the factor insistence of the authority figure
If participants hesitated they were told that they had to continue the experiment
What is Milgram’s agency theory supported by
His results
What did Milgram believe before his studies
He believed people were autonomous and could choose to resist authority
Why might some people resist pressure to obey authority
Could be because of the situation or because of individual differences
Explanation for obedience
Legitimacy of authority
obey people higher up in social hierachy - people hold authority over us eg parents, teacher
authorities have legitimacy via societys rules - agreed by society, accept authority figures have social power over others, run society smoothly
give control to authroity figures - power to punish us, learn to accept authority during childhood
leaders use legitimate powers for destructive purposes - Hitler behave in cruel way
What can obedience depend on
Legitimacy of authority
What are legitimate authorities given
The right to tell us what to do - meaning we are more likely to obey them
Where do legitimate authorities come from
Having a defined social role which people respect (police officers and parents) usually because it implies knowledge or comes with from legal power
Legitimacy of authority
Strength
Can explain cultural differences
Research shows, contries levels of obedience to authority vary
Kilham and Mann - 16% Australian women obey
Mantell - 85% Germans obeyed
authority seen as more legitimate in some cultures, due to upbringing
Legitimacy of authority
Weakness
Cant explain disobedience
People may disobey despite accepting legitimacy of hierachial authority
Rank and Jacobson - nurses disobedient and so were some of Milgrams participants
Innate tendencies to disobedience may be more important that obedience to authority
Legitimacy of authority
Weakness
Does not explain disobedience to authority
Research shows, some disobey legitimate authroity
Rank and Jacobson - nurses disobeyed doctors, higher in herachy
Also milgram, participant recognised experimenters scientific authority, some disobeyed
Some people more likely to obey eg authoritarian personality (Adorno)
Kelman and Hamilton - Soldiers obeyed officer, more power to punish
Evidence real world situations, legitimate authorty can lead to destructive obedience
What type of personality can explain obedience
Authoritarian
What theory is a dispositional explanation of obedience
Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality
Authoratarian Personality
High Obedience is pathological - a psychological disorder,
Extreme Respect for Authroity and comtempt for inferiors - Authoritarian personalities, respect authority, comtempt for those inferior in social status
Originates in childhood, strict parenting - high standards, severe criticism, conditional love
Hostility displaced on those socially inferior - resentment cant be expressed to parents so is displaced onto those percieved as socially inferior, scapegoating - psychodnamic explanation
What did Adorno et al (1950) propose
Over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly because they learn strict obedience to their parents
What did Adorno say over strict parenting results in
Prejudice - strict parenting makes child feel constrained, this induces aggression. But if the child is afraid they’ll be disciplined if they express aggression towards their parents so instead they are hostile to people they see as weak or inferior - usually minority groups
What collection of traits to people who has over-strict parent have according to Adorno et al
Aggression to people of perceived lower status
Blind obedience
Conformist
Rigid moral standards
Adorno et al Aim
Aimed to investigate if personality leads to unkind and evil behaviour as an explanation for obedience
Aim to see if there is a link between obedience and personality
Adorno et al procedure
2000 middle class, white Americans
Participants had unconscious attitudes to ethnic groups
Variables:
-Prejudice/F-scale score
-Obedience
F-scale quiz, measuring scale, measure Authoritarian personality, rated 1 to 6
All participants completed the F-scale quiz
Eg - obedience and respect for authority are the most important virtues for children to learn
Adorno et al findings
Those who scored high on F-scale - are conscious of their status and have extreme respect for those of a higher stats
Authoritarian people have a certain cognitive style, believe there are distinct categories of people, black and white thinking
Identified with ‘strong’ people and contemptuous of the ‘weak’
Fixed and distinct stereotypes
Adorno et al conclusions
Conclude The authoritarian personality explains why some people require little pressure to obey
Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice
What scale measures how strongly people express authoritarian traits
F-Scale
What does the f in f-scale stand for
Fascism
What did Elms and Milgram (1966) find about participants who scored higher on the F-Scale
They found that people with high F-scale scores had been willing to administer bigger shocks in Milgram’s experiment
What factors cause people to be obedient
Strict upbringing
Having authoritarian traits
Education
Etc.
What did Milgram find that had a bigger effect on obedience than Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory
Milgram found that situational factors like proximity and location had a bigger effect on obedience
Strength
Research Support
Authoratarians are obedient
Elms and Milgram - interviewed 20, obedient pts from study
scored higher on F scale than disobedient pts
obedience people may share characteristics of those with an Authoratarian personality
HOWEVER
F scale showed obedient pts has characteristics unusual for authoratarians eg didn’t experience high levels of punishment in childhood
authoritarianism is not directly linked to obedinece
Weakness
Auhoratariansim can’t explain whole countires behaviour
Germans were obedient and anti-semitic
Can’t all have same personality
Unlikely German population all Authoratarian personality
more likely they identified with Nazi state
Social Identity theory - better explanation
Weakness
F-scale politically biased
Christie and Jahoda F scale aime to measure tendency towards extreme right wing ideology
but left and right wing authoratarianism both emphasis complete obedience to authority
Weakness
Flawed evidence F-scale
Greenstein - people who tend to agree to statements are scored as authoratarian
explainations for obedience based on teh F-scale may not be valid
What does Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory not explain
Doesn’t explain how whole societies can become obedient - not everybody has this personality type
dispositional explanation
any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importanve of the individual’s personality ie their disposition such explanations are often contrasted with situational explanations
