Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

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


See full index

AQA A-Level Psychologyy > Section 1 : Social Influence - Obedience To Authority > Flashcards

Section 1 : Social Influence - Obedience To Authority Flashcards

1
Q

What is obedience

A

A type of social influence

Acting in response to a direct order, usually from an authority figure

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

Who studied obedience

A

Milgram

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

Milgram Procedure

A

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

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

Milgram Debrief

A

It included an interview, questionnaires and reunited the learner (confederate) with the participant

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

Milgram Findings

A

-65% Participants administered 450V
-None stopped before administering 300V
-Most participants showed signs of stress e.g. sweating, groaning and trembling, three had seizures

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

Milgram Conclusions

A

Ordinary people will obey orders from an authorative figure to hurt someone else, even if it means acting against their conscience

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Milgram Weakness
Low Internal Validity

A

Orne and Holland argued participants may have guessed shocks were fake
Study may not have been testing obedience, two thirds were disobedient, participants may have been displaying demand characteristics

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

Milgram Strength
Research Support

A

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

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

Milgram Strength
Support from Other Studies

A

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%

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

Milgram Strength
Support from Other Studies

A

Burger 2009 - variation of study max 150 V, was more ethical, found similar levels of obedience, 46 years later, temporal validity

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

Milgram Strength
Support from Other Studies

A

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

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

Milgram Alternative Explanation
Social Identity Theory

A

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

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

Milgram Weakness
SIT - empirical support (evidence through real world support)

A

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

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

SIT
Alternative Explanation for obedience
Weakness

A
  • underestimates influence of authority, shifts focus to group identity
    -SIT does not account eg for situational pressures
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Milgram Weakness
Ethical Issues

A

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

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

Milgram Weakness
Ethical Issues

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

did milgram’s experiment hold ecological validity

A

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

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

what situational factors might’ve affected obedience

A

presence of allies
proximity of victim
proximity of authority
location of experiment

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

did the presence of allies affect obedience - how did milgram show this

A

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

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

Milgram Proximity

A

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

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

Milgram Location

A

Run down office building, seemed less legitimate

obedience dropped to 48%

uni - setting was legitimate, trusted prestegious

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

Milgram Uniform

A

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

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

Milgram Situational Variables
Strength
Research support

A

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

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

Milgram Situational Variables
Strength
Cross-cultural replications

A

Meeus and Raaijimakers

more realistic research, 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

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

Milgram Situational Variables
Weakness
Lacks Generalisability

A

Smith and Bond

two replications in Jordan and India, Milgram’s findings may not generalise to everywhere

lacks generalizability

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

Milgram Situational Variables
Weakness
Low Internal Validity

A

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)

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

What theory made by Milgram explains obedience

A

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

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

What is an Agentic state

A

When someone acts as someone’s agent, rather than taking personal responsibility for their actions

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

When is someone said to be in the Agentic state

A

When people behave on the behalf of an external authority (do as they are told)

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

What is the opposite of behaving on the behalf of an external authority

A

The opposite is behaving autonomously

autonomous - acting independently

31
Q

What does autonomous mean

A

Not following orders

32
Q

What did Milgram’s agency theory state

A

Stated that when we feel we’re acting out the wishes of another person (being their agent), we feel less responsible for our actions

33
Q

Where was the effect of Milgram’s agency theory seen in his research

A

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

34
Q

What was the Agentic state encouraged by

A

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

35
Q

What is the Agentic shift

A

When people can start off acting in an autonomous way (thinking for themselves) by then become obedient

36
Q

How did Milgram’s participants undergo an Agentic shift

Binding Factor

A

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

37
Q

Milgram’s agency theory
Strength
Agentic shift has research support

A

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

38
Q

Milgram’s agency theory
Weakness
Agentic shift does not explain research findings

A

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

39
Q

Milgram’s agency theory
Weakness
Obedience alibi revisited

A

Men of Battalion 101, didnt have direct orders to shoot civilinas

perfomed massacre
behaved autonomously

agentic shift not required for destructive behaviour

40
Q

What were the binding factors that Milgram claimed that might’ve kept his participants in the Agentic state

A

-Reluctance to disrupt the experiment
-Pressure of the surroundings
-The insistences of the authority figure

41
Q

What was meant by the binding factor reluctance to disrupt the experiment

A

Participants had already been paid so many have felt obliged to continue

42
Q

What was meant by the binding factor of pressure of the surroundings

A

The experiment took place in a prestigious university.

This made the experimenter seem like a legitimate figure of authority

43
Q

What was meant by the factor insistence of the authority figure

A

If participants hesitated they were told that they had to continue the experiment

44
Q

What is Milgram’s agency theory supported by

A

His results

45
Q

What did Milgram believe before his studies

A

He believed people were autonomous and could choose to resist authority

46
Q

Why might some people resist pressure to obey authority

A

Could be because of the situation or because of individual differences

47
Q

Explanation for obedience
Legitimacy of authority

A

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

48
Q

What can obedience depend on

A

Legitimacy of authority

49
Q

What are legitimate authorities given

A

The right to tell us what to do - meaning we are more likely to obey them

50
Q

Where do legitimate authorities come from

A

Having a defined social role which people respect (police officers and parents) usually because it implies knowledge or comes with from legal power

51
Q

Legitimacy of authority
Strength
Can explain cultural differences

A

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

52
Q

Legitimacy of authority
Weakness
Cant explain disobedience

A

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

53
Q

Legitimacy of authority
Strength
Real World Support

A

Research shows, some disobey legitimate authroity

Rank and Jacobson - nurses disobeyed doctors, higher in herachy

Kelman and Hamilton - Soldiers obeyed officer, more power to punish

Evidence real world situations, legitimate authorty can lead to destructive obedience

54
Q

What type of personality can explain obedience

A

Authoritarian

55
Q

What theory is a dispositional explanation of obedience

A

Adorno’s theory of the authoritarian personality

56
Q

Authoratarian Personality

A

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

57
Q

What did Adorno et al (1950) propose

A

Over-strict parenting results in a child being socialised to obey authority unquestioningly because they learn strict obedience to their parents

58
Q

What did Adorno say over strict parenting results in

A

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

59
Q

What collection of traits to people who has over-strict parent have according to Adorno et al

A

Aggression to people of perceived lower status
Blind obedience
Conformist
Rigid moral standards

60
Q

Adorno et al Aim

A

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

61
Q

Adorno et al procedure

A

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

62
Q

Adorno et al findings

A

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

63
Q

Adorno et al conclusions

A

Conclude The authoritarian personality explains why some people require little pressure to obey

Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice

64
Q

What scale measures how strongly people express authoritarian traits

A

F-Scale

65
Q

What does the f in f-scale stand for

A

Fascism

66
Q

What did Elms and Milgram (1966) find about participants who scored higher on the F-Scale

A

They found that people with high F-scale scores had been willing to administer bigger shocks in Milgram’s experiment

67
Q

What factors cause people to be obedient

A

Strict upbringing
Having authoritarian traits
Education
Etc.

68
Q

What did Milgram find that had a bigger effect on obedience than Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory

A

Milgram found that situational factors like proximity and location had a bigger effect on obedience

69
Q

Strength
Authoratarians are obedient

A

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

70
Q

Weakness

Auhoratariansim can’t explain whole countires behaviour

A

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

71
Q

Weakness

F-scale politically biased

A

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

72
Q

Weakness
Flawed evidence F-scale

A

Greenstein - people who tend to agree to statements are scored as authoratarian

explainations for obedience based on teh F-scale may not be valid

73
Q

What does Adorno’s authoritarian personality theory not explain

A

Doesn’t explain how whole societies can become obedient - not everybody has this personality type

AQA A-Level Psychologyy (34 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions