Social Flashcards
Definition of Obedience
Compliance to the real or imagined demands of an authority figure
Outline Classic Original Study (Milgram-1963)
A- Investigate how far people would go in obeying an instruction if it involved harming another person
P- 40 male participants via a newspaper ad (volunteer sampling)
-ppts introduced to ‘fake’ ppts (confederate)
-Ppt always given ‘teacher’ role and confederate given learner
-Learner told to learn list of word pairs
-Teacher in a separate room with man in lab coat
-Both given test shock of 45v
-Teacher told to shock ppt when a wrong answer is given
-Shocks ranged from 15v to 450v
-Man wearing lab coat instructed teacher to continue shocking until the test was completed
F- All ppts shocked up to 300v
-65% of ppts delivered max 450v shock
C- Most will harm another if they are instructed by a legitimate authority figure
-Obedience to authority is ingrained in most people from young
A03 of Classic Original Study
S- High control levels
-Roles were all the same (ppt being teacher, experimenter, proximity, sample shock, location)
-Suggests that the ppt obeyed due to the experiment procedure, demonstrates a cause and effect relationship between authority figure and obedience.
-Results are accurate and reliable. You can change the variables and see how the results are affected.
S- Has real-world application
-Tarnow (2000) used Milgram’s study to make trainee pilots challenge their captain. This reduces up tp 20% of potential plane crashes.
-The findings can be applied to real world situations and save lives.
-Obedience to authority can negatively impact a workplace.
W- Low population validity
-40 males, white American, 20-50 years old
-Results can’t be generalised to women, other cultures and ages
W- Lacks ecological validity
-Not a task which would be completed in modern day society
-Unrealistic experiment
-Unique situation
-Therefore demand characteristics may show or people may change character as it’s artificial.
-Findings aren’t reliable as it’s not mundane realism
Milgram’s Variations and findings
-Telephone
-Tests proximity
-22.5% complied over phone
-Proximity affects obedience and this can be applied to real world situations
-Run down office block
-Tests legitimate location (Bridgeport)
-Cracked walls dim lighting
-48% complied
-Location affects obedience
-Ordinary Man
-Tests authority
-No science lab coat on
-20% complied
-Authoritative figures change how much people obey
AO3 of Milgram’s Variations
-Telephone
S- Evidence/studies found for replicated results
-Sedikikes and Jackson found in the NY Bronx zoo, further away the authority, less likely to obey
-Milgram’s findings on proximity’s effect on obedience applies to realistic situations
W-Mundane Realism
-Run down office block
S- Controlled experiment
W- Mundane Realism
-Normal man
S- Controlled experiment
W- Derived authority
-Ordinary man may’ve derived authority of some form by aligning himself with the researcher. Linking his suggestions with the researchers’ suggestions
-Obedience rate did decrease but it may’ve decreased even more if the person giving orders was completely unrelated to an authority figure
Ethical Issues of Milgram’s Original Study
-Deception
-He said it was a memory test and looking at learning in work with punishment
-Overcame this by debriefing the ppt after
-Protection of ppts
-Psychological distress caused, some suffered long-term
-Overcame this by showing ppts the confederate after to show the shocks weren’t real
-Right of withdrawal
-Ppts prodded on when they said they wanted to stop
-Overcame this by saying the study was on obedience so context is key
AO1 of Agency Theory
-Milgram believed we are pre-programmed to be obedient ( it is innate)
-Socialisiation happens at home and school through rewards and punishments.
-Taught at an early age that we must do things even if we don’t want to.
-Autonomous State - perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own behaviour so we feel guilt for what we do
-Agentic state - perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone else’s will; the authority figure commanding us is responsible for what we do so we feel not guilt.
-Moral Strain is when people are asked to do things they wouldn’t choose to and feel its immoral and unjust.
-Binding Factors are anything leading you to obey instructions from the authority figure
AO3 of Agency Theory
S- Milgram’s study supports it
-65% went up to 450v ad 100% went up to 300v
-Ppts did displace responsibility to the authority figure
S- Hofling et al (1966)
-21/22 nurses administered lethal overdose after being instructed
-Justified with seniority of doctors
W- Rank and Jacobsen (1977)
-Evidence that other factors impact obedience
-16/18 nurses refused to administer non-lethal overdose of Valium to patients when asked by physician
-Counter-supports agency theory by showing agentic shift isn’t inevitable in the face of authority
-Factors like self-esteem, knowledge and communication with peers impact obedience
W-Burger (2009)
-Dispositional factors (personality) influence obedience
-Ppts with higher scores in desire for personal control are much more likely to defy orders to shock the learner
-Personalities have roles to play in behaviour #-Agency theory emphasises on situational factors e.g. binding factors
AO1 of Burger (2009)
A- Investigate if he could replicate Milgram’s results with slightly different variables
P- 29 men, 41 women age 20-81
-Screened out those who knew about psych or Milgram
-Confederate and researchers introduced to ppts
-Ppts given sample shock of 15v (lower than Milgram’s 45v)
-Ppts told verbally and in written form that they could leave and they’d still receive their $50 (Consent forms signed)
-Ppts still had role of teacher
-Max of 150v shock
-Immediately after experiment ended, ppt was debriefed and told shocks were fake
F- 70% had to be stopped at 150v
C- Level of obedience wasn’t era bound or male bound
AO3 of Burger (2009)
S- Internal Validity
-Screening procedure to eliminate demand characteristics affecting the results
-Beneficial for the study as it makes experiment and results trustworthy
W- Poor generalisability
-Very artificial tasks
-Ppts had to shock a ‘learner’ which isn’t something that would happen in real life
-Findings could be slightly incorrect
-Behaviour may have changed from normal as it’s an abnormal task
-Lacks ecological validity
-Lacks mundane Realism
W-Limited application
-Not applicable to real world situations
-Elms (2009) claims Burger’s experiment ended at 150v which is before the ppts felt intense internal conflict
-The study doesn’t adequately show whether obedience would continue if they believed they were causing serious harm
AO1 of Social Impact Theory
-Latane proposed we are influenced by by the actions of other people.
-Target is the person or people asked to follow the instruction
-Source is the person delivering the instruction
Social Forces:
-Strength
-Determined by status, authority or age
-Immediacy
-Determined by proximity or distance between source and target
-Determined by the presence of buffers that could be barriers to distance
-Number
-Refers to how many sources and targets are in the social situation
-When social forcers function within a social structure, the result is social impact.
-I=f(SIN)
-Psychosocial Law Forces:
-The most significant difference in social impact will occur in the transition from 0 to 1 sources and as the number of sources increases, the difference will level out
-After that one or two sources, the more that’s added, the lesser the effect
-Multiplication vs Division of Impact Law Forces:
-Latane and Darley (1970) demonstrated this by bystander behaviour.
-A lone person is more likely to help someone in need compared to a group of people; there’s a diffusion of responsibility similar to the divisional effect
AO3 of Social Impact Theory
S- Sedikikes and Jackson (1990) found the less people there were in a group, the more likely they were to comply with the confederate’s instructions to not lean on the rail.
-Those who were in big groups and were instructed by the casual wear confederate obeyed the least
-Multiple aspects (S I N) have an effect on obedience.
-Useful study as it was a field test and so the results were reliable.
S- Can be used to people’s advantage/ real world application
-Politicians can increase their social influence using SIT.
-Talk to people face-to-face (immediacy), wear smart clothing (strength) and smaller group convo (number) as a strategic plan
-SIT can be used in a real-world application
W- Research found that doesn’t support it
-Latane overrated the importance of some of the components of the theory
-Hofling et al (1977) found low proximity because the doctor wasn’t in the room, 21/22 nurses still obeyed the instructions to give an overdose.
-Proximity isn’t an important factor
-Strength of the message is what’s needed for 21/22 nurses to obey
-Immediacy may have a smaller role to play than suggested
Situational factors affecting obedience
-Status of the authority figure
-Milgram found run down office block obedience levels were high
-Showing situational factors might not play a large role in obedience
-Proximity
-Milgram telephone levels
-Showing situational factors might not play a large role in obedience
-Culture
-UK: 50% obedience (Burley and McGuiness 1977)
-USA: 65% obedience (Milgram 1962)
-Jordan: 73% obedience (Shanab and Yahya 1977)
-South Africa:87.5% obedience (Edwards et al 1969)
Individualistic Cultures = less obedient
Collectivist Cultures = more obedience
High Power Index = more likely to accept authority (Nigeria)
Low Power Index = less likely to accept authority (UK)
-However, Blass’ data does suggest that perhaps obedience on average is not too different across cultures (66% obedience rate according to Blass’ study). Meaning that culture may not be a good explanation for obedience
Dispositional Factors that affect obedience
-Authoritarian personality
-Submissive to authority but harsh to those seen as subordinate to themselves.
-Adorno et al devised F-scale, a questionnaire used to detect authoritarian personality
-Milgram and Elms (1966) found that obedient ppt scored higher on the f-scale compared to disobedience ppts.
-However correlational doesn’t mean causational
-Other factors may be involved, for example both obedience and authoritarian personality may be caused by a lower level of education instead (Hyman and Sheatsley, 1954).
-Locus of control
-Rotter (1966) proposed two personality types
-Internal locus of control = People are responsible for their own actions and are less influenced by others e.g. “I missed the bus”
-External locus of control = people believe their behaviour is beyond their control e.g. “The bus was late”
-Milgram’s study supports this as the 48% of ppts stopped themselves because they didn’t want to harm the learner have a high internal LOC
-Obedience ppts which blamed the learner (25%) have a high external LOC
-Gender
-Bern (1981) thought that the gender stereotypes affect how we perceive ourselves and others
-Men often depicting as strong and aggressive whilst females more obedient
-Milgram found there was no difference in obedience levels between men and women
AO1 of Sherif et al contemporary study (1961)
A- Investigate how competition brought about conflict and study inter-group relations
P- 22 11-yr-olds from Oklahoma schools.
-Middle class protestant families
-Sherif set up a 2 week camp and paid parents $25 not to visit the boys during that period.
-Boys split into groups by athletic and academic ability.
-Stage 1: 2 groups kept separate, tasks encouraged in-group cooperation. Made aware of other group
-Stage 2: 2 groups brought into contact during tournaments.
-Arranged situations they’d find frustrating and would believe was caused due to the other group
-Stage 3: Devoted to encouraging cooperation and conflict resolution
-Had to fix water tank and get camp bus running, working together for food and sleeping gear
F- Stage 1: Boys formed group norms and rules forming group identity, group name made
-Stage 2: Signs of hostility toward other group, became territorial
-In-group favoritism and negative out-group bias, derogatory language used
-93% chose friends from own group
-Stage 3: More contact alone didn’t reduce hostility
-Cooperative tasks introduced and name calling stopped
-Negative bias continued at dinner
-Reduction in hostility after working together to pay for movie
C- With the introduction of competition, negative bias starts but subordinate goal introduction reduces this
