Social Flashcards
Social Influence
The process by which individuals and groups change each other’s attitudes and behaviours
Legitimacy of authority
An explanation for obedience which suggests we are more likely to obey people who we perceive to have authority over us due to the position of power but they hold within the social hierarchy
3 features of an authoritarian personality
Submissive to superiors
Dismissive of inferiors
Highly prejudiced 
What does Milgram‘s study tell us about obedience?
People obey those they consider authority figures
The results suggest that obeying authority is normal behaviour in a hierarchally organised society. We will obey orders that distress us and that even go against all moral code. 
Give two situational variables on the impact of these on obedience
Proximity - The physical closeness between the person giving the order and the person receiving it.
Uniform - The outfit that person giving the order as wearing
Evaluate milligrams obedience study
-Milgram conducted many experiments researching into a obedience
Original in 1965 + variations conducted later on
-good internal validity, number of controls + standardised procedures, no extraneous variables
(Same 4 prods, same confederate)
-experiment 10 setting changed obedience dropped to 47.5%
(Rundown office building, controls extraneous variables, no credibility)
-Lacks ecological validity, lacks mundane realism + setting is a unnatural
(Electric shocks given, not every day task, people don’t work in rundown offices)
-drawback is ethics aren’t up to BPS guidelines, caused distress, Proof in qualitative data, can’t be replicated BURGER shows could’ve been more ethical
-High validity shows link established, ethics so can’t be replicated, only relevant for his studies however they indicate biological factor in obedience
Autonomous state
People direct their own behaviour + take responsibility
Agentic state
People allow someone else to direct their behaviour + assume that the responsibility passes onto them. Conscious isn’t in control.
Is an escape from moral strain
Latané (1981)
Billy Graham delivered speeches to large + small audiences.
Smaller audiences were more responsive, engaged + more willing to contact later on
(Division of impact)
Milgram’s Variation 7
Experimenter gave instructions over the phone
Proximity removes immediacy
Obedience 22.5%
Milgram’s variation 10
Run down office building
Less respected than Yale Uni so loses credibility + reputation
Volunteers questioned the experimenter more than at Yale
48.5% obedient
Milgram’s variation 13
Ordinary man gives orders
Removes status + some tampered to give allusion they were shocking higher
20% obedient
Psychosocial law
Increasing number of sources diminishes effect
Division of impact
More targets present, less likely they all are to obey
Social force
Strength in status, immediacy (proximity) , number of targets
Moral strain
When people become uncomfortable with human behaviour because it goes against their morals + values.
Factors affecting obedience: Authoritarian personality
Defined by upbringing (nature/environment) , higher levels of empathy
Strict parenting, military, boarding school, More autonomous
Burger found that higher levels of empathy = more likely to protest but didn’t = lower levels of obedience
Factors affecting obedience: Gender
Sheridan + King (1972)
Puppy received electric shocks from college students
All 13 females were more compliant than the men
Blass (1999)
Found that obedience studies + gender were all very consistent + there’s very little difference
Factors affecting obedience: Culture
Blass (1999)
Individualistic culture: (America + Britain) behave more independently + resist conformity
Collectivistic culture: (China + Israel) behave as a group on interdependence
Conducted review on obedience + cultural differences. Pps who gave full shock is more to do with procedure than culture.
Factors affecting obedience: Momentum of compliance
Staring with small tasks that build up, pp has committed themselves + feel duty bound + are more compliant
Factors affecting obedience: status of authority
Milgram stated that obedience could only be established when the authority figure was perceived to be legitimate
Factors affecting obedience: personal responsibility
Milgram stated that Pps more obedient on a situation where personal responsibility is removed + placed on authority figure
Factors affecting obedience
Gender, culture, Authoritarian personality,
proximity, momentum of compliance
Status of authority, personal responsibility
Social identity theory (1979)
Tajfel + Turner used Sherif’s idea of in-group + out-group conflict to investigate prejudice.
Proposed that the mere presence or perception of an out-group can lead to discrimination + prejudice.
Personal identity v Social identity
Our own unique qualities, personality + self esteem
The attributes of the group in which we belong
Pi is based off Si. So when Si is favourable, the group members are positive + self esteem is heightened.
Demand characteristics
Pps acting in a way they believe to be fit to what they perceive the aim of the study to be
Weatherell (1982)
Suggests we shouldn’t conclude that intergroup conflict is inevitable.
She found that in New Zealand pp are more likely to favour the outgroup + show bias to ingroup
Social identity theory: CIC
Categorisation - categorising ppl into groups that tells us something an them
Identification - change personal identity to fit group + boost self esteem
Comparison - see ppl as us or them
Realistic conflict theory: robbers cave
Introduced competition between groups at a boys summer camp conflict + prejudice took place
Superordinate goals
Goals that can only be achieved by cooperation of all group members together to achieve the intended outcome
Aranson et al (1978)
Made lots of little groups in a classroom who had to complete tasks against each other (competition) all the tasks contributed towards the whole class.
Was found that this reduced competition.
Robbers cave: aim
To investigate relations between groups to see whether strangers brought together into a group with common goals will form a close group, and to see whether two such groups brought into contact and competition will become hostile towards each other
Robbers cave: conclusion
Some hostility was observed between the groups as soon as they were aware of each other. Once competition was introduced this became more intense.
This suggests that competition is a factor in leading to discrimination between groups but that some discrimination takes place even without competition.
However, when groups work together on a task that benefit both groups, prejudice and discrimination can be reduced.
Robbers cave: procedure
22 12yr old boys white American middle class Protestants. Robbers cave national park in Oklahoma. Lived separately eagles + rattlers
1) In group formation - 5 days of tasks to bond
2) friction phase - 4 days of competition
3) integration - teams work together to reduce friction: watch films, remove blockage, joint-problem solving
Factors affecting prejudice: personality
Authoritarian personality - more likely to act hostile towards outgroups
Ethnocentrism - belief that one’s ethnic group is superior
Conservatism - belief in tradition + social order with a dislike for change
Anti-Democratic - views that oppose fake election of government + majority rule
Adorno et al + authoritarian personality
Interviewed 40m + 40f covering background, beliefs, feelings, religion, politic ideology.
Created authoritarian personality - submissive to authority + obedient, conventional views + attitudes on wider social groups. Unaffectionate parent + projects aggression
Factors affecting prejudice: culture
Culture can be an influence on prejudice if it has existing norms that legitimise prejudice practice, has strict religious regimens or laws that endorse prejudice
Individualistic
Cultures emphasise individuals within the group as important
Collectivistic
Emphasises the importance of the whole group as a collective
Key Q: why did the US soldiers abuse Iraqi soldiers? SIT, personality, situational factors
Social impact theory: soldiers received orders from superiors to ‘break the detainees’ for them to share info. High social force, however not all obeyed due to division of impact. (Latané (1981) speeches)
Personality: those who obeyed had authoritarian personality + higher levels of empathy but more obedience (burger (2009))
Situational factors: high proximity leads to obedience, momentum of compliance, status of authority, personal responsibility (Milgram)
Key Q: why did the US soldiers abuse Iraqi soldiers? Culture, Sergeant Frederick + Sabrina Harman
Culture: Us soldiers were a mix of diff cultures but were still prejudiced (ethnocentrism)
Frederick: Us soldier was sentenced to 8 yrs in prison for sexually + physically assaulting detainees was given a reduction in rank, dishonourable discharge + fine. Plead guilty on 8 counts of abuse + humiliation after publication of photos in 2004. Military policeman acknowledged his part and blamed his chain of command.
Sabrina: US soldier abused + humiliated Iraqi soldiers + took pics smiling w dead + abused bodies.
Social Practical: aim
To determine if there was a difference in the level of obedience in men and women using year 12 Collegiate students who were approached and asked to do a questionnaire containing a variety of question styles.
The obedience was measured using the mean and standard deviation which allowed us to see the range of results.
An opportunity sample was used.
Social Practical: procedure
· Collegiate students in psychology class were approached + sampled during a psychology lesson, half from a different class
· All students knew study + aim as they previously studies it, could lead to demand characteristics
· Were left to read consent from and instructions and complete form on their own
· returned their forms + handed debrief slip so they were aware of the true aim + had right to withdraw
· Then calculated standard deviation , mean median mode range + iq range based on the self rate obedience from scale of 1-10
The results were plotted on bar chart with mean + self reported obedience scale from 1-10
Social Practical: results
Female standard deviation (0.76) is smaller than Males (1.30 (difference of 0.54) + therefore female results are more consistent. Males could have skewed results.
Female mean obedience level (6.3) higher than Male mean score (5.8) (difference of 0.5) females were more obedient on average, but not significantly.
Social Practical: conclusion
Females = more obedient (supported by Sheridan +King puppy)
Sample size isn’t large enough to be a true representation between gender + obediance
Social Practical: reliability
Inter-rated - qualitative analysis of open ended qs thematic analysis
Replicable - standardised procedure + environment
Open + closed qs
Not a lot of qs only 8
Social Practical: application
Allows us to see how obedience levels vary in men + women + links to soldiers in Nazi Germany. To understand why ppl follow orders + don’t take responsibility (agentic shift)
Social Practical: Validity
Pop - lacks age range, privately educated, same ethnicity
Ecological - valid bc questionnaire conducted in classroom
No Gender bias
Social Practical: Ethics
Parental consent was given
Debriefed
Told true aim
Right to withdraw
Thematic analysis
Qualitative data analysis that involves reading through a dataset + identifying patterns in the meaning to derive themes p
Advantages of thematic analysis
Convert from qualitative to quantitative
Easier to see relationships in data
Reliable as others can repeat
No demand characteristics
Disadvantages of thematic analysis
Time-consuming
Subject to increase error
Just attempts to create relationships
