Social Flashcards
Obedience definition
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order.
Moral strain definition
A state of mental discomfort or anxiety experienced in the agentic state when an individual’s actions conflict with their morality
Autonomous state
A mindset where we behave independently, make our own decisions and take responsibility for the consequences of our behaviour
Agentic state
A mindset which allows us to carry out orders from authority figures, even if they conflict with our morality. We absolve ourselves of responsibility, believing that we are acting on the behalf of others
Agentic shift
The switch between autonomous and agentic states
Agency theory
Milgram (1974)
Humans mainly operate in two states autonomous and agentic. Usually autonomous but can switch between
Agency theory - Strengths
Milgram’s baseline study (1963)
Military application - Soldiers following orders even though they may conflict with their morality, euphemisms and dehumanising language
Agency theory - Weaknesses
Baseline study has low internal validity, Perry (2012). Reinterpretation of Milgram’s data, finding that participants may have thought that the shocks were not real.
Social Impact Theory
Latane (1961)
An explanation of obedience in terms of Strength, Immediacy and Number
Social Impact Theory - Strength
The perceived authority of the source
Social Impact Theory - Immediacy
The closeness of the source and target
Social Impact theory - Number
The number of sources or targets present during the interaction
Multiplicative effect
Increasing the Strength, Immediacy or number of sources would significantly increase the obedience
Divisional effect
If there is a larger number of targets than sources than the obedience would decrease
Law of diminishing returns
Once the source group is larger than three, each additional person has less of an influence on the obedience
Social Impact theory - Strengths
Sedikides and Jackson (1990)
Application to political influence
Sedikides and Jackson
Field study at a zoo
Strength - zookeeper 58%, t-shirt and shorts 35%
Immediacy - in same room 61%, in adjacent room 7%
Number - smaller group 60%, larger group 14%
Social Impact Theory - Weaknesses
Sedikides and Jackson - field study, low internal validity
Immediacy less important than strength - Hofling et al (1966)
Hofling et al (1966)
Arranged for an unknown doctor to telephone 22 nurses and ask them to administer an overdose of a drug no on their list. Found that they obeyed even though the doctor was not immediately present.
Milgram’s baseline study (1963) - Aim
To understand the behaviour of the Nazis involved in the genocide of Jewish people, reasons people would obey a legitimate authority.
Milgram’s baseline study (1963) - Procedure
Sample - 40 men aged 20-50, volunteer through newspaper adverts, $4.50 for participating
On arrival participants were given the right to withdraw. Introduced to the experimenter and another participant, both confederates.
Fixed lots were drawn to decide that the confederate was the learner.
Teacher told to give learner a shock for every wrong answer on a word recall task, rising by 15V from 15 to 450.
The shocks were fake but a real test shock of 45V was administered to the teacher
If the teacher protested they were given a standardised series of prods to continue, after the fourth they were allowed to leave, the study was recorded
Milgram’s baseline study - Findings
65% of sample administered full 450 V shock
100% went to 300V
Participants were observed to tremble, bite their lips.
Milgram’s baseline study - Conclusion
Ordinary Americans are surprisingly obedient to to legitimate authority
Milgram suggested that a number of factors may explain the obedience such as the perceived competence of the researcher
Milgram’s baseline study - Strengths
Standardised procedure - filmed
Confederates were always played by the same people, number and timing of learners mistakes were the same
High reliability
Milgram’s baseline study - Weaknesses
Gina Perry (2012) - internal validity
Halsam et al (2014) showed that participants only continued after the first three prods, everyone that heard the fourth disobeyed, challenges the view that they are highly and blindly obedient to authority.
Low generalisability
Low ecological validity
Deception
Milgram experiment 10
Rundown office block
47.5% fully obedient
Building may decrease the perceived competency of the experimenter
Milgram experiment 7
Telephonic instructions
22.5% fully obedient, participants lied to say that there were raising the shock level when they were not
Physical presence of an authority figure appears to be an important situational factor that increases obedience
Milgram experiment 13
Ordinary man gives orders
Experimenter would start before having to leave and handing control to a confederate participant.
80% refused to continue after the ordinary man started giving orders
Factors affecting obedience - Personality factors
Authoritarian personality
Internal and external loci of control
Authoritarian personality
Adorno et al (1950) developed the F scale, high score= authoritarian personality.
Tend to be hostile towards those with an inferior status but obedient to those with a higher status
Could be due to strict parenting
Internal and external loci of control
Rotter et al. Refers to a persons perception of their personal control of behaviour. External - things happen to you, internal - you make things happen
High internal suggests independence, whereas external suggests obedience.
Factors affecting obedience - Personality factors - Strengths
Elms and Milgram (1966) used F-scale to test 20 fully obedient and 20 not from Milgram’s baseline study
Obedient participants score higher on the F-scale and showed more characteristics of an authoritarian personality
Factors affecting obedience - Personality - Weaknesses
Internal locus of control does not predict defiance
Factors affecting obedience - Gender
Women more obedient than men - Sheridan and King
Men more obedient than women - Kilham and Mann
Moral reasoning - Gilligan
Sheridan and King (1972)
Participants asked to give real shocks to a live puppy
Women 100% obedient compared to 54% males
Kilham and Mann (1974)
Replication of Milgram’s baseline study in Australia
40% males obedient, 16% of females
Moral reasoning - Gilligan (1982)
Suggested that moral decision making is guided by different principles in men and women
Justice in men, fairness and equality, detached outlook to avoid bias.
Care in women.
Destructive obedience men would be more likely to obey.
Factors affecting obedience - Gender - Weakness
There may be no difference, many studies including Blass (1999) show no difference
Factors affecting obedience - Situation
Legitimacy
Proximity
Behaviour of others
Factors affecting obedience - situation - legitimacy
Reducing the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure can reduce obedience. In Milgram (variation 13) a normal person took over when the experimenter had to leave due to a phone call, this led to decreased obedience.
Factors affecting obedience - situation - proximity
Increasing the distance between the authority figure and the participant decreases obedience.
Factors affecting obedience - situation - behaviour of others
Exposure to disobedient role models decreases obedience. Milgram (variation 17) showed that when two other confederate teachers refused to carry on obedience dropped to 10%.
Factors affecting obedience - situation - strength
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995)
Application to rule breaking - Gramann et al (1995)
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1995)
Asked participants to deliver increasingly unkind insults to a confederate applying for a job. More than 90% delivered all 15 insults in the baseline, compared to 36% when the experimenter left the room and 16% when they witnessed rebellious confederates.
Gramann et al (1995)
Found that if information was provided as to why rules were in place, obedience was increased due to increases in immediacy. Applies to countryside rules, with nobody to enforce them.
Factors affecting obedience - situation - weaknesses
In all of Milgram’s variations there were individual differences, therefore personality must be a key part of the explanation.
Factors affecting obedience - culture
Individualism/collectivism
Power distance index (PDI)
Individualistic and collectivist cultures
Individualistic cultures value personal autonomy and self-reliance whereas collectivist cultures value loyalty to the group and cooperation in pursuit of group goals. Therefore people from individualistic cultures (USA) may be less obedient than those from collectivist cultures (China) due to the value of independence.
Power distance index (PDI)
Hofstede (2017). Refers to how accepting people are of hierarchical order and inequality in society. In a high PDI culture subordinates expect to be told what to do, therefore they may be more obedient.
Factors affecting obedience - culture - strength
Close relationship between obedience and Hofstede’s PDI. Replications of Milgram’s baseline study in Australia (36% PDI) found 28% obedience compared to 90% in Poland (68% PDI). Suggests PDI is useful in predicting obedience.
Factors affecting obedience - culture - weakness
Blass (2012)
Blass (2012)
Calculated the average obedience rate for eight non-American Milgram replications finding 66% obedience compared to an average of 61% across American variations. This suggests that obedience is universal with culture having only a small effect
Prejudice definition
A biased belief held about an individual or group prior to a direct experience of them, such attitudes are often based upon stereotypes.
Discrimination definition
Discrimination is the resulting behaviour arising from the prejudice of a person or group
Social identity theory
Tajfel (1979). An explanation of prejudice in terms of our social identity, with much of our social behaviour being driven by the motivation to maintain self-esteem as a valued member of a group, the mere existence of an out group may lead to prejudice. It has three main stages: social categorisation, identification and comparison
Social categorisation
The separation of individuals in for the in group and out groups. The in group is the one that you see yourself being a part of and the out group consists of anyone not in the in group.
Social identification
Involves the individual adopting the beliefs, values and attitudes of the groups that they see themselves belonging to, altering their behaviour to fit the norm of the group.
Social comparison
An individual would boost their self esteem by making comparisons between the in and out groups. However these would be biased in order to improve our self esteem, as if in group members are seen as better then we too as an in group member are seen as better, motivating us to see the in group in a positive light. This is boosted by seeing the out group in an unfavourable light with the differences between the groups being emphasised and the similarities minimised.
Social identity theory - strengths
Tajfel (1970)
Application to reducing prejudice - Fein and Spencer (1997)
Tajfel (1970)
Worked with fifteen year old Bristol school boys, creating in and out groups by telling them which boys had acted similarly to them in a previous task. Later the boys would be asked to allocate points to the other boys and were told that they would be exchanged for cash. He found that more points were allocated to in group members and that boys opted to maximise the difference between the groups, even if it reduced the final sum awarded to the in group.
Fein and Spencer (1997)
Gave students a sense of high or low self esteem. Students that had a low self esteem later rated Jewish applicants for a job less favourably than an Italian candidate but this was not true of this with high self esteem. Self esteem was then increased by asking the students to write about something they valued, this also decreased the anti-Jewish prejudice.
Social identity theory - weaknesses
Wetherell (1982)
Tajfel (1970) - low in ecological validity as it lacks mundane realism (privately allocating points). In real life people may be less prejudiced and discriminatory as there would be consequences to their actions.
Wetherell (1982)
A replication of Tajfel’s study using eight year old school children in New Zealand. Found that indigenous Polynesian children were significantly more generous in their allocation of points to out groups than the Caucasian children. This suggests that social identity theory may be ethnocentric as it cannot predict the behaviour of people from collectivist cultures.
Realistic conflict theory
An explanation of prejudice that sees competition for limited resources as a key determinant of inter group relations. It was proposed by Sherif as an explanation for his robbers cave study
Inter group competition
Sherif suggests that the key to prejudice is competition in any form, when both groups are striving for the same goal prejudice adn hostility will intensify
Negative interdependence
Occurs in scenarios when two groups are both seeking to achieve a goal that they both value, yet only one of them can achieve it. In these scenarios interactions with the out-group will become more hostile and interactions with the in-group will become more cooperative
Limited resources
Situations involving physical or finite resources often lead to the highest levels of discrimination and prejudice
Superordinate goals
Prejudice that has arisen through inter-group conflict can be reduced by making both groups work together to achieve a common goal (superordinate goals), leading to more harmonious inter-group interactions
Positive interdependence
Positive interdependence refers to scenarios where neither group can reach their goals unless the other group also reaches theirs
Realistic conflict theory - strengths
Robbers cave study - Sherif (1961)
Application to reducing prejudice
Realistic conflict theory - weaknesses
Low validity of the robbers cave study - the inter group competition did not lead to the hostilities, the experimenters provoked them (raiding one groups cabin and blaming it on the others).
Competition may not be necessary - Tajfel’s minimal groups study showed that prejudice could be caused simply by group membership.
Realistic conflict theory - application to reducing prejudice
The theory has successfully been used to reduce prejudice using superordinate goals, for example the Paris agreement on climate change
Factors affecting prejudice - personality
The authoritarian personality
Allports authoritarian personality
Right wing authoritarianism (RWA)
Social dominance orientation (SDO)
The authoritarian personality
Adorno et al (1950) stated that strict parenting led to a personality type that is prone to display prejudice, the children would feel hostile towards their parents conditional love but displace the anger elsewhere
Allport’s authoritarian personality
Allport (1954) compared the empathic, accepting orientation of people with unconditional parental love, that can think in shades of grey to those with authoritarians that think in rigid black and white. He believed that people with authoritarian personalities are not necessarily prejudiced but may be more receptive to some political arguments
Right wing authoritarianism (RWA)
Altemeyer (1988) focused on three of Adornos nine authoritarian traits (authoritarian submission, aggression and conventionalism). People with RWA would hold more prejudicial views seeking security through the preserving existing social order. He states that it is a result of social learning to believe that the world is a dangerous place.
Social dominance orientation (SDO)
Pratto et al (1994) developed SDO to describe people that are motivated to seek ingroup power and superiority. People with an SDO see the world as a ‘competitive jungle’ where people have to be ruthless to fight for their share of limited resources, like RWA it is a result of social learning
Factors affecting prejudice - personality - strengths
Cohrs et al (2012)
Application to reducing prejudice by reducing social factors leading to the development of SDO and RWA through the greater regulation of media sources and international exchanges.
Factors affecting prejudice - personality - weaknesses
RWA and SDO are not consistent over time as both interact with social factors, making prejudice harder to predict in the real world
Louis et al (2003)
Cohrs et al (2012)
Found that RWA (+.48) and SDO (+.28) positively correlate with prejudice. RWA was also negatively correlated with openness to experience and SDO to experience. This shows that levels of prejudice can be accurately predicted from personality traits
Louis et al (2003)
RWA and SDO do not include items which are heavily affected by social attitudes. 72% of people in their study disagreed with the statement ‘the white race is the best race’ but agreed with the exclusion of asylum seekers
Factors affecting prejudice - situation
Social norms, (Minard 1952)
Competition and resource stress, (Esses (2001)
Minard (1952)
Noted the difference in relations between white and black coal miners in the US. Below ground (when they identified as miners) they were friendly and worked well together, whereas above ground (when they identified as their white and black social groups) they held negative views towards eachother.
Esses (2001)
Used the term resource stress to describe the problem that occurs when people believe that resources are limited, prejudice arises when an ingroup sees themselves to be in direct competition for these resources with an out group.
Factors affecting prejudice - situation - strengths
Akrami et al (2009)
Factors affecting prejudice - situation - weaknesses
Akrami et al (2009) also reported that personal differences had an influence on the levels of prejudice therefore prejudice being due to situational factors is an incomplete explanation
Akrami et al (2009)
A Swedish study that manipulated social norms. Some participants heard a confederate express scepticism that anybody could agree with the statement ‘discrimination of women is no longer a problem in Sweden’, mean levels of sexism were significantly lower in this group than a control group that did not hear the statement
Factors affecting prejudice - culture
The norm of intolerance
The norm of fairness
The norm of intolerance
Baldwin (2017) states that all cultures are ethnocentric to some extent, however some cultures are more prejudiced than others. In some cultures the norm is to be more accepting of other cultures, however prejudice often exists in a more subtle way, such as donating money to homeless people but not wanting a homeless shelter built on your road. In other cultures prejudice is accepted, such as apartheid in South Africa
The norm of fairness
Some cultures are more concerned with fairness than competition. Countries scoring lower on Hofstedes continuum would be more collectivist and therefore focused on sharing and cooperation
Factors affecting prejudice - culture - strengths
Orpen (1971)
Orpen (1971)
Noted that F-scale scores were not significantly correlated with prejudice in a group of white South African participants, however measures of social conformity and susceptibility to cultural pressure showed significant correlations with prejudice towards black South Africans. This suggests conformity to cultural norms is an important factor affecting prejudice
Sherif et al (1954) - aims
Aimed to explore how intergroup competition can lead to the prejudice and discrimination of the outgroup
Sherif et al (1954) - procedure
Field study with a sample of 22 middle class, protestant boys from Oklahoma, that were divided into two equal groups. The boys did not know that they were being observed.
Stage 1: group formation
Stage 2: friction
Stage 3: reducing friction
Stage 1: group formation
The boys took part in non-competitive activities to bond within their group (rattlers or eagles). Activities including fire starting and tent pitching. Two eagles went home towards the end of the week due to homesickness
Stage 2: friction
Each group learnt of the other groups existence. The researchers then created a tournament with prizes for the winners, creating intergroup competition
Stage 3: reducing friction
Initial tasks involved increasing social contact, for example eating together, before superordinate goals were introduced, such as mending a broken water supply
Sherif et al (1954) - findings
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Stage 1 findings
Leaders of the groups were established and differing social norms became apparent, the rattlers were tough and swore a lot whereas the eagles cried more when injured
Stage 2 findings
Upon discovering each other both groups wanted to challenge the other to a baseball competition and hostilities developed. There was name calling, fights and they raided each others cabins. Ranked scales showed that more ingroup members were seen as brave, tough and friendly whereas the outgroup members were seen as sneaky. Only 6.4% of the rattlers friends were eagles and 7.5% of the eagles friends were rattlers
Stage 3 - findings
Superordinate goals helped to reduce the tensions with the boys sitting with each other around the campfire on the last night. At the end 36.4% of rattlers friends were eagles and 23.2% of the eagles friends were rattlers
Sherif et al (1954) - conclusion
Intergroup competition led to increased ingroup favouritism and outgroup hostility. Superordinate goals can reduce prejudice effectively
Sherif et al (1954) - strengths
Application to reducing prejudice - Aronson and Bridgeman (1979)
High internal validity as the researchers carefully matched (interviews and tests) the two groups so that the differences were not due to pre-existing factors. However, two eagles went home with home sickness, messing up the matching process
Aronson and Bridgeman (1979)
Used Sherif’s idea about superordinate goals to develop the jigsaw classroom, an intervention in tackling racism in US schools where students had to work together and take responsibility for a different part of a group project
Sherif et al (1954) - weaknesses
Tyerman and Spencer (1983)
Tyerman and Spencer (1983)
Replication of Sherif (1954) that failed to replicate the findings. Tyerman studied his sea scout troop of 30 boys, that belonged to four patrols. In their two week camp Tyerman observed that ingroup solidarity in each patrol did not increase. The patrols also interacted well throughout the camp even though they were in competition
Burger (2009) - aim
To see whether Milgram’s findings were era bound and to see whether obedience was affected by gender
Burger (2009) - procedure
Volunteer sample of 70 (29 men and 41 women) obtained through adverts. Followed the same procedure as Milgram experiment five (heart condition) but had ethical controls. These were: stopping the shocks at 150V to reduce distress (79% of those that reached 150V in Milgram’s study went to 450V), a two step screening process to eliminate participants that may have a negative reaction to the study, three reminders of the right to withdraw, a 15V test shock instead of 45V, immediate debriefing at the end of the study, a clinical psychologist supervised all trials. Self report questionnaires were used to measure empathic concern and desire for control
Burger (2009) - findings
70% of participants reached 150V compared to 82.5% in Milgram’s baseline. No significant difference between men and women (66.7% and 72.7%). No significant difference between the empathic concern between defiant (19.25) and obedient (19.20) participants, however the defiant participants had a significantly higher desire for personal control (106.92) compared to the obedient participants (98.24).
Burger (2009) - conclusion
The findings show that Milgram’s findings are not era bound and that lack of empathy does not seem to be a valid explanation for defiance yet desire for personal control is
Burger (2009) - strengths
Strong internal validity - none of the participants had knowledge of Milgram’s research, participants were screened based of whether they had taken psychology classes with individuals having taken more then two being removed from the study.
The study was very strong ethically
Burger (2009) - weaknesses
Poor generalisability - the sample is not representative of the target population as individuals that may have had a bad reaction were excluded, therefore the sample may be more psychologically robust than the general population.
Elms (2009) claims that the study lacks ecological validity as it is unlike real world obedience, therefore the results have no real application.
