social Flashcards
legitimate authority
- degree to which individuals are seen as justified in having power over others
- accepts power and status of authority
e.g officers in the army are seen as having legitimate authority
milgram 1963: noted how some ptps ignored learner’s distress, showed none themselves and concentrated on pressing switches properly
3 explanations of authority
legitimate authority
agentic state
authoritarian personality
agentic state
where an individual obeys an authority figure who is seen as responsible for the consequences of the action
their own actions, and almost none of them were prepared to obey.
evidence to support agentic state
- milgram study supported this as ptps were reminded that they had responsibility for
- however, many participants who were refusing to go on did so if the experimenter said that he would take responsibility.
- agency theory: sees people to obey authority to keep stability in society
e.g: adolf eichmann responsible for nazi exterminations of millions said ‘i was following orders’
authoritarian personality
perception of behaviour as caused by the internal characteristics of individuals
personality type characterised by a belief in absolute obedience, submission to authority and domination of minorities
adorno - a.p held by obedient insecure individuals with a strong belief in ‘might is right’
evidence to support authoritarian personality
- jost et al 2003: AP motivated by a desire to reduce anxieties bought by social change
- adorno: obedient ptps scored high on f scale for authoritarianism
evidence to refute authoritarian personality
- questionnaire is easily manipulated, people can second guess
- people who are highly educated tended to score high on the f scale, could be to do with education level and not background
variables affectting obedience
- proximity
- uniform
- location
proximity
physical distance individuals are from the consequences of being obedient
- the greater the distance, the less awareness of the consequences
location
can add or subtract from legitimacy of an authority figure
obedience higher in locations that add to legitimacy of authority figure.
uniform
gives impression of legitimacy to authority figures, thus increasing obedience
milgrams researchers wore a lab coat to give perception of legitimate authority
proximity study findings
- ptps obeyed more when the experimenter was in the same room (62.5%)
- reduced to 40% when ptp and experimenter were in seperate rooms
- 30% touch proximity (forcing hand)
location study findings
milgram 1974 - obedience dropped from 62.5% to 47.5% when study was done in a run down office block instead of yale uni
- presitge location increases trust
uniform study findings
bickman: 19% obeyed someone in casual clothes telling them to pick up litter they had not dropped. compared with 35% that obeyed when that person was in guard uniform
- better uniform = higher status
- demand characteristics particularly evident in this condition
research into obedience - procedure
milgram:
- ptps given role of teacher, confederate given role of learner
- ptp had to ask confederate a series of questions and when they got the answer wrong, the ptp had to give them an electric shock
- shocks incremented by 15V at a time ranging from 300 - 45V
- shocks were fake but ptps were assessed on how many V they were willing to shock the confederate with
research into obedience - findings
- all ptps went up to 300V and 65% when up to 450V
- no ptps stopped below 300V whilst only 12.5% stopped at 300V showing that most ptps were prepared to give lethal electric shock to confederate
evaluation of research into obedience
strengths:
- highly replicable and consistent levels of obedience were found. increases reliability of findings
- external validity by supporting studies, hofling et al 1966 found that 95% of nurses in a hospital obeyed a doctor (confederate) over the phone to increase dosage of medicine to double what it’s advised
weaknesses:
- ethical issues: deception and so informed consent couldn’t be obtained
- tasks aren’t similar to real life scenarios
- psychological harm inflicted upon ptps
other studies in obedience 1-uniform
hofling:
- field exp, independant groups
- 153 ptps in new york
- gave 3 orders to pedestrians: ‘pick up this bag for me’ ‘give this man some change’ ‘stand on the other side of the road’ etc
- people more than 3x likely to obey person in a guard suit - 89% obeyed guard, 57% milkman, 33% civilian
other studies into obedience 2- proximity
bickman:
- hofling pretended to be ‘dr smith’ and phone nurses telling them to give 20mg of a drug to patients when the max was 10mg
- 21/22 obeyed
- shows that authority makes people do bad things
- most didn’t notice incorrect dosage
real life examples of studies into obedience
- presence of authority figure: if teacher leaves classroom, there’s an instant eruption of noise. teachers = legitimate authority figure
- child honouring wishes of parents
how to conduct research ethically
- informed consent
- deception
- risk of harm: no more than ptps expect irl
- confidentiality: all ptps should be anonymous unless prior consent was given
- right to withdraw
- debriefing: after exp, researcher must ensure ptp is returned back to their initial state
explanations to resisting conformity
- social support/dissenter
- locus of control
- reactance
- status
social support/ dissenter
- the pressure to conform can be reduced if there are other people presenting who are not conforming
- in Asch’s study, the person not conforming doesn’t have to be giving the ‘right’ answer but simply the fact that someone else is not following the majority appears to enable a person to follow their concious
locus of control
- the degree to which people believe that they, as opposed to external forces, have control over the outcome of events in their lives.
- continuum: people aren’t either internal or external, there’s a spectrum. on one side is highly external and on other side is highly internal and low locus of control in the middle
- characteristics: people who are internal are more likely to resist social influence as they think for themselves and control their own behaviour.
- external = more likely to conform
reactance
rebellious anger –> produced by attempts to restrict freedom of choice which reduces obedience
status
conformity is more able to be resisted if people perceive themselves as of a higher status
explanations to resisting obedience
- social support/dissenter/role models
- locus of control
- systematic processing
- personality
social support/dissenter/role models
- the pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person who is seen to disobey.
- in 1 of milgram’s variation, the rate of obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the genuine ptp was joined by disobedient confederates
who developed the locus of control + study
rotter 1966:
- refers to individual differences in personal beliefs about what controls events in their lives
internal = more likely to resist conformity
external = more likely to conform
- holland repeated milgram, 37% of internal don’t go over 450V, 23% of externals didn’t
- twenge analyses US data over 40 years, generally people are more resistant for either locus of control
systematic processing
- if individuals have time to consider the consequences of obedience, they are more likely to disobey orders that have negative consequences
personality
- individuals who are able to empathise are more likely to disobey orders that have negative consequences
minority influence procedure
moscivici
- 172 american females
- 6 ptps at a time were asked to estimate the colour out loud of 36 slides (slides were obviously blue)
- 2 ptps were confederates
- IV: 2 conditions, 1= consistent where the 2 confederates called the slide green all 36 times.
- 2 = slide called green 24 times and blue 12 times
- ptps were told they were participating in colour perception
minority influence findings + conclusion
- ptps in the consistent condition were influenced by minority as they called the slides green on 8.4% of the trials
- ptps in the inconsistent condition only called the slides green in 1.3% of the trials
conclusion:
- a consistent minority has more power to influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in comparison to an inconsistent minority
minority influence study evaluation
- lacks population validity: used a bias sample of 172 american female ptps -> unable to generalise the results to other populations to see if they would respond to minority influence in a similar way
- lacks ecological validity: lab study which is different to a real life situation of minority influence. in real life situations of minority influence, the minorities face much stronger opposition than a group of students
- ethics: moscivici deceived his ptps as he didn’t tell them the aim -> didnt respect his ptps who may have felt foolish afterwards
- essential for moscivici to decieve his ptps to test the effect of minority influence and improves result validity
factors that contribute to the process of social change
- minority influence
- zeitgeist
- snowball effect
- social crypto amnesia
minority influence
commitment: the majority is more likely to be influenced by the minority when the minority is committed because when they have so much passion and confidence in their view, it suggests to the majority that their view must somehow be valid
- social change begins with a minority group e.g suffragettes
zeitgeist
- what things were happening at the time that made people think a change was in order
snowball effect
- minority influence slowly spreads to a greater number of people until a ‘tipping point’ is reached -> thought to be around 10% when wide scale social change begins to occur rapidly
- in 1918, women were able to vote in general elections. the representation of the people act 1918, widened suffrage by abolishing practically all qualifications (property) for men and enfranchised women over 30 who met minimum property qualifications
social crypto amnesia
- people know that a change has occurred in society but forgot the origin of how this change occurred
- flexibility: the majority is more likely to be influenced by the minority when the minority is flexible. being too consistent can suggest the minority is inflexible, uncompromising and irrational making their argument less appealing to the majority
explanations of conformity
normative and informational
normative
to be liked, when you want to fit in with a group
informational
to be right, when you’re unsure of what to do and follow the group
types of conformity
compliance
internalisation
identification
compliance
they change their behaviour but not their mind. they know what they’re doing is wrong
e.g asch’s study
internalisation
they change their behaviours and their mind, believe what they’re doing is right
e.g sherif
identification
change their behaviour and mind for a bit but can be changed back
e.g zimbardo’s study
normative conformity study description
asch-
method: lab exp
design: repeated measures
procedure:
- show ptps 2 large cards with one card showing a standard line. other card shows 3 comparison lines
- asked which lines match
- at first, confederate gave correct answers but then they started making mistakes
normative conformity evaluation
asch:
- lacks ecological validity, conducted in a lab where people are aware it’s a study
- doesn’t reflect how and why people conform irl. artificial scenario
- lacks temporal validity: conducted in a time where there were a different set of norms and values
- 1950’s were a conformist period
informational conformity study description
sherif:
- ptps were asked how far a dot of light had moved. asked twice, once alone, once in a group and vice versa
- discovered that ptps change their answer the second time if they’re in a group to fit in
- shows internalisation
informational conformity study evaluation
- strict control of variables
- extraneous variables isolated from study
- repeated measures
- mundane realism
- artificial situation
- findings don’t generalise wider population
factors affecting conformity
unanimity
group size
task difficulty
unanimity
- conformity rates decline to 5.5% when majority influence isn’t unanimous
- original asch study had unanimity where all confederates gave the wrong answer and 1/3 of the ptps would conform
group size
- increases conformity to a point, then there are no further increases in conformity
e.g asch’s study 1956: adding extra confederates from 3 onwards had no more increases in conformity
task difficulty
- greater conformity rates as task difficulty increases
- asch made the lines more similar in length to make it more difficult
- conformity increases
conformity to social role study description
zimbardo-
method: lab experiment
design: independent groups
sample: 21 male students
procedure:
- set up a mock prison
- ptps were randomly assigned roles (prisoner or guard)
- ptps were encouraged to conform to their social roles through their uniform and the instructions they got given
- uniforms created loss of identity (de-individualization)
conformity to social role study findings
- within 2 days, prisoners rebelled against guards’ treatment
- guards behaviour became more brutal and aggressive
conformity to social role study conclusions
- revealed that social roles can influence individuals’ behaviour
- even volunteers who came int to perform specific functions, found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a psychological study
