Social Influence Flashcards
1
Q
What is conformity?
A
Conformity is a change in a person’s behviour or opinions as a result of real or imagined pressure from a person or group of people.
2
Q
What is Asch’s (1951) baseline study?
A
- 123 American male participants, each in a group with other apparent participants.
- Had to match a stimulus line to a different line on another piece of paper.
- On each trial the participants had to say out loud which of the comparison lines where the same length as the stimulus line.
- Each group had 1 participant and the other 5 or 7 were confederates and said the same unscripted answers each time.
3
Q
What where the results of Asch’s baseline study?
A
- Participants conformed 37% of the time.
- Nobody conformed in 100% of the trials.
- 75% conformed at least once.
4
Q
The effect of group size on Asch (1955)
A
- Varied number of confederates from 1 to 15.
- Conformity increased with group size but only up to a point.
- With three confederates, conformity rose to 32%.
- This suggests people are sensitive to the views of other people because only a few confederates were needed to sway opinion.
5
Q
The effect of unanimity on Asch (1955)
A
- One confederate would disagree with the other confederates.
- In one variation he gave a different wrong answer and in another he gave the correct answer.
- The genuine participanty conformed less in the presence of a dissenter.
- This suggests the influence of the majority depends to a large extent on it being unanimous.
6
Q
The effect of task difficulty on Asch (1955)
A
- The difficulty of the line-judging was increased by making the stimulus line and the comparison lines more similar- this made it harder for the participant.
- Conformity increased as the situation is more ambiguous.
- This may be because of informational social influence.
7
Q
Ethical issues with Asch (1951)
A
Participants were deceived as they did not know the confederates were not other participants.
However, no major psychological harm was caused to the participants.
8
Q
Limited application of Asch (1951)
A
Bond and Smith (1996)-
- The USA is an individualist culture where people are more concerned about themselves and so will be less likely to conform.
- Conformity studies in collectivist cultures (China) have found that conformity rates are higher.
- Ethnocentric
9
Q
Research support for Asch (1951)
A
Lucas et al (2006)-
- Participants had to solve ‘easy’ or ‘hard’ math problems.
- Participants were given ansers from three other students (not real).
- The participants conformed more when the problems were harder.
HOWEVER
- This study suggests conformity is more complex than Asch suggested as it may vary due to individual factors such as confidence levels.
10
Q
Artificial situation- Asch (1951)
A
- Participants knew they were in a research study and may have gone along with that was expected (demand characteristics).
- The task lacked mundane realism as it isn’t a typical everyday task.
- This makes the findings of study hard to generalise.
11
Q
What three types of conformity did Herbert Kelman (1958) suggest?
A
- Internalisation.
- Indentification.
- Compliance.
12
Q
What is internalisation?
A
A type of conformity where we take on the majority view because we accept it as correct. It leads to a far-reaching and permanent change in behaviour even when the group is absent.
13
Q
What is identification?
A
A moderate type of conformity where we act in the same way as the group because we value it and want to be part of it. However we don’t necessarily agree with everything the group/majority believes.
14
Q
What is compliance?
A
A superficial and temporary type of conformity where we outwardly go along with the majority view, but privately disagree with it. The change in our behaviour only lasts as long as the group is monitoring us.
15
Q
What did Deutsch and Gerard (1955) develop?
A
A two-process theory arguing that there are two main reasons why people conform.
16
Q
What is information social influence?
A
ISI is an explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we believe ot is correct. We accept it because we want to be correct as well- this may lead to internalisation.
17
Q
What is normative social influence?
A
NSI is an explanation of conformity that says we agree with the opinion of the majority because we want to gain social approval and be liked- this may lead to compliance.
18
Q
Research support for NSI
A
Asch (1951)-
- He interviewed some of his participants and some said they conformed as they felt self-conscious of giving the correct answer and were scared of disapproval.
- When participants wrote their answers down, conformity dropped to 12.5%.
19
Q
Research support for ISI
A
Lucas et al (2006)-
- Found participants conformed more to incorrect answers when the maths problem was difficult as the situation became ambiguous.
- So the participants relied on the answers they were given as they didn’t want to be wrong.
HOWEVER
- It is hard to separate ISI and NSI as both processes probably operate together in most real-life conformity situations.
- Asch (1955) conformity reduced when there was a dissenter this may reduce ISI (social support) and NSI (alternative source of social information).
20
Q
Individual differences in NSI
A
- Some people have a strong need for affiliation which means they want to relate to other people.
- These people are more likely to conform.
21
Q
What is a social role?
A
The ‘parts’ people play as members of various social groups. These are accompanied by expectations we and others have of what is appropriate behaviour in each role.
22
Q
Who conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment (SPE)?
A
Zimbardo et al (1973)
23
Q
What was the procedure of the SPE?
A
- Mock prison in the basement of the psychology department in Stanford University.
- They selected 21 male student volunteers who tested ‘emotionally stable’,
- They were randomly assigned to be prisoner or guard.
- They were encouraged to conform to their social roles through the uniform they wore and also instructions about their behaviour.
24
Q
Uniform (SPE)
A
- Prisoners wore loose smock and cap to cover hair and they were identified by numbers.
- Guards had their own uniform reflecting the status of their role, with wooden clubs, handcuffs and mirror shades.
- The uniforms created a loss of personal identity (de-individualisation) meaning they were more liekly to conform to their social role.
25
Instructions about behaviour (SPE)
- Prisoners were encouraged to indentify with their role by several procedures.
- For example rather than leave the study early, prisoners could 'apply for parole'.
- The guards were encouraged to play their role by being reminded that they had complete power over the prisoners.
26
Findings related to social roles (SPE).
- Guards were harsh and prisoners rebelled in the first two days (they ripped their uniform and swore at the guards who retaliated with fire extinguishers).
- Guards created opportunities to enforce the rules and administer punishment.
- After the rebellion was put down, the prisoners became subdued, depressed and anxious.
- One was released because he showed signs of psychological disturbance.
- Two more were released on the fourth day.
- One went on a hunger strike (the guards tried to force feed him and then put him in a tiny dark closet).
- Guards indentified more and more closely with their role.
- Zimbardo ended the study after 6 days.
27
Conclusions related to social roles (SPE)
Social roles appear to have a strong influence on individuals' behaviour (the guards were brutal and the prisoners were submissive).
Roles were taken on by all participants and even volunteers who came to perform specific roles (e.g. prison chaplain) found themselves behaving as if they were in a prison rather than a study.
28
Control over the study (SPE).
- Strength as Zimbardo had control over key variables (e.g. choosing the 'emotionally stable' individuals which ruled out personality differences).
- If guards and prisoners behaved differently it must be due to the role itself.
- This means there is an increased internal validity making it easier to draw conclusions.
29
Lack of realism (SPE)
- A limitation is that it didn't have the realism of a true prison.
- Participants were displaying demand characteristics as they acted how they thought they were supposed to be.
- This may explain why the prisoners rioted.
- However 90% of the prisoners conversations were about prison life and they discussed how it was impossible to leave before the end of their sentences (McDermott 2019)
- Suggests that SPE did replicate the social roles of prisoners and guards in a real prison (high internal validity)
30
Exaggeration of the power of roles (SPE)
- Limitation as Zimbrado may have exaggerated the power of social roles to influence behaviour (Fromm 1973).
- Only 1/3 guards behaved in a brutal manner, 1/3 applied the rules fairly and the other 1/3 tried to help the prisoners.
- Most guards were able to resist situational pressures to conform to a brutal role.
- Suggests Zimbardo overstated his view that the participants were conforming to social roles and minimised the influence of dispositional factors.
31
Orlando (1973)
- Investigate how conformity to social roles can influence people to behave in extreme roles.
- Selected staff at a psychiatric hospital to play the roles of patients on a ward for 1 week.
- After 2 days, several mock patients experienced symptoms of extreme psychological disturbance such as withdrawance, uncontrollable crying and some tried to escape.
- Most participants became more anxious and depressed.
- Study ended early as many participants were losing their sense of self identity.
32
Abu Ghraib
- From 2003-2004, US Army Military Police personnel committed serious human rights violations against Iraqi prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison.
- Prisoners were tortured, physically and sexually abused and some were murdered.
- Zimbardo noticed similarities between SPE and Abu Ghraib.
- Zimbardo provided an excuse for the personnel who committed the human right violations however.
33
What is minority influence?
A form of social influence in which a minority of people persuades others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours.
Leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours.
34
What is the augmentation principle?
The idea that we should assign greater weight to a particular cause of behaviour if there are other causes present that normally would produce the opposite outcome.
35
What are the 5 main factors of minority influence?
1. Consistency- For a minority to effect change, it has to be consistent in its message between the people in the group (synchronic consistency) and over time (diachronic consistency).
2. Commitment- People who show commitment to a cause through strong actions and personal suffering are more likely to be believed.
3. Flexibility- Minorities who are consistent but inflexible are less persuasive. Rigidly sticking to the same arguments is unappealing, and a degree of flexibility is a more successful style.
4. Knowledge- Conversion theory suggests that when a minority has informational social influence over the majority by providing new information and challenges to the majority, it can convert the majority into new ideas or beliefs.
5. Snowball effect
36
What was the aim of Moscovici et al?
To examine the effect of a consistent minority on the minority using an unambiguous task.
37
What was the procedure of Moscovici et al?
Groups of four participants and two confederates were asked to estimate the colour of 36 slides.
All the slides were blue but the brightness was varied by adding filters.
In one condition, the two confederates (the consistent minority) called the slides green on all trials in the hearing of the naive participants.
In another condition, the minority varied the consistency of their results.
The control group was not exposed to the minority.
The independent variable is if the minority are consistent or not and the dependent variable is whether the participants answer blue or green.
38
What were the results of Moscovici et al?
The naive participants agreed that blue was green on 8.42% of the trials and 32% said the slides were green at least once in the consistent condition.
In the inconsistent condition, only 1.25% gave green responses compared to the control group who gave just two wrong answers (0.25%).
39
Evaluation of Moscovici et al.
+ In another condition, Moscovici found that getting his participants to write their answers privately after exposure to the minority view maintained the conformity effect even in its absence.
- Men are more likely to be colour blind which could have an affect on the results.
- The study used artificial laboratory experiments so lacks ecological validity and internal validity.
- There is an ethical issue of deceit as they were told it was a visual perception task.
40
Atkinson et al (1990)
Students read out summaries of a discussion on gay rights.
Four of the summaries focussed on one viewpoint.
One of the summaries focussed on the other viewpoint.
Many favoured the majority view publicly (majority and NSI lead to compliance).
Many favoured the minority view privately (minority lead to internalisation).
41
Commitment-
Minorities sometimes engage in extreme activities which can demonstrate commitment. The majority pay even more attention- the augmentation principle.
42
Flexibility and consistency-
Nemeth et al (1974) agree that consistency is important but it is not always enough in itself. They carried out a variation on the procedure which Moscovici conducted but allowed the participants to answer with a combination of colours. This time there were three conditions.
1. The confederates randomly answer green on half of the trials and blue-green on the other half.
2. The confederates answer green to the brighter slides and green-blue to the darker slides.
3. The confederates answer green to every trial.
Assuming Moscovici et al to be correct, the third condition would be the greatest influence on the majority due to consistency. However this was not the case-
1. 1% of the majority changed.
2. 21% of the majority changed.
3. 8% of the minority changed.
Condition number two was consistent and flexible.
43
Knowledge-
Clark (1990)- Twelve angry men
Participants who were all students were given a summary of a case, including the fact that one juror disagreed.
Group A was not told of his arguments but group B knew the arguments made by the juror.
Group B were more inclined to side with the minority view.
44
Snowball effect-
In a further condition of Clark (1990) participants were not told that other jurors had begun to change their mind also. They were more likely to switch when they were told others had changed their mind.
45
Research support for consistency
Wood et al (1994) carried out a meta-analysis of almost 100 similar studies to Mosocvici and found that minorities who were seen as being consistent were most influential.
46
Research support for deeper processing
Another strngth is evidence showing that a change in the majority's position does involve deeper processing of the majorities ideas.
Martin et al (2003) presented a message supporting a particular viewpoint and measured participants' agreement.
One group then heard a minority group agree with the initial view while the other group heard a majority group agree with it.
Participants were finally exposed to a conflictin g view and attitudes were measured again.
People were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a minority group than if they listened to a majority group.
However this study is limited in what it tells us about minority influence in real-world situations.
47
What is social influence?
The process by which individuals and groups change each other's attitudes and behaviours.
Includes conformity, obedience and minority influence.
48
What is social change?
This occurs when whole societies rather than just indiviudals, adopt new attitudes, beliefs and ways of doing things.
Examples include, women's suffrage and gay rights.
49
Social change- lessons from minority influence research
1. Drawing attention (America 1950s civil rights marches about race)
2. Consistency (remained consistent)
3. Deeper processing (people who accpeted the status quo began to think deeply about the unjustness of it)
4. Augmentation principle (indiviuduals risked their lives numerous times)
5. Snowball effect (activists such as Martin Luther King got the attention of governments- 1964 US Civil Rights Act prohibited discrimination)
6. Social cryptomnesia (people have little memory of the events which led to change)
50
Social change- lessons from conformity research
Social influence is encouraged by drawing attention about what the majority is doing wrong.
For example the confederate who said the right answer in the Asch study.
51
Social change- lessons from obedience research
Zimbardo (2007) suggested how obedience can be used to create social change through the process of gradual commitment.
Once a small instruction is obeyed it becomes much more difficult to resist a bigger one.
52
Research support for normative influences (social change)
Nolan et al (2008) aimed to see if they could change people's energy use habits.
They hung messages on front doors in San Diego and the key message was that most residents were trying to reduce their energy usage.
As a control, some residents had a different message that asked them to save energy but no mention of other residents.
The first group had significantly decreased their energy usage.
However some studies, such as Foxcroft et al., show that NSI does not always produce long-term social change.
53
Minority influence explains change (social change)
A strength is that psychologists can explain how minority influence brings about social change.
Nemeth (2009) claims social change is due to the type of thinking that minorities inspire (divergent thinking which is broad and the thinker will weigh up more options).
Nemeth argues this leads to better decisions and more creative solutions to social issues.
54
Role of deeper processing (social change)
Limitation- deeper processing may not play a role in how minorities bring about social change
Mackie (1987) presents evidence that it is majority influence that may create deeper processing if you do not present your views.
This is because we like to think other people share our views.
Casts doubt on validity of deeper processing on social change.
55
Barriers to social change
Bashir et al (2013) found that people resist social change due to self image.
Many people were less liekly to behave in an environmentally friendly way as they did not want to be associatedd with stereotypical environmentalists.
Many people described enrionmentalists in negative ways
56
What is obedience?
A form of social influence in which an individual follows a direct order. The person issuing the order is usually a figure of authority, who has the power to punish when obedient behaviour is not forthcoming.
57
What was Milgram's (1936) baseline procedure?
40 American men volunteered to take part at Yale University
Each volunteer was introduced to another participant (who was actually a confederate).
They drew lots to see who would be learner or teacher however was fixed so participant was always teacher.
Another confederate was involved who was an experimenter who wore a lab coat.
58
How was Milgram's baseline procedure arranged?
Teacher could not see the learner but could hear him.
Teacher had to give the learner an electric shock every time the learner made a mistake on a memory task.
The shocks increased by 15 volts per mistake up to 450 volts, however the shocks were fake but labelled to suggest they were increasingly dangerous.
59
Baseline findings of Milgram (1963).
100% delivered shocks up to 300v.
12.5% stopped at 300v (labelled as 'intense shock').
65% continues to 450v- fully obedient.
Milgram also collected qualitative data such as observations- sweating and biting lips.
Three had 'full-blown uncontrollable seizures'
60
How many people from Milgram's baseline study said they were glad they participated?
84%
61
Were all participants in Milgram's baseline study debriefed?
Yes
62
What were predictions for Milgram's study before it took place?
Milgram asked 14 students to predict participant's behaviour.
The students estimated only 3% would go to 450v.
63
Why did Milgram conduct his study?
To see whether German people were more obedient as he sought an answer to why a high proportion of the German population obeyed Hitler's commands.
64
Conclusions of Milgram's baseline study.
He concluded German people were not 'different'.
He suspected that there were certain factors which encourage obedience so he conducted further studies to investigate this.
65
Research support of Milgram (1963).
Milgram's findings were replicated in a French documentary made about reality TV.
Beauvois et al (2012) made the documentary that focused on a game made specifically for the documentary called La Jeu de la Mort.
Participants believed that they were contestants and were paid to give fake electric shocks ordered by the presenter to other participants, who were actors.
80% went to the maximum of 460v to an apparently unconscious man.
They all displayed behaviour similar to what Milgram found.
66
Low internal validity and Milgram (1963).
- May have not been testing what he intended to test, Milgram reported that 75% of participants believed the shocks were genuine.
- Orne and Holland (1968) argued that participants behaved as they did because they didn't believe the set up so were 'play acting'.
- Perry (2013) did research which confirms this as she listened to Milgram's participants on tape and reported only 1/2 believed the shocks were real. 2/3 of these participants were disobedient.
- Milgram suggests the participants were responding to demand characteristics and trying to fulfil the aims of the study.
67
Counterpoint to low internal validity and Milgram (1963).
+ Sheridan and King (1972) conducted a study similar to Milgram where participants gave real electric shocks to a puppy in response to orders from an experimenter.
+ Despite the real distress of the animal 54% of male students and 100% of female students gave what they thought was a fatal electric shock.
+ This suggests that the effects in Milgram's study were genuine because people behaved obediently even when the shocks were real.
68
Limitation of Milgram (1963).
- Milgram's conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified.
- Haslam et al (2014) showed that Milgram's participants obeyed when the experimenter was using the first three verbal prods, however disobeyed on the final prod.
- According to social identity theory participants in Milgram's study only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research.
- This shows that social identity theory may provide a more valid interpretation of Milgram's findings, especially as Milgram himself suggested that 'identifying with science' is a reason for obedience.
69
Ethical issues and Milgram (1963).
The participants were decieved for example they thought the shocks were real and thought the allocation of roles was random.
Milgram dealt with this by debriefing participants.
However, Baumrind (1964) criticised Milgram for decieving his participants and she objected because she believed that deception in psychological studies can have serious consequences for participants and researchers.
70
What were the four standard prods in Milgrams study?
1. 'Please continue' or 'Please go on'
2. 'The experiment requires that you continue'
3. 'It is absolutely essential that you continue'
4. 'You have no other choice, you must go on'
71
What is a situational variable?
Features of the immediate physical and social environment which may influence a person's behaviour.
72
Name three examples of situational variables.
Uniform
Location
Proximity
73
Proximity and Milgram's research.
In the proximity variation when they were in the same room, obedience dropped from 65% to 40%.
74
Touch proximity and Milgram's research.
In the touch proximity variation, the Teacher had to force the Learner's hand onto an 'electroshock pad' when he refused to answer.
Obedience dropped further to 30%.
75
Remote instruction variation and Milgram's research.
The Experimenter left the room and gave instructions to the Teacher by telephone.
Obedience reduced to 20.5%
The participants also frequently pretended to give shocks.
76
Explanation for proximity influencing Milgram's research.
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
For example, when the Teacher and Learner were physically separated (baseline study), the Teacher was less aware of the harm they were causing to another person so they were more obedient.
77
Location and Milgram's research.
Milgram conducted the baseline study in Yale Univesity.
| When he conducted a study in a run-down office block, obedience fell to 47.5%.
78
Explanation for location influencing Milgram's research.
The prestigious university environment gave Milgram's study legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they percieved that the Experimenter shared this legitimacy and that obedience was expected. However, obedience was still quite high in the office block because participants perceived the 'scientific' nature of the procedure.
79
Uniform and Milgram's research.
In the baseline study, the Experimenter wore a grey lab coat as a symbol of his authority (a kind of uniform).
In one variation, the Experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient phone call at the start of the procedure.
The role of the experimenter was taken over by an 'ordinary member of the public' (a confederate) in everyday clothes rather than a lab coat.
The obedience rate dropped to 20%.
80
Explanation for uniform influencing Milgram's research.
Uniforms 'encourage' obedience because they are widely recognised symbols of authority.
We accept that someone in uniform is entitled to expect obedience because their authority is legitimate.
Someone without uniform has less right to expect our obedience.
81
Research support for the influence of situational variables on obedience.
Bickman (1974) conducted a field experiment in NYC.
He had three confederates dress in different outfits- a jacket and tie, a milkman's outift and a security guard's uniform.
The confederates individually stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up littler or handing over a coin for a parking meter.
People were twice as likely to obey the assistant dressed as a security guard than one dressed in a suit and tie.
This shows uniform (a situational variable) can have a powerful effect on obedience.
82
Cross cultural replications of Milgram's research on situational variables.
Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram's to study obedience in Dutch participants.
The participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to someone (a confederate) desperate for a job and 90% of the participants obeyed.
The researchers also replicated Milgram's findings, when the person giving orders was not present, obedience decreased dramatically.
Suggests Milgram's findings are valid for both genders and across cultures.
83
Counterpoint to cross cultural variation and Milgram's research on situational variables.
Smith and Bond (1998) indentified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in 'non-Western' countries, these were India and Georgia.
Other countries involved such as Spain and Scotland are not that culturally different from the US. For example they have similar notions about the role of authority.
Therefore, the lack of studies in non-western countries may make it hard to conclude that Milgram's findings apply to people in all or most cultures.
84
Low internal validity and Milgram's research on situational variables.
Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram's baseline study. They point out that it is more likely in the variations due to the extra manipulation of the variables.
An example would be the variation where the experimenter is replaced by a 'member of the public', Milgram even recognised that this situation was so contrived, some participants may have worked out the truth.
Therefore, in all of Milgram's studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuienly due to the operation of obedience or because the participant responded to demand characteristics.
85
Situational perspective and Milgram's research on situational variables.
Milgram's research findings support a situation explanation of obedience.
Mandel (1998) criticised this and argued that it offers an excuse for evil behaviour. In his view, it is offensive to survivors of the Holocaust to suggest that Nazis were simply obeying orders.
Milgram's explanation also ignores the role of dispositional factors, implying Nazis were victims of situational factors beyond their control.
86
What is the agentic state?
A mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure i.e. as their agent.
This frees us from the demands of our consciences and allows us to obey even a destructive authority figure.
87
What is legitimacy of authority?
An explanation for obedience which suggests that we are more likely to obey people who we percieve to have authority over us.
This authority is justified (legitimate) by the individual's position of power within a social heirachy.
88
What is the autonomous state?
The opposite of being in an agentic state.
A person in an autonomous state is free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions.
89
What is the agentic shift?
The shift from autonomy to agency.
Milgram (1974) suggested this occurs when a person perceives someone else as an authority figure. The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position in a social heirachy.
In most social groups, when one person is in charge others defer to the legitimate authority of this person and shift from autonomy to agency.
90
What are binding factors?
Milgram observed that many of his participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so, and he wondered why they remained in an agentic state.
The answer is binding factors which as aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and this reduce the 'moral strain' they are feeling.
Milgram proposed a number of strategies that the individual uses such as shifting the responsibility to the victim.
91
What is some research support of the agentic state?
Most of Milgram's participants resisted giving shocks at some point and often asked the Experimenter questions about the procedure.
This sometimes asking 'who is responsible for the pain?' and the experimenter replied 'I'm responsible'.
The participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections.
This shows that one participants percieved they were no longer responsible, they acted more easily as the Experimenter's agent.
92
What is a limited explanation of the agentic shift?
It doesn't explain many research findings about obedience.
Rank and Jacobson's (1997) found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient.
The doctor was an obvious authority figure but almost all nurses remained autonomous, as did many of Milgram's participants.
This suggests that the agentic shift can only account for some situations of obedience.
93
What are two situational explanations of obedience?
Agentic state
| Legitimacy of authority.
94
What is destructive authority in terms of legitimacy of authority?
Legitimate authority could become destructive for example history has shown that powerful leaders (such as Hitler) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that are cruel and dangerous.
Destructive authority was obvious in Milgram's study, when the Experimenter used prods to order participants to behave in ways that went against their consciences.
95
What is a strength of the legitimacy of authority explanation?
It is a useful account of cultural differences in obedience.
Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of female Australian participants went to 450v in a Milgram like study.
However, Mantell (1971) found that for German participants it was 81%.
This shows that, in some cultures, authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate and entitled to demand obedience from individuals.
96
What is a limitation of the legitimacy of authority explanation?
It cannot explain instances of disobedience in a heirachy where the legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted.
Rank and Jacobson (1977) in their study most of the nurses disobeyed despite working in a rigidly heirachical authority structure.
Also, a significant minority of Milgram's participants disobeyed despite recognising the Experimenter's scientific authority.
This suggests that some people may just be more or less obedient than others. It is possible that innate tendencies to obey or disobey have a greater influence on behaviour than the legitimacy of an authority figure.
97
Real-world crimes of obedience and the legitimacy of authority.
Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that nurses were prepared to disobey a legitimate authority.
However, Kelman and Hamilton (1989) argue that a real-world crime of obedience (for example the My Lai massacre) can be understood in terms of the power heirachy of the US army.
Commanding officers operate within a clearer legitimate heirachy than hospital doctors and have a greater power to punish.
98
What is a dispositional explanation?
Any explanation of behaviour that highlights the importance of the individual's personality.
99
What is the authoritarian personality?
A type of personality that Adorno argued was especially susceptible to obeying people in authority.
Such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
100
What are some characteristics people with an authoritarian personality show?
Respect for authority.
View society as 'weaker' than it once was, so believe strong and powerful leaders are needed.
Contempt for those of inferior social status.
101
What inspired Adorno's research into the authoritarian personality?
He wanted to understand the anti-semitism of the Holocaust.
102
Why is Adorno's research different than Milgram's?
Adorno believed a high level of obedience was a psychological disorder and the cause lies in the personality of the individual rather than in the situation.
103
What are the origins of the authoritarian personality?
Adorno et al. believed AP forms in childhood, as a result of harsh parenting. This includes conditional love and extremely strict discipline.
Adorno et al. argued these childhood experiences create resentment and hostility in a child but they cannot express these feelings directly against their parents- so their fears are displaced onto others who they precieve to be weaker in a process called scapegoating.
104
What is the procedure of Adorno et al. (1950) research?
Studied more than 2000 middle-class, white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups.
Researchers developed several measurement scales including the potential-for-fascism scale (F-scale).
The scale is still used to measure authoritarian personality.
105
What were the findings of Adorno et al.'s research?
People with authoritarian leanings identified with 'strong' people and were generally contemptuous of the 'weak'. They were very conscious of their status and showed extreme respect to those of higher status- these traits are the basis of obedience.
Adorno et al. also found that authoritarian people had a certain cognitive style in which there was no 'fuzziness' between categories of people (black and white thinking). They had fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups.
There was a strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
106
What is some research support of the authoritarian personality?
Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed a small sample of people who had participated in the original obedience studies and had been fully obedient.
They all completed the F-scale as part of the interview.
These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher on the F-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient participants.
The two groups were clearly quite different in terms of authoritarianism.
Therefore obedient people show similar characteristics to people who have an authoritarian personality.
107
What is a counterpoint for the research support of the authoritarian personality?
When researchers analyse the individual subscales of the F-scale, they found that the obedient participants had a number of characteristics that were unusual for authoritarians.
Unlike authoritarians, Milgram's obedient participants did not have hostile attitudes towards mother and glorify their fathers.
This means the link between obedience and authoritarianism is complex.
108
Can authoritarianism explain obedient behaviour in a majority of a country's population?
No.
For example in pre-war Germany, many individuals displayed obedient, racist and anti-semitic behaviour however it is unlikely they all had an authoritarian personality.
An alternative view is that the majority of the German people identified with the anti-Semitic Nazi state and scapegoated the Jews- this is a social identity theory approach.
Adorno's theory is limited because an alternative explanation is much more realistic.
109
What is a limitation of the F-scale?
It only measures the tendeny towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology.
Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation of Authoritarian personality.
This means that Adorno's theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation that accounts for obedience to authority across the whole political spectrum.
110
Can the F-scale be viewed as flawed?
Greenstein (1969) calls the F-scale 'a comedy of methodological errors' because it is a flawed scale.
For instance, it is possible to get a high score just by selecting 'agree' answers.
This means that anyone with this response bias is assessed as having an Authoritarian Personality.
On the positive side, research with the F-scale has provided the basis of an explanation of obedience based on AP.
111
What two things can influence resistance to social influence?
Social support and locus of control
112
What is an example of resisting conformity?
Asch's study in one variation had a confederate who didn't conform and gave the actually correct answer.
This is an example of social support and the confederate acted as a model of independent behaviour.
113
What is an example of resisting obedience?
In Milgram's research when there is another person who is seen to disobey, the obedience rate dropped from 65% to 10%.
The disobedient model challenges the legitimacy of the authority figure, making it easier for others to disobey.
114
Who proposed lotus of control?
Rotter (1966)
115
What is locus of control?
The sense we each have about what directs events in our life.
116
What is an internal locus of control?
Internals believe they are mostly responsible for what happens to them.
117
What is an external locus of control?
Externals believe that it is mainly a matter of luck or other outside forces that are responsible for what happens to them.
118
Do people either have a internal or external locus of control?
No, it is a continuum.
LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it.
So, high internal LOC is at one end and high external is on the other.
Low external and low internal lie in the middle.
119
What is the relation between locus of control and resistance to social influence?
People with a high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey.
Internal's usually take personal responsibility for their actions and experiences and they also tend to base their decisions on their own beliefs rather than depending on the opinions of others.
People with a high internal LOC are more self-confident and have higher intellegence and these traits lead to greater resistance to social influence.
120
What is some real-world research support for the positive effects of social support?
Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated Teen Fresh Start USA, which is an 8 week programme to help pregnant teens aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke.
Social support was provided by a slightly older mentor.
At the end of the programme, teens who had a mentor were significantly less likely to smoke than a control group of participants who did not have a mentor.
Social support can help young people resist social influence as part of an intervention in the real world.
121
What is a strength of social support in resistance to social influence?
Research evidence to support the role of dissenting peers in resisting obedience.
Gamson et al.'s (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign.
Researchers found higher levels of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his, this was most liekly because participants were in groups so could discuss what they were told to do.
29/33 groups of participants rebelled against their orders.
This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
122
What is a strength of locus of control influencing resistance to social support?
There is research evidence.
Holland (1967) repeated Milgram's baseline study and measured whether participants were externals or internals.
37% of internals did not continue to the highest shock level whereas only 23% of externals did not continue.
Externals showed greater resistance to social influence- this shows that resistance is at least partly related to LOC, which increases the validity of LOC as an explanation of disobedience.
123
What is a limitation that challenged the link between LOC and resistance?
Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from American locus of control studies conducted over a 40 year period (1960-2002).
The data showed that people have become more resistant to obedience but more external.
If resistance is linked to an internal LOC then we would expect people to have become more internal.
This suggests LOC is not a valid explanation of how people resist social influence.
