Social influence Flashcards
What is the agentic state?
Milgram stated that obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person becomes an agent which is who acts for or in place of another. Agentic state = no personal responsibility for their actions.
What is the autonomous state
Autonomy = independent or free. When is an autonomous state a person behaves according to their principles and feels responsible for their actions?
What is the agentic shift
Autonomous -> agentic. Occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. This person has power due to position of hierarchy
What are binding factors
Reduce moral strain. Aspects of situation that allow the person to ignore or minimalise damaging effect of their behaviour and reduce the moral strain they feel. Milgram proposed strategies individual uses e.g. shifting the responsibility to the victim or denying damage done to victims.
What is the legitimacy of Authority
Obeying people of higher social. People in certain positions hold authority over the rest of us e.g. parents and teachers.
What do authorities have legitimacy through
societies agreement which is legitimate as it’s agreed by society. Most accept that authority figures should exercise social power over those to allow society to function smoothly
What do we hand to authority figures
Control. People with legitimate authority have the power to punish others. We give up some of our independence to people we trust to excersie authority properly. We learn to accept authority when younger e.g. parents
What do leaders use legitimate powers for
Destruction. Some leaders like Hitler use legitimate authority destructively ordering people to behave in cruel and dangerous ways.
What is one strength of the agentic state
Has supporting evidence. Milgrams participants asked the experimenter who is responsible if Mr Wallace (learner) is harmed. When the experimenter said I’m responsible participants went through the procedure quickly without objecting. This shows that participants acted more easily as agents when they believed that they were not responsible for their behaviour
WHats one limitation of the agentic shift
Doesn’t explain many research findings. Rank and Jacobson (1977) found that most nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to give an excessive drug dose. The doctor was an authority figure and nurses remained in an autonomous state no agentic shift took place. Agentic state only explains obedience in some situations.
Extra evaluation for the agentic shift
Men of Battalion 101 did not have direct orders to shoot civilians in a polish town (Mandel 1998). They performed the massacre by behaving autonomously. Suggests that agentic shift is not required for destructive behaviour.
One strength of the legitimacy of authority
Can explain cultural differences. Research shows that countries differ in obedience. E.g. 16% of Australian women obeyed (Kilham and Mann 1974) 85% of German participants obeyed (Mantell 1971).
One limitation of the legitimacy of authority
Cannot explain all disobedience. People may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of the hierarchical authority structure. E.g. most of Rank and Jacobson’s nurses were disobedient as were some of Milgrams. Suggests that innate tendencies towards disobedience may be more important than the legitimacy of authority.
Evaluation of legitimacy of authority (my lai)
Research shows that some people disobey the legitimacy of authority e.g.Rank of Jacobson the nurses disobeyed a doctor even in a Hierarchy. But soldiers at My lai obeyed their commanding officer maybe he has more power to punish than a doctor (Kelman and Hamilton (1989). Therefore some real-world evidence that respect for legitimate authority can lead to destructive obedience.
What is proximity
The closeness of the teacher and learner. In the baseline study, the teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In proximity variation when teacher and learner were in the same room obedience declined from 65%-40%.
What happened in the touch-proximity variation of milgrams experiment
The teacher forced the learner’s hand on the shock plate. Obedience declined to 30%.
What happened in the remote-instruction variation
The experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone. Obedience declined to 20.5% of participants often pretended to give shocks.
Ex[plain how proximity affected Milgrams experiment
Decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions. E.g. when the teacher and learner have physically separated the teacher was less aware of the harm done so were obedient.
What is the location?
Study was conducted in a downtown office rather than Yale in which obedience decreased from 65% to 47.5%
Explain the results of changing location of the study
The obedience was higher in the uni because it had a higher legitimacy of authority so obedience was expected.
What is the uniform?
In baseline study the experimenter wore a grey lab coat (uniform). In one variation he was called away by a phone call at the start of the procedure. His role was taken over by an ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes. Obedience fell to 20%.
Explanation of uniform results
Uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society. Someone without a uniform has less right to expect obedience.
One strength of influence of situational variables
Supporting evidence. Bickman (1974) = confederates dressing in different outfits a milk man, security guard and a suit told public to pick up litter. People were twice as likely to obey security guard than suit. Shows that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience.
Another strength of situational variables
Cross-cultural replication of Milgrams research. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with Dutch participants who were ordered to say stressful comments to interviewees. Found 90% obedience and decreased when proximity decreased (person giving orders not present). Sows Milgrams findings are not just limited to American males.
Counter to cross-cultural replication
Bond and smith (1998) noted most replications happen in western societies which are not culturally different to USA. Therefore we cannot conclude that Milgram’s findings about proximity, location and uniform apply to people of all cultures.
Limitation of situational variables
Orne and Holland (1968) suggested the variations compared to baseline studies were even more likely to trigger suspicion because of the extra experimental manipulation. In the variation where the experimenter was replaced by a member of the public. Milgram even recognised that some participants may of worked it out Therefore it is unclear whether results are due to obedience or because the participants saw the deception and showed demand characteristics.
Extra evaluation of situational variables
The danger of the situational perspective. Milgram’s conclusions suggest situational variables determine obedience. Mandel (1998) argues this offers an excuse for genocide. Situational variables hugely oversimplify the causes of the Holocaust and are offensive to survivors. Permits others to excuse destructive behaviour behaviour in terms of “I was just obeying orders”
