Social influence

Question 1

Milgrams original studies’ obedience percentage.

Answer 1

65%

Question 2

Milgram Variation - An assistant presses the switches

Answer 2

92.5%

Question 3

Milgram Variation - Seedy office

Answer 3

48%

Question 4

Milgram Variation - Teacher and learner in the same room.

Answer 4

40 %

Question 5

Milgram’s variation - The teacher forces learner’s hand on shock plate.

Answer 5

30%

Question 6

Milgram’s variation - Experimenter wears normal clothes.

Answer 6

20%

Question 7

Milgram Variations - 2 confederate teachers refuse to continue.

Answer 7

10%

Question 8

Milgram Variations - Prods are given over the telephone.

Answer 8

20%

Question 9

Situational factor for obedience - legitimate authority

Answer 9

We feel obligated to those in power because we respect their credentials and assume they know what they are doing. Legitimate social power is held by those authority figures whose role is defined by society, which usually gives the person the right to exert control over the behaviour of others & others usually accept it. Eg we are likely to obey the police or our bosses at work

Question 10

evaluation of legitimate authority.

Milgram’s variation

Answer 10

Supported by Milgram’s variations: When the location was moved downtown to a run down office building, the level of obedience dropped from 65% to 48%. When the experimenter was ordinary member of public rather than a white-coated scientist obedience dropped to 20%. Therefore shows that when authority is reduced obedience also decreases.

Question 11

Weakness of all situational factors.

Answer 11

Evidence against this explanation: 65% of Ps obeyed. What do these findings also tell us? How could this be a criticism of legitimate authority?
All participants in Milgram’s experiment were exposed to the same authority and yet not all of them obeyed. 35% disobeyed in the original experiment and this suggests that dispositional factors such as personality may affect obedience.

Question 12

Situational factor for obedience Graduated commitment.

Answer 12

The ‘foot in the door effect’, once people have agreed to a small task they find it hard to refuse more serious requests. Desire to appear consistent.

Question 13

supporting evidence for gradual commitment.

Answer 13

Support can be found from Milgram’s study. During the study participants were asked to agree to many different demands which at first seemed harmless (15 volt shock) but gradually increased each time. Gradual increase of shocks in 15 volt increments made if difficult to resist obeying. Further evidence can be seen from techniques salesmen use in the real world.

Question 14

Situational factor for obedience Agentic state.

Answer 14

Milgrams theory, people operate on 2 levels: As autonomous individuals aware of actions, and On an agentic level, seen as agents of others. Consequence of the agentic shift is that people attribute responsibility to the authority figure. Binding factors: they don’t want to appear rude/ anxiety of challenging authority figure.

Question 15

Evaluation of agentic state.

Answer 15

Many denied responsibility in Milgram’s study. Experimenter said he was responsible. One woman brought up in Nazi Germany refused to obey as her memories & experiences snapped her out of the agentic state.

Question 16

What is the Authoritarian personality?

Answer 16

Individuals with this type of personality were rigid thinkers who obeyed authority, saw the world as black and white and believed in adhering to social rules and hierarchies. Authoritarian personalities are likely to adhere to conventional values and have a belief in absolute obedience or submission to authority.

Question 17

elms & milgram study

Answer 17

Elms and Milgram carried out a follow-up study using Ps who had taken part in one of Milgram’s experiments 2 months earlier. They selected 20 ‘obedient’ Ps (those who had continued to the final shock level) and 20 ‘defiant’ Ps. Each Ps completed the MMPI scale (which measures a range of personality variables) and the F scale to measure their levels of authoritarianism. Ps were also asked a series of open ended questions including questions about their attitude to the ‘experimenter’ and the ‘learner’ during their participation in Milgram’s study.

Question 18

results of elm & milgram

Answer 18

Researchers found little difference between obedient and defiant Ps on MMPI (personality) variables. However, they did find higher levels of authoritarianism among those Ps classified as obedient compared to those classified as defiant. Also found significant differences between obedient and defiant Ps that were consistent with the idea of the Authoritarian Personality, e.g. obedient Ps reported being less close to their fathers during childhood. Obedient Ps saw the authority figure in Milgram’s study as more admirable but they did not admire the learner, therefore they were higher on the trait of authoritarianism.

Question 19

Milgram did not believe the evidence for dispositional factors leading to obedience was very strong. What other situational factors that you already know of can affect obedience?

Answer 19

Milgram showed that variations in situational factors were the main cause of differences in Ps levels of obedience. For example, Milgram increased proximity of the victim so teacher & learner were in the same room which decreased obedience from 65% to 40%. Also, changing location (& decreasing authority) from Yale Uni to seedy office decreased obedience from 65% to 48%. Presence of disobedient allies (social support) decreased obedience from 65% to 10%.

Question 20

Do you think that all obedient people have authoritarian personalities?

Answer 20

It would be highly unlikely that the 65% of Ps who fully obeyed had all experienced harsh parenting & therefore had authoritarian personalities. In fact, Milgram found some differences in the characteristics of an authoritarian personality and the characteristics of some of the obedient Ps in his study. E.g. Ps were asked about their upbringing: Many of the fully obedient Ps reported having a very good relationship with their parents, rather than having been raised up in an overly strict family (as was the case for the authoritarian Ps). Therefore, this suggests that not all obedient Ps had an authoritarian personality

Question 21

Are there any methodological problems with using the F scale questionnaire to assess personality type?

Answer 21

All questions are worded in the same direction (high agreement is always scored 6 = high authoritarianism). People who agree with all items may be doing so due to the tendency to agree to everything! Should balance yes/no responses & scoring, F scale has no filler questions (risk of demand characteristics) or lie detector questions (risk of social desirability bias). Therefore the questionnaire may lack internal validity

Question 22

What is minority influence?

Answer 22

A form of social influence in which a minority of people (sometimes just one person) persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes or behaviours. Leads to internalisation in which private attitudes are changed as well as public behaviours. Consistency: minority influence is more likely to occur if the minority members share the same belief & retain it over time
This will make other people reconsider their views ie ‘maybe they’ve got a point as they keep saying it’. Commitment: the minority needs to show that they are committed to their cause. They might do this by showing a willingness to risk harm to themselves or by showing that their cause will benefit wider society.
Flexibility: the minority must show a willingness to compromise otherwise their thinking might be seen as too rigid, dogmatic & unreasonable. They must be willing to adapt their view by listening to counter arguments. Persuasiveness: Minorities must attract others over to their position by providing clear arguments, eg scientific reasons for recycling.

Question 23

Locus of control (LoC)

Answer 23

The term ‘locus of control’ refers to a person’s perception (belief) of the personal control they have over their own behaviour. It is the ‘location’ of where an individual believes the control of events to be. Our personality differences will lead us to adopt either an internal or external locus of control. It is measured along a dimension of high internal to high external. High internals LoC perceive themselves as having a great deal of personal control over their behaviour Therefore they are more likely to take responsibility for it, (e.g., that’s happened because I made it happen’). If a person has a high external LoC they perceive events that happen as being outside of their control by external influences such as luck or fate