Social Influence Flashcards

Question

Evaluate obedience and milligrams shock research

Answer 1

✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT P- one strength is that milgrams findings were replicated on a French documentary about reality TV E- in the documentary contestants for a pilot episode of Le jeu de la mort what ordered to shock other actor participants in front of a studio audience. 80% delivered a shock of 460 V to an apparently unconscious man. Qualitative behaviour observed was identical to milgrams E- Tmt Milligrams original findings about obedience are supported. ❌ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY P- one limitation is that milligrams procedure may not have been testing what it was intended to test E- reported that 75% of his participants believe the shocks were genuine. ORNE and HOLLAND argued playacting since participants believed shock were fake. PERRY confirmed this listening to tapes of participants and reporting only about half of them believe shocks were real. E- Tmt demand characteristics ✅ COUNTERPOINT P- however SHERIDAN and KING Conducted a study in which participants were ordered to give real shocks to a puppy. E- Despite the real distress of the animal 54% of male students and 100% of females delivered what they thought was a fatal shock. E- tmt original findings were genuine since people behaved to obediently even when shocks were real ❌ ALT INTERPRETATION TO FINDINGS P- milgrams conclusions about blind obedience may not be justified E- HASLAM show the every participant given the fourth pro without exception disobeyed. Social identity theory shows that participants only obeyed when they identified with the scientific aims of the research and we’re not willing to blindly obey E- this means that SIT provides more valid interpretation of milgrams findings ❌ ETHICAL ISSUES LMAO CRIDPP BRAUMRIND

Answer 2

- HOFFING - unknown doctor telephone 22 nurses - alone asked to administer an overdose of a drug not on their ward list (astroten) - 95% of nurses started to administer the drug - RANK AND JACOBSON - asked by doctor to administer overdose of Valium (familiar drug) - Doctor name was known - Nurses had chance to discuss - 2 out of 18 obeyed

Answer 3

1. Baseline study Yale uni PROXIMITY: 2. T and L same room 3. Touch variation (T forces L hand onto plate) 4. Remote instruction (E gave orders from phone) LOCATION 5. Uni > run down office UNIFORM 6. Member of public (NOT GREAT SINCE PUBLIC AUTHORITY VARIABLE- USE BICKMAN INSTEAD FOR AO1)

Answer 4

ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE= 65% 1. TEACHER AND LEARNER SAME ROOM - obedience rate dropped to 40% 2. TOUCH PROXIMITY VARIATION - teacher forced learners hand onto electroshock plate - obedience dropped to 30% 3. REMOTE INSTRUCTION VARIATION - experimenter left room > gave instructions to shock by phone - obedience dropped to 20.5% - pps frequently pretended to give shocks EXPLANATION- decreased proximity allowed participants to psychologically dissociate themselves from the consequences of their actions

Answer 5

ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE= 65% 4. RUN DOWN OFFICE BLOCK LOCATION - in run down office block not prestigious Yale uni - obedience fell to 47.5% EXPLANATION- obedience decreased because legitimacy and authority associated with Yale university was lost. However, obedience were still high as participants still identified with the scientific aims of the procedure

Answer 6

ORIGINAL OBEDIENCE- 65% 5. UNIFORM VARIATION - experimenter wore grey lab coat - variation experimenter called away bcs of an inconvenient phone call - role of experimenter taken over by an ‘ordinary member of the public’ (actually a confederate) in every day clothes - obedience dropped to 20% 6. (And what you should be using) BICKMAN - Field experiment NYC - three confederates dress in different outfits: jacket and tie, a milkman’s outfit, and a security guards uniform - confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks like picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter - People 2x as likely to obey the assistant dressed as security guard than the one dressed in a jacket and tie - obedience is greatly impacted by a situational variable such as uniform EXPLANATION- uniforms encourage obedience as they are a universal symbol of authority. We are conditioned to believe there or authority is legitimate and so we accept that they titled to expect obedience

Answer 7

✅ CROSS CULTURAL VALIDITY P- one strength of milligrams research is that his findings have been replicated in other cultures E- for example, MEEUS and RAAJMAKERS ordered Dutch participants to say stressful things in an interview to an interviewee (a confederate) desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. When the person giving the orders was not present obedience decreased dramatically, proving the validity of milligrams situation replications. E- tmt Milligrams findings about obedience can be generalised to other cultures and genders ❌ COUNTERPOINT P- one weakness of milligrams replications is that they’re not very cross cultural E- for example, BOND and SMITH identified just two replications between 1968 and 1985 that took place in non western countries (INDIA AND JORDAN). The other countries had western ideals similar to the United States, and subsequently have similar notions about the role of authority. E- TMT it may not be appropriate to generalise milligrams findings to all people most cultures ❌ LOW INTERNAL VALIDITY P- limitation is that participants may have been aware the procedure was faked E- ORNE and HOLLAND criticised milligrams baseline study and argued that it is even more likely in his variations because of extra manipulation of variables (eg experimenter replaced by public) Even milligram recognise that the situation was so unusual the participants may have guessed the truth. E- this means that milligrams findings may not be genuine as participants saw through deception and responded to demand characteristics. The study has low internal validity as a result. ❌ THE DANGER OF THE SITUATIONAL PERSPECTIVE P- whilst milligrams findings support a situational explanation of obedience, It may be considered offensive in some situations E- for example, MANDEL argues that it offers an excuse or alibi for evil behaviour, and is subsequently offensive to survivors of the holocaust to suggest that Nazis were simply obeying orders. Milligrams explanation also ignore the effective dispositional factors (personality) E- this means that the situational perspective can be used dangerously to justify horrific acts and deny the individual of responsibility which they should embrace

Answer 8

1. AGENTIC STATE 2. LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY

Answer 9

- Milgram was interested in obedience after the trial of Adolf Eichmann - was in charge of Nazi death camps, defence was that he was only obeying orders - Milgram argued that obedience to destructive authority occurs when someone does not take responsibility for their actions and instead believes that they are acting on someone else’s behalf - Agent still experiences high moral strain but feels powerless to disobey - normally in autonomous state= free to behave according to their own principles and feels as sense of responsibility for their own actions - autonomy — AGENTIC SHIFT —> agentic state - MILGRAM= agenic shift occurs when someone else is considered an authority figure - The authority figure has greater power because they have a higher position on the social hierarchy - One person in charge others differ to legitimate authority (and agenic shift occurs) BINDING FACTORS - MILGRAM= many pps wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so - They were able to remain in a state due to binding factors (aspect of the situation that allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the moral strain) - Strategies to employ this involve victim blaming

Answer 10

- Society structured in hierarchical way - The authority they yield is legitimate in the sense its agreed by society - it’s accepted that authority figures are allowed to exercise social power over others because this allows society to function smoothly - Some people have power to punish - Subsequently we voluntarily give up some of our free will and hand control over to people we trust to exercise their authority appropriately (e.g. courts) - problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive (DESTRUCTIVE AUTHORITY) - charismatic and powerful leaders (HITLER) can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes, ordering people to behave in ways that cruel and dangerous - E.g. experimenter in MILGRAM

Answer 11

AGENTIC STATE ✅ RESEARCH SUPPORT P- one strength is that milligrams own studies support the role of the agenic state in obedience E- for example when guilty participants resisted giving shocks and asked who was responsible if Mr Wallace was harmed, the experimenter replied “I am responsible”. After this participants often went through the procedure quickly with no further objections. E- this shows that once participants perceive if they were no longer responsible for their own behaviour they acted more easily as the experimenters agent, just as Milgram expected ❌ A LIMITED EXPLANATION P- one limitation is that the agenic shift doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience. E- for example it does not explain the findings of RANK and JACOBSONS nurses study, in which they found that 16 out of 18 hospital nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose to a patient (despite the doctor being a perceived authority figure) E- this means that since most of the nurses remained or autonomous, the agenic shift can only count for some situations of obedience ❌ OBEDIENCE ALIBI REVISITED P- another weakness is that there are instances of behaviour challenging the agent explanation E- for example MANDEL describes an incident in ww2 in which reserve police battalion 10 one shot many civilians in a small town in Poland despite not having direct orders to do so. E- this means that the agentic state does not apply to all situations as the men continue to behave autonomously whilst abusing their power LEGITIMACY OF AUTHORITY ✅ EXPLAINS CULTURAL DIFFERENCES P- one strength of the legitimacy explanation is that it is useful account of cultural differences in obedience E- this is because obedience in many cross cultural studies differs, e.g. Whilst KILHAM and MANN found that only 16% of female Australian participants went all the way up to 450 V in a Milgram style study, MANTELL Found a very different figure for German participants- 85% E- this shows that in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate. It reflects the way that different societies are structured and how children are raised to perceive authority figures CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL DISOBEDIENCE ❌ P- one limitation is that legitimacy can explain all instances of disobedience in a hierarchy where legitimacy of authority is clear and accepted E- for example, most of the nurses in RANK and JACOBSON’S study disobeyed despite them working in a rigidly hierarchical authority structure. Furthermore, some of Milgrams participants disobeyed, despite recognising the experimenters scientific authority. E- this means that in its tendencies to appeal if they have greater influence on behaviour than legitimacy of an authority figure ✅ REAL WORLD CRIMES OF OBEDIENCE P- A strength of legitimacy of authority comes from real world evidence E- for example HAMILTON and KELMAN argue that the My Lai massacre can be understood in terms of power hierarchy of the US Army- commanding offices operate within a clear legitimate hierarchy and hospital doctors and have greater power to punish E- this means that destructive authority is harder to disobey the more punishment that is threatened, And hence reinforces the theory

Answer 12

- THE AUTHORITARIAN PERSONALITY: 1. Authoritarian personality and obedience 2. origins of the authoritarian personality 3. ADORNOS research

Answer 13

- Anti semitism of the holocaust - unlike MILGRAM, they believed a higher level of obedience was a psychological disorder (pathological) - Causes lie in PERSONALLY rather than SITUATION

Answer 14

- Extreme respect for (and submissiveness) towards authority - View Society is weaker than it once was and believe we need strong and powerful leaders to enforce traditional values such as patriotism and family - Contempt for those of inferior social status - Inflexible outlook on the world (no grey areas) ^ - Very uncomfortable with uncertainty (everything right or wrong) - People who are ‘other’ (e.g. people of different ethnic groups) are responsible for ills of society - ‘other’= convenient target for authoritarians

Answer 15

- Answer lies in childhood, often due to harsh parenting - Parenting style typically involves strict discipline, expectations of absolute loyalty, impossibly high standards, and severe criticism of perceived - Parents offer conditional love - childhood experiences create resentment and hostility but child cannot express these feelings against parents as they believe it will lead to punishment - Instead they displace onto who they perceive to be weaker (scapegoating) - Leads to hatred towards those who perceived inferior - A psychodynamic approach

Answer 16

PROCEDURE- - More than 2000 middle-class white Americans - Measure unconscious attitudes towards other racial groups - research as developed several measurement scales, including the potential for fascism scale (F scale) - examples of questions on the questionnaire include ‘ Obedience and respect for authority of the most important virtues for children to learn’ , and ‘ There is hardly anything lower than a person who does not feel great, love gratitude, and respect for his parents’. FINDINGS- - People with authoritarian learnings (high score on F scale and other measures) identified with strong people who were generally contemptuous of the weak - conscious of status and extreme respect and servility to those of highest status (traits that are the basis of obedience) - Authoritarian people have a certain cognitive style in which there was no fuzziness between categories of people (black and white thinking) - Had fixed and distinct stereotypes about other groups (positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice)