Social Influence Flashcards
Explanation for obedience supporting evidence, situational variables
BICKMAN
stopped on street of New York and asked to pick up paper bag, give money to stranger for a parking meter or to move away from a bus stop
Changed uniform
Milkman, ordinary citizen or guard
Obeyed more as guard
Limitation for explanation of obedience
Cultural variation
KILHAM AND MANN Replicated Milgrams study in Australia
only 16% went up to 450v compared to 65%
Show obedience rates can vary depending on factors such as how children are raised to appreciate authority figures
Research support of Agentic state
HOFLING ET AL
nurses
Dr Smith called ask to administer 20 mg of drug to a patient but on label max dosage is 10mg
Nurses knew accepting instruction on phone against protocol
21/22 obeyed but in a control when given this as a hypothetical scenario all nurses claimed they would not administer drug, showing agentic shift
Criticism for agentic state
MIGRAM said people shift between autonomous and agentic back n forth
Lack validity in explaining extream but real life examples such as Nazi germany, all agentic shifts were permanent
Doesn’t explain why some obey n some not
Research support for authoritarian personality -
HOWEVER BOTH THESE STUDIES ARE CORRELATIONAL SO DOESNT PROVE CAUSATION IS HAVING THIS PERSONALITY, some research suggest this personality associated with Lowe level of education so maybe this is a significant factor that affects obedience
ADORNO
2000 middle class white Americans
Created a questionnaire called F scale
People select how strongly they believe in statement of characteristics of authoritarian personality
Positive correlation between prejudice against minority groups and authoritarian personality so show they do displace anger onto minorities
So possess characteristics that make more likely to be obedient
ELMS AND MILGRAM
20 participants who obeyed to 450v and 20 who didn’t
Made take questionnaire
Those who obeyed scored higher
Moscovinci in minority influence
36 blue slides
Questioned participants what colour it was
In consistency condition confederates (minority) and 4 participants (majority)
GROUP ONE- confederates consistently angered green for all 36 slides
GROUP TWO- answered green 24 times and blue 12 times
Participants answered green 8x more in consistent condition (however 92% still said blue)
HOWEVER :(- only women sample used, beta bias lack generalising to men
Ecologically validity- artificial task
Milgrams support of social support
Condition where it was 3 people testing learner (one was participant others were confederates)
When confederate refused to give shock obedience rates dropped from 65% to 10%
Support of social support from Asch
At first 33% of participants gave obviously wrong answered when all others were confederates giving wrong answeres
When Asch varied study and manipulated unanimity so a confederate was saying the right answer they dropped to 25% even when confederate gave a different wrong answer
Research support of locus of control as an explanation for resistance
HOLLAND
Repeated Milgrams study but first measured if they had external or internal locus of control
Internal resisted 14% more
HOWEVER LOCUS OF CONTROL USE QUESTIONNAIRE SELF REPORT METHOD, social desirability
