Social influence: advanced info

Question 1

Obedience: AO!

What was Milgrams baseline procedure, findings and conclusions

Answer 1

-Ppts acted as a teacher, Mr wallace as a learner
-Teacher had to increase voltage every time answer was wrong
-Volts went from 15 to 450
-ppts were debriefed after and they did a questionnaire
No ppt stopped under 300 V
-12.5% stopped at 300 V
-65% went to 450
-Participants were sweating, trembling, 1 even fainted
That americans were no different to germans.
He found that ppts were willing to obey orders even if it meant hurting someone

Question 2

……………

Answer 2

………….

Question 3

AO!: Outline Milgram situational variables

Answer 3

Location
Orignal experiment conducted at Yale, a prestigious university.
- high status of the university gave the study credibility making ppts more likely to obey
when study was in run down offices obedience dropped to 47.5%.
-suggests that status of location effects obedience.

Uniform
when experimenter wore everyday clothes obedience was 20%.
-widely recognised as symbol of obedience
Sugguest uniform of the authority figure can give them status

Promixity
Teacher and learner in same room obedience fell to 40%
When ppt had to force hand on shock plate obedience fell to 30%
When orders were given over the phone and it was just the teacher and learner in the room obedicne fell to 20.5%
-Why it feel because in baseline study couldn’t see learner, so psychological harm was minimised, whereas now you can see the effects of your actions

Question 4

AO3: Evaluation for MIlgarms study

A better explanation may be social learning theory

Answer 4

Haslam et al, found ppt obeyed when given the first 3 prods

• due to social identity theory the ppts identified with the experiment
• after 4th prod ppt stopped as they were told to blindly follow orders
• Similarly Fromm
• claims that, because Milgram’s subjects knew they were part of a scientific experiment, they were more likely to obey
• shows how SIT may be a better explanation for obedience

Question 5

AO3: Evaluation of Milgrams situational variables

There is research support

Answer 5

Bickman
In a field experiment in the streets of new york city
-Three confederates dressed as milkman, in a suit, security guards uniform asked people to perform tasks such as picking something up
-found that people obeyed the security guard twice as likely than the guy in a suit
-shows how uniform can affect levels of obedience

Question 6

AO3: Evaluation of situational variables

Studies have low internal validity

Answer 6

• Perry found many of Milgram’s participants were unsure if the shocks were real
• Orne and Holland point out in variations ppts were more likely to be convinced that experiment was fake
• An example is when the experimenter was replaced with a man with normal clothes
• Therefore hard to know whether findings are due to obedience or due to demand characteristics, this then decreases the internal validity of the study

Question 7

AO3: Evaluation of situational variables is that it has been replicated across cultures

Answer 7

Meesus

• dutch
• found that obedience was 80% when participants were ordered to say stressful things to someone who needed a job
• however when they tested proximity they found (when a researcher was not present) then obedience decreases
• this shows how situational variables that affect obedience is not just limited to Americans, it also afects other culture
• thus increasing the validity of the explanation

CP: Smith and bond, found out of all Milgram replications between 1968-1985 only two were done in cultures that are different to America
-hard to generalise findings as most cultural variations were done in countries with a similar culture to the USA

Question 8

AO3: Milgrams findings cannot explain real world examples

Answer 8

• Milgram’s explanation overlooks the role of dispositional factors
• Some people may be more obedient because of genetics or upbringing.
• Mandel argues that it would be offensive to Holocaust survivors to say that the nazis were following orders
• suggests that Milgram’s explanation is likely to oversimplify the causes of obedience and that other factors may better explain obedience

Question 9

Outline the agentic state

Answer 9

• Agentic state is an explanation for obedience
• An agent acts on behalf of the authority, but they are not unfeeling, in fact they experience high levels of moral strain
• agency theory suggests that people obey the authority take responsibility for the consequences of their actions
• For example in the Milgram study when ppts were reminded that they had responsibility, Ppts would not obey
• to minimise feelings of moral strain (guilt) people use bindings factors,
• for example blaming the victim etc
• the opposite of an agentic state is the autonomous state
• people in the autonomous state are free to behave as they wish and they feel responsible for their actions
• sometimes people will shift into the agentic state (genetic shift) when they recognise someone else is the authority is in a higher social status than them

Question 10

Evaluation of agentic state explanation

Research support

Answer 10

Milgram study can studies support role of a agentic state of obedience
Most of Mllgrams ppts avoided giving shocks at some point and asked questions
One of these was Who is responsible if
the Learner is harmed
- When the Experimerter replied 1’m respensible,
-the participants then continued with the procedure
-this means that ppts believed they no longer had responsibility they were no longer responsible for their own actions

Blass and Schmitt (2001)
-showed a film of Milgram’s study to students
-asked them to identity who they felt was responsible for the harm to
the learner
-students blamed the ‘experimenter’ rather than the participant.
- because they recognised legitimate authority figure as the experimenter
-thus supporting this explanation

Question 11

Evaluation of the agentic state

Cannot be used to explain real life situations

Answer 11

research shows that the behaviours of the Nazis cannot be explained in terms of authority and an agentic shift.

• Mandel described an incident involving the German Reserve Police Battalion 101
• soldiers killed civilians in a small Polish town even though they were not directly ordered to and were told they could be assigned to other duties
• therefore it could be argued that these soldiers were not in an agentic state, as they were not powerless to disobey
• this could be better explained by dispositional factors by plain cruelty as they may have used their power to exert their sadistic tendencies

Question 12

Evaluation of agentic shift

Doesn’t explain many research findings

Answer 12

• Rank and Jacobson
• found 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose
• even though doctor was the authority and they would have been agents acting on their behalf
• the nurses remained autonomous
• therefore the agentic state can only account for some kinds of obedience

Question 13

Outline the legitimacy of authority explanation

Answer 13

• Most sociétés have a hierarchy of authority
• The authority is legitimate as it is argued by society, it helps everything run smoothly
• some people are granted the power to punish others (like the police or courts)
• levels of legitimate authority, legitimacy of the order, system, person within the system
• people tend to obey if they recognise that the person has authority
• that the person command is legitimately based
• and that the location is legitimate to

Destructive authority

• Some people use their authority for destructive purposes like ordering people to behave in cruel ways
• An example of this is in Milgram study where teh experimenter used prods in order for ppts to behave in ways against their conscious

Question 14

Evaluation of LoA

Can explain cultural differences

Answer 14

• How authority is perceived in many countries differ
• For example kilham and Mann (Australian study) found that 16% of ppts went up 450 v whereas Mantell found that 85% of German ppts did
• this shows how in some cultures authority is more likely to be accosted as legitimate and entitled
• therefore loA can explain rates of obedience in different countries
• However it could be argued that kilhamm and mann study was gynocentric which suggests perhaps culture is not the reason for the differences but instead it’s how different genders perceive authority

Question 15

Eval of LOA

Can be used to explain real-world situations

Answer 15

Kelman and Hamilton

• argue that LOA can be used to explain war crime that happend in my lai
• soliders killed 504 unarmed civilans,
• Hamilton and Kelman said that soliders are within a social hieracy where the commanding officer has the power to punish and give out orders
• therefore it can be argued that destructive aithority can lead to people follwoing blind and destructuve orders
• However, offensive to victims, and that dispostional factors or plain crultey can be used to explain the actions of the soliders

Question 16

LOA cannot explain all disobedience

Answer 16

• Cannot explain disobedience in situations where hierarchy of authority is clear and accepted
• An example of this is the nurses in Rank and Jacobsons study who were disobedient despite working in an authority structure
• Similary ppts in Milgrams study disobeyed despite believing the experimenters scientific authority
• suggests there may be innate tendencies to obey more to orders
• so the authoritarian personality may be a better explanation

Question 17

Outline authoratrain personality

Answer 17

Adorno felt that personality rather than situational factors could explain obedience.

• He proposed authoritarian personality
• people with AP show extreme respect and view society weaker then it once was
• beleive we need strong and powerful leaders
• No grey areas everything is right or wrong

Origins

• Adorno believed this personality originated during childhood due to harsh patenting (strict discipline, expectation of loyalty
• argued that AP is due to childhood experiences that create resentment and hostility
• as they can’t express there feelings in feat of punishment they displace it onto others (scapegoating)
• psycodynamic explanation

Research

• studied 2000 males and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups
• used the f scale
• found people with AP identified with strong people and what contempt for weak
• showed extreme respect to those of a higher status
• found they had distinct cognitive style and fuzziness between categorise of people
• found strong positive correlation for authoritarianism and prejudice

Question 18

Evaluation of Authoritarian explanation

There is research support

Answer 18

• Milgram and Elms
• interviewed ppts that went to 450 v
• completed f scale and compared to 20 disobedient ppts
• found difference between obedient ppts and disobedient ppts were consistent with authoritarian personality
• For example obedient ppts saw the authority figure in Milgrams study more admirable compared to learner

Cp- obedient ppts had unusual characteristics for authoritarians, for example they did not glorify their fathers and did not have hostile attitudes towards mother

• means link between AP and obedience is complex
• so having an AP personality may not be a good predictor of the AP personality
• Highly deterministic

Question 19

Evaluation of AP

Lack of education instead of obedience

Answer 19

Middendorp and Melon
Found that less-educated people
have more of an AP compared to well educated
Similarly Milgram found people with lower levels of education were more obedient
-suggests that lack of education could
be responsible for both authoritarianism and obedience.
-therefore there may be other variables that affect whether people obey

Question 20

AO3

Evaluation of AP: cannot explain obedient behaviour in majority of a country

Answer 20

• Cannot explain obedient behaviour in a country
• For example pre war Germany millions of individuals displayed obedient and anti Semitic behaviour
• as people can differ in personality, it would be unlikely that everyone had an AP
• Alternative explanation: a social identity theory people in Germany identified with the Nazi state, which made Jews the out group
• therefore adornos theory is limited because social identity theory is more realistic

Question 21

Evaluation of AP: there is political bias

Answer 21

Christie and Jahoda
-argued f scale is politically biased explanation of AP
-left wing authoritarianism like Russia Bolshevism and Chinese Maoism have common ideologies
-not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as does not explain accounts for obedience to authority across all political spectrum
CP: evidence from Bègue et al who replicated milgrams study on a game show.
Found left wing ppts were more likely to give lower shocks, less obedient

Question 22

Outline the idea of social support in terms of social influence (conformity and obedience)

Answer 22

• Asch found when there is social support enables individual to resist conformity
• a variation of his study when social support was given by an ally who went against the confederates
• conformity dropped to 5%
• because supporters and dissenters it broke the unanimity of majority, as it gives the possibility there are other ways of thinking and responding, which gives people confidence in their decision to oppose majority

Obedience

• research found that people resist obeying when they find an ally to join them
• In a variation of Milgram study the rate of obedience dropped for 65% to 10% when ppts was joined by disobedient confederate
• confederates acts of a model of dissent for ppts to copy and free him to act from conscience
• makes it easier to challenge legitimacy of authority figure

Question 23

Evaluation of social support

There is real-world application

Answer 23

• also there is real world application for effects fo social support
• Albrecht
• eight week programmed to help pregnant adolescences to resist smoking
• when social support was provided by a mentor, ppts were less likely to smoke compared to control group who had no buddy
• shows how social support can be used as intervention in real world

Question 24

Evaluation of social support

Research support for conformity

Answer 24

Allen and Levine

• in a similar task to Asch
• when dissenter was someone with “apparently good eyesight”, 64% of ppts refused to conform
• this drops to 3% when there is no dissenter

Question 25

Evaluation for social support

There is support for role of dissenting peers

Answer 25

Gamson et al’s
-participants told to produce evidence that would be used to help
an oil company run a smear campaign.
-found 29 out of 33 groups of participants (88%) rebelled against their orders.
This shows that peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining authority

Question 26

Outline locus of control

Answer 26

• Locus of control is how much individuals perceive that they have control over their own actions
• Rotter developed this as a contiumn where people lie within
• people with internal locus of controls: believes they have control over events in life, they are more independent
• ILOC: rely less on others opinions
• People with external locus control: believe events in life is controlled by external forces
• tend to approach evenst with more passive and fatalistic outlooks
• take less reposabilty
• Rotter said high internals are less likely to resist social pressure to confrom or obey
• due to not relying on opinions of others, tend to be over achievers and are more suited to leadership, can resist coercion better

Question 27

AO3 evaluation for locus of control

There is research support between internality and externality and persuasion

Theres evidence of obedience and locus of control

Answer 27

Holland

• repeated milgrams baseline
• measured if ppts were internals or externals
• found 37% of internals did not continued to 450v compared to 23% of externals
• this illusatres how obedience can be affected by ones locus of control

Atvigis
-carried out a meta-analysis or studies or the relationship conformity.
This showed a significant positive correlation between internal and externals scores on persuasion
external tend to be more easily persuaded, and more easily influenced and more likely to conform compared to people with internal locus of control
-increases validity of LOC as explanation of obedience

Question 28

Evaluation of locus of control

People became for external but less conformist

Answer 28

Twenge

• analysed data from America loc studies over 40 years
• over time, people became more résistent to obedience but more external
• would expect if more externals than more obedience
• suggest LOC not valid explanation of how people resist social influence

Question 29

Outline minority influence

Answer 29

• Minority influence occurs when a minority influences the opinion of a majority
• Minority influence is likely to lead to internalisation which changes thoughts and opinions
• Consistency: minority needs to be consistent in its view is as it is more likely to influence the majority than if a minority is inconsistent
• Two types of consistency: diachronic consistency (consistency over time), synchronic (consistency with message)
• Commitment: minority needs to be committed, they can do this by doing extreme activities. When a minority sacrifices something (augmentation principle) the majority pay more attention to the cause
• Flexibility: someone who repeats same ideas can be seen as dogmatic, the minority needs to flexible with their views and opinions as this will help them get more followers
• Change: all three factors make people think about the minorities view or cause. Hearing a new thought or idea will lead someone to think about which then leads to deeper processing
• over time people switch from majority position to minority
• this is called the snowball effect when the rate of people switching is fast as gradually the minority viewpoint is the majority viewpoint

Question 30

AO1: Minority influence

What is the key study

Answer 30

Moscovici

• conducted an experiment where female participants were shown 36 blue slides of different intensities
• asked if slides were blue or green
• first part of experiment confedrates answerd green all 36 times
• in second part of experiment confedrates andwere green 24 times and blue 12 times
• found: hen the confederates were consistent in their answers about 8% of participants agreed with them
• when inconsistent onlky 1% agreed with them

Question 31

Evaluation of minority influence

There is research support for consistency

Answer 31

Strength
-Moscovici study found that
a consistent minority opinion had a greater effect on changing the views
than an inconsistent minority
-Wood
-carried out a meta-analysis of 100 similar studies
-found that minorities who were consistent were influential.
However: a problem with moscovichi study is that it is gynocentric, hard to generalise findings to men. Neto said that women are more likely to conform than men due to social pressure

Question 32

Evaluation of minority influence

Research support for deeper processing

Answer 32

Martin et al
-To one group they heard message then heard a minority group agree with view
-Vice versa for other groups
-found when ppts exposed to conflicting messages Participants were less willing to change their opinions if they had listened to a
minority group first
-suggests that the minority message was deeply processed
-supports central argument about how minority influence works.
CP: Mackie
-believes majority influence creates deeper processing if you do not share views
-as we think more deeply about why everyone else does not share your view

Question 33

Evaluation of minority influence

A limitation is that the tasks involved are artificial

Answer 33

Moscovichi and Martin et al research may not be a true representation of how minority influence occurs in real life
- this is because real-world social influence situations are much more complicated.
-Majorités usually have more power and status than minorities
-minorités often face hostile opposition
These features are absent from minority influence research -
-suggests that findings of minority influence studies lack external validity
-can’t tell us how minority influence works in real life

Question 34

AO3

A strength of the minority influence is that it has real-world application

Answer 34

Draw on the suffragettes, Martin Luther king, Rosa parks

For example
Rosa parks refused to give up her seat to a white man on a Montgomery, Alabama bus in 1955.
Lead to the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
the boycott lasted more than a year
U.S. Supreme Court ruled that bus segregation was unconstitutional