Social Influence - Advanced Information Flashcards
16 Marker Plans
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience. (16 marks)
AO1
Aims:
- If Germans different + more obedient to authority figures than people in other countries
- Ordinary American citizens would obey unjust order from an authority figure and inflict pain on another person.
Procedure:
- 40 male volunteers (advert in local paper for experiment on ‘punishment and learning’)
- Lab - experimenter, leaner and teacher (Mr Wallace).
- Participant always ‘randomly assigned’ to teacher
- Teacher watched learner strapped to electric chair and given sample shock to convince them.
- Teacher gives shock every mistake and increases voltage
- Increased V, scream = louder. 300V - complained of weak heart, 315V banged on wall, 330V silent.
- Stopped until teacher refused or 450V reached
- Experimenter used prods
Findings:
- all went to 300V, 65% to 450V
- Showed signs of extreme tension – sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lip
- 3 had uncontrollable seizures
- Different to when he asked 14 students predicted no more than 3% would continue to 450V
Conclusion:
- Under right circumstances that ordinary people will obey unjust orders.
- Germans aren’t different to others.
Describe and evaluate Milgram’s research into obedience. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 - 10 marks DW,CW,DW
- Ethical issues – deceived participants saying it was a ‘punishment and learning’ experiment. But measuring obedience and pretended the learner was receiving shocks. Example of deception as they seen the learner be strapped to the chair and be given a sample. Therefore, has wider implications as public may lose trust in psychologists and not take part in future studies.
- /+ Lacks population validity. Bias sample (40 males). Not apply to 50% of the population (women) so level of obedience different. Beta bias as difference in men and women d and assumed that it is standard response. However, evidence for women found by Sheridan and King (1972) where real shocks given to puppies. Found 54% of men and 100% of women delivered fatal shocks. Shows that women are more likely to obey authority. But also, the effects of Milgram’s study genuine and therefore also increases the reliability.
- Lacks ecological validity. Lab different to real life where asked to follow more subtle instructions then give electric shocks. So can’t be generalised to everyday life. Therefore, lacks realism as cannot tell if results due to the situation or behaviour. Could argue cost of completing this research don’t outweigh benefits so meaningless.
Milgram provided situational explanations for obedience. Describe and evaluate two situational variables that have been shown by Milgram to affect obedience to authority. (16 marks)
AO1
- Situational variables - feature of an environment that impact degree to which individuals obey.
- Proximity - physical closeness/distance form an authority figure.
- Original study the teacher and learner in adjoining rooms
o One variation - same room. Obedience rate - 60% to 40%.
o Another variation – teacher forced the learner’s hand onto plate. Lowered the obedience rate to 30%
o Finally, another variation of proximity - experimenter in different room and gave teacher orders over the phone which had obedience rates at 20.5%.
o Showed closer the proximity of authority figure higher obedience rates. And the closer to the ‘victim’/learner the lower the obedience rate. - Uniform – Clothes of an authority figure wears that symbolises their position of authority
o Original – experimenter wore grey lab coat
o One variation – ordinary member of the public. Obedience rate – 20%
o Shows when wearing less professional clothing decrease in obedience.
Milgram provided situational explanations for obedience. Describe and evaluate two situational variables that have been shown by Milgram to affect obedience to authority. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 - 10 marks DW, DW, HB, HB
+ Systematic control. Altered one variable at a time. Only change each variable (uniform, proximity, location) at a time not at once. Therefore, sure that each has an impact on obedience and not impacted by extraneous variables. Give the situational variables more validity.
- Lacks internal validity as demand characteristic. Orne & Holland argues participants worked out procedure was fakes particularly when experimenter replaced with member of public. Means results weren’t valid as participants didn’t act ‘naturally’ and could’ve changed behaviour. Therefore, Milgram couldn’t measure effect of situational variables. Therefore, weakening study and evidence supporting this explanation.
+ Uniform is valid explanation. Bickman - 3 confederates, one wore jacket and tie, milkman, and security guard. Asked public pick-up litter or pay money for parking meter. More likely obey security guard. Support situational variables explanation of obedience as shows uniform (security guard) impact obedience levels shown in an everyday situation.
+ Situational variables have been replicated in other cultures; Miranda (81) found an obedience rate of over 90% amongst Spanish students. Suggests this explanation can be seen as valid as it can explain how uniform, proximity and location can affect obedience levels in culture across the world.
Outline and evaluate one or more explanations of obedience. (16 marks)
A01
- Agentic Shift – change from autonomous state to agentic state. Mental state where individual feels no personal responsibility over their own behaviours as they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure i.e., an agent.
- Autonomous state - feel responsible for own actions so behave according to own conscience.
- Give up free will by handing over responsibility to an authority figure.
- Frees them up from demands of their own principles and allows them to obey the authority figure.
- Authoritarian Personality – Adorno (50) investigated causes of obedient personality >2000 middle class white Americans and unconscious attitudes towards racial groups.
- F-scale. ‘F’ for fascist - dictator with complete power that people follow.
- High score on F-scale - identify with ‘strong’ people and generally disrespectful and hatred for the ‘weak’.
- Very conscious of own and others’ status, showed excessive respect, submission, slave like to those of higher status. traditional views to sex, race and gender.
Outline and evaluate one or more explanations of obedience. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 - 10 marks DW, DW, HB, HB
- AS- doesn’t explain many findings. Doesn’t explain why some people didn’t obey. AS suggests as human involved in social hierarchies, participants should’ve obeyed order and hand over responsibility to experimenter. Only case for 65%. Suggests AS only accounts for some situations of obedience.
+ Blass and Schmitt showed film of Milgram’s study to students and asked to. Identify who was responsible. Blamed ‘experimenter’. If students felt responsibility on experimenter as authority figure, easy to see how teacher would have given up responsibility and entered AS so leading continue giving shocks. Suggests that is valid explanation.
+ Research Support. Milgram, and Elm conducted interviews with some of the individuals involved in the study. Those highly obedient, significantly more authoritarian on F scale than disobedient participants. Suggests a link between authoritarian personality and obedience.
- However, only correlational. Possible to draw conclusions that authoritarian personality causes obedience based on these results. May be a third factor involved. E.g., Hyman and Sheatsley thought they were associated with lower levels of education and so not directly linked so limiting the AP as an explanation.
Discuss the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience. (16 marks)
AO1
- Authoritarian Personality – Adorno (50) investigated causes of obedient personality in study of more than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards racial groups.
- Through F-scale. ‘F’ for fascist - dictator with complete power that people follow.
- Found people scored high on F-scale identify with ‘strong’ people and generally disrespectful and had a hatred for the ‘weak’.
- Some characteristics include – tendency to be obedient to authority, traditional views to sex, race and gender and extreme submissiveness and respect to authority.
- Harsh parenting thought to be a result of this. – extremely strict discipline, conditional love, and impossibly high standard.
- Creates resentment and hostility. Fear and anger displaced onto those weaker so explains behaviour toward authority and those ‘inferior’
Discuss the authoritarian personality as an explanation for obedience. (16 marks)
A03
AO3 - 10 marks HB, DW, DW, HB
+ Research Support. Milgram, and Elm conducted interviews with some of the individuals involved in the study. Those highly obedient, significantly more authoritarian on F scale than disobedient participants. Suggests a link between authoritarian personality and obedience.
- However, only correlational. Possible to draw conclusions that authoritarian personality causes obedience based on these results. May be a third factor involved. E.g., Hyman and Sheatsley thought they were associated with lower levels of education and so not directly linked so limiting the AP as an explanation.
- Link between authoritarian personalities and harsh parenting – only correlational. No ways to establish cause and effect and experiments in these areas cannot be carried out due to ethical reasons. Therefore, don’t know true reason for AP. Limits validity of explanation
- Large sample so increases generalisability. But only white, middle-class men. Therefore, inappropriate to apply to other cultures and gender when there’s no research to support this.
Describe and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. Refer to evidence in your answer. (16 marks)
AO1
- Social support – resist pressure to conform/obey if there’s an ally supporting their view.
- Can build confidence and allows person to remain independent.
- Breaks unanimity as breaks from agreement of majority.
- No longer fear being ridiculed allowing avoidance of NSI.
- Allows individual act according to owns conscience.
- E.g. Milgram– two confederates withdrew 65%-10% showing support for desire to disobey.
- Locus of Control – degree of control an individual feels they have over their life and measured on a continuum from internal external.
- Internals –controlled by themselves e.g. good exam due to revision,
- Externals – out of control –good exam due to textbook
- Internals more likely resist social influence - take personal responsibility for actions and base decision on own beliefs.
- More self-confident and achievement orientated, higher intelligence, need less social approval so greater resistance.
Describe and evaluate two explanations of resistance to social influence. Refer to evidence in your answer. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 - 10 marks HB,HB,CW,HB
+ Conformity to the majority view impacted by when social support arrives. Allen & Levine - participants more likely to dissent when dissenter = 1st confederate rather than 4th. Earlier participant’s judgment confirmed = better. Shows factors can impact how well social support prevents social influence.
+ Asch found social support doesn’t have to be valid to be effective. If another dissenter gives wrong answer, allows participant to dissent too. Although rate of conformity lowest (5.5%) when dissenter gave correct answer, only 9% when dissenter gave another incorrect answer. Shows how powerful social support can be in helping people resist social influence.
+/- Contradictory evidence, Twenge (04) analysed data from American LoC studies over 40 yrs (60-02). Knew American public had become more independent over this time but also more external.
Although this challenges link between internal LoC and increasing resistance behaviours, possible that other factors could’ve influenced results. Possible change in society are reasons for results as many things out of personal control therefore people more external in the LoC
+ Supporting evidence between LoC and resisting obedience. Holland (67) repeated Milgram’s and measured whether participants = I/E. 37% Is resisted to highest shock whereas 27% Es resisted. Internals therefore showed more resistance than externals. Therefore, increases validity of LoC explanation.
Describe and evaluate research into minority influence. (16 marks)
AO1
- Minority Influence – form of social influence where minority people persuade others to adopt their beliefs, attitudes/behaviours.
- Leads to internalisation/conversion in which private attitudes and public behaviours are changed.
- Moscovici – ‘blue slide, green slide’ study. 6 people view set of 36 differing blue-coloured slides and state whether B/G. 3 groups = 2 confederates each. 1st consistently said green on 2/3 of trials. Participants gave same wrong answer on 8.42% of trials. 2nd exposed to inconsistent minority and agreement fell to 1.25%
- 3rd control no confederates. Just had to identify colour. Got wrong on 0.25%.
- Consistency - effective same beliefs both over time (diachronic consistency) and between individuals (synchronic consistency). Effective as draws attention to minority view.
- Commitment – more powerful if demonstrates dedication (personal sacrifices). Sometimes extreme activities to show risk. Effective as shows not acting out of self-interest.
- Flexibility – Nemeth (86) argued consistency can be view negatively. Repeating same beliefs - rigid, unbending, opiniated, off-putting so unlikely to be effective. Therefore, prepared to adapt POV and accept reasonable/valid counter arguments. Key to strike balance between consistency and flexibility.
Describe and evaluate research into minority influence. (16 marks)
A03
AO3 - 10 marks CW, DW, DW
+/- Research studies usually make very clear and obvious distinction between majority and minority. Moscovici able to control groups (4-majority, minority – 2). However, real situations more complicated than difference in numbers. E.g., majorities = more power/ status but minorities = more committed to cause. Means changing views in real life more complicated and research doesn’t account for this.
+ Research support shown to change beliefs privately. Moscovici – participants allowed to write answers so there was greater private agreement with minority. Meant majority convinced and changed views but not publicly. Therefore, shows minorities do get people to question own views and change beliefs with their new POV.
- Limitation of tasks. Moscovici’s coloured slide (artificial). Cannot be generalised (lacks external validity) as we don’t know how MI works in real life. Cases like jury decisions and political campaigning, the outcomes much more important.
Discuss legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience. (16 marks)
AO1
AO1- 6 marks
- More likely to obey those who we perceive to have authority over us.
- Authority justified by individuals’ position of power within a social hierarchy
- taught to recognise value of obedience from young age- helps keep stability if exercised appropriately
- legitimate = power to punish. People willing to give up independent and handover their behaviour to those they trust (agentic shift)
- Legitimacy of authority can become destructive i.e., ordering people to behave in ways = callous, cruel etc - Hitler.
- Destructive shown when Milgram when used prods.
Discuss legitimacy of authority as an explanation of obedience. (16 marks)
AO3
AO3 - 10 marks HB, CW?, DW, DW
+ Research support. Blass & Schmitt - Milgram study to students identified experimental responsible. Students said experimental equal top of authority hierarchy therefore equal legitimate. Show students recognised legitimacy of authority as cause of obedience.
+ Explains cultural differences. Countries differ in degree to which people traditionally obedient. Killham & Mann [74] replicated Milgram in Australia. 16% - all the way. Whereas MantelL different figure for Germans 85%. Shows some cultures figures more likely accepted as legitimate therefore entitled to demand obedience from others. Reflects way different societies structured and how children raised to perceive authority figures so increasing validity. However, could suggest social hierarchies aren’t as prevalent in such societies and so no authority figures perceived. Therefore, so less obedience as don’t consider others above in this hierarchy.
+ Milgram support. Original =l Yale University- 62.5%, variation = run down building- 48%. Change in location decreases legitimacy of authority as participants less likely trust experiment. Therefore, less likely to obey providing support for explanation.
+ Explains real life war crimes. Kelman and Hamilton argue the My Lai massacre where around 500 unarmed Vietnam civilians killed by American soldiers can be understood by power hierarchy of U.S. Army. Soldiers argued those higher = legitimate authority figures so followed orders. Has practical application. If useful for war crimes, then possibility help us understand how prevent crimes in future by challenging legitimate authority rather than obeying mindlessly.
