social influence: obediance Flashcards
Milgrim's research, situational variables, social-psychological factors, dispositional explanations (authoritarian personality)
Milgrims research: aim
(1963) to study why the German people had followed Hitler’s orders/the holocaust
Milgrims research: procedure - sample
put out ads in the paper and flyers in the post for a study about memory. (volunteer sample)
recruited 40 males between 20 and 50, whose jobs ranged from unskilled to professional.
participants offered $4.50 to take part
Milgrims research: procedure - setting up
participants arrive at the lab and are paid.
then a rigged draw for their roles where the participant was the ‘teacher’ and the confederate was the ‘learner’, is done by the ‘experimenter’ who wore a lab coat.
Milgrims research: procedure
learner strapped to a chair in another room and wired with electrodes.
shocks demonstrated to the teacher.
teacher instructed to shock the learner for every wrong answer, getting more powerful shocks each time.
Milgrims research: procedure - shock level
shock level started at 15 and increased to 450 volts through 30 levels.
at 300 volts the learner pounded on the door and didn’t respond to the next question.
after the 315 shock the learner pounded on the door and there was no further response.
Milgrims research: procedure - what where the 4 standard prods used on the teacher
1 - ‘please continue’
2- ‘the experiment requires you continue’
3 - ‘it is absolutely essential you must continue’
4 - ‘you have no other choice, you must go on’
Milgrims research: findings
no participants stopped below 300 volts.
12.5% (5) stopped at 300, 65% continued to 450 (highest).
Milgrims research:findings - qualitative data
participants showed signs of extreme tension, and many ‘sweat, tremble, stutter, bite their lips’ etc.
Milgrims research: evalutation - internal validity
Orne and Holland (1968) said the participants didn’t believe they were real electric shocks which is why they behaved how they did (in the tapes of the participants many of them expressed doubts). this means Milgrim didn’t test what he intended to so the study lacks internal validity.
Milgrims research: evaluation - external validity
Milgrim argued the lab environment (and the relationship between the experimenter (authority figure) and the participant) was an accurate reflection of wider authority relationships in real life.
Milgrims research: evaluation - ethical issues
Milgrim deceived his participants, he led them to believe the allocation of roles was random, and that the electric shocks were real.
Milgrims research: situational variables (variations) - proximity
- the the teacher and learner were in the same room (proximity condition), obedience levels dropped to 40%.
- when the experimenter left the room and gave the teacher orders by telephone (remote instruction condition), obedience dropped to 20.5%
- when the teacher had to forcibly place the learners hand on a shock plate (touch proximity condition), obedience dropped to 30%
Milgrims research: situational variables - location
conducted in a run-down office building (instead of Yale uni), obedience dropped to 47.5%
Milgrims research: situational variables - uniform
experimenter was called away because of a phone call at the start of experiment and role was taken over by a normal person (confederate) in their own clothes obedience dropped to 20%.
Milgrims research: situational variables: evaluation - internal validity
the extra manipulation in the variations makes it even more likely the participants would guess it was fake (the shocks).
this means it lacks internal validity because the reason for the participants behaviours is unclear.
Milgrims research: situational variables:evauluation - cross-cultural replications
the findings of cross cultural research have generally been supportive of Milgram/ his findings have been replicated.
Miranda et al. (1981) found an obediance rate of over 90% on spanish students. this suggests milgrims conclusions are not only limited to American males.
social-psychological factors: agentic state
a mental state where we feel no personal responsibility for our behaviour because we believe ourselves to be acting for an authority figure
social-psychological factors: agentic state
when we are free to behave according to our own principles and feel a sense of responsibility for our actions (opposite of agentic state)
social-psychological factors: agentic shift
the shift from autonomy to ‘agency’
Milgrims said this occurs when we perceive someone as a figure of authority/ having greater power because of their position in social hierarchy.
social-psychological factors: binding factors
factors that allow the person to ignore/minimize the damaging effect of their behaviour to reduce ‘moral strain’. e.g. shifting responsibility to the victim, or denying the damage they are doing to the victim
social-psychological factors: legitimacy of authority
we are more likely to obey people who we perceive as having authority over us - this authority I justified (legitimate) by their position of power in the social hierarchy.
social-psychological factors: evaluation - cultural differences (legitimacy of authority)
strength of legitimacy of authority explanation is that it is useful in understanding cultural differences in obedience.
many studies show countries differ in how much people are traditionally obedient to authority. this means that in some cultures, people are more likely to accept authority as legitimate.
social-psychological factors: evaluation - limited explanation (agentic shift)
doesn’t explain why some of the participants didn’t obey.
this suggests that agentic shift can only account for some situations of obediance
dispositional factors: the authoritarian personality
a type of personality Adorno argued was especially susceptible of obeying people in authority. such individuals are also thought to be submissive to those of higher status and dismissive of inferiors.
