social influence- obedience

Question 1

Milgram (1963) procedure

Answer 1

-40 American male p’s
-p’s drew lots for their role
-confederate the ‘learner’, while p’s were the ‘teachers’
-experimenter wore a lab coat
-each time a mistake made by learner on task given an electric ‘shock’ which increased each time
-shocks fake but machine labelled to make them look severe
-if teacher wished to stop, the experimenter gave a verbal ‘prod’ to continue

Question 2

four verbal prods used in Milligrams experiment (1963)

Answer 2

-‘please continue’
-‘the experiment requires you to continue’
-‘it is absolutely essential to continue’
-‘you have no other choice you must go on’

Question 3

Milgram (1963) findings

Answer 3

-12.5% stopped at 300 volts
-65% continued to 450 volts (highest level)
-p’s showed extreme tension, three p’s had seizures

Question 4

Milgram (1963) conclusions

Answer 4

-obey legitimate authority even if this behaviour causes harm to someone else
-certain situational factors encourage obedience

Question 5

strength of Milgram: replications

Answer 5

-Beauvois et al. 2012 French tv show, contestants paid to give (fake) electric shocks to other participants (actors)
-80% gave maximum 460 volts to an apparently unconscious man
-behaviour was like Milgrams p’s supports milligrams original findings about obedience to authority

Question 6

limitation Milgram: internal validity

Answer 6

-orne and holland (1968) argued p’s guessed electric shocks were fake so were play-acting
-supported by Perry (2013) that only half of the p’s believed the shocks were real
-p’s may have been responding to demand characteristics

Question 7

limitation: findings not due to blind obedience

Answer 7

-Haslam et al. (2014) found every p given first three prods obeyed experimenter but those given the fourth (‘no choice’) disobeyed
-according to social identity theory first three prods required identification with the science f the research but the fourth required blind obedience
-findings best explained in terms of identification w/scientific aims not blind obedience to authority

Question 8

situational variables affecting obedience

Answer 8

-proximity to legitimate authority
-location
-uniform

Question 9

obedience: proximity

Answer 9

-teacher and learner in same room obedience rate dropped to 40%
-touch proximity when teacher forced learners hand onto shock plate obedience rate was 30%
-remote-instruction variation, experimenter left the room and gave instructions by telephone- obedience rate was 20.5% and p’s often pretended to give shocks

Question 10

explanations for obedience: proximity

Answer 10

-decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions
-when teacher and learner physical separated less aware of the harm done, so obedient

Question 11

obedience: location

Answer 11

-study conducted in a run-down building rather than at prestigious Yale
-obedience dropped to 47.5%

Question 12

explanations for obedience: location

Answer 12

obedience was higher at Yale as setting is legitimate and had authority

Question 13

obedience: uniform

Answer 13

-one variation experimenter called away by a phone call at start of the procedure
-role taken over by ‘ordinary member of the public in everyday clothes
-obedience fell to 20%

Question 14

explanations for obedience: uniform

Answer 14

-uniform is a strong symbol of legitimate authority granted by society
-someone without uniform has less right to expect obedience

Question 15

strength of Milgram’s study of obedience: situational variables

Answer 15

-Bickman (1974) confederates dressed in different outfits and issued demands to people of NYC
-people twice as likely to obey the ‘security guard’ the the ‘jacket/tie’ confederate
-shows that a situational variable such as uniform does have a powerful effect on obedience

Question 16

strength of Milgram’s study of obedience: cross-cultural replication

Answer 16

-Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) worked with dutch p’s who were ordered ti say stressful comments to interviewees
-found 90% obedience and obedience fell when proximity decreased
-Milgram’s findings not limited to American males but valid across cultures and so can be generalised.

Question 17

limitation of Milgram’s study of obedience: internal validity

Answer 17

-orne and holland (1968) suggested the variations were more likely to trigger suspicion bc of the extra experimental manipulation
-variation where experimenter replaced by ‘member of public’, even milgram recognised it was so contrived that some p’s may have figured it out
-unclear whether results due to obedience or bc p’s saw the deception and play-acted (influenced by demand characteristics)

Question 18

agentic state

Answer 18

don’t feel responsibility for actions as you become an ‘agent’ and act in place of another

Question 19

autonomous state

Answer 19

Independent, act according to their principles and feel responsible for their own actions

Question 20

agentic shift

Answer 20

shift from autonomy to being an ‘agent’. Milgram said it occurs when we perceive someone else as an authority figure. this person has power because of their position in a social hierarchy

Question 21

binding factors

Answer 21

-reduce ‘moral strain’
-allow the person to ignore or minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour to reduce the moral strain they feel
-proposed a number of strategies the individual uses such as shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the damage they’re causing

Question 22

strength of agentic state: research support

Answer 22

-most of Milgram’s p’s asked the experimenter who is responsible if the learner is harmed
-when experimenter responded that they were the p’s went through the procedure quickly w/o objecting
-shows p’s acted more easily as an agent when they believed they were not responsible for their behaviour

Question 23

limitation of agentic state: doesn’t explain research findings

Answer 23

-Rank and Jacobson (1977) found most nurses disobeyed a doctor’s order to give an excessive drug dose
-doctor was an authority figure but nurses remained autonomous and didn’t shift into agentic state
-shows agentic state can only explain obedience in some situations.

Question 24

legitimacy of authority

Answer 24

-society structured hierarchically
-power that authorities wield is legitimate as it’s agreed by society. most accept authority figures should exercise social power over others to allow society to function smoothly
-people with legitimate authority have the power to punish others.
-give us some independence to people we trust to exercise authority properly

Question 25

one strength of legitimate authority: cultural differences

Answer 25

-countries differ in obedience to authority
-for example 16% of Australian women obeyed (Kilham and Mann 1974), 85% of German p’s did (Mantell 1971)
-authority is seen more likely as legitimate in some cultures

Question 26

one limitation of legitimate authority: cannot explain all (dis)obedience

Answer 26

-people may disobey even when they accept the legitimacy of hierarchical authority structure
-for example, most of Rank and Jacobson’s nurses were disobedient as were some of Milgram’s p’s
-suggest innate tendencies towards (dis)obedience may be more important than the legitimacy of authority

Question 27

authoritarian personality

Answer 27

-adorno et al. (1950) believed unquestioning obedience is a psychological disorder
-people with authoritarian personality are obedient to authority and they have: exaggerated respect for authority and submissiveness to it, express contempt to people of inferior social status
-forms in childhood through harsh parenting (i.e. extremely strict discipline), can be categorised as conditional love
-this creates resentment and hostility in the child but they cannot express this to the parent so these feelings are displaced onto those who are weaker- this is scapegoating.

Question 28

adorno et al. (1950): procedure

Answer 28

-investigated unconscious attitudes of 2000 middle-class white Americans
-several scales developed including the f-scale. examples from the f-scale (rated 1-6 where 6=agree strongly) include ‘obedience and respect for authority are most important virtues for children to learn’

Question 29

adorno et al. (1950): findings

Answer 29

-authoritarians (who scored high on the f-scale and other measures) identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the weak
-they were conscious of their own and other’s status, shaping excessive respect and deference tot those of higher status
-authoritarian’s also had a cognitive style where there was fixed and distinctive stereotypes about other groups

Question 30

strength of adorno et al. (1950): authoritarians are obedient

Answer 30

-Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed 20 fully obedient p’s from Milgram’s original studies
-they scored significantly higher on the f-scale than a comparison group of 20 disobedient p’s
-suggests that obedient people may share many of the same characteristics of people with an authoritarian personality

Question 31

limitation of adorno et al. (1950): authoritarian can’t explain a whole countries behaviour

Answer 31

-millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour but they can’t have all had the same personality
-seens unlikely that the majority of Germany had an authoritarian personality. a more likely explanation is that german’s identified with the Nazi state.
-so social identity theory might be a better explanation

Question 32

limitation of adorno et al. (1950): f-scale is politically biased

Answer 32

-Christie and Jahoda (1954) suggest the f-scale aims to measure tendency towards extreme right-wing ideology
-but right-wing and left-wing authoritarianism both insist on complete obedience to political authority
-so Adorno’s theory is not a comprehensive dispositional explanation as it doesn’t explain obedience to left-wing authoritarianism