Social influence - Obedience

Question 1

Milgrams research - Baseline procedure

Answer 1

American men gave fake electric shocks to a ‘Learner’ in response to instructions from an ‘Experimenter’

Question 2

Baseline findings

Answer 2

65% gave highest shock of 450v. 100% gave shocks up to 300v. Many showed signs of anxiety e.g. sweating

Question 3

Evaluation - research support

Answer 3

French TV documentary show found 80% gave maximum shock, plus similar behaviour to Milgrams participants (Beauvios et al)

Question 4

Low internal validity

Answer 4

Participants realised shocks were fake, so play-acting (Orne and Holland). Supported by Perry - tapes of particpants showed only 50% believed shocks real.

Counterpoint- participants did give real shocks to a puppy (Sheridan and King)

Question 5

Ethical issues

Answer 5

Deception meant participants could not properly consent (Baumrind) . May be balanced by benefits of the research.

Question 6

Proximity

Answer 6

Obedience 40% with T and L in the same room, 30% for touch proximity.
Psychological distance affects obedience

Question 7

Location

Answer 7

Obedience 47.5% in run-down office building.
Universitys prestige gave authority

Question 8

Uniform

Answer 8

Obedience 20% when Experimenter was ‘member of the public’.
Uniform is symbol of legitimate authority

Question 9

Evaluation- Research support

Answer 9

Bickman showed power of uniform in field experiment

Question 10

Cross-cultural replications

Answer 10

Dutch participants ordered to say stressful things to interviewee, decreased proximity led to decreased obedience (Meeus and Raaijmakers)

Counterpoint - but most studies in countries similar to US, so not generalisable (Smith and Bond)

Question 11

Low internal validity

Answer 11

Some of Milgram’s procedures in the variations were especially contrived, so not genuine obedience (Orne and Holland)

Question 12

The danger of the situational perspective

Answer 12

Gives obedience alibi for destructive behaviour (Mandel)

Question 13

Agentic state

Answer 13

Acting as an agentic another person.

Question 14

Autonomous state

Answer 14

Free to act according to conscience. Switching between the two- agentic shift

Question 15

Blinding factors

Answer 15

Allow individual to ignore the damaging effect of their obedient behaviour, reducing moral strain

Question 16

Evalution - Research support

Answer 16

Milgrams resistant participants continued giving shocks when Experimenter took responsiblity

Question 17

A limited explanation

Answer 17

Cannot explain why Rank and Jacobsons nurses and some of Milgrams participants disobeyed

Question 18

Obedience alibi revisited

Answer 18

Police Battalion 101 behaved autonomously but destructively (Mandel)

Question 19

Legitimacy of authority

Answer 19

Created by hierarchical nature of society. Some people entitled to expect obedience. Learned in childhood

Question 20

Destructive authority

Answer 20

Problems arise when used destructively (e.g. Hitler)

Question 21

Evaluation - explains cultural differences

Answer 21

In Australia 16% obeyed (Kilham and Mann) but 85% in Germany (Mantell), related to structure of society.

Question 22

Cannot explain all (dis)obedience

Answer 22

Rank and Jacobsons nurses in hierarchical structure but did not obey legitimate authority

Question 23

Real-word crimes of obedience

Answer 23

Rank and Jacobsons found disobedience to doctors but stronger heirarchy and obedience at My Lai (Kelman and Hamilton)

Question 24

Authoritarian personality

Answer 24

Adorno et al describes AP as extreme respect for authority and submissiveness to it, contempt for inferiors.

Question 25

Origins for AP

Answer 25

Harsh parenting creates hostility that cannot be expressed against parents so is displaced onto scapegoats

Question 26

Adorno et al’s research: Procedure

Answer 26

Used F-scale to study unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups

Question 27

Findings

Answer 27

AP’s identify with ‘strong’ people, have fixed cognitive style, and hold stereotypes and prejudices

Question 28

Evaluation- research support

Answer 28

Obedient participants had high F-scores (Elms and Milgram)
Counterpart- but obedient participants also unlike authoritarians in many ways, complex

Question 29

Limited explanation

Answer 29

Can’t explain obedience across a whole culture
(social identity theory is better)

Question 30

Political bias

Answer 30

Authoritarianism equated with right-wing ideology, ignores left-wing authoritarianism (Christie and Jahoda)

Question 31

Flawed evidence

Answer 31

F-scale is basis of AP explanation, but has flaws (e.g. response bias) and so not useful (Greenstein)