Social Influence: Obedience Flashcards
What is authoritarian personality?
The authoritarian personality was first identified by Adorno et al. (1950) and refers to a person who has extreme respect for authority and is more likely to be obedient to those who hold power over them.
What is the dispositional explanation for authority called?
the Authoritarian Personality
What personality traits did Adorno argue people with this personality had?
- obey ppl of higher authority
- looks down on those who are inferior to them (less authority than them)
- black and white style of thinking (everything is either right or wrong)
- traditional views of society
Explain the origins of authorities personality?
- Adorno argued this began in childhood, as a result of harsh parenting, which features strict discipline and an expectation of absolute obedience.
- Love and affection is only given when the children meet expectations, which is withdrawn if they are not met
What is the psychodynamic explanation?
- The origins of authoritarian personality creates a sense of frustration in the child. The child cannot take their frustration out on a parent as they fear punishment, so they displace these feelings onto others they perceive as inferior to them. This is known as scapegoating.
Explain Adorno et al. (1950) research
Aim: To investigate how dispositional factors, like the authoritarian personality, influence obedience.
Method: Over 2,000 middle-class Americans completed the F-scale questionnaire and interviews about personality traits, childhood experiences, and societal beliefs.
Results: High F-scale scorers showed authoritarian traits (e.g., respect for authority, rigid beliefs, and prejudice). They were often raised by strict, disciplinarian parents. They also believed the world is becoming weaker and saw strong authority as necessary to restore order.
Conclusion: Obedience can be explained by dispositional factors, as individuals with authoritarian personalities are more likely to submit to authority and blame societal issues on minority groups.
Evaluate Authoritarian Personality theory
P: One strength is evidence from Milgram’s study supporting Authoritarian Personality
E: Elms and Milgram interviewed a sample of ppl who participated in milgrams study who had been fully obedient. They all completed the F scale as part of the interview. These 20 obedient participants scored significantly higher overall of the F scale compared to 20 disobedient participants.
E: This suggest that obedient people share familiar traits to those who have an authoritarian personality.
L: Therefore, Adorno’s study have validity as there is research evidence to support it
A: However, when researchers observed subscales of the Fscale they found obedient participants had traits that were unusual for ppl who have an authoritarian personality.
E: For example, Milgram’s obedient participants didnt generally glorify their fathers, did not experience unusual levels of punishments in childhood.
E: This suggest that the connections between obedience and Authoritarian is complex
P: A significant weakness of the Authoritarian Personality theory is that it oversimplifies obedience by focusing primarily on personality traits.
E: Critics argue that the theory neglects the impact of situational and social factors that also play a critical role in determining obedience levels.
E: For example, Milgram’s variations showed that factors like proximity to the learner and the presence of dissenting peers significantly affected obedience, regardless of an individual’s personality traits. This suggests that situational contexts can prompt obedience even in those lacking authoritarian traits.
L: Therefore, while the Authoritarian Personality theory offers insights into the psychological aspects of obedience, its limitations underscore the need for a more comprehensive understanding that includes both personality factors and situational influences.
P: A significant weakness of the Authoritarian Personality theory is its potential political bias, as highlighted by Christie and Jahoda.
E: They argued that the F-scale reflects a bias towards right-wing ideologies, pathologizing conservative beliefs while ignoring similar traits in left-wing individuals. For example they both emphasize importance of complete obedience to political authority.
E: This focus on right-wing authoritarianism overlooks how authoritarian traits can also manifest in leftist ideologies, particularly where ideological conformity is enforced, limiting the theory’s applicability.
L: Therefore, Christie and Jahoda’s critique underscores the need for a more balanced approach to understanding authoritarianism across the political spectrum, rather than confining it to a specific ideology.
Explain Milgram’s Study (1963)
A- to see if an individual would obey the orders of an authority figure that incurred negative consequences and went against ones moral code.
M- 40 American males volunteered for a study of memory and learning at yale. A confederate experimementer wearing a grey lab coat (to give him an appearance of authority). There were a series of switches from 150v to 450v labelled xxx. Participants were told by experimenter to give a shock each time mr wallacae got an answer wrong. (15v up each time)
At 150 v learner began to protest to be released, this became more persistent at 300v (screaming), at 330v the screaming stopped.
R - 65.5% participants went up to 450v, however 100% of participants went up to 300v.
c- obeying those in authority is normal in hierarchically organised society. Even orders that cause distress and disagree with moral code
Evaluate Milgram’s study
phsychological harm
p - Milgram’s study was accused of exposing severe stress to participants
e - 3 participants experienced seizures which is argued to be justified as they were deceived in advertisement. Not given informed consent.
e - this experiment did not protect them from harm and deceived them.
a - participants were tested later on and were found there were no signs of long term damage.
l- study is justified by recourse to a cost-benefit analysis, short term damage outweighed long term
generablility
p - Milgram’s study only used males, meaning results cannot be generalised to females.
e - 40 american males
e - many ppl would imagine that females would be much less obedient to orders with destructive consequences
a - however, females can be more obedient because their gender roles may indicate that they may be more submissive, especially to assertive males
Real life application
p- milgrams study cam be applicable explanations to real life scenarios
e - holocaust. in ww2, adolf Eichmann committed the genocide of millions in concentration camps. when asked his reasoning why, he stated he was only ‘following orders’.
E - Milgram’s study shows that we obey orders even if they go against moral code.
L - this is a strength because the study has practical applications providing explanations why people do what they do.
What is Milgram’s Agency theory?
Milgram (1974) proposed that people have two behavioural states in social situations:
Autonomous state: Individuals direct their own actions and take responsibility for them.
Agentic state: Individuals allow others to direct their actions and pass off responsibility for the consequences.
The transition from the autonomous state to the agentic state is called agentic shift.
Evaluate Milgram’s Agency Theory
Point: A strength of Milgram’s Agency Theory is the research support from Milgram’s own studies.
Evidence: During the experiment, many participants questioned the experimenter about who would be responsible if the learner (Mr. Wallace) was harmed. When the experimenter assured them, saying, “I am responsible,” the participants often continued through the procedure more quickly and with fewer objections.
Explain: This supports the concept of the agentic state. It shows that participants were willing to shift the responsibility for their actions to the authority figure, which allowed them to continue obeying orders despite their moral concerns.
Link: Thus, this response pattern in Milgram’s study provides direct evidence for the agentic shift, reinforcing the validity of the Agency Theory in explaining obedience.
Point: A key weakness of Milgram’s Agency Theory is that it offers a limited explanation for obedience.
Evidence: For example, Rank and Jacobson’s (1977) study contradicts Milgram’s findings. In their study, 16 out of 18 nurses refused to follow orders from a doctor to administer an excessive drug dose, despite the doctor being an authority figure. This is in contrast to Milgram’s results, where a significant number of participants obeyed.
Explain: This suggests that people don’t automatically enter an agentic state when faced with an authority figure and that other factors, such as professional judgment, social norms, or the perceived consequences of actions, play a role in the decision to obey or disobey.
Link: Therefore, the Agency Theory is limited because it does not account for these variations, suggesting that obedience is more complex than simply shifting into an agentic state.
What does an individual experience in the agentic state.
In the agentic state, individuals feel moral strain—negative emotions from perceiving an action as morally wrong while still obeying. To cope, they may use strategies like shifting responsibility to the victim or denying the harm caused, which Milgram termed binding factors.
What is the legitimacy of authority?
To be obedient, we must perceive the person giving instructions as having legitimate authority, determined by society’s social hierarchy. From a young age, we learn to accept authority figures, trusting them to use their power appropriately, even at the cost of some independence.
What is destructive authority?
Problems occur when authority is abused and becomes destructive, as charismatic leaders can use their power to instruct others to act cruelly or dangerously, exemplified by figures like Hitler and Stalin, under whom atrocities were committed.
Evaluate the Milgram’s Legitimacy of Authority theory
Point: A strength of Milgram’s Legitimacy of Authority theory is that it effectively accounts for cultural differences in obedience.
Evidence: For example, Kilham and Mann (1974) found that only 16% of Australian women went up to 450 volts in a Milgram-style study, while Mantell (1971) found that 85% of German participants administered the highest shock level.
Explain: These findings indicate that authority figures are perceived differently across cultures, with some cultures fostering a greater acceptance of authority as legitimate. The higher obedience rates in Germany may reflect cultural norms that prioritize respect for authority, whereas the lower rates in Australia suggest a more questioning attitude toward authority figures, shaped by societal structures and upbringing.
Link: Therefore, the theory’s consideration of cultural context provides valuable insight into the varying levels of obedience observed in different societies, enhancing our understanding of the dynamics of authority and obedience
Point: A weakness of the Legitimacy of Authority theory is that it does not explain all instances of obedience.
Evidence: For example, in Rank and Jacobson’s study, 16 out of 18 nurses refused to follow a doctor’s orders to administer an excessive dosage of medication, despite the doctor being a recognised authority figure.
Explain: This indicates that factors beyond perceived legitimacy, such as personal ethics, professional standards, and the specific context of the order, can influence obedience. The theory fails to account for situations where individuals prioritise their moral judgment over authority.
Link: Thus, while the theory provides a useful framework for understanding obedience, its limitations suggest a need for a more comprehensive approach that considers individual differences and situational factors beyond authority alone.
