Social Influence- Obedience Flashcards
Obedience
Following a direct order given by an authority figure
GAD hypothesis
Germans Are Different hypothesis is that after WW2, due to the Holocaust, people believed that Germans were too obedient, which is why Nazis were able to indoctrinate others.
Milgram (1963)
P- Lab experiment with a sample of 40 American, male, volunteers, aged 20-50
Participants allocated as ‘teacher’s and confederates acted as ‘learners’.
Learner sat on the other side of a wall, answering questions. The participant had to shock the learner when they got a question wrong.
Shocks went to 450V, the confederate began complaining at 300V.
A researcher in the room used verbal prods to prompt the participant into continuing
F- 100% went to 300V
65% went to 450V
12.5% left when the confederate complained
Strengths of Milgram (1963)
Lab experiment- highly controlled environment and limited extraneous variables
High internal validity- standardised procedure using set prods used by researchers and set complaints from the confederate.
Weaknesses of Milgram (1963)
Demand characteristics- may have been likely due to the lab setting and artificial environment
Ethics- protection from harm, informed consent, deception and right to withdraw
Low mundane realism as task was highly artificial
Biased sample- all American so cannot generalise
Milgram’s variations
Proximity of victim
Proximity of authority
Location
Uniform
Presence of allies
How did Milgram test proximity of victim
Condition 1- learner sat in the same room reduced obedience to 40%
Condition 2- touch proximity, teacher had to force the learner’s hand on a shock plate, reduced obedience to 30%
How did Milgram test proximity of authority
The researcher left the room and gave verbal prods over the phone, reduced obedience to 20%
How did Milgram test location
Changed location from Yale University to an office in Bridgeport, obedience reduced to 48%
How did Milgram test uniform
Changed experimenter from wearing a lab coat to ordinary clothes, though gave the same verbal prods and prompts. Reduced obedience to 20%
How did milligram test presence of allies
The participant was joined by two confederates acting as teachers.
When confederates obeyed, obedience increased to 92.5%. When confederates disobeyed, obedience decreased to 10%.
Explanations of obedience
Situational factors
Dispositional factors
Situational factors affecting obedience
Agentic state
Legitimacy of authority
Agentic state
Acting as an agent of authority figures, shifting responsibility to authority figures and following their orders
Autonomous state
Making conscious choices using free will, taking responsibility for their own actions
Agentic shift
The movement from autonomous to Agentic state
Binding factors
Factors of a situation that allow people to minimise their behaviour when in an Agentic state
Limitations of Agentic state theory
Individual differences- participants in Milgram and Zimbardo may have been showing cruel sides of their personalities rather than all acting as an agent of authority.
Real life obedience may not be due to an instant shift but rather doing cruel acts changing behaviour and cognition
Legitimacy of authority
Suggests people obey when an authority is higher on the social hierarchy
Authority needs to be supported by an institutional framework
Which Milgram variations show legitimacy of authority
Location
Uniform
Limitation of situational explanation of obedience
Ignores dispositional factors- Milgram only saw 65% obedience, so other 35% not explained
Dispositional explanation for obedience
Adorno’s Authoritarian personality
Authoritarian personality
People who strictly adhere to values and believe in absolute obedience and submission to authority
Characteristics of authoritarian personality
Aware of social hierarchy
Look down on people with low status
Obeying authority figures
Causes of authoritarian personality
Having strict, abusive parents
Experiencing conditional love
Creating resentment which is displaced onto others, typically of lower social standings
F-scale
Questionnaire which measures authoritarian personality
Supporting studies for Adorno’s authoritarian personality
Adorno et al (1950)
Elms and Milgram (1966)
Begue (2014)
Adorno et al (1950)
P- 2000, middle class, white Americans.
Completed a number of questionnaires including the F-scale which measured facing tendencies.
F- Ps who scored highly on the F-scale and other questionnaires self-reported as ‘strong’ and showed disrespect towards ‘weak’ people.
Authoritarian people had a particular cognitive style which stereotyped people into categories.
Strong positive correlation between authoritarianism and prejudice.
Limitations of Adorno et al
Sample- cultural bias with white Americans, also all same social class so may all look down on lower classes
F-scale has low face validity
Altemeyer (1981)
Refined the 3 personality characteristics for an obedient personality:
Conventionalism (to social norms and values)
Authoritarian aggression (to people who violate social norms)
Authoritarian submission (to legitimate authorities)
Elms and Milgram (1966)
P- 40 participants previously involved in Milgram (1963). 20 were obedient and 20 were defiant.
Completed a personality questionaire along with an F-scale to measure authoritarianism. Also interviewed about upbringing and childhood.
F- Little difference between obedient and defiant participants when looking at personality scores but higher levels of authoritarianism on F-scale for obedient participants.
Begue (2014)
P- 35 males, 31 females from Paris. Translated Milgram (1963) into the context of a game show. Shocks ranged from 20-460V. If the participant hesitated to shock,the ‘host’ gave verbal prods.
F- little difference in shock intensity between male and female Ps.
No relationship between obedience and age.
More left wing (not authoritarian) participants gave lower shocks
Moral strain
Psychological stress when Agentic behaviour goes against morals
