Social Influence - Paper 1*

Question 1

What is Obedience

Answer 1

Obedience = The result of social influence where somebody acts in response to a direct order from an authority figure.

Question 2

What is the Aim of Milgram’s Research into Obedience

Answer 2

Aim - Milgram wanted to find out if ordinary US citizens would obey an order from an authority figure to inflict pain on another person just because they were instructed to.

Question 3

Milgram’s Obedience Study Method:

Answer 3

• 40 US male volunteers.
  Experimenter asked teachers (ppts) to shock the learner (confederate) if they got a question wrong and then increased the voltage by 15V each time.
• At 300V the learner banged on the wall and demanded to leave.
• The experimenter instructed the ppt to carry on if they hesitated using phrases such as: “You must continue”.

Question 4

Milgram’s Obedience Study Findings:

Answer 4

• All ppts went to 300V

- 65% of ppts went to the full 450V.

Question 5

Generalisability of Milgram’s Obedience Study

Answer 5

P - Criticised due to unrepresentative sample (40 US men).

E - Issue because there are gender and cultural differences in the extent to which people would obey to authority figure.

E - Also, use of volunteer sampling is biased because only “helpful” would volunteer.

L - Cannot be generalised to females or different cultures.

Question 6

Replicability of Milgram’s Obedience Study

Answer 6

P - Used standardised procedures and strictly controlled.

E - All ppts were asked to increase by 15V each time, they all heard the same recording of the learner screaming and they all had a sample shock.

E - Also, the experimenter read out the same script to all ppts including phrases such as “The experiment requires you to continue”.

L - Very replicable procedure and Milgram has conducted 19 variations of his study.

Question 7

Validity of Milgram’s Obedience Study

Answer 7

P - There is an argument suggesting the study has good external validity.

E - Although it takes place in a lab, the relationship between the experimenter and the learner is similar to real-life authority.

E - Furthermore, similar levels of obedience have been found in field studies.
E.g. Hofling et al (1966) reported 21/22 nurses obeyed an order to give a patient that could kill them from a doctor to administer.

L - Suggests that obedience from Milgram’s study can be generalised to other situations of obedience to authority.

Question 8

Ethical Issues with Milgram’s Obedience Study

Answer 8

P - There are several ethical issues with Milgram’s study.

E - Ppts were highly distressed and encouraged to continue shocking the learner when they didn’t want to.

E - Also, there was deception as they weren’t told the aim and that the electric shocks given to the learners weren’t real.

L - Milgram’s Study can damage the reputation of Psychology and it also makes ppts less likely to participate in future studies.

Question 9

Explanations of Obedience: Situational Variables + Types

Answer 9

Situational variables for obedience focus on external factors that affect the likelihood that someone will obey orders.

Situational Variables Types:

• Proximity (from teacher and learner).
• Proximity (from teacher and experimenter).
• Location
• Uniform

Question 10

Proximity (of teacher & learner) as a Situational Variable: Procedure and Findings

Answer 10

Teacher (ppt) and Learner in same room.
- obedience of those who went to 450V fell from 65% to 10%.

Teacher (ppt) had to force learner’s hand onto electric plate to get shock.
- Obedience of those who went to 450V fell from 65% to 30%.

Question 11

Proximity (of teacher & experimenter) as Situational Variable in Explanations of Obedience

Answer 11

The experimenter and teacher were not in the same room and the experiment instructs the teacher by telephone from another room.
- Obedience of those who went to 450V fell from 65% to 21%.

Question 12

Location as a Situational Variable in Explanations of Obedience

Answer 12

The venue was moved to rundown office in Bridgeport from Yale University.
- Obedience of those who went to 450V fell from 65% to 47.5%.

Question 13

Uniform as a Situational Variable in Explanations for Obedience

Answer 13

The experimenter was called away because of an inconvenient telephone call right at the start of the procedure.
The experimenter was replaced by a confederate in normal clothes rather than the lab coat.

• Obedience of those who went to 450V fell from 65% to 20%.

Question 14

Support for Situational Variables as Explanation for Obedience

Answer 14

P - Research supports Situational Variables.

E - Study where confederates were dressed in either a jacket & tie, milkman’s uniform or as a security guard and asked passers by to provide a coin for the parking meter.

E - Found that ppts were 2x more likely to obey security guard than person in jacket & tie.

L - This supports that a uniform expresses authority and is a situational variable producing obedience.

Question 15

Agentic State + Agentic Shift

Answer 15

People can operate in one of 2 social states:
1. Autonomous Individuals - Individual takes responsibility for their actions.

2. Agentic State - Individual accepts the order of authority and the responsibility is passed onto the authority figure.
   - The Agentic Shift - The shift between the Autonomous Individual and the Agentic State.

Question 16

Strength of Agentic State as an Explanation of Obedience

Answer 16

P - Has research support.

E - In Milgram’s experiment when the teachers (ppts) wanted to stop shocking the learner, but the experimenter prompted them to continue by saying “You must continue” and the continued to shock the learner.

E - The teachers (ppts) underwent an Agentic Shift as they moved from an Autonomous Individual where they took responsibility, to an Agentic State where they passed on the responsibility to the experimenter.

L - The increases the validity of Agentic State as an explanation for obedience.

Question 17

Criticism of Agentic State as an Explanation for Obedience

Answer 17

P - Doesn’t explain many of the research findings.

E - Some ppts in Milgram’s study didn’t obey when the explanation says all of the ppts should’ve obeyed.

E - Furthermore in Hofling’s study (1966), nurses should’ve shown anxiety as they gave responsibility over to the doctor, because they understood their role in a destructive process, but this wasn’t the case.

L - Suggests that Agentic State can only account for some situations of Obedience.

Question 18

Legitimacy of Authority as an Explanation of Obedience

Answer 18

Most societies are structured in a hierarchical way (people such as parents, police have authority over us).

• The authority they have is legitimate because it’s agreed by society.
• For a person to obey an instruction they need to believe that the authority is legitimate.

Question 19

Strength of Legitimacy of Authority as an Explanation of Obedience

Answer 19

P - Has research support.

E - In Milgram’s study, the Yale University and lab coat worn by the experimenter reinforced high social status and increased the legitimacy of authority.

E - When the legitimacy of the authority was reduced by the experimenter being replaced by someone in normal clothes, the obedience rate fell from 65% to 20%.

L - Increases validity of legitimate authority as explanation for obedience.

Question 20

Criticism of Legitimacy of Authority as an Explanation of Obedience

Answer 20

P - Doesn’t explain many of the research findings.

E - 35% of the ppts didn’t obey the authority figure and go to 450V even though they wore the same lab coat.

E - The ppts ignored the authority of the experimenter and refused to obey.

L - Suggests the legitimacy of authority can only account for some situations of obedience.

Question 21

Dispositional Explanation for Obedience: Authoritarian Personality + what causes AP?

Answer 21

• Those with Authoritarian Personality show strictly follow traditional values and rigid obedience towards people of higher status.
• Authoritarian Personality comes from over strict parenting, as the individual learns to obey strict rules.
• Their childhood experiences create dissatisfaction + irritation in the child, however, they cannot express these feelings against their parents because of fear of punishment

Question 22

What does someone with an Authoritarian Personality do to release their feelings of dissatisfaction and irritation?

Answer 22

Their feelings are displaced onto others who are seen as weaker.
And
results in them acting negatively towards minority groups and those of perceived lower status instead.

Question 23

Strength of Dispositional Explanation of Obedience (Authoritarian Personality).

Answer 23

P - Support or the link between authoritarian personality and obedience.

E - Elms & Milgram (1966) interviewed the Ps who ha obeyed to 450V in original Milgram Study and found all of them scored highly on F-Scale.

E - However, caution is needed as this link is only correlational and we cannot conclude that having an Authoritarian Personality causes obedience.

L - As with all correlations, a 3rd variable may be involved. E.g. low level of education is linked to both obedience + Authoritarian Personality.

Question 24

Criticism of Dispositional Explanation of Obedience (Authoritarian Personality).

Answer 24

P - Argued that Authoritarian Personality is based on flawed methodology.

E - F-Scale is has many errors. E.g. all statements are worded in same direction, so the scale may be measuring acquiesce bias rather than anything else.

E - In addition, researchers knew the Ppts’ test scores when they interviewed them, so they knew who had Authoritarian Personalities. They also knew the study’s hypothesis, therefore open to bias - researcher bias.

L - The lowers our confidence in the validity of the Authoritarian Personality as an explanation of obedience.

Question 25

Practical Application of Dispositional Explanation of Obedience (Authoritarian Personality).

Answer 25

P - Authoritarian Personality is limited in the real world.

E - Millions of individuals in Germany displayed obedient and racist behaviour against Jews.

E - This was despite the fact they must all have different personalities, it seems extremely unlikely they could all possess an Authoritarian Personality.

L - An alternative explanation, social identify theory (SIT), is much more realistic. The majority of German people identified with the anti-Jew Nazi state and scapegoated the ‘outgroup’ of Jews.

Question 26

Social Support Definition: Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence.

Answer 26

The presence of people who resist pressures to obey can help other do the same. These people act as models to show others that resistance to authority is possible.

Question 27

Impact of Social Support on Obedience: Explanation of Resistance to Social Influence.

Answer 27

The pressure to obey can be reduced if there is another person is seen to disobey. Research has shown that individuals are generally more confident to resist the temptation to obey if they have an ally who is willing to join them in opposing the authority figure.

Question 28

Strength of Social Support as an Explanation of Resisting Social Influence.

Answer 28

P - Has supporting research evidence.

E - In a variation of Asch’s study, when the ppt was in a group with another dissenter who gave the correct response, conformity levels fell from 32% to 5.5%.
When the dissenter gave the incorrect response (incorrect and different to majority), conformity fell from 32% to 9%.
The presence of the dissenter broke the power of the group and the ppt felt more confident to oppose authority.

E - Furthermore, Milgram found that when the ‘teacher’ was given support from two other ‘teachers’ (actually confederates) who refuse to obey, obedience fell to 10% (go to 450V).

L - Provides evidence of Social Support as an explanation for resisting obedience.

Question 29

Criticism of Social Support as an Explanation of Resisting Social Influence.

Answer 29

P - However, depends of validity of dissenter.

E - Allen & Levine (1971) found that conformity decreased + independence increased when there was one dissenter in Asch type study, however, type of dissenter was important.

E - In condition 1 - confederate wore thick lenses glasses (invalid support as visual test).
Condition 2 - confederate had normal vision (valid support).
In both conditions - conformity reduced, but more noticeable with valid dissenter.

L - This supports the view that resistance isn’t just motivated by following what someone else says (as they may be wrong) but it enables someone to be free of pressure from the group but only if dissenter is valid.

Question 30

Locus of Control (LOC): Explanation of Resisting Social Influence.

Answer 30

LOC = Individual differences in people’s beliefs and expectations about what controls events in their lives.

• There are two extremes:
  1. Internal LOC = what happens to them is consequence of own behaviour, accepts repsonsibility for their actions, therefore more likely to resist SI (less likely to obey).

2. External LOC = what happens to them is uncontrollable. Luck + fate are seen as important factors. Believe their actions have little impact, therefore less likely to resist SI (more likely to obey).

Question 31

Strength of LOC as an Explanation of Resistance of SI.

Answer 31

P - Research support.

E - Holland (1967) repeated Milgram’s study and measured whether Ppts were ‘internals’ or ‘externals’.

E - 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level - 450V (showing high independence), compared to 23% of externals.

L - This increases our confidence in the validity of LOC as an explanation of Resistance to SI.

Question 32

Criticism of LOC as an Explanation of Resistance of SI.

Answer 32

P - Limitation = role of LOC in resisting SI may be exaggerated.

E - Rotter (1982) found that LOC is only important in new situations.
It has little influence in familiar situations where previous experience are always more important.

E - This is often overlooked and means that people who have obeyed in specific situations in the past are likely to do so again, even if they have an internal LOC.

L - This means that LOC can is only helpful in explaining a narrow range of situations.

Question 33

Minority Influence definition + what it leads to?

Answer 33

Minority Influence = Situations where one person or small group influences the beliefs and behaviour of other people.

Minority Influence leads to internalisation or conversion, in which private beliefs as well a public attitudes are changed.

Question 34

What are the 3 things that affect the effectiveness of Minority Influence?

Answer 34

1. Commitment.
2. Consistency.
3. Flexibility.

Question 35

What is Commitment in Minority Influence?

Answer 35

Commitment = Minority is more powerful if it demonstrates dedication to their position (e.g. by making personal sacrifices).
- This is effective because it shows the minority is not acting our of self interest.

• Also sometimes minorities engage in extreme behaviours that demonstrate their commitment to the cause and majority group members pay more attention. (Augmentation Principle).

Question 36

What is Consistency in Minority Influence?

Answer 36

Consistency is most effective when the minority keeps the same beliefs.
- Helps draw attention to the minority influence.

Two Types:

• Synchronic Consistency = all members of minority are saying same thing.
• Diachronic Consistency = saying the same thing over time.

Question 37

Strength of Consistency in Minority Influence?

Answer 37

P - Research evidence demonstrates the importance of consistency.

E - Moscovici et al (1969) found that a consistent minority opinion ha a greater effect on other people that an inconsistent opinion.

E - They found that when the minority confederates were consistent in naming the colour of the slide incorrectly, 32% of Ppts gave the same incorrect answer on at least one trial compared with just 0.25% of Ppts in the control condition who wrongly identified the colour.

L - This confirms that consistency of message plays a major role in minority influence.

Question 38

What is flexibility in minority influence?

Answer 38

Being relentless in consistency is seen as rigid and unreasonable to the majority.

Minority influence more effective if the minority show flexibility by accepting the possibility of compromise.

Question 39

Strength of flexibility in minority influence?

Answer 39

P - Nemeth (1986) investigated the idea of flexibility in which participants, in groups of four, had to agree on the amount of compensation they would give the victim of as ski-lift accident.

E - One of the ppts in each group was a confederate and there were two conditions.

1) minority argued for a low rate of compensation he refused to change his position (inflexible).
2) when the minority argued for a low rate of compensation but compromised by offering a slighty higher rate of compensation (flexible.

E - Nemeth found that in the inflexible condition, the minoirty had little or no effect on the majority however in the flexible condition, the majority was much more likely to compromise and change their view.

L - Nemth’s reseach highlights the importance of flexibility but questions the idea of consistency . On the one hand, Moscovici shows that minorities need to be consistent, whereas Nemeth shows that minorities need to be flexible.

Question 40

Weakness of flexibility in minority influence?

Answer 40

P - A limitation of minority influence research is that is often involves artificual tasks.

E - For example, Moscovici’s task was identifying the colour of a slide, which is very different from how minorities try to change majority opinion in real life and has little consequences.

E - In jury decision-making and political campaigning, the outcomes of a move to the minority posistion are far more important. In countries with a death penalty for example, this could mean life or death.

L - This suggests that findings of lab studies on minority influence lack external validity and may not apply to real life situations with serious consequences.

Question 41

Issues and debates in minority influence?

Answer 41

P - There are issues of gender bias in research into minority influence.

E - Moscovici’s research can be critisised for being gynocentric and only th femal response to minority influence was being assessed.

E - Furthermore, multiple pieces of research have recognised that typicaly women are more conformist than men, and so the resuts of Moscovici’s reseach lack population validity.

L - This is a weakness because the results cannot be generalised beyond the research population to me, who may respond differently to minority influence.

Question 42

Weakness of situational explanation for obedience

Answer 42

P - Assuming obedience is only determined by situational variables, is not always useful, and milgrams findings can be considered an obedience alibi.

E – Milgram’s findings from his variations Suggest the factors within the situation, such as a uniform influence obedience levels.

E - However, Mandel argues this offers an excuse or alibi for the evil behaviour. He states that it is offensive to the survivors of the Holocaust to suggest the Nazis were passive victims of situational factors beyond their control.

L - This suggests that Milgram’s conclusions are dangerous because they ignore the roles that discrimination, racism, and prejudice played in the Holocaust.

Question 43

Other explanation for obedience to authority

Answer 43

P - An alternative explanation for obedience is the dispositional personalaty explanation.

E - Rather than identifying external factors as a cause of obedience, Adorno suggests that its personality that makes some people may obedient than others.

E - He identified people who had authoritarian personality and found that these people have exaggerated respect for authority and are submissive to it due to strict upbringing.

L - This suggests that some participants may have obeyed due to their personality rather than the situation they are in. Indeed, Elms and Milgram Found the obedient participants from his original study showed higher levels of authoritarianism than non obedient participants.

Question 44

Practical application of explanations for resisting social influence

Answer 44

P - The process is of social support and LOC Have practical applications.

E - Probably this can be seen in social change around the world. For example, the suffragettes took responsibility for their actions and believed that these actions would lead to a change in the way society was organised, which suggests they may have had an internal locus of control.

E - Similarly, as the suffragette movement grew, individual members could draw on the social support provided by other members, which happened to resist social influence.

L - This suggests that social support and loc are important factors in resistance to social influence.