Social Psychology

Question 1

What is obedience?

Answer 1

“compliance with an order, request, or law or submission to another’s authority”

Question 2

What is Agency Theory?

Answer 2

Milgram (1963) claimed that in situations regarding orders, humans enter one of two states:
Agentic State
Autonomous State
Moral Strain
Milgram argued that obedience is needed for society to function correctly, however, blind obedience in the agentic state will lead to disasters.

Question 3

What is the agentic state? (agency theory)

Answer 3

Agentic State - displacement of responsibility, you are an agent for someone else’s will.

Question 4

What is autonomous state? (agency theory)

Answer 4

Autonomous State - you are free thinking and completely aware of your actions as an individual.

Question 5

What is moral strain? (agency theory)

Answer 5

This is when a person has to carry out an order that goes against their own morality and consciousness.
They exhibit behaviours that show they’re regretful for what they’re doing.

Question 6

Agentic State - AO1

Answer 6

1. Individuals obey authority figures when in agentic state.
2. People have evolved to obey authority as it gives them a survival advantage when in organised groups.
3. People are born with a property to obey, but this is only realised when they are socialised into follow direct orders of authority figures.
4. Moral strain may be experienced by individuals in the agentic state when they’re carrying out orders they do not agree with.

Question 7

Agency Theory (AO3)

Answer 7

+ Real world examples (Holocaust, Soviet Russia).
+ Milgram’s experiments showed that people would obey orders to kill another person.
+ Blass (2012) looked at cross cultural comparisons and found very similar rates of obedience.
- Individual differences (personality factors and individual biology).
- Reductionist to assume that all humans operate on these principles.
- Some would argue that atrocities happened in history due to many complex reasons that just blind obedience.

Question 8

What are some types of authority?

Answer 8

French & Raven (1959) identified different types of legitimate authority:
1. Legitimate power - authority figures with high status.
2. Reward power - those who have money or who can perform favours.
3. Coercive power - people who can punish you.
4. Expert power - people seen as knowledgable.
5. Referent power - people who belong to groups you respect.

Question 9

What is Social Impact Theory?

Answer 9

Bibb Latane (1981).
Focused on the actions of others and how they influence obedience.
Latane argues that every person is potentially a ‘target’ of social influence.
Social force.
Divisions of impact.

Question 10

What is the social impact theory equation?

Answer 10

I = f(SIN)

I - impact
f - social force
SIN - strength, immediacy, numbers

Question 11

Social Impact Theory (AO1)

Answer 11

1. Social impact theory suggests that social influence would be greater when the source is more immediate and there are fewer barriers.
2. The theory proposes that social influence would be greater when there are more people affecting the target individual - however, one person can still influence many!
3. It is predicted that there would be greater social influence when a source is high status and has a close relationship with the target individual.
4. Social impact theory predicts that people do not try as hard or invest as much effort individually when in a group compared to being alone (known as social loafing).
5. Research conducted by Latane & Darnley (1970) highlighted diffusion of responsibility; people are less motivated to act when others are present.

Question 12

Social Impact Theory (AO3)

Answer 12

+ Real world examples of social impact theory and diffusion of responsibility (e.g., rioting and looting during protests).
+ Social impact theory has been tested in many experiments: MIlgram (1963), Latane & Darnley (1968) and Tajfel (1970) have all completed credible research into the theory.
+ It is more complex than agency theory and offers a more complete explanation as to why people obey.
- Reductionist, as it ignores additional cultural factors and personality factors that may influence obedience.
- It focuses too much on the person giving the orders and not enough on those receiving them.

Question 13

What are the AIMS for Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 13

Milgram wanted to investigate how obedient participants would be when following orders that would break their moral code and harm another person.

Question 14

What was the SAMPLE for Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 14

40 participants - all male, all American.
20-50 years old.
Range of professions.

Question 15

What was the PROCEDURE for Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 15

Participant met by researcher and another ‘volunteer’, Mr Wallace (he was an actor).
Participants played the role of the teacher, and were shown the shock generator which had 30 switches (15V increases on each one)
Participant couldn’t see the learner, but could hear him clearly.
He began to complain and demanded to be let out - at 300V he pounded on the wall.
He repeated this at 315V but then was silent.
Researcher delivered standardised sequences of verbal prompts: ‘please continue’, ‘the experiment requires that you continue’.
Experiment ended at 450V.

Question 16

What are the RESULTS for Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 16

100% of participants were obedient up until 300V.
Between 300V-375V, 14 participants dropped out of the study.
The remaining 26 participants carried on to 450V (65%) shock.
Milgram also observed the participants sweating, trembling, stuttering and groaning. 14 showed nervous laughter.

Question 17

What are the CONCLUSIONS for Milgram’s (1963) study?

Answer 17

Milgram concludes you don’t have to be a psychopath to obey immoral orders: ordinary people will do it in the right situation.
The participants were assured that the shocks were painful but not dangerous.
The participants had volunteered themselves and some item themselves; they were being paid and this carried a sense of obligation.

Question 18

Milgram (1963) AO3

Answer 18

Sample cannot be generalised - it is all-male and all-american, so can’t be generalised to other genders and ethnicities.
Milgram’s study is reliable because it can be replicated - between 1961–62 he carried out 19 variations of his baseline study.
The study demonstrates how obedience to authority works and this can be used to increase obedience in settings like schools, workplaces & prisons.
Milgram’s study lacks ecological validity because the tasks are artificial - in real life, teachers are not asked to deliver electric shocks to learners.
Participant’s wellbeing was ignored - they were deceived (about the shocks) and did not give fully informed consent. When they tried to withdraw, the prompts made it difficult for them to do so.

Question 19

Milgram’s Variation #7 - Absent Authority

Answer 19

Participant is left alone in a room with the shock generator and a telephone - the prompts are delivered via the telephone.
There was a significant drop in obedience, down to 9 (22.5%) and some participants gave lower shocks than they were told to do.
Milgram concludes that the physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience.

Question 20

Milgram’s Variation #10 - Institutional Context

Answer 20

MIlgram moves the study to a run-down office in Bridgeport.
There was a drop in obedience to 19 (45.4%), but MIlgram didn’t think this was big enough to be significant.
Milgram concludes that the setting is not as important for obedience as the status of the authority figures.

Question 21

Milgram’s Variation #13/13a - Ordinary Authority Figure

Answer 21

There is a second confederate present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of “writing down the times” of each test.
Only 20 participants did the variation and only 4 (20%) obeyed by going to 450V.
Milgram concludes that the status of the authority figure is important, but other features of the situation still create obedience.

Question 22

Factors affecting obedience.

Answer 22

Situational - Milgram (1963) is very clear that it is only under the right circumstances that people will obey, link to variations #10 and #13.
Personality - Locus of control (Burger, 2009), Authoritarian personality (Adorno et al, 1950), Empathy? (Burger, 2009).
Gender - Research tends to suggest that gander does not affect obedience, no difference in Milgram’s research, higher levels of empathy.
Culture - Individualistic culture, collectivistic culture.

Question 23

What is Social Identity Theory?
Tajfel & Turner, 1979

Answer 23

Three key processes:
1. Social Categorisation - formation of ingroups and outgroups.
2. Social Identification - ‘us’ and ‘them’.
3. Social Comparison - critical of others, boosts self esteem.

Question 24

Social Identity Theory AO3.

Answer 24

Credibility - Provides an explanation as to why discrimination occurs even when the outgroup is no threat to the ingroup and there is no competition of resources. If self-esteem is based on social identity, then some people need to put down outgroups in order to feel good about themselves.
Objections - The Minimal Group paradigm studies that support SIT have been criticised for using artificial tasks (coin flipping) that lack ecological validity.
Differences - Sherif’s Realistic Conflict Theory (1966) stands in contrast to SIT. RCT claims that prejudice is produced by competition and happens when there is (or seems to be) a scarcity of resources like food, money, jobs or status.
Applications - Encouraging people to see themselves as part of a larger social identity can comabt outgroup discrimination. Some people think teaching ‘Britishness’ in schools may reduce conflict between groups, if they all see themselves as British citizens. However, this may backfire if it leads to more conflict between people who are seen as ‘un-British’.

Question 25

What is Realistic Conflict Theory?
Shrif, 1966.

Answer 25

Whenever there are two or more groups seeking the same limited resources, it will lead to conflict, hostility, negative stereotyping and beliefs (prejudice).
Prejudice is increased when it is a zero sum game (one wins and one loses).
Superordinate goals (mutually desirable outcomes that benefit both) can reduce prejudice and hostility.
It is based off Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment.

Question 26

Factors affecting prejudice.

Answer 26

Situational - Social norms and events, 9/11 caused a distinct rise in ‘islamophobia’, poverty in Germany caused prejudice against the Jews.
Culture - Sinclair, Dunn and Lowery (2005) showed a clear correlation between parents prejudice and bias’s and children’s prejudice (anti-white and anti-black), all cultures are prejudicial (in a small way) to other cultures, some cultures are xenophobic (Japan).
Personality - Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalist characterised by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy, Adorno et al (1950) came up with authoritarian personality type (F-scale) based on what parenting someone received.

Question 27

Burger (2009) AIMS

Answer 27

To see if Milgram’s research is still ‘valid’, if people from today’s society would still conform.
To redo the experiment in a more ethical way.
Burger focused on two traits: Empathy and Locus of Control (external variables).

Question 28

Burger (2009) SAMPLE

Answer 28

Volunteer sample -70 participants
Men and women
Paid $50 before the experiment started
Aged 20-81

Question 29

Burger (2009) PROCEDURE

Answer 29

Lab experiment using an independent groups design.
Replicated Milgram’s experiment 5 but employed six ethical safeguards to protect participants:
1. Stopped shocks at 150V to avoid high levels of anxiety - Burger predicted 79% of people in Milgram’s study who gave a shock at 150V also gave a shock at 450V, so he could predict the results in his study without having to go higher than 150V.
2. Two-step screening process excluded volunteers who may have a negative reaction to the experience.
3.Participants given 3 reminders of their right to withdraw.
4. A real but very mild shock (15V) was given to the participants at the start - compared to Milgram’s 45V shock.
5. Participants were debriefed almost immediately after the study had ended.
6. A clinical psychologist supervised all trials.

Question 30

Burger (2009) FINDINGS

Answer 30

Obedience rate was only slightly higher than Milgram’s - 70% pressed 150V compared with 82.5% in Milgram’s experiment 5.
No significant difference between obedience rates of men and women, women slightly more likely to press 150V switch.
No significant difference in the empathic concern scores between defiant (19.25) and obedient (19.20) participants.

Question 31

Burger (2009) CONCLUSIONS

Answer 31

Shows that Milgram’s findings are not era-bound nor are they androcentric.
Lack of empathy doe snot seem to be a valid explanation for the high obedience rates as both defiant and obedience participants had very similar scores.
Desire for personal control does not seem to determine the likelihood of defiance.