Social Psychology Flashcards
(40 cards)
Situational Factors affecting obedience-
Momentum of Compliance definition
Momentum of compliance- Once the participant is doing small and trivial requests they have committed themselves to the experiment so as the requests increase they feel duty bound to continue.
Situational Factors affecting obedience-
Proximity
The closer to the authority figure, the higher level of obedience. Distance acts as a buffer to obedience as illustrated by telephonic instructions study.
Situational factors affecting obedience- Status of authority figure
Milgram stated that obedience could only be established when the authority figure is perceived to be legitimate. Highest obedience at Yale compared to ordinary man at Bridgeport
Situational factors affecting obedience- Personal responsibility
Milgram believed that participants are more obedient when personal responsibility is placed onto an authority figure. Evidence comes from a variation study in which participants signed that they took full responsibility for their actions and obedience fell to 40%
Individual differences in obedience- Rotters Locus of Control
Rotters (1966) theory. People with internal locus of control believe they are responsible for their own actions and are less influenced by others. Peoples with external locus of control believe their behaviour is largely beyond their control but due to external factors.
Consistent with Milgrams findings as dissenters took responsibility for their actions while obedient participants blamed experimenter.
Individual differences in obedience- Authoritarian personality
Authoritarian personality is submissive to authority but harsh to those subordinate to themselves. Adorno F scale.
Milgram and Elms compared F scores for 20 obedient and 20 dissenting participants. Found obedient participants had higher F scores, indicating authoritarian personality.
Individual differences in obedience- Empathy
High levels of empathy are believed to equate to less likely to harm others.
Burger 2009 found that although people who scored highly on empathy were more likely to object against the shocks, this did not equate to lower levels of obedience.
Individual differences in obedience - Gender
Milgram found that females were virtually identical to males in obedience- 27.5% broke off at 300v level. However, anxiety levels for women were higher than men (also found in Burgers study)
Kilham and Mann 1974 in a direct replication of Milgrams study in Australia found females to be far less obedient 16% compared to male 40%. Could, however, be due to female pairings
Individual differences to obedience- Culture
Individualistic countries such as USA and UK tend to behave more independently and resist conformity to compliance.
Collectivist cultures such as Israel tend to behave as a collective group so cooperation and compliance is more important. Collectivist cultures are more likely to be obedient.
what is prejudice
an unfair and unreasonable opinion or feeling, especially when formed without enough thought or knowledge
what is a stereotype
an overgeneralised belief about someone or something typically based on limited information
what is discrimination
the practice of treating one person or group differently from another in an unfair way
superordinate goals
goals that can only be achieved by cooperation of all group members today
Factors affecting prejudice- personality
Cohrs et al
Cohrs et al- used self reports. Openness to experience is negatively correlated to prejudice.
Factors affecting prejudice- Adorno et al
developed F scale. Authoritarianism. Found high authoritarianism correlated with prejudice.
Developmental psychology- Adorno suggested that authoritarianism develops during childhood due to harsh parenting as when parents are strict and unloving, the negative feelings which the child feels towards
what was variation 7 and results?
Telephonic instructions study- experimenter gives instructions directly to P at start, but then leaves the room and gives the rest of the orders over 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 (because they thought they were unobserved).
Milgram concludes that the physical presence of an authority figure is important for obedience.
Also gives evidence for proximity (situational factor) being crucial in obedience.
what was variation 10 and results
the original study was carried out at Yale University but Milgram moved this to Bridgeport where the research was carried out by “a private firm”. There was a drop in obedience to 19 (45.5%), but Milgram didn’t think this was big enough to be significant. Shows that the authority of the figure is important in the obedience.
what was variation 13 and the results?
In this Variation, Mr Williams explains the procedure to the participant but then is called away. Crucially, Mr Williams does not tell the Teachers to increase the shock by 15V with each incorrect answer.
There is a second confederate present, who seems to be another participant, given the job of “writing down the times” of each test. With the Experimenter gone, this confederate suggests “a new way of doing the study,” taking the voltage up by 15V each time there’s a mistake.
Only 20 participants did this 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 (the instructions, the shock generator) still create obedience.
Social identity theory applications and evidence for applications
By making people feel part of a larger community or society can reduce out group discrimination and prejudice.
Deutsch and Collins found that when Black and White housewives were required to share laundry facilities in the 1950s they became much more tolerant of each other and far less prejudice.
social psychology experiment aim
The aim of this study was to use a self report in the form of a questionnaire to investigate whether people with an internal or external locus of control were more obedient
social psychology hypotheses (alternate and null)
HA- There will be a significant difference in obedience (measured by scores on a self report questionnaire) between participants with an internal or external locus of control (self report)
HO- any significant difference in obedience (measured by scores on a self report questionnaire) between participants with an internal and external locus of control (self report) will be due to chance.
Latane and Darley- division of impact
Demonstrated the division of impact when looking at bystander behaviour. They found that a lone person was more likely to help someone in need compared to a group of people as there was a diffusion of responsibility similar to a divisional effect.
Evidence for SIT- Jane Elliot
“Blue eyes brown eyes experiment”. Through the course of one week, Jane Elliot divided her pupils based upon eye colour, telling one group that they were better than the other which led to discrimination and prejudice. Supports SIT as it evidences that social categorisation could lead to prejudice and discrimination.
Evidence for SIT- Deustch and Collins
Conducted an experiment into equal status contact, looking at social identity theory as a basis for its research. Studied a desegregated housing block and argued that desegregation would reduce negative out group bias and intergroup conflict between the black and white housewives. Compared this to a segregated housing block to find that there was ingroup favouritism and outgroup bias contributing to higher discrimination and prejudice.
