Social Psychology Flashcards
What is Agency Theory?
Explains obedience by saying that people can enter a state of mind where they no longer feel responsible for their own actions (autonomous/agentic)
What are the two mental states in Agency Theory?
Autonomous- when we perceive ourselves to be responsible for our own behaviour (feels guilt) e.g. participants in Milgram’s study who left before 450v
Agentic- when we perceive ourselves to be the agent of someone else’s will; the authority figure commanding us is responsible for what we do (don’t feel guilt) e.g. participants who continued to give shocks in Milgram’s study (they no longer felt responsible for their actions)
What are Authority Figures?
- People who carry symbols of authority e.g. a uniform or have status (rank)
- Orders from authority figures triggers the agentic shift into the agentic state
What is moral strain?
If an authority figure gives an order that goes against your conscience, you experience moral strain. This is because we have two contradictory urges: to obey the authority figure and to obey our consciences.
Going into agentic shift removes moral strain, because we regard the authority figure as now being responsible for our actions- hence the appeal.
What are strengths of agency theory?
+ supported by Milgram’s study as participants experienced moral strain (biting nails, nervous laughter) When debriefed ppts who went to 450v (65%) felt less responsible for their action, lending support for Agentic state (felt AF was responsible)
+ supported by Hofling- a study where nurses were told over the phone by an unknown doctor to administer a dangerous dose of an unknown drug. Holfing found the majority of nurses were willing to obey orders against better judgement (21/22)
What is strength, immediacy and numbers in Social Impact Theory?
Strength: how much power you believe the person influencing you has e.g. rank in an organisation, higher=more strength
Immediacy: how recent the influence is and how close to you, from an order from a minute ago by boss standing next to you (very immediate) and an order from your boss by email from last week
Milgram:
Aim: to see how far ordinary people go when being ordered to give electric shocks/to see how obedient people are in situations of moral strain/discomfort
Sample:
- 40 men (20-50)
- newspaper advertisement
- Yale university
Method:
- Ppts split into teachers and learners
- fixed draw
- learners strapped into chair and teacher given a 45V shock
- if learners gave wrong answer shock them and with a voltage range of 15-450 volts
- increase by 15 each time
- verbal prods used e.g it is essential that you continue with the experiment
- pre-recorded statements- ‘get me out of here etc
- no response from learner after 300vs
Results: 100% obeyed (40/40) ppts went to 300 volts 65% went to 450 volts (24/40)
Qualitative date- signs of distress
Conclusion- ordinary people obey AF in extreme circumstances even with moral strain present
Sherif:
Aim: to test in-group behaviours development to include out-group related hostility (prejudice) and see how it can be reduced
Sample:
- 22 boys (all 11) from Protestant Oklahoma families
- matched pairs design: matched on IQ, sporting ability, etc.
- nominal fee: parents unaware taking part in experiment
Method:
- placed in summer camp called Robbers Grave, Oklahoma
- divided into two groups: rattlers and eagles
- unaware of other groups
Stage one:
In-group formation: work together within each group to achieve common goals/ friendship groups and social hierarchy formed
Stage two:
Friction phase: discovered other group existed and competition arose e.g bean counting wherein each group thought the other would do worse than they actually did and that their own group would do better than they actually did (in-group favouritism)
Stage three:
Superordinare goals introduced where both groups had to work together e.g cutting off water supply
Results: S1- hierarchy formed/group names
S2- hostility arose
S3- 30% developed friends with members of the out-group
Results:
When an in group and out group work together to achiever a common goal, prejudice and discrimination can be resolved
Burger:
Aim: to see whether situational factors affect obedience to an authoritarian figure/more ethical study of milgram- only went to 150v as majority in milgram went past it
Sample:
- 70 people (29 men 41 women)
- ad via flyers offering money to take part
- screening processes for mental health issues, personality tests and an interview with a clinical psychologist
- randomly assigned to one of two conditions but attempt made to keep gender ratios approximately equal
Method:
- ppts went through same procedure as milgram only stopped at 150v
- 15v shock given
- pressed 75v switch- heard small grunt and grunts continued after each shock gradually getting louder
- after 150 learner shouts through wall to let him out he has a heart condition
Model refused:
- two confederates used
- both teachers sit at shock generator
- teacher 1 (confederate) after 90v would refuse to go on and experimenter makes participant take over instead
Results:
Baseline- 70% obeyed fully slightly lower than milgram but the difference fell short of statistical significance
- little difference in obedience rates with men and women although women were slightly more likely than men to continue in the base condition , however the differences were not significant
- percentage of ppts who continued past the 150v point (63.3%) in the modeled refusal condition was not significantly different from the percentage who did so in the baseline
