SOCIAL - THEORIES OF OBEDIENCE Flashcards
agency theory: Milgram
AO1:
->evolutionary theory: in order to live in a hierarchical society, one where few people are at the “top” and give up our free-will and obey, otherwise chaos would occur
->develop knowledge of hierarchy through socialisation: we’re socialised into obeying from a young age; parents and teachers use a system of rewards and punishments to encourage obedience in young children
->autonomous and agentic state:
–>autonomous state: we act of our own free will where our actions are self-directed and voluntary, we take responsibility
->agentic state: we give up our free will and instead do as we’re told, our actions are controlled as we act as an agent for those in authority, we defer responsibility to the authority figure as they gave the orders
->agentic shift and diffusion of responsibility:
–>agentic shift is shift from autonomous state to agentic state that occurs when we perceive someone as an authority figure, allowing them to control our behaviour
–>diffusion of responsibility is where we follow orders and feel less responsible for our actions as the authority figure is responsible for the situation
->moral strain and defence mechanisms:
–>moral strain is where we do something we believe to be immoral in order to function as an agent of authority. It makes us uncomfortable as we inwardly disagree with the orders given
–>defence mechanisms are used to come with the distress of immoral behaviour, this may be done through avoidance and denial
AO3: EVALUATION
E->(strength) Hoffling et al
–> nurses were instructed over the phone by a “doctor” to administer a lethal dosage of a drug to a patient, 21/22 nurses complies despite knowing this would be fatal
–>this is because they viewed the doctor as an authority figure, even over the phone, and moved into an agentic state, therefore they were willing to obey
A->(strength) can be applied IRL
–>can explain why WW2 soldiers blindly obeyed Hitler’s barbaric orders, they shifted into an agentic state, allowing their behaviour to be controlled by the authority figure, using diffusion of responsibility to believe that they are not the ones who are responsible
C->(weakness) agency theory lacks credibility
–>agency theory cannot explain individual differences in obedience, eg. why some people behave one way and others behave another way (eg. in Milgram’s expt 35% did not go up to 450V)
–>therefore, cannot explain disobedience
H->(weakness) Milgram’s research to support has low external validity and low task validity
–>Milgram’s study was a lab expt that consisted of a highly artificial task (word pair task, administering shocks if answer was incorrect)
–>therefore, lacks mundane realism, meaning the findings cannot be applied to real life
social impact theory (Latane & Wolfe, 1980)
AO1:
->SIT is an explanation of social influence (and obedience), it suggests we are greatly influenced by others, eg. we may be influenced into performing a certain behaviour
->there are 2 types of people involved:
–>source: people who provide the influence, they’re the ones making the order
–>targets: those who are influenced, they follow the orders given by the source
->there are 3 social forces that impact obedience:
–>strength: how important the sources are to the targets in terms of age, status, and authority
–>immediacy: how close the sources are to the targets at the time of the influence attempt (eg. proximity, distance, buffers)
–>number: how many people there are in the group (sources and targets) (eg, we are more likely to be influenced by multiple sources)
->multiplication of impact:
–>(eg. one target vs 3 sources)
–>as the strength of the source increases, so does the immediacy and number, and therefore also the social impact (more sources = more obedience)
–>the psychosocial law found that when one confederate on the street looks up 42% of bystanders also look up, but when there was 15 confederates 86% of people looked up (however, more than 15 confederates decreases the impact)
->division of impact:
–>(eg. one source vs 3 targets)
–>the number of targets to be influenced affects the impact the source may have
–>eg. if a teacher is having a 1-1 conversation with a pupil, it will have much more of an impact than when speaking to the whole class
AO3: EVALUATION
E->(weakness) Hoffling’s nurses study provides research that opposes SIT
–>they found that 21/22 nurses obeyed REMOTE orders to administer a lethal dosage to patients, therefore showing that lack of immediacy does not influence obedience that much as only 1 ppt disobeyed remote orders
A->(strength) SIT can be used in other real life settings
–>eg. in an educational environment we can use the findings to do with the number of sources and targets (multiplication and division of impact) to produce effective class sizes for teachers and students
C->(weakness) this theory ignores individual differences and dispositional factors in obedience, eg. gender, personality, and upbringing
–>eg. Milgram found that war veterans were less likely to comply with orders and did not go past 450V
–>therefore past experiences have a greater impact on behaviour, not situational factors
H->(strength) Milgram’s research was highly valid and reliable
–>he conducted a lab expt meaning there was high control of EVs, and he also used a standardised procedure
->therefore we can establish cause & effect, and the study can also be replicated to test the findings for consistency
authoritarian personality (Adorno, 1954)
AO1:
->Adorno (1954) proposed that individual differences in obedience could be explained by the idea of an authoritarian personality
–>his research methods included case studies, clinical interviews, and psychometric testing (the F scale)
->how does it explain obedience?
–>someone with a high F score has an authoritarian personality and will therefore blindly obey an authority figure
–>they will show aggression and hostility towards others of a lower status
–>they are rigid thinkers with rigid moral standards, they are also highly conforming: adhering strictly to social rules and hierarchies
–>they tend to see the world as black and white
AO3: EVALUATION
E->(strength) Elms and Milgram (1966)
–>found that the more obedient ppts scores higher on the authoritarian personality F scale
–>therefore supporting that a high F score = high levels of obedience
A-> ??????
C->(weakness) the research lacks credibility
–>measurement using the F scale is based on opinion and is also outdated. It is also likely that people will lie as it is self-complete due to social desirability bias,
–>this causes invalid results
H->(weakness) this theory is based on a flawed methodology, specifically acquiescence bias
–>ppts may get bored when taking the questionnaire and tick random boxes as the options are in the same place every time
–>this causes inaccurate results
locus of control (Rotter, 1966)
AO1:
->Rotter (1966) introduced the concept of locus of control as a type of personality; this essentially says that some people feel they are entirely in control of their actions, whereas others are victims of fate (internal vs external LOC)
->high INTERNAL LOC:
–>most likely to seek out information and are more achievement orientated
–>they resist coercion from others
–>they are less likely to rely on the opinion of others and show more independent behaviours
–>LESS OBEDIENT
->high EXTERNAL LOC:
–>believe they cannot change their situation and so do as they are told
–>they do not put their efforts down to success, instead saying it was down to fate or luck
–>they are less likely to show independent behaviour and more likely to accept the influence of others
–>MORE OBEDIENT
AO3: EVALUATION
E->(strength) Blass (1991) provides supporting research
–>found that people with an internal LOC were more likely to resist obeying than those with an external LOC. They were especially resistant to obedience if they suspected they were being coerced or manipulated by the experimenter
A-> ???????
C->(weakness) Twenge (2004) provides opposing research
–>found that over a 40 year period, people have become more resistant to obedience but also have a more external LOC
–>where Rotter suggests that an external LOC = more obedient, Twenge’s research suggests that people with an external LOC are now more resistant
H-> ????????
situational factors (Milgram)
FOOT IN THE DOOR: once we have entered the social situation, if there is no other alternative presented, we carry on. Also, we do not want to suffer the consequences of not complying
–>(AO3, Milgram) having begun the expt, ppts did not know how to disobey; nothing they said had any effect of the researcher
BUFFERS: a buffer is anything that prevents those who obey from being aware of the full impact of their actions, including proximity to victim and proximity to authority figure
->(AO3, Milgram) the wall acted as a buffer as the ppts could not see the “pain” the learner was in, only hear
PRODS/PROMPTS: when the instruction given is formal, the pressure to obey is greater
->(AO3, Milgram) eg. the 4 verbal prods upon ppt refusal, “you must continue”, “the expt requires that you continue”
DEMAND CHARACTERISTICS: when the social setting presents itself with the required social norms
–>(AO3, Milgram) the cues in the experimental setting influences the ppts perception of what was required of them
GRADUAL COMMITMENT: we comply to the action more if the effects are not believed to be as harmful as the last order
–>(AO3, Milgram) the generator switches only went up in small increments (15V) so ppts found it easier to obey
PRESTIGIOUS SETTING: if the setting presents professionalism and knowledge, we are more likely to obey
–>(AO3, Milgram) expt took place at Yale University, which has a highly prestigious reputation, and so ppts assumed the researchers were trustworthy
DIFFUSION OF RESPONSIBILITY: we follow orders and believe the authority figure is in charge, and therefore is responsible for the situation
–>(AO3, Milgram) many ppts asked whose responsibility it would be if the learner was harmed and showed visible relief when the researcher took responsibility
PERCEPTION OF LEGITIMATE AUTHORITY: if authority wears a symbol or uniform that dictates their power, we are more likely to obey accordingly
–>(AO3, Milgram) the experimenter was seen as a legitimate authority figure as he wore a lab coat to indicate his position
SEEN AS A FAIR EXPERIMENT: when the situation is fair, where we could equally be the other person
–>(AO3, Milgram) ppts drew roles out of a hat (rigged) and so believed they had equal chance of being either teacher or learner
