Studies / Spec Flashcards
Situational variables - Proximity
In Milgram’s baseline study, the Teacher could hear the learner but not see him. In the proximity variation, Tecaher and Learner were in the same room. Obedience rate dropped from the original 65% to 40%. In touch proximity variation the Teacher had to force the learners hand onto an electroshock plate if he refused to place it there himself after a wrong answer. Obedience dropped further to 30%.
Explanation - decreased proximity allows people to psychologically distance themselves from the consequences of their actions.
Situational variables - Location
Milgram conducted a variation in a run-down office block rather than Yale university. Obedience fell to 47.5%
Explanation - the prestigious university environment gave Milgram’s study more legitimacy and authority. Participants were more obedient in this location because they perceived that the experimenter shared this legitimacy and the obedience was expected.
Situational variables - Uniform
In the baseline study, experimenter wore grey lab coat as a symbol of authority. In one condition the experimenter was ‘called away’ and replaced by an ordinary member of the public (confederate) in everyday clothes. Obedience rate dropped to 20%
Explanation - uniforms ‘encourage’ obedience as they are widely recognised as symbols of authority. Someone in a uniform has legitimate authority.
Situational variables - evaluation
Strength - research support. Other studies have demonstrated influence of variables on obedience. Bickman (1974) had three confederates dress in different outfits, jacket and tie, milkman, and security guard. Confederates stood in the street and asked passers-by to perform tasks such as picking up litter or handing over a coin for the parking meter. People were 2x more likely to obey security guard than jacket and tie. Supports view that the variables have a powerful effect on obedience
Weakness - low internal validity. Participants may have been aware that the procedure was faked. Orne and Holland (1968) made this criticism of Milgram’s study. They point out that it is even more likely in his variations because of the extra manipulation of variables. An example of this is when the experimenter is replaced by a ‘member of the public’. Therefore in Milgram’s studies it is unclear whether the findings are genuinely due to the operation of obedience or because participants saw through the deception and responded to demand characteristics.
Strength - cross cultural replications. Another strength is that Milgram’s findings have been replicated in other cultures. Meeus and Raaijmakers (1986) used a more realistic procedure than Milgram to study obedience. Participants were ordered to say stressful things in an interview to a confederate who was desperate for a job. 90% of participants obeyed. Researchers also replicated Milgram’s findings concerning proximity. Suggests Milgram’s findings are not just limited to America and apply to other cultures.
Situational explanations - agents state
Obedience to destructive authority occurs because a person does not take responsibility as they believe they are acting for someone else, as an ‘agent’. An agent is not an unfeeling puppet, they experience high anxiety (moral strain) when they realise they are doing something wrong.
Autonomous state - the opposite of being in the agent state. Free to behave according to their own principles and feels a sense of responsibility for their own actions. Shift from autonomy to agency is the agent shift. Milgram (1974) suggested that this occurs when someone perceives someone else as an authority figure. The authority figure has greater power as they have a higher position in a social hierarchy.
Binding factors - Milgram observed many participants said they wanted to stop but seemed powerless to do so, he wondered why they remained in an agent state. The answer is binding factors - aspects of the situation that allow the person to ignore/minimise the damaging effect of their behaviour and thus reduce the ‘moral strain’ they’re feeling. Shifting responsibility to victim, denying damage done to victims.
Situational explanations - Agentic state evaluation
Strength - research support. Milgram’s own studies support the role of the agentic state in obedience. Most of his participants resisted giving shocks at some point. Also asked experimenter questions about who the blame lied with. Showed once participants perceived they were no longer responsible for their behaviour, they acted more easily as an agent.
Weakness - limited explanation. Doesn’t explain many research findings about obedience. Doesn’t explain the findings of Rank and Jacobson (1977). 16 out of 18 nurses disobeyed doctors authority to administer excessive dose of drug to patients. Suggests agent state can only explain certain situations of obedience.
Situational explanations - legitimacy of authority
Society is structured in hierarchal way. People in certain positions hold authority over others. Authority they hold is legitimate as society agrees they should hold it. Some are granted power to punish others (police and courts) we have to give up some of our independence so people we trust can exercise their authority appropriately.
Destructive authority - problems arise when legitimate authority becomes destructive. Leaders can use their legitimate powers for destructive purposes. Ordering people to behave in cruel ways. This was evident in the baseline study.
Situational explanations - legitimacy of authority evaluation
Strength - explains cultural differences. Many studies show that countries differ in the degree to which people are obedient to authority. Kilham and Mann (1974) found 16% of Australian women went all the way to 450 volts. Mantell (1971) found a different figure for Germans - 85%. Shows in some cultures authority is more likely to be accepted as legitimate.
Weakness - can’t explain all disobedience. Shown in the nurses in Rank and Jacobson. Most nurses disobeyed even in a rigidly hierarchal authority structure.
Dispositional explanation (AP)
Adorno et al argued people with Authoritarian Personality (AP) show extreme respect and submissiveness to authority. AP also view society as ‘weaker’ than it once was, so strong leaders are needed to enforce traditional values such as love of country and family. AP also show contempt for those of lower social status than them. No ‘grey areas’.
Origins - Adorno believed it forms in childhood as a result of harsh parenting. Strict discipline, absolute loyalty, high standards, severe criticism. Parents give conditional love. Experiences create hostility and resentment in a child but can’t express them towards parents so they are displaced onto others who they perceive to be weaker. ‘Scapegoating’
Adorno et al.’s research (AP)
Procedure - Adorno et al. (1950) studied more than 2000 middle class white Americans and their unconscious attitudes towards other ethnic groups. Measured using the F-scale.
Findings - people with authoritarian learnings identified with ‘strong’ people and were contemptuous of the ‘weak’. Very conscious of status, show extreme respect, deference and servility to those of higher status, traits which form the basis of obedience
AP evaluation
Weakness - limited explanation. Cannot explain obedient behaviour in the majority of a countries population. Not all population is authoritarian yet they still obey, reduces validity.
Strength - research support. Elms and Milgram (1966) interviewed a small group of people who participated in original obedience studies and had been fully obedient. All completed the F-scale and scored higher than comparison group of 20 disobedient participants.
Supports Adorno’s view.
Weakness - political bias. F-scale only measures the tendency towards an extreme form of right-wing ideology. Christie and Jahoda (1954) argued that the F-scale is a politically biased interpretation of AP. Point out the fact that both extreme left and right wing promote importance of complete obedience to political authority.
TMT Adorno is limited as alternative explanation is more realistic.
Resistance to social influence - social support
Resisting conformity - pressure to conform can be resisted if there are others present who don’t conform. As seen in Asch’s research. The fact that someone else is not following the majority is social support. Enables naive participant to be free to follow their own conscience. Their dissent gives rise to more dissent as it shows majority is not unanimous.
Resisting obedience - the pressure to obey can be resisted if there is another person seen to disobey. In one of Milgram’s variations obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when participant was joined by disobedient confederate. Other persons disobedience acts as a model of dissent for the participant to copy and frees to act from own conscience. Challenges legitimacy of authority figure.
Social Support - evaluation
Strength - real world research support. Evidence for positive effects of social support. Albrecht et al. (2006) evaluated an eight week programme in the US to help pregnant adolescents aged 14-19 resist peer pressure to smoke. Social support was provided by slightly older mentor. Those who had a mentor were less likely to smoke than a control group who didn’t have a mentor. Shows social support can help young people resist social influence.
Strength - research support for dissenting peers. Gamson et al. (1982) participants were told to produce evidence that would be used to help an oil company run a smear campaign. Researchers found higher level of resistance in their study than Milgram did in his. 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled against their orders. Shows peer support can lead to disobedience by undermining the legitimacy of an authority figure.
Locus of Control
Rotter (1966) proposed locus of control (LOC) as a concept concerned with internal control vs external control. People with an internal locus of control believe things that happen to them are largely controlled by themselves. People with external LOC believe things that happen to them are outside of their control.
People are not just either internal or external, LOC is a scale and individuals vary in their position on it.
People with high internal LOC are more able to resist pressures to conform or obey. Base decisions off their own beliefs rather than depending on others.
Externals let everything happen to them as they believe they have no control over what happens and so rarely resist.
LOC Evaluation
Strength - research support. Evidence to support link between LOC and resistance to obedience. Holland (1967) repeated Milgrams Baseline study and measured whether Ps were internals or externals. 37% of internals didn’t continue to highest shock level whereas only 23% of internals did not continue. Internals showed greater resistance and so adds validity to the theory.
Weakness - contradictory research. Evidence that challenges link between LOC and resistance. Twenge et al. (2004) analysed data from USA LOC studies conducted between 1960 and 2002. Data showed that in this time people became more resistant to obedience but also more external. If resistance is linked to internal LOC would’ve been expected for people to have internal LOC but research contradicts this. Reduces validity.
