Theories of Obedience Flashcards
define socialisation
the process by which we learn the rules and norms of society e.g. through parents and teachers
define moral strain
when people dislike their own behaviour as they know it goes agonist their own values
define agentic state
agents (in this case, participants) of a higher authority figure and so obeying their commands
define autonomy state
under your own control, and making your own decisions
define agency theory
people are agents in society and so behave in a way to benefit society
define evolution theory
idea of natural selection
Why did people say they obeyed until the end in Milgram’s 1963 study?
Because they were ordered to, despite knowing it was wrong (moral strain) which may have come from many sources
What are some of the sources of moral strain?
hearing victim cries
fearing victim retaliation
going against their own moral values
conflict of interest between the victim and the authority figure
unwillingness to harm and therefore going against their own view of themselves
Why weren’t the participants of Milgram’s 1963 study, ‘agents’ of the experimenter?
They had consented to take part as if in an agentic state, but not agents through the setting and lab coat (though this added to the experimenter’s power and strengthened the participant roles
What is agency theory?
Our social system leads to obedience. If someone sees themselves as an individual instead of a collective, they would become autonomous e.g. avoid aggression in threatening situations as evolutionary theory suggests this to be a good way to survive
Why does a hierarchical social structure lead to the agentic state?
This is what the participants of Milgram’s study were used to, and therefore led to the agentic state and the passing on of responsibility from the participant to the experimenter.
What evidence can be used to support the shifting of responsibility to the authority figure?
Gupta (1983)
How does Gupta (1983) support the shifting of responsibility to the authority figure?
They studied obedience with a similar procedure to Milgram and asked male participants to allocate responsibility:
Obedient accepted 27.6% and gave 52% whereas Defiant accepted 49.4% and gave 39.2%
Can the agentic state be seen as a survival mechanism?
Milgram thought it may be a survival mechanism learnt from family and school, as in this state, they feel less responsible for their own actions, as if they have no power and so are more likely to act against the moral code e.g.
when participants had to hold learner’s hands down to obtain the shock, they felt more responsible and so there was less obedience or when the experimenter told them to stop, they stopped showing them to be within an agentic static as they stopped as soon as they were able to.
How do agentic states come about?
When the individual perceives the order as a legitimate authority figure or when they know the other person will take on that responsibility
What are the strengths of agency theory?
Explains the different levels of obedience in the basic study as well as its variations, i.e. as they moved away from the agentic state by being in a less prestigious setting , fewer participants increased the shock levels.
It helps explain the Holocaust - Eichmann stated that he was just obeying orders and this theory helps explain why someone would obey to such an extent
It helps explain inexplicable actions i.e. the Holocaust and the Mae Ling Massacre (soldiers told to shoot own women and children in a village, and did so despite this not being within their job description)
What are the weaknesses of agency theory?
There are many other possible explanations for obedience such as social power
French and Raven (1959) identified 5 different types of power:
- Legitimate power by those in certain role (such as an experimenter)
- Reward power by those with certain resources (meney)
- Coercive power by those who can punish (Milgram give the participants a shock; they could have felt as if the could have done the same or retract their payments
- Expert power by those considered to have knowledge (Milgram)
- Referent power by those who can win people over (politicians)
The obedience shown could have been explained by social power theory, making it less powerful as a theory
More of a description of how society works, rather than an explanation → states obedience occurs as participants are agents of the experimenter, but obedience is defined as obeying authority figures but is not explained in detail
No evidence other than it is a claim that makes sense
What studies are considered to be important to agency theory?
Milgram (1963;1973), Milgram (1973), Bickmann (1973)
Why is Bickmann (1973) important to agency theory?
Bickman’s (1973) showed that people are more likely to follow an order from someone in a guards uniform, compared to someone in ordinary clothes, which is consistent with the idea that people respond agentically in response to social cues of authority such as uniforms.
Why is Milgram (1963;1973) important to agency theory?
Milgram (1963;1973) observed that most of his participants (65%) followed orders from an experimenter in a lab coat to cause harm to someone by administering electric shocks, despite feeling that this action was morally wrong. Participants shifted to an agentic state to avoid the moral strain of the situation.He concluded that obedience is not a dispositional trait, but a consequence of the situation in which the person finds themselves, arguing that people are socialised to respond to certain social cues indicating authority. This is illustrated by the ordinary man variation of his study, where the orders are given by someone wearing a sports jacket rather than a grey lab coat. Without the cue of the labcoat to suggest scientific authority, obedience was lower, at 20%, compared to 65% with the experimenter in a lab coat.
Why is Milgram (1973) important to agency theory?
Milgram (1973) found that when participants felt less responsible e.g. when a confederate was the person administering the shocks, they were more likely to continue to obey the orders from the experimenter. This finding is consistent with the idea that they were in an agentic state.
define strength
when a source is perceived as having power (e.g. status; physical strength; scientific authority etc.) they have a greater influence on our behaviour.
define immediacy
When the source is physically in close proximity or more recent (temporal immediacy) there is a greater influence on behaviour than when the source is further away or longer ago
define number
when there are more sources, they have a greater influence on the behaviour of the target individuals. BUT this increased influence with numbers only goes up to a certain point. As the number goes up, the increase in social force starts to diminish. This is called the Psychosocial Law
define division of impact
when there are a number of target individuals, the influence or impact of the source is diffused, or divided - there is less impact on each of the targets. For example, a teacher’s instructions to get off the grass are less likely to be followed when there are several children playing on the field, than if there was only one child.
define diffusion of responsibility
Another way to think about numbers is when there are a number of people present, they are less likely to feel responsible for any harm that happens. For example, the more people who witness someone in trouble, the less likely they are to help, causing a phenomenon known as the bystander effect.
What is social impact theory?
Not a theory, but looking at individual functioning in the presence of other
what does social impact theory look at?
Impact of attitudes and the impact of others presence on an individual
How can you explain social functioning?
Partially explained by looking at individual functioning (which can be affected by social status) in a social situation as well as alone
Why do individuals change attitudes?
Persuasive arguments (attitudes change to be closer to the centre of social influence, but occasionally, minority influences can occur)
What study can support the idea of why individuals change attitudes?
Latene and Wolfe (1981) → the size and status of a group affect when someone’s attitude may change but group influence can change someone’s behaviour
What is an aspect of social identity theory?
Effects of a group on an individual, which can lead to group polarisation
What is group polarisation?
A group that has extreme beliefs or views as a collective, rather than the individuals within the group → can be used to give the group an identity or make it seem more important
How does Milgram support social identity theory?
He derived his results on individuals, that to an extent, group behaviour was different to individual behaviour.
Milgram’s study was about behaviour, not attitudes (although he did measure the feelings and notions of his participants) which can be seen as attitudes as the participants’ distress suggests their internal attitudes don’t match their behaviours.
What does Latene think about studying group influences?
Latene claims studying group influences isn’t difficult in smaller groups but it gets harder with behaviour complexities .
What did Mohawk et al. (1990) have to do with reduction simulations?
Mohawk et al. (1990) considered a way to get laws to behave mathematically and ended up using a computer simulation to develop a program using rules governing how individuals react to a social environmentment → predicted meaning the prediction could introduce a rule more than the rules of individual behaviour i.e. it could be used to predict public opinion. It was called a reduction simulation.
define reductionism
the study of something by breaking it down into many parts
How does social impact theory generate behaviour laws?
Based off of the effects of time and space on how individuals affect each other, and the number of other people within the environment, the immediacy and strength of impact
